Surveillance capitalism.

[KeepTalking]

The bait and switch comment was directed at the article, which started out talking about Google and their research into telemedicine, but then switched to an examination of diabetes apps which are neither telemedicine, nor developed by Google.

I know that you were referring to the article. I then pointed out that it was not a case of bait and switch because the topic is about systematic gathering of personal, private and sometimes sensitive information, who gets access to it and how it is used.

The article simply identified a potential problem with an Med App and described it in relation to a possible breach of privacy.

Well, it's a good thing that you snipped out the lines from my post that came immediately after that which you quoted, as that allowed you to pretend that I did not post a quote exactly where the bait and switch happened. It was where they started talking about how people want the advantages of telemedicine, but then switched to examining something that is NOT telemedicine when it came to what they see as disadvantages. They were not examining the thing they promised to examine (telemedicine), but rather examined diabetes apps (not telemedicine).

That is the topic.

Well, then they probably should not have tried to frame the problem around Google and their research into telemedicine when they wanted to examine apps that are not telemedicine, and are not developed by Google.

It's not just about marketeers and targeted ads. The issue is far wider and deeper. How far it goes has already been cited too many times to repeat.

Just to add another summary of the issue in case it isn't yet clear:

''Human beings value their privacy and the protection of their personal sphere of life. They value some control over who knows what about them. They certainly do not want their personal information to be accessible to just anyone at any time. But recent advances in information technology threaten privacy and have reduced the amount of control over personal data and open up the possibility of a range of negative consequences as a result of access to personal data. In the second half of the 20th century data protection regimes have been put in place as a response to increasing levels of processing of personal data. The 21st century has become the century of big data and advanced information technology (e.g. forms of deep learning), the rise of big tech companies and the platform economy, which comes with the storage and processing of exabytes of data''

Personal Data

Personal information or data is information or data that is linked or can be linked to individual persons. Examples include explicitly stated characteristics such as a person‘s date of birth, sexual preference, whereabouts, religion, but also the IP address of your computer or metadata pertaining to these kinds of information. In addition, personal data can also be more implicit in the form of behavioural data, for example from social media, that can be linked to individuals. Personal data can be contrasted with data that is considered sensitive, valuable or important for other reasons, such as secret recipes, financial data, or military intelligence.''

The issue is clear. You are concerned about what people other than marketers are going to do with your data. The data you are concerned about is not being acquired by buying it from marketers, or legitimate business entities trying to improve their apps, yet you want to address the issue by limiting what information those entities can buy and sell. The issue is that you are barking up the wrong tree (hopefully that colloquialism translates well in Australia).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

By now you should know that its not just about marketeers.

Jtfc. I have been the one telling YOU that from the start.

This is idiotic. I'm out. Enjoy wallowing in your inexcusable ignorance and refusal to be educated by people who actually know what they're talking about.

Good luck Keep Talking.

 

[DBT]

Well, it's a good thing that you snipped out the lines from my post that came immediately after that which you quoted, as that allowed you to pretend that I did not post a quote exactly where the bait and switch happened. It was where they started talking about how people want the advantages of telemedicine, but then switched to examining something that is NOT telemedicine when it came to what they see as disadvantages. They were not examining the thing they promised to examine (telemedicine), but rather examined diabetes apps (not telemedicine).

The article was just a summary of possible problems. The diabetes apps was an example of such a problem. If you want more details or examples of issues with telemedicine in general, that is not hard to research.

Well, then they probably should not have tried to frame the problem around Google and their research into telemedicine when they wanted to examine apps that are not telemedicine, and are not developed by Google.

The issue is systematic gathering of information by a range of organizations using the latest technology that enables not only acquisition of personal private or sensitive information but sharing, trading and analysis of that information, so complaining about what a summary should have said, or what you wanted to see has no bearing on the issue at all. The is ample information on what goes on, how and why it happens, ie, our information has become a valuable commodity.

And that value as a commodity lies at the heart of the problem.

 

[DBT]

By now you should know that its not just about marketeers.

Jtfc. I have been the one telling YOU that from the start.

Your mock outrage and ruffling of feathers is misplaced.

As it was never my claim that the whole problem is related to marketeers, there never was a reason to tell me that in the first place. Nor any time after.

The problem of systematic gathering of information by a variety of sources, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc, etc, was described by myself and the articles that I quoted and cited from the beginning.

This is idiotic. I'm out. Enjoy wallowing in your inexcusable ignorance and refusal to be educated by people who actually know what they're talking about.

Never mind that this is not something I made up myself, or have made claims without citations and quotes from qualified people, many being more qualified in the field than you, Stanford, University professors who research the subject, etc. cited and quoted from the relevant sources.

You are a marketeer, you have a vested interest in defending the practice. As Marketeer, you have been marketing your own position and interest in this issue.

So I say: Sour Grapes. Better luck next time.

 

[TSwizzle]

Facebook is a joke;

Banking data for 29,000 Facebook employees, which was stored on unencrypted hard drives, was stolen by a thief from a payroll worker’s car, according to a Bloomberg report. The hard drives contained information on thousands of US workers who were employed by Facebook in 2018, including bank account numbers, employee names, the last four digits of their social security numbers, their salaries, bonuses, and equity details. Facebook notified its staff of the theft via email Friday morning. The company also failed to notify employees until almost a full month after the break-in occurred on November 17th. An internal email revealed the company only realized the hard drives were missing on November 20th, and confirmed that the drives contained employee information on November 29th. The company is still working with police to recover the stolen hard drives, and is offering its employees two-year subscriptions to an identity theft protection service.

News

And this company want to create a crypto currency ?