The Austrian DSB also rejected Google’s arguments that websites could activate IP anonymization when using tools like Google Analytics to effectively protect the transferred data from surveillance. This was rejected for two reasons: first, Google’ IP anonymisation only affects the IP address as such. Data such as online-identifiers set per cookies or device data are transferred in the clear. Second, the IP anonymization only takes place after the data have been transferred to Google.
Bahrain, Kuwait and Norway have run roughshod over people’s privacy, with highly invasive surveillance tools which go far beyond what is justified in efforts to tackle COVID-19. Privacy must not be another casualty as governments rush to roll out apps.
We bake cookies in your browser for a better experience. Using this site means that you consent.
Viewed from this perspective [capitalism evolution], the behaviour of the digital giants looks rather different from the roseate hallucinations of Wired magazine. What one sees instead is a colonising ruthlessness of which John D Rockefeller would have been proud. First of all there was the arrogant appropriation of users’ behavioural data – viewed as a free resource, there for the taking. Then the use of patented methods to extract or infer data even when users had explicitly denied permission, followed by the use of technologies that were opaque by design and fostered user ignorance.
The first surveillance capitalists also conquered by declaration. They simply declared our private experience to be theirs for the taking, for translation into data for their private ownership and their proprietary knowledge.
For example, the idea of “data ownership” is often championed as a solution. But what is the point of owning data that should not exist in the first place?
"Fake News" is really just propaganda, and the fact that we have invented a new word for something that was there all along shows how naive and dull we are.
Once we searched Google, but now Google searches us. Once we thought of digital services as free, but now surveillance capitalists think of us as free.
It’s also hard to overlook the fact that a lot of privacy advocacy groups in the U.S. get funding from the same tech companies that would ostensibly be affected by government regulation of consumer data collection. EFF, for example, took in about $822,000 from Google, including donations from employees that are matched by the company, in fiscal 2017. CDT collected about $590,000 in donations and support from Google in 2016 and received $250,000 from Facebook last year. As for OTI, Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt co-founded and has been a significant donor to New America for years. He and his wife’s philanthropic foundation committed to $4 million in funding New America from 2016 to 2021. All of these groups maintain complete independence from their donors.
Welcome to a world where Juggalo makeup is your best shot at avoiding involuntary surveillance.
Face-painting styles like “corpse” makeup also obscure the face. However, they don’t create enough contrast to effectively confuse most facial recognition systems