Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking."

Is there any evidence that any of these things have ever happened as a result of this sort of data collection? I'm not talking about data posted to social media, I'm talking about the specific data collection described in this FTC press release.



I have been stalked and harassed by an Apple employee using data they were able to glean from their access at Apple.

The impossible part is proving the abuse. All of these companies keep their database, access controls, and everything they possible can about these data lakes secret. The simple fact of the matter is that you will never have any evidence someone looked you up in a database.

It is really easy to walk the line, but be obvious enough to intimidate.


Apple wasn't listed and (outside the app store) doesn't collect the data described in the press release.


They absolutely do, in fact they even tried to encrypt user data to not be as invasive as other companies but the FBI sued them and said no you can't do that, you need to keep that data so we can subpoena you.


They mentioned practices that corporations do. I think any corporation that collects data on you counts here. I don't think its worth it to only talk about the examples provided in the article.


So imagine the possible abuses by people at companies who do.


Not only is there evidence of harms, there are is a whole industry focused on fixing the problem for those wealthy enough or incentivized enough to care.

Do a bit of googling, but ADINT and RTB tracking will get you there for search terms.

Or, continue being confidently dismissive of something serious people are taking very seriously. I am sorry if this FTC report targeted the source of your RSUs or otherwise motivated set of incentives, but there’s no free lunch. The consequences are finally landing of your viewpoint, done collectively, over the last decade.


> targeted the source of your RSUs or otherwise motivated

I don't currently have any financial interest in any of these companies

> but ADINT and RTB tracking will get you there for search terms.

These are good things, do you have any examples of harm that has been caused by ADINT or RTB? Prosecuting criminals doesn't count for me


Your comment is really coming across as "well, nothing bad has happened yet so who cares?" If that's not the case, please let me know how you meant it. If it is the case, surely you can imagine a world in which dragnet surveillance of people who have an expectation of privacy can be abused by corporations, institutions, or private individuals. It really doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture this world.


It's been ubiquitous for around 20 years now (Google started doing mass surveillance for display ads in the early 2000s) and nothing bad has happened, so yes that's my point.

If nothing bad happens for decades, and that is inconsistent with your model of danger, then the model is probably wrong


Your argument boils down to "yes, someone has had a gun pointed at my head for quite some time now, but they haven't pulled the trigger yet so I don't see the problem."


No, I'm arguing that it's not actually a gun, and my evidence is that there are 2 billion "guns" that have been pointed at 2 billion people's heads for years, and nobody has been hurt.

It's more like a flashlight than a gun


> It's more like a flashlight than a gun

I disagree, and again, implore you to use your imagination. If private messages (not just yours but someone elses) were to suddenly be public or institutional knowledge, what damning things might happen? What influence might some have over others? What dynamics could or would shift as a result?

I'm comfortable making the claim that you aren't really thinking this through, at all, in any meaningful way.


The FTC press release is not talking about private messages, that is not the kind of data they are asking to protect. Private messages are already generally protected in the way the FTC is asking for.


What was the fallout last time this happened? Was it like pulling the triggers of guns pointed at people's heads?


If you don't think anything bad happens from personal data being accessed without one's consent, please reply to this comment and share:

1. Your full name

2. Your home address

3. Your social security number (if you're American)

4. Your mother's maiden name

If you're right, then you have nothing to worry about.


None of this data is included in the FTC report. They are not talking about this.

My full name is Michael Graczyk, I live in San Francisco, none of these companies know any more detail than that about the questions you asked


Michael, I disagree with your point but I recognize your integrity. You just posted your name and city, and your HN profile shares more personal information.

I respect that you are willing to stand behind your claim. Best of success with your current venture.


> none of these companies know any more detail than that about the questions you asked

I suspect you mean that you haven't provided these companies with these details. What reason do you have to think they don't know those details?


They don't know these details because they have never asked. It's not the sort of detail that would be useful for ads (except my home address)


> nothing bad has happened

ummm, WTF?

10x increase in teen suicide doesn't qualify as "bad"?

or repeated DOJ lawsuits against Facebook because their advertising practices result in highly effective racial discrimination?


Wait for the AI tools Larry Ellison wants to give to law enforcement to retroactively connect/hallucinate the dots.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: