4 ms·

Is privacy a luxury we only afford to the technologically savvy? Previously we considered privacy a right of all people to be free of unreasonable searches. You

Is privacy a luxury we only afford to the technologically savvy? Previously we considered privacy a right of all people to be free of unreasonable searches. Your attitude displayed here says otherwise: if you can't encrypt everything from start to end, you don't deserve privacy. If you are not up to date with the absolute latest way of sending data without it being monitored, you don't deserve privacy. In the past, those with these abilities fought hard to protect those who didn't. When did that change?

dpweb 11y ago
Everyone deserves privacy and it must be defended, and if I have my computer data at home, the government should not be able to search it without a warrant. But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. You may willingly give up privacy, but many users do so unwittingly. Their ignorance does not make the current state of affairs just. >Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The article and controversy are attempting to call attention to the mechanisms in place that are a threat to privacy of all users. Your response was "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." This is a disturbing attitude.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The general public is at least somewhat aware of these problems. People pushing a surveillance agenda (esp. marketing) often extrapolate this awareness, suggesting that people are surrendering privacy willingly either because they don't care or as part of a "trade' for services. In reality[1], people often feel powerless. Without the necessary technical knowledge to create alternatives, the aggressively pushed surveillance option seems like the only choice. > "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." That's classic victim blaming. I think the common "this isn't surprising" response has some victim blaming in it, too, when it becomes a thought-terminating cliche. Jacob Appelbaum's is probably right[2] in his interpretation: that saying something isn't surprising is a coping mechanism that probably means "I can't do anything about it". Unfortunately, sometimes it's used to shut down discussion. [1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-fallacy-how-marketers-are-misrepresenting-american-consumers-and https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594

dpweb 11y ago

Everyone deserves privacy and it must be defended, and if I have my computer data at home, the government should not be able to search it without a warrant. But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you.

intopieces 11y ago
>But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. You may willingly give up privacy, but many users do so unwittingly. Their ignorance does not make the current state of affairs just. >Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The article and controversy are attempting to call attention to the mechanisms in place that are a threat to privacy of all users. Your response was "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." This is a disturbing attitude.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The general public is at least somewhat aware of these problems. People pushing a surveillance agenda (esp. marketing) often extrapolate this awareness, suggesting that people are surrendering privacy willingly either because they don't care or as part of a "trade' for services. In reality[1], people often feel powerless. Without the necessary technical knowledge to create alternatives, the aggressively pushed surveillance option seems like the only choice. > "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." That's classic victim blaming. I think the common "this isn't surprising" response has some victim blaming in it, too, when it becomes a thought-terminating cliche. Jacob Appelbaum's is probably right[2] in his interpretation: that saying something isn't surprising is a coping mechanism that probably means "I can't do anything about it". Unfortunately, sometimes it's used to shut down discussion. [1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-fallacy-how-marketers-are-misrepresenting-american-consumers-and https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594