Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- commenting for digital footprintby octocop
- > Apple is rumored to be developing an AI pin or pendant that would serve as an iPhone’s constant eyes and ears; many other products of this type are on the way. AI accessories could one day be as widespread as AirPods.
But why? Don't we already have phones, watches, glasses, tags, and airpods? If they were making a siri version of alexa/echo, then maybe that would make sense, but do we really need a specific apple device just to ai?
by nubinetwork - One of the few reasons to use iPhone is that it doesn't constantly surveil you. If Apple would just pivot and say "next iPhone will constantly record everything it hears and sees to process for our AI (Apple Intelligence(tm))" a lot of people would drop iPhone.
Apple Watch is just extension of screen and notifications from the phone, so there is no overlap.
AirTags have nothing to do with AI stuff.
AirPods apparently now have some translation stuff, but again no constant monitoring.
Apple does not produce glasses and seeing the backlash to Meta's glasses I don't think they will. A pin or pendant might be more acceptable, although hiding it will be just as big of an issue as with the creepy Meta glasses, but any AI thing Apple makes should be a separate product if they want to maximize profits.
- Looking at this from a perspective of someone who's searching for a job, I can promise you that even if you are recorded, there's next to zero chance your recording is being analyzed in any meaningful way.
You'd imagine that if this global surveillance was so ubiquitous, finding a match between an employee and employer would've been an... easier problem. However, even though supply is only a little larger than demand, the nature of this supply is to oversaturate the matching system, which then defaults to... I don't even know what, perhaps dropping 99% of all applications at random? Only taking 1% of those who applied sooner? Must be something like that.
Anyways, recording everything is a way to overwhelm the system with useless data. It would be much scarier if recording was selective.
by crabbone - The EFF or some other watchdog should put out some public ads that depict corporations as a creepy person stalking someone:
It's a lot more disgusting and universally hated when you hear about a peeping tom, or a pervert, or a jealous ex hounding someone,
but when faceless corporations and governments do it to EVERYBODY 24/7, everyone's like, ehh.
I mean, right now, just think about me, clicking on your HN profile, googling your name, going through all your public photos.. Don't you find me repulsive just talking about that?
by Razengan - You've tripped right over the difference though.
Corporations aren't people. They do not and cannot present a personal threat to you.
Even your trailing example falls flat on this: for the activity to be distressing you had to recontextualize it back to the individual level.
by XorNot - I think people's idea of privacy is very simplistic and personal and relies on the disgust of a human peering over your files. Most laypeople don't have the same disgust of machines peering over their personal files that is why the weirdo video recording elicits a negative response but Meta or Alphabet doing it doesn't. Plus the fact that they "depend" on Meta and Alphabet tech makes it easier to give them a pass not unlike fans of [insert your favourite celebrity] who happily look away or justify the celebrity's bad actions.by bossyTeacher
- No. Why should I find you repulsive?
You might find something I wrote interesting. Then whatever public info there is on me helps you to get to know me a bit better. You may stop there and forget about me, or you may try to reach out.
There is nothing wrong about that.
by antics9 - i get a little thrill knowing im that important to someone :)
- It's about intention. I don't want someone threatening or evil going through my info but don't mind stuff being public in general, like this comment for example.by tim333
- This puts me in mind of the infamous GMail Man commercial that Microsoft put out:by tdeck
- Obama was promoting The Age of Surveillance Capitalism over seven years ago now. Industry insiders have known all this since 1999. Yet almost every single person I know carries a cellphone and drives a car with telemetry, things that are entirely optional. Most humans use Meta products regularly; also optional. For all the feigned outrage, people want this, and will work hard every day to pay for the next iteration of the surveillance apparatus.
PS: Something in this vein that many people are unaware of is that the 6G standard for cell towers is planned to include ISAC (Integrated Sensing and Communication). I haven’t heard a single AFK person talk about this.
by zhoBEENG - > For all the feigned outrage, people want this, and will work hard every day to pay for the next iteration of the surveillance apparatus.
My sad realization is that the Buddhists were right all along. The primary drivers of human mind, before self-purification, are greed, anger, and ignorance. What you are describing here is greed. People want to get useful things for free. This is the core of the problem. If people were, by default, expecting to pay for everything they use, spying on them would not be accepted. Instead, they want stuff for free and they choose to be willfully blind to the spying.
by neonstatic - Traversing life without a cell phone is a fun experiment. Here and there I forget mine and spend a day without the distraction - glorious way to spend time.by grvdrm
- There are multiple things we need to acknowledge:
- Consumers largely do not know these things. They are either not disclosed, or buried within a TOS that they cannot read. This is all done on purpose. The reason the TOS is obtuse, long, inaccurate, and updated weekly is so you won't read or understand it.
- In most markets there is no choice. For smartphones you do not have a choice, both Apple and Google do extensive surveillance. If you want to bank, get a job, and all around be successful, you have to swallow the surveillance cost. If you want a new car, again, no choice. If you work a job, again, no choice on the computer or software.
- It is not reasonable to expect consumers to do extensive research on everything they buy. Consumers have lives, children, jobs. They're not going to sit and spend 10+ hours researching every thing they buy, especially when most of that research is fruitless.
- There are tradeoffs with everything. Yes we can use Linux, I sure do. But for other consumers, now they need to spend a lot of time understanding that. Yes we can use Graphene OS, but certain apps won't work.
by preg_match - The outrage isn't feigned; it just comes from a minority of people. The masses aren't established to "want this"; they may just not care.by zahlman
- I have seen enough instances of government authorities abusing their power (or even civilians using the courts against another civilian) to know that the best defense you have in a situation where you are the victim is to have your own recording.
Easiest example is having your own dash cam (don’t know why all auto manufacturers don’t have Tesla style camera recordings, especially given that all new cars come with cameras anyway).
Of course, now that video editing is cheap and difficult to spot, who knows if your evidence will make much of a difference.
by lotsofpulp - As someone who regularly attempts to give up a cell phone, it is not optional. A not insignificant number of things require it. It is the expectation society is now built around and therefore it is not an option. A car without telemetry is for the time being still optional. I take very good care of my old vehicles hoping I never need a new one.by Escapade5160
- By leveraging mobile network infrastructure – towers, spectrum, antennas, and some hardware – ISAC can detect, locate, and track objects (including passive ones with no electronics). This will enable a wide range of use cases such as UAV airspace monitoring, autonomous vehicle safety, industrial automation, and immersive AR experiences. Commercial deployment is expected alongside 6G rollouts in the 2030 timeframe
- I don't think people want this. I think people want the other benefits that those things bring, and increasingly feel that it's impossible to escape being surveilled anyway so do their best to ignore the whole issue.
Being resigned to something is not the same as wanting that thing.
by JohnFen - In this thread, the world's most brilliant minds are confused as to how to solve this problem.
If you're looking for the ones responsible for bringing this on, just look in the mirror.
How can you say both "oh, people won't need jobs anymore! I'm excited that technology is going to replace what I do" and "oh, I can't speak up about the things my company is doing, I need this job!" in the same breath?
by ares623 - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy
please check this out
by awakeasleep - > Meanwhile, only a few academics and small companies are defending us from these technologies. “The thing about cat-and-mouse games is that we know how they usually end up for the mouse,” Hartzog said. “And in this case, the cat includes some of the most powerful corporations to ever exist.”
This again points to how these problems have less to do with tech than with our socioeconomic system. The obvious solution (or step towards a solution) is to just shatter all such large tech companies. There should not be any companies powerful enough to do things like this.
by BrenBarn - we desperately need a separation of corporations and state the same way we have a separation of church and state.
we need a government that is antagonistic towards corporations that are abusing us.
it’s wild how much influence they have and how little pushback the government ever gives them when they clearly abuse us from every direction.
by toofy - Corporations are the ones who make money for the government.
The people elect the leaders, and the corporations bankroll the operations. Every time a new hot startup comes about, the government anticipates an army of highly paid (read: top tax bracket) individuals being cultivated.
by WarmWash - but you don't have separation of church and state... thats a poor comparison. religious dogma eats into nearly all public discourse.by physPop
- "The bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of modern industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway.
The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. "
by hamper653 - That would be child abuse, as corporations are born out of the state as statutory entities. Corporations used to be chartered to do specific jobs like build a bridge or whatever. Charter max was 20 years. This is why the first and second national banks ran for only 20 years each.by moosemeat
- Pretty difficult when a lot of government people are in it looking for any opportunity to get into bed with private sector for their own individual gain, and when corporations have far more spending power and far less bureaucratic lag than governments. Governments are also just as hungry for data as corporations are.
And if you think a government has any interest in protecting their people, well, that is simply inaccurate in practice.
The government exists to organise and pacify its people, to prevent unpredictable or counter-productive behaviour. Primarily to protect the government from its people.
Regulation doesn't protect people, it protects the government, corporations, or both, in the same way HR protects the company from its employees. The people benefit coincidentally, if at all.
by wanda - > we need a government that is antagonistic towards corporations that are abusing us
Please don't. The entire civilized world for all of history and before has been built on the uncomfortable alliance between power/capability and governance/legitimacy. Protection-seeking is the primary support system for tyranny which is happy to induce the chaos they protect you from.
We just need enough negative feedback for any kind of abuse that it stops, because regulations have to be slow to be accurate and thus invite abuse innovation. The main part of that negative feedback is effective competition so people can vote with their feet.
So, ask not for antagonism but for real alternatives.
by w10-1