this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
246 points (90.7% liked)

Privacy

31236 readers
777 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The only thing worse than an echo chamber is letting a self-created bad idea fester in the head.

I came to the conclusion a few months ago that software developers and coders who worked at Meta, Google, Amazon, etc are as culprit as their CEOs and the company itself. I will lay down my points below, but I understand that this might be a logical extreme of my distaste for these corporations.

Here's my rationale:

  1. Actions of the company they serve: The corporations they serve actively disenfranchise users, track them, sell their private / personal information to unscrupulous parties without any care on how it affects the person, or the society. They thrive on engagement rather than content. They have "commodified" the fundamental right to privacy. This has real world implications that has directly resulted in the spread of misinformation, political unrest, threatened elections, riots, and deaths of thousands of people.
  2. Awareness of the consequences: By virtue of their position, these are people with the capacity to read, and think for themselves. There are news articles: across the political spectrum in all major news sites, that report how the platform/ company they serve negatively affects society. Facebook's Cambridge Analytica fiasco, Snowden's expose, etc are credible and well documented examples that even non-tech people are aware. Yet they choose to ignore all this, and continue working / seek to join these companies.
  3. Cowardice: It is often wrapped in the garb of "self-interest", but they do not raise their voice when they know that the software and platform they're told to develop is going to be used to spy on their brethren. They claim they're trying to make a living, but can use their skills to develop counter products to these horrible companies, or work for those that are sensitive and conscientious towards customer's needs and welfare.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Re 1: People keep lumping Google with Amazon and Meta, but Google does not sell your private data and alerts you if it finds out the government to accessed your data. People keep assuming that because the general tech community sells data that Google does it too, but check their privacy policy or just ask anyone who's worked there. They don't.

User data at Google is locked up tighter than fort knox. That's why the Snowden leak was such a huge deal, because the NSA was taking advantage of a security flaw that Google didn't know it had to scrape user data. Google patched it immediately after they found out.

Amazon, Meta, and Uber, are much less scrupulous.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 14 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If by "when asked" you mean "given a search warrant with very clear evidence that this man had stolen a car", then... Yes? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

The ex-boyfriend had signed into the guy's phone. It's not like the police just cast a wide net and randomly got his data.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago

The police told the suspect, Jorge Molina, they had data tracking his phone to the site where a man was shot nine months earlier. They had made the discovery after obtaining a search warrant that required Google to provide information on all devices it recorded near the killing, potentially capturing the whereabouts of anyone in the area.

I hate Google as much as everyone here, but we shouldn't equate complying with a warrant to "give it to the cops when asked." They were required to give it.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah kinda sets up a dangerous quid pro quo situation where the govt gets to go around due process by asking nicely and so has no incentive to improve privacy rights

[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The government had a warrant, read the article.

It's just made confusing by the fact that the thief had signed into the victim's phone, so it makes for a good clickbait story "police got the wrong guy's data"

My brother in Christ, you first.

The govt had a warrant:

that required Google to provide information on all devices it recorded near the killing, potentially capturing the whereabouts of anyone in the area.

Reiterating my point, it's just as useful for the govt to not pass laws to protect private harvesting of our data as it is for the corporations selling it.

[–] fuzzzerd@programming.dev 6 points 3 weeks ago

Its a fair point, and definitely worth pointing out. They aren't as bad as the others in that very specific way, which is commendable for now while it suits them. The moment they can make more money by selling vs. holding your data, I have no doubts they will pivot.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Google is as bad as the others but in different ways. I‘m dont have the time to research for you rn but just check monopoly cases against google. I hope they get broken up.

[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Look I never said I disagree. My point to OP is just please don't make up shit that straight up isn't true. Pick a real issue, not some made up paranoia.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

The disturbing part about this is that people are able to trick themselves and others into believing this.

Even if (and thats a big if) google does not outright sell your personal data, their business is to use it to influence people in ways that have scientifically proven to not work in their self interest. This data is bei g collected illegally in part and „legally“ in others.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-02/google-to-purge-billions-of-files-containing-personal-data-in-se/103657584

The issue here is giving third parties the tools to unnaturally mass influence the world towards interests that are contrary to the actual needs of the world (climate catastrophe comes to mind).