How predictable are you? On an algorithmic level, that is. Actions and tics and choices flattened into two digital dimensions. How easy are you to read?
I can't answer for myself, not with any certainty. And sad to say the question is more relevant than it should be.
A clear aim of the patent is to assure its audience that Google scientists will not be deterred by users' exercise of decision rights over their personal information, despite the fact that such rights were an inherent feature of the original social contract between the company and its users. Even when users do provide UPI, the inventors caution, "it may be intentionally or unintentionally inaccurate, it may become stale...UPI for a user...can be determined (or updated or extended) even when no explicit information is given to the system...An initial UPI may include some expressly entered UPI information, though it doesn't need to."
The scientists thus make clear that they are willing―and that their inventions are able―to overcome the tension entailed in users' decision rights. Google's proprietary methods enable it to surveil, capture, expand, construct, and claim behavioral surplus, including data that users intentionally choose not to share. Recalcitrant users will not be obstacles to data expropriation. No moral, legal, or social constraints will stand in the way of finding, claiming, and analyzing others' behavior for commercial purposes.
That's a passage from Shoshana Zuboff's The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. It's a long and dense book, and I'm only partway through it. But I can already say that there's a lot on Google, the company that pioneered this kind of information extraction for the Web 2.0 era. That wasn't necessarily the original idea of what they were going to do, but they embraced it around the turn of the millennium. And eventually dropped "Don't be evil" as a slogan, perhaps in a rare blush of honesty.
2 comments:
As far as daily routine goes I'm very predictable but when it comes to what could be gleaned from my habits on the internet I'm likely less easy to anticipate than many. That's because I don't offer much information anyway and I despise those forums that want you to 'tell them how they're doing', neither do I agree to rate movies or books.
That said, I know it doesn't help much at all. So long as we have to interact with our devices it's simple for interested tech savvy companies to read keystrokes. If they want to take the time to do so it would be easy enough to have my banking details or to read my emails despite the fact I'm careful to clear my cache every day. Most people likely don't bother. So far what saves most of us is that the data compilers prefer to look at the information they get in the aggregate rather than individually.
Obviously, the information covered in her book is essential for society as we progress into whatever future the capitalists and totalitarians are arranging for us. I don't know if she offers advice about how to avoid the worst outcomes but it's crucial that people understand the story of how an entire culture has been hoodwinked, mesmerized, and robbed of a multitude of rights that took millennia to achieve.
I liked your comment about the rare blush of honesty regarding Google. We were warned.
The habits you describe are the definition of "not missing much." These review sites like Goodreads are a glut. The owners will glean your preferences for their own use, but your opinion still gets lost in the shuffle. If you really like something you're best off telling people the old-fashioned way.
I'd prefer not to engage with any of it. Of course outside of a few self-sufficient communities (which the government would love to destroy) that's not really possible. And I'm a fairly proficient information worker, it turns out. If the silicon valley people trackers can make a profile on me, I like to think that it's not a very encouraging one. You're probably right that their preference of looking at aggregate information rather than getting hung up on individuals is for the better as far as most of us are concerned.
The book is very long and very dense, filled with corroborating detail. In all honesty I don't expect to ever finish it, even with multiple renewals at the library. But knowing the extent of things has some value in itself. At least you're less likely to be sandbagged.
At some point these behemoths stopped doing what was initially supposed to be their jobs and started on us. There were signs.
Post a Comment