Comment by pdkl95
6 years ago
> Software as a Service is impossible to pirate and generates continuous income
Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS)[1] is also inherently spyware, an increasingly popular feature as surveillance capitalism[2] infects our economy.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
[2] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and...
It is not inherently spyware, because fully homomorphic encryption exists. This in theory allows cloud computing providers to operate with no knowledge of their customer's data or computations. It's in general too computationally expensive to be practical, but that's not the same as being impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption
If I encrypt the data how is the service able to handle it?
As an example you offer an online document cleaner, the user uploads his document and you do the magic on it, but if you encrypt the document then the backend can't read it. The document needs to be decrypted somewhere.
The point of homomorphic encryption is that you don't need to decrypt it. Fully homomorphic encryption allows for arbitrary computations on encrypted data. This is mostly of theoretical interest now, but it's mathematically possible.
4 replies →
No. This is exactly the problem homomorphic encryption solves, albeit slowly. For an alternative more practical approach see Intel SGX.
It is the same as being currently practically impossible. Which may change in the future, of course, but doesn't help us particularly with the current situation.
So it's spyware unless they use homomorphic encryption?
…which nobody does.
1 reply →
AFAIK homomorphic encryption exists only on paper; it's not something you can find in use within SaaS applications. Until that changes, GP's point stands.
>Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS)[1] is also inherently spyware, an increasingly popular feature as surveillance capitalism[2] infects our economy.
Sure, but it's how business in the real world works as well. You can't enter a shop without being observed or even recorded, either by cameras or the shop personal / owner in smaller ones. Your behavior during a conversation is analyzed in realtime and reacted to, that's the basics of selling. There is no invisible commerce in the real world.
That's a fundamental reality that you can't just omit, doing so would be irrational treating the web as something purely abstract, which it isn't. It's an abstraction / extension of the real world, because it's part of it.
What the web needs is obvious boundaries and private spaces that are basically extensions of your own home and those of your friends, make it clear that you can't do x or y (going in public) without being observed and analyzed. Right now the only real indicator is the tracker count of adblock plugins.
This analogy works for businesses like banks or stock brokers. Of course they'd keep a log of everything you do with their services. But in those cases, they provide service beyond the basics: banks insure your deposits and put their credibility behind transactions, and stock brokers (hopefully) give you advice.
But there are plenty of situations where the analogy shows how invasive surveillance can be. Imagine if your car mechanic kept a log of everywhere you drove. Imagine if the mattress maker knew everything that took place in your bed (for product improvement, naturally).
I'm alright with necessary data collection, like the banks and brokers recording what I ask them to do. But that's because there's no other way of doing those things except for services or becoming a professional myself. If the software can work as not a service, then I'm less okay with the data collection when it's only offered as a service.
If you know what's going on you can select a car mechanic or mattress maker who doesn't do that. The market consists of individuals, if nobody buys things under these conditions then the industry would stop doing that.
So the best thing would be to fight for better information, education and clarity about these things, instead of treating only the symptoms with regulations and laws that only excludes people from participating in the market.
Why not have mandatory indicators about different privacy levels and a driver license for tech that gives people the necessary foundations? This could solve the privacy problem from the ground up.
Surveillance capitalism? Capitalism as an economic system does not surveil, governments and corporations do. If you do not like a service, you can opt out by not using it, unlike the government. If you have an issue with something used by millions of people, then you should consider the possibility that it actually may be the people who keep the service alive.
I try to do my part. I do not buy access to games on Steam, movies and TV series on Netflix, books on Amazon, I do not use Google, I do not use Facebook nor am I in contact with anyone who does, and so on.
I am open to discussion. Why is it specifically capitalism's fault? What other economic systems would be favored, and why?
Surveillance capitalism is a variant of that economic system, much like industrial capitalism or financial capitalism. It's characterized by specific business models, which have particular consequences in society.
> If you do not like a service, you can opt out by not using it
This is a simplistic objection, that doesn't stand to cursory scrutiny. These systems invade everything, and give you no real way of consenting. When you visit some random site, you will be informed upon to dozens of services, with no way of even knowing which. You might not use Google, but can you avoid sending an email to anyone using Gmail - particularly those who use it with their own domain?
And this is getting impossible to escape even in real life, with companies employing many mechanisms to surveil you on the public street, without you even entering their private property. How do you opt out of that? Stay at home 24/7? No, that doesn't work either.
> If you have an issue with something used by millions of people, then you should consider the possibility that it actually may be the people who keep the service alive.
People are driven by incentives. We can criticize a system, government or company for incentivizing behavior we consider harmful.
> I try to do my part. I do not buy access to games on Steam, movies and TV series on Netflix, books on Amazon, I do not use Google, I do not use Facebook nor am I in contact with anyone who does, and so on.
And yet, the last site you submitted to HN loads stuff from Facebook's servers. Even if you have enough know-how to block them, you've helped them surveil other people.
> Why is it specifically capitalism's fault?
It's capitalism's fault insofar as it promotes these business models.
> What other economic systems would be favored, and why?
Criticizing a system doesn't mean one advocates its replacement.
This is a simplistic objection, that doesn't stand to cursory scrutiny
You decide the browser and extensions you are using, and your computer is actually making the connection to the others websites.. !
When you send a regular snail mail you don't control either the postal box used -- a company could be scanning the document. Don't send the mail, or encrypt it.
The issues lies in the fact that the streets are public and not private places
1 reply →