4 ms·

Snowden Warns World Against Trusting Privacy to Tech Giants

47 points by salmonet 11y ago

anu7df 11y ago
Relevant hn posting and discussion from 2 days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322978
gherkin0 11y ago
Are there any efforts to create some kind of open equivalent of the iPhone Secure Element? It seems difficult to not trust your privacy to tech giants when only tech giants are providing the technology you need.
- williamcotton 11y ago
  If you want privacy you shouldn't be broadcasting electrical signals from your living room. I very much question that you "need" to be broadcasting electrical signals from your living room. You probably "need" to be broadcasting electrical signals from your office in order to get a paycheck. You're still free to send pictures and letters to people using public infrastructure like the post office. You're free to keep those pictures and letters privately in your house. I don't know why you feel so entitled to your privacy when you're willingly giving information to a 3rd party private company. If you want this to change, you should be in support of public communication infrastructure based on individual rights. You should be in support of government regulation that makes private 3rd party companies like Apple or Facebook legally liable for the information that they hold on behalf of their customers. You should get more involved with the political and legislative process. Or get involved with free and open source software and hardware. There are plenty of projects that you could be contributing to! But honestly? If your really worried about privacy, the easiest thing to do is to not use the Internet. "You can't always get what you want".
  - philovivero 11y ago
    Why do you make this "private" distinction? If you give your info to ANY third party, public or private, the surveillance machine will have its hands on it. Specifically, you mention the post office. You do realize that your postal letters and packages are opened, scanned, and otherwise viewed in transit, don't you? I think you have way more faith in the public infrastructure, when it pertains to privacy, than it would merit.
    - williamcotton 11y ago
      Can we please curb the use of such loaded terms like "the surveillance machine"? Briefly, the counter to your "they know everything and will do bad things to us" is "transparency in public infrastructure gives us contemporary civilization". Here's what I know about the legal infrastructure in the United States. Anything that leaves your house is considered "published". You are entitled to privacy within the confines of the physical property that you own. Hence, people can't put a GPS tracker on your vehicle without a warrant but they can dig through your trash without permission. As the Fourth Amendment clearly states, the government is entitled to search and seizure with a warrant. They don't need a warrant to look up phone records because you literally broadcast that information. If you use a phone, you're clearly transmitting information "to somewhere else". The same goes for the postal service, however, you have additional rights that services like Facebook do not offer. The Post Office can't take your photos or letters and use them to sell advertisements. To use any social media or 3rd party website you have to give up your rights to sue for copyright infringement, amongst many other things. How else could they sell your "private" information to marketers? I think it is really unhelpful to expect private companies to protect our individual rights. That's the goal of government. Arguing that government is ineffective is unhelpful. Figuring out how to make government effective is helpful. There are undoubtedly issues with the current legal infrastructure related to digital telecommunications but the proper course of action is going to be in following the existing procedures to make the necessary changes, be it via legislation or amendments to the constitution.
  - readams 11y ago
    Seriously? You can't imagine why people might want to take advantage of modern technology while simultaneously wanting privacy protections? Your argument reminds me of this Onion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY

47 points by salmonet 11y ago

Relevant hn posting and discussion from 2 days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322978

gherkin0 11y ago

Are there any efforts to create some kind of open equivalent of the iPhone Secure Element? It seems difficult to not trust your privacy to tech giants when only tech giants are providing the technology you need.

williamcotton 11y ago
If you want privacy you shouldn't be broadcasting electrical signals from your living room. I very much question that you "need" to be broadcasting electrical signals from your living room. You probably "need" to be broadcasting electrical signals from your office in order to get a paycheck. You're still free to send pictures and letters to people using public infrastructure like the post office. You're free to keep those pictures and letters privately in your house. I don't know why you feel so entitled to your privacy when you're willingly giving information to a 3rd party private company. If you want this to change, you should be in support of public communication infrastructure based on individual rights. You should be in support of government regulation that makes private 3rd party companies like Apple or Facebook legally liable for the information that they hold on behalf of their customers. You should get more involved with the political and legislative process. Or get involved with free and open source software and hardware. There are plenty of projects that you could be contributing to! But honestly? If your really worried about privacy, the easiest thing to do is to not use the Internet. "You can't always get what you want".
- philovivero 11y ago
  Why do you make this "private" distinction? If you give your info to ANY third party, public or private, the surveillance machine will have its hands on it. Specifically, you mention the post office. You do realize that your postal letters and packages are opened, scanned, and otherwise viewed in transit, don't you? I think you have way more faith in the public infrastructure, when it pertains to privacy, than it would merit.
  - williamcotton 11y ago
    Can we please curb the use of such loaded terms like "the surveillance machine"? Briefly, the counter to your "they know everything and will do bad things to us" is "transparency in public infrastructure gives us contemporary civilization". Here's what I know about the legal infrastructure in the United States. Anything that leaves your house is considered "published". You are entitled to privacy within the confines of the physical property that you own. Hence, people can't put a GPS tracker on your vehicle without a warrant but they can dig through your trash without permission. As the Fourth Amendment clearly states, the government is entitled to search and seizure with a warrant. They don't need a warrant to look up phone records because you literally broadcast that information. If you use a phone, you're clearly transmitting information "to somewhere else". The same goes for the postal service, however, you have additional rights that services like Facebook do not offer. The Post Office can't take your photos or letters and use them to sell advertisements. To use any social media or 3rd party website you have to give up your rights to sue for copyright infringement, amongst many other things. How else could they sell your "private" information to marketers? I think it is really unhelpful to expect private companies to protect our individual rights. That's the goal of government. Arguing that government is ineffective is unhelpful. Figuring out how to make government effective is helpful. There are undoubtedly issues with the current legal infrastructure related to digital telecommunications but the proper course of action is going to be in following the existing procedures to make the necessary changes, be it via legislation or amendments to the constitution.
- readams 11y ago
  Seriously? You can't imagine why people might want to take advantage of modern technology while simultaneously wanting privacy protections? Your argument reminds me of this Onion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY