Orwell’s 1984 — Too Real in the 2010s

The interpretation of Orwell’s 1984 that I have is that the mere possibility that people may be being watched by a powerful, corrupt state changes behavior in a way that has significant implications across society. It’s been found in research that people change their behavior when they know they are being watched.

There’s no poking holes in the Party’s control, no loose thread for any opposition to pull. If there is a Resistance, it vanishes halfway through. The book is designed to make The Party and its machinery of oppression look entirely infallible. You accept, like the protagonist Winston Smith, that it can never be overthrown. This isn’t The Hunger Games. There is no cartoonish YA villain like President Snow for a defiant Katniss Everdeen to topple. Even Margaret Atwood, in The Handmaid’s Tale, destroyed Gilead in a far-future postscript.

But 1984? So far as we know, it’s boots on human faces all the way down.

How come? The Party doesn’t get its power from spying on its citizens, or turning them into snitches, or punishing sex crimes. All were presented as mere tools of the state. How did it come to wield that control in the first place?

Orwell, aka Eric Blair, a socialist freedom fighter and a repentant former colonial officer who had a lifelong fascination with language and politics, knew that no control could be total until you colonized people’s heads too. A state like his could only exist with loud, constant, and obvious lies.

To be a totalitarian, he knew from his contemporary totalitarians, you had to seize control of truth itself. You had to redefine truth as “whatever we say it is.” You had to falsify memories and photos and rewrite documents. Your people could be aware that all this was going on, so long as they kept that awareness to themselves and carried on (which is what doublethink is all about).

The upshot is, Winston Smith is gaslit to hell and back. He spends the entire novel wondering exactly what the truth is. Is it even 1984? He isn’t sure. Does Big Brother actually physically exist somewhere in Oceania, or is he just a symbol? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Winston is what passes for well-educated in his world; he still remembers the name “Shakespeare.” He’s smart enough not to believe the obvious propaganda accepted by the vast majority, but it doesn’t matter. The novel is about him being worn down, metaphorically and physically, until he’s just too tired and jaded to hold back the tide of screaming nonsense.

Don’t call him Winston Smith. Call him Mr. 2019. Because it’s looking increasingly like we live in Oceania. That fictional state was basically the British Isles, North America, and South America. Now the leaders of the largest countries in each of those regions — Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro — are men who have learned to flood the zone with obvious lies, because their opponents simply don’t have the time or energy to deal them all.

As we enter 2020, all three of them look increasingly, sickeningly, like they’re going to get away with it. They are protected by Party members who will endure any humiliation to trumpet loyalty to the Great Leader (big shout-out once again to Sen. Lindsay Graham) and by a media environment that actively enables political lies (thanks, Facebook).

All the Winston Smiths of our world can see what the score really is. It doesn’t seem to make any difference. But hey, at least we’re all finally aware of the most important line in 1984, which is now also its most quote-tweeted: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

In the decades following its 1949 publication, the message of 1984 became corrupted. Popular culture reduced it to a single slogan — Big Brother is Watching You — and those with only a vague memory of studying the book in school thought the surveillance state was the main thing Orwell was warning against.

That was certainly where we were at in 2013, when Edward Snowden released his treasure trove of documents that proved the vast scale of NSA spying programs. “George Orwell warned us of the danger of this kind of information,” Snowden told UK TV viewers in his “alternate Christmas message” that year. “The types of collection in [1984] — microphones and video cameras, TVs that watch us — are nothing compared to what we have available today.”

Which was true, but also beside the point. Orwell doesn’t actually claim the surveillance system in Oceania is all that strong. It would have strained credulity to have a Party that watched all of its members all of the time. It sounded like a bad science fiction plot. (In China, where the growing state systems of facial recognition and social media post ranking make NSA programs look like amateur hour, it no longer does).

In 1984, the only time we definitively know a telescreen is watching Winston is when he’s doing morning exercise and a female instructor calls him out for not pushing hard enough. Here in the real future, people pay Peloton $2200 plus $40 a month for the same basic setup.

It isn’t that Big Brother is watching — that too is another Party lie. It’s that he may be watching, just as knowing there may be a speed camera around the next bend keeps your mph in line. Against that possibility, citizens can still rebel. For much of the book, Winston and Julia are able to escape all cameras, out in the post-atomic countryside. Avoiding surveillance doesn’t matter. What causes their capture is the fact that they fell for a lie (the “Brotherhood,” a fake Resistance operation run by the Inner Party member O’Brien).

We are invited to consider whether we too are falling for The Party’s lies. The book-within-a-book that explains the shape of Winston’s world turns out to be written by O’Brien, the master liar. The rocket bombs dropping on London are dropped by the Party. All the in-universe truth the reader has to go on is Winston’s word, and by the end — as he is tortured into genuinely seeing O’Brien hold up three fingers instead of two, then thinks he hears news of a final victory in the endless war — even that isn’t reliable.

By the end of this decade, even words like “Orwell” and “Orwellian” had become ambivalent. I realized this in 2017 when my wife, knowing my love of the book, had bought me a cap that said “Make Orwell Fiction Again.” I loved it until I found it had been made in a state that voted for Trump, by a company with a line of libertarian merch. We saw the cap as a riposte to the MAGA mentality, but it was also possible to see it as a reinforcement: Make Orwell fiction again by helping Trump fight Deep State surveillance, man!

If there is hope for Oceania in the coming decade, it may come from uniting people under the banner of all that 1984 warns against — starting with the bare-faced lies that Orwell was most concerned about. The lies that social media gatekeepers have taken way too long to notice, if they notice them at all.

If we can’t agree on basic facts of science and history, we’re lost. But if we the people can do that, there’s no surveillance system or endless war or sexcrime we can’t dismantle. “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four,” Winston wrote in his diary. “If that is granted, all else follows.”

By remaining skeptical about all we read, but still reading widely and clawing our way back to a world of truths that are as simple and as objective as math, we can prove that we finally learned Orwell’s lesson. And we can make 1984 merely a masterpiece of fictional worldbuilding again.

Victory for Privacy as Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Phone Location Tracking Unconstitutional

This is a very important ruling that should serve as a good precedent for technologically-based privacy rights in the future.

The Supreme Court handed down a landmark opinion today in Carpenter v. United States, ruling 5-4 that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location information. In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court recognized that location information, collected by cell providers like Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon, creates a “detailed chronicle of a person’s physical presence compiled every day, every moment over years.” As a result, police must now get a warrant before obtaining this data.

This is a major victory. Cell phones are essential to modern life, but the way that cell phones operate—by constantly connecting to cell towers to exchange data—makes it possible for cell providers to collect information on everywhere that each phone—and by extension, each phone’s owner—has been for years in the past. As the Court noted, not only does access to this kind of information allow the government to achieve “near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user,” but, because phone companies collect it for every device, the “police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.”

[…]

Perhaps the most significant part of today’s ruling for the future is its explicit recognition that individuals can maintain an expectation of privacy in information that they provide to third parties. The Court termed that a “rare” case, but it’s clear that other invasive surveillance technologies, particularly those than can track individuals through physical space, are now ripe for challenge in light of Carpenter. Expect to see much more litigation on this subject from EFF and our friends.

Snowden Interview in The Intercept

Mass surveillance is worse than five years ago, and it’s cool to think about the initial disclosures and then fast forward to this interview. Also, if you haven’t seen the documentary Citizenfour, I recommend watching it.

Mehdi Hasan: I’m Mehdi Hasan, welcome to Deconstructed.

My guest today is the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Yes, the man himself, who became a global household name almost exactly five years ago.

[…]

So I started off by asking Edward Snowden: “Is privacy dead?”

ES: No, and I think this is the thing that is really taken out of context by politicians and all of these corporate powers that are working to use that as a justification to extend and further the abuses that we’ve seen in the last decade or so. When you look at the polling and all of these different issues and you ask young people, particularly, you know: Do you care about privacy? They actually seem to care more than older generations because this is affects their lives everyday. They understand what it means to make a mistake, have someone with a smartphone in the room and then have it haunt you for the rest of your time in high school or college or whatever.

There is this feeling of powerlessness that’s surrounding all of us every day on this issue, because we see that we are being abused. People openly admit that they’re abusing us. You know, Mark Zuckerberg in front of Congress is talking about this quite unashamedly.

[…]

MH: Your enemies here in the U.S. have accused you of being ultra-critical of the. U.S. government but soft on the Russian government, on President Vladimir Putin. And yet in March, I saw that you were on Twitter suggesting there had been vote-rigging in the Russian presidential election. You even called on Russians to “demand justice.” More recently you called the Russian government’s attempt to crack down on the messaging app Telegram “totalitarian.”

Now, from where I’m sitting, those were pretty bold, ballsy, principled moves by you, but were they also foolish moves? Aren’t you risking pissing off Putin and him then sending you back into the U.S. in a fit of rage?

ES: You know, yeah there’s definitely risks involved. And it’s not a smart thing to do. Every one of my lawyers tells me it’s a mistake to keep criticizing the Russian government. They say: Look, you’ve done enough. But that’s not what I’m here for, right? If I wanted to be safe, I never would have left Hawaii. I believe that this world can be better. I believe that this world should be better, but it’s not going to get better unless we make it better. And that requires risk, that requires hard work, that ultimately might require sacrifice.

[…]

MH: Where do you think you’ll be another five years from now?

ES: I don’t know. I honestly don’t know. There have been so many times, over the last five years, where I’ve been sure that things were going to change, that people understood, there were days I was sure that nothing was ever going to change, and it’s status quo forever. But it’s that uncertainty that actually gives me optimism, that gives me hope.

So many people look at the world today, they look at how broken and ruined things are, and they are just disempowered and lost. But what I want people to focus on is the fact that things changed, right. And if they can change for the worse, they can change for the better. And the only reason the world is changing for the worse is because bad people are working to make it happen that way. And if more good people are organizing, if we’re talking about this stuff, if we’re willing to draw lines that we will not allow people to cross without moving us out of the way, the pendulum will swing, and I’ll be home sooner than you think.

Disturbing: Surveillance Database of Journalists Being Built in the U.S.

A large threat to press freedom with Orwellian undertones — more mass surveillance means more repression. It also means an attempted suppression of effective activism due to what’s known as the “chilling effect” of mass surveillance, where people generally take different actions (such as not visiting the Wikipedia pages on terrorism as much) due to being aware that they’re under intrusive surveillance.

Donald Trump is not known for being a friend of the media. Now he seems to be taking up new methods to control unfavorable journalists. The Department of Homeland Security wants to create a database of journalists and bloggers from around the world that can be filtered by location, content and sentiment. While the DHS claims this is standard PR practice, the alarm bells must ring. After all, surveillance is what upcoming autocrats commonly use to undermine democracy.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is looking for contractors to build up a Media Monitoring Service. Details seem to be based on instructions by George Orwell: The DHS asks for the ability to scan more than 290.000 news sources within and outside the US, and store “journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” in a database that must be searchable for “content” and “sentiment”.

[…]

The current development in the US is very worrisome, particularly as the freedom of the press is under attack worldwide.

Reporters without Borders state: “Once taken for granted, media freedom is proving to be increasingly fragile in democracies as well. In sickening statements, draconian laws, conflicts of interest, and even the use of physical violence, democratic governments are trampling on a freedom that should, in principle, be one of their leading performance indicators.”

The Freedom of the Press Report 2017 by Freedom House concludes that global media freedom has reached its lowest level in the past 13 year. This is not only down to “further crackdowns on independent media in authoritarian countries like Russia and China.” The report also blames “new threats to journalists and media outlets in major democracies”.

Dangerous Cloud Act Legislation Appears in Congress

The Cloud Act would allow for dangerous violations of consumer privacy rights through abusing the stored data corporations have on people. U.S. citizens, I encourage you to oppose this type of legislation. Privacy rights are going to become much more important in the next several years ahead as more and more of society is effused with technological infrastructure.

Civil libertarians and digital rights advocates are alarmed about an “insidious” and “dangerous” piece of federal legislation that the ACLU warns “threatens activists abroad, individuals here in the U.S., and would empower Attorney General Sessions in new disturbing ways.”

The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data or CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943), as David Ruiz at Electronic Fronteir Foundation (EFF) explains, would establish a “new backdoor for cross-border data [that] mirrors another backdoor under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, an invasive NSA surveillance authority for foreign intelligence gathering” recently reauthorized by Congress.

Ruiz outlines how the legislation would enable U.S. authorities to bypass Fourth Amendment rights to obtain Americans’ data and use it against them:

The CLOUD Act allows the president to enter an executive agreement with a foreign nation known for human rights abuses. Using its CLOUD Act powers, police from that nation inevitably will collect Americans’ communications. They can share the content of those communications with the U.S. government under the flawed “significant harm” test. The U.S. government can use that content against these Americans. A judge need not approve the data collection before it is carried out. At no point need probable cause be shown. At no point need a search warrant be obtained.

The EFF and ACLU are among two dozen groups that banded together earlier this month to pen a letter to Congress to express alarm that the bill “fails to protect the rights of Americans and individuals abroad, and would put too much authority in the hands of the executive branch with few mechanisms to prevent abuse.”

[…]

“This controversial legislation would be a poison pill for the omnibus spending bill,” declared Fight for the Future’s deputy director, Evan Greer. “Decisions like this requires rigorous examination and public debate, now more than ever, and should not be made behind closed doors as part of back room Congressional deals.”

The group also pointed out that big tech companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are among those lobbying lawmakers to include the CLOUD Act in the spending bill:

DYgig4bX0AEOjsI5

Amazon Patents Wristband that Tracks Movements of Warehouse Workers

These wristbands would increase worker repression levels that are already far too high. Amazon’s CEO is the richest person in the world by net worth, but he still insists on mistreating his workers in their quasi-totalitarian workplaces.

Amazon’s CEO could simply sell $1 billion of stock and give a $2,000 bonus to Amazon’s 500,000 employees, and that’s only one example of what could be done to remedy the mistreatment of its workers. It doesn’t look like that will happen anytime soon though, unfortunately.

Amazon has patented designs for a wristband that can precisely track where warehouse employees are placing their hands and use vibrations to nudge them in a different direction.

The concept, which aims to streamline the fulfilment of orders, adds another layer of surveillance to an already challenging working environment.

[…]

Amazon already has a reputation for turning low-paid staff into “human robots” – working alongside thousands of proper robots – carrying out repetitive packaging tasks as fast as possible in an attempt to hit goals set by handheld computers.

This month, the 24-year-old warehouse worker Aaron Callaway described having just 15 seconds to scan items and place them into the right cart during his night shifts at an Amazon warehouse in the UK. “My main interaction is with the robots,” he said.

Video on China’s Disturbing Surveillance State

No rational human being would ideally want to live in a society with this much mass surveillance. It presents all sorts of problems and has a major repressive effect.

Mass surveillance has never been about security too. It’s about population control. More people will realize this as time goes on.

China has been building what it calls “the world’s biggest camera surveillance network”. Across the country, 170 million CCTV cameras are already in place and an estimated 400 million new ones will be installed in the next three years.

Many of the cameras are fitted with artificial intelligence, including facial recognition technology. The BBC’s John Sudworth has been given rare access to one of the new hi-tech police control rooms.

More Than 400 of the World’s Most Popular Websites Try to Record Your Every Keystroke

This is significant work done by Princeton researchers. It’s honestly a pretty damning indictment of the world’s most visited websites.

Most people who’ve spent time on the internet have some understanding that many websites log their visits and keep record of what pages they’ve looked at. When you search for a pair of shoes on a retailer’s site for example, it records that you were interested in them. The next day, you see an advertisement for the same pair on Instagram or another social media site.

The idea of websites tracking users isn’t new, but research from Princeton University released last week indicates that online tracking is far more invasive than most users understand. In the first installment of a series titled “No Boundaries,” three researchers from Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy (CITP) explain how third-party scripts that run on many of the world’s most popular websites track your every keystroke and then send that information to a third-party server.

Some highly-trafficked sites run software that records every time you click and every word you type. If you go to a website, begin to fill out a form, and then abandon it, every letter you entered in is still recorded, according to the researchers’ findings. If you accidentally paste something into a form that was copied to your clipboard, it’s also recorded. Facebook users were outraged in 2013 when it was discovered that the social network was doing something similar with status updates—it recorded what users they typed, even if they never ended up posting it.

These scripts, or bits of code that websites run, are called “session replay” scripts. Session replay scripts are used by companies to gain insight into how their customers are using their sites and to identify confusing webpages. But the scripts don’t just aggregate general statistics, they record and are capable of playing back individual browsing sessions. The scripts don’t run on every page, but are often placed on pages where users input sensitive information, like passwords and medical conditions.

[…]

Most troubling is that the information session replay scripts collect can’t “reasonably be expected to be kept anonymous,” according to the researchers. Some of the companies that provide this software, like FullStory, design tracking scripts that even allow website owners to link the recordings they gather to a user’s real identity. On the backend, companies can see that a user is connected to a specific email or name. FullStory did not return a request for comment.

[…]

Companies that sell replay scripts do offer a number of redaction tools that allow websites to exclude sensitive content from recordings, and some even explicitly forbid the collection of user data. Still, the use of session replay scripts by so many of the world’s most popular websites has serious privacy implications.

“Collection of page content by third-party replay scripts may cause sensitive information such as medical conditions, credit card details, and other personal information displayed on a page to leak to the third-party as part of the recording,” the researchers wrote in their post.

Passwords are often accidentally included in recordings, despite that the scripts are designed to exclude them. The researchers found that other personal information was also often not redacted, or only redacted partially, at least with some of the scripts. Two of the companies, UserReplay and SessionCam, block all user inputs by default (they just track where users are clicking), which is a far safer approach.

[…]

Finally, the study’s authors are worried that session script companies could be vulnerable to targeted hacks, especially because they’re likely high-value targets. For example, many of these companies have dashboards where clients can playback the recordings they collect.

[…]

It’s not just session scripts that are following you around the internet. A study published earlier this year found that nearly half of the world’s 1,000 most popular websites use the same tracking software to monitor your behavior in various ways.

If you want to block session replay scripts, popular ad-blocking tool AdBlock Plus will now protect you against all of the ones documented in the Princeton study. AdBlock Plus formerly only protected against some, but has now been updated to block all as a result of the researchers’ work.

Pentagon Web-Monitoring Operation Exposed

The Pentagon has been violating U.S. federal law since the 1990s by failing to provide an audit to the GAO, making it the only federal agency that has failed to do this. Its incompetence — and ties with the military-industrial complex — has been exposed again after it was noticed that they were insecurely using third party servers to store their monitoring of the Internet.

A Pentagon contractor left a vast archive of social-media posts on a publicly accessible Amazon account in what appears to be a military-sponsored intelligence-gathering operation that targeted people in the US and other parts of the world.

The three cloud-based storage buckets contained at least 1.8 billion scraped online posts spanning eight years, researchers from security firm UpGuard’s Cyber Risk Team said in a blog post published Friday. The cache included many posts that appeared to be benign, and in many cases those involved from people in the US, a finding that raises privacy and civil-liberties questions. Facebook was one of the sites that originally hosted the scraped content. Other venues included soccer discussion groups and video game forums. Topics in the scraped content were extremely wide ranging and included Arabic language posts mocking ISIS and Pashto language comments made on the official Facebook page of Pakistani politician Imran Khan.

The scrapings were left in three Amazon Web Servers S3 cloud storage buckets that were configured to allow access to anyone with a freely available AWS account. It’s only the latest trove of sensitive documents left unsecured on Amazon.

Facebook Asks Australian Users for Nude Photos to “Combat Revenge Porn”

I see this effort by Facebook as doing much more harm than good, and it provides me with another justified reason for being against Facebook and having never used it personally. This Facebook effort doesn’t stop revenge porn in general, as other sites besides Facebook could be used against victims to post revenge porn.

Facebook is asking users to send the company their nude photos in an effort to tackle revenge porn, in an attempt to give some control back to victims of this type of abuse.

Individuals who have shared intimate, nude or sexual images with partners and are worried that the partner (or ex-partner) might distribute them without their consent can use Messenger to send the images to be “hashed”. This means that the company converts the image into a unique digital fingerprint that can be used to identify and block any attempts to re-upload that same image.

Facebook is piloting the technology in Australia in partnership with a government agency headed up by the e-safety commissioner, Julia Inman Grant, who told ABC it would allow victims of “image-based abuse” to take action before pictures were posted to Facebook, Instagram or Messenger.

Crucially terrible is that Facebook employees will have to review uncensored nude photos as part of the process. That means that another avenue of potential abuse is opened up against victims.

According to a Facebook spokesperson, Facebook workers will have to review full, uncensored versions of nude images first, volunteered by the user, to determine if malicious posts by other users qualify as revenge porn.

Disturbing: Amazon’s Echo Spot is a sneaky way to get a camera into your bedroom

The Amazon Echo Spot is a new level of invasiveness against consumers. Succinctly explained, it’s a new extreme in the exploitation of personal data.

Echo Spot feels like the real push to get cameras inside your smart home. It’s more than just an alarm clock, but Amazon is definitely pushing this as a $130 device that will sit next to your bed. Promotional materials show it sitting on nightstands, providing a selection of clock faces and news / weather information. The privacy concerns are obvious: an always-listening (for a keyword) microphone in your bedroom, and a camera pointing at your bed.

From an article I linked to a month ago:

Amazon is going to show the industry how to monitor more moments: by making corporate surveillance as deeply embedded in our physical environment as it is in our virtual one. Silicon Valley already earns vast sums of money from watching what we do online. Soon it’ll earn even more money from watching what we do offline.

[…]

 Surveillance can transform any physical space into a data mine. And the most data-rich environment, the one that contains the densest concentration of insights into who you are, is your home.

That’s why Amazon has aggressively promoted the Echo, a small speaker that offers a Siri-like voice-activated assistant called Alexa. Alexa can tell you the weather, read you the news, make you a to-do list, and perform any number of other tasks. It is a very good listener. It faithfully records your interactions and transmits them back to Amazon for analysis. In fact, it may be listening not only your interactions, but absolutely everything.

Putting a listening device in your living room is an excellent way for Amazon to learn more about you. Another is conducting aerial surveillance of your house. In late July, Amazon obtained a patent for drones that spy on people’s homes as they make deliveries. An example included in Amazon’s patent filing is roof repair: the drone that drops a package on your doorstep might notice your roof is falling apart, and that observation could result in a recommendation for a repair service. Amazon is still testing its delivery drones. But if and when they start flying, it’s safe to assume they’ll be scraping data from the outside of our homes as diligently as the Echo does from the inside.

It’s becoming more clear why the concerns about Big Tech are rising among more people. These companies are too powerful already, and too much concentrated power results in corrosive corruption.

Article on Tinder’s Data Collection

A woman wrote about seeing her personal information that Tinder had stored about her in The Guardian recently. It’s an insight into how a lot of Internet-based corporations are collecting data too.

The dating app has 800 pages of information on me, and probably on you too if you are also one of its 50 million users. In March I asked Tinder to grant me access to my personal data. Every European citizen is allowed to do so under EU data protection law, yet very few actually do, according to Tinder.

With the help of privacy activist Paul-Olivier Dehaye from personaldata.io and human rights lawyer Ravi Naik, I emailed Tinder requesting my personal data and got back way more than I bargained for.

“I am horrified but absolutely not surprised by this amount of data,” said Olivier Keyes, a data scientist at the University of Washington. “Every app you use regularly on your phone owns the same [kinds of information]. Facebook has thousands of pages about you!”

As I flicked through page after page of my data I felt guilty. I was amazed by how much information I was voluntarily disclosing: from locations, interests and jobs, to pictures, music tastes and what I liked to eat. But I quickly realised I wasn’t the only one. A July 2017 study revealed Tinder users are excessively willing to disclose information without realising it.

“You are lured into giving away all this information,” says Luke Stark, a digital technology sociologist at Dartmouth University. “Apps such as Tinder are taking advantage of a simple emotional phenomenon; we can’t feel data. This is why seeing everything printed strikes you. We are physical creatures. We need materiality.”

Reading through the 1,700 Tinder messages I’ve sent since 2013, I took a trip into my hopes, fears, sexual preferences and deepest secrets. Tinder knows me so well. It knows the real, inglorious version of me who copy-pasted the same joke to match 567, 568, and 569; who exchanged compulsively with 16 different people simultaneously one New Year’s Day, and then ghosted 16 of them.

[…]

What will happen if this treasure trove of data gets hacked, is made public or simply bought by another company? I can almost feel the shame I would experience. The thought that, before sending me these 800 pages, someone at Tinder might have read them already makes me cringe.