3 ms·

If that's your position, then does it matter if they surveil you? There is doubtless already far more than six lines of your script publicly available to any wh

If that's your position, then does it matter if they surveil you? There is doubtless already far more than six lines of your script publicly available to any who might desire it, at any time. Logging your activity, then, does not increase your risk. My point is they already have all they need, publicly available any time they desire it. You write it for them and publish it for them! It's fanciful to imagine privacy protects you, IMO.

shmerl 11y ago
The point of the quote is that those who claim that you don't need privacy if you have "nothing to hide" are wrong, because the power always can abuse information it gets, as long as it wants to target someone. > My point is they already have all they need, publicly available any time they desire it Which doesn't mean you need to be lax and give them even more, or even accept such situation as normal. Don't feed the machine. To put it differently, the argument that "privacy is dead, so ignore the issue" is invalid and actually only facilitates the problem.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The point of the quote that many miss though is that Cardinal Richelieu wasn't a clairvoyant, and by "six lines written" he didn't literally mean Twitter. It's true that, as you say, "the power always can abuse information it gets, as long as it wants to target someone". If it wants to get you, it will abuse any information available. If you protect your Facebook from them, they'll break your e-mail. If you encrypt your mail traffic, they'll tap your phone. Or pull out census and employment data. Or simply ask around. I agree that you may be marginally safer if you're not "feeding the machine". But let's not delude ourselves - if the government turns evil, we're fucked either way, and no amount of Internet privacy will help much. There's too much data out there, and even more in the physical, material world.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > If it wants to get you, it will abuse any information available That's exactly the point. Therefore helping that abuse (by either being lax with privacy, or by assuming it's pointless) is not something that you should be doing if you care about this issue. > But let's not delude ourselves - if the government turns evil, we're fucked either way, and no amount of Internet privacy will help much. It's not an argument to ignore this. That's the whole point of pushing for FOSS, privacy respectful technology, no DRM and so on. The more pervasive the technology is in society (and it's surely becoming so), the higher is the potential of that abuse if said technology is prone to it. So taking care to prevent it on all levels is essential if you care about it as an individual.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I agree about FOSS/no DRM and abuse potential. I think that the biggest problem here is not surveillance itself, but the power asymmetry it creates. There are two possible options for an (idealized) solution - either no one gets that power, or everyone does. The first one may be more desirable, but I think it'll turn out that the latter is more practical / achievable.

shmerl 11y ago

The point of the quote is that those who claim that you don't need privacy if you have "nothing to hide" are wrong, because the power always can abuse information it gets, as long as it wants to target someone. > My point is they already have all they need, publicly available any time they desire it Which doesn't mean you need to be lax and give them even more, or even accept such situation as normal. Don't feed the machine. To put it differently, the argument that "privacy is dead, so ignore the issue" is invalid and actually only facilitates the problem.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
The point of the quote that many miss though is that Cardinal Richelieu wasn't a clairvoyant, and by "six lines written" he didn't literally mean Twitter. It's true that, as you say, "the power always can abuse information it gets, as long as it wants to target someone". If it wants to get you, it will abuse any information available. If you protect your Facebook from them, they'll break your e-mail. If you encrypt your mail traffic, they'll tap your phone. Or pull out census and employment data. Or simply ask around. I agree that you may be marginally safer if you're not "feeding the machine". But let's not delude ourselves - if the government turns evil, we're fucked either way, and no amount of Internet privacy will help much. There's too much data out there, and even more in the physical, material world.
- shmerl 11y ago
  > If it wants to get you, it will abuse any information available That's exactly the point. Therefore helping that abuse (by either being lax with privacy, or by assuming it's pointless) is not something that you should be doing if you care about this issue. > But let's not delude ourselves - if the government turns evil, we're fucked either way, and no amount of Internet privacy will help much. It's not an argument to ignore this. That's the whole point of pushing for FOSS, privacy respectful technology, no DRM and so on. The more pervasive the technology is in society (and it's surely becoming so), the higher is the potential of that abuse if said technology is prone to it. So taking care to prevent it on all levels is essential if you care about it as an individual.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I agree about FOSS/no DRM and abuse potential. I think that the biggest problem here is not surveillance itself, but the power asymmetry it creates. There are two possible options for an (idealized) solution - either no one gets that power, or everyone does. The first one may be more desirable, but I think it'll turn out that the latter is more practical / achievable.