7 ms·

I make the same assumption and the chilling effect is frustrating. I assume everything I type on the internet is able to be tied back to me if anyone at the NSA

I make the same assumption and the chilling effect is frustrating. I assume everything I type on the internet is able to be tied back to me if anyone at the NSA etc wanted to look at me specifically. Unless you always use a VPN (or Tor) for all of your accounts and go through the unreasonable efforts of preventing browser fingerprinting, chances are this is true for everyone. And even those efforts are thwarted if they seize your devices, unless you use something like Tails OS. Anonymity on the internet is dead for the regular user and it sucks. I wish something like Freenet was better and had more users/content.

retox 10y ago
>Anonymity on the internet is dead All thanks to advertising companies. What a rotten state of affairs.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  All thanks to the users of advertising companies who trade privacy for free or cheaper stuff. We used to have paid, more private tech. Still do actually. Almost no money in it with bankruptcies and acquisitions by shady firms more common than getting on Global 2000.
  - throwaway7767 10y ago
    This feels a bit like blaming unsafe working conditions and 12-hour work days at the beginning of the industrial revolution on workers, because they signed the contracts (this was the prevailing narrative from factory owners at the time too). At some point, society came to the conclusion that the workers and factory owners were not on equal footing, and so rules were instated, despite strong protests from the factory owners that contract law was sacrosanct and workers should be free to agree to anything. Perhaps it's time for regulation to solve this dilemma?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Also remember that the factory owners at the time screamed that they could not afford any changes and it would bankrupt them and destroy the economy.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        I dont defend the creepy advertisers but banning their crap would bankrupt and destroy them.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        And imagine the online world loosing both Google and Mozilla. Or development of Firefox, Chrome, and Android slowing to a crawl as they went paid or donation-only. Big companies would win in browser and mobile market by default.
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        Red Herring. Fixing the funding model is an independent problem. I'm not saying that advertising and software development aren't prresently linked through funding. But the process is _fundamentally_ unbundled, through the vehicle of Free Software development and licensing. The costs for advertising are approximately $500 per year per capita in the developed world (~1 billion persons), plus all the associated privacy, surveillance, security, and chilling-effects risks. A shift of that basis from advertising to a syndicated content-and-development support tax would cut the cord between both advertising and content, and advertising and software development. Treating both writing of content (fiction, nonfiction, journalism, research) and software development as public goods could achieve some very strong social benefits (or at least present a different set of problems for us to jaw over on HN, though the concept of a technology startup incubator might also see some ground shifts). Bust out of that box a bit, Nick. Detachable headphones and mics.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
- bdcravens 10y ago
  We may nerd out over their open source and tech, but aside from a few for-pay services (Apps for Business, Firebase, dev cloud, etc) Google is the largest advertising company in the world. When you choose a Google product, you are choosing that.
- zzz157 10y ago
  Aww come on, give the NSA some credit!
- visarga 10y ago
  > All thanks to advertising companies No, it's all thanks to the availability of cheap storage and video cameras and fast internet, driving the price of recording almost to zero. Couple that with the love people have for mobile phones, which are spying devices.
spriggan3 10y ago
It's dead if you use all these "free" services, "free" mobile os and services and "free" apps like Chrome browser, provided by Google,Facebook and co. By using these "freebies" you are willingly giving up data. People are effectively paying with their privacy, it is made completely clear. That's the model the "free" internet chose to go with. People don't seem to care about their privacy or don't understand the consequences of giving up all their data to Google and co. These collected data are not anonymous.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Any website that has any sort of third party analytics or advertising invades privacy. All three of the major browsers invade privacy (or allow it to leak out). Governments monitor and store data directly from ISPs. Windows 10, which isn't free, has tons of privacy issues. The issue is not in any sense limited to "free" things.
- retox 10y ago
  From a consumer standpoint; is android free? I paid for the phone, I own it outright but Google still seems set on turning me into a cash cow.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    Get a phone that allows you to flash a custom ROM and pick one without Google's apps.
- nol13 10y ago
  "It's dead if you use all these "free" services, "free" mobile os and services and "free" apps like Chrome browser, provided by Google,Facebook and co. " Don't forget about all of your packets being sniffed at every hop as they go through all those telco routers you pay to use. Dead there to unless you use tor too, but then you just get flagged for using tor.
ffwd 10y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm curious what specific things you feel are 'chilled'? People in western countries can still write whatever they want - anti-government, anti-capitalism, whatever else. In fact there seem to be more conspiracy theories, Obama hate, and Clinton and David Cameron hate than at any time in human history. Like the most worry I have is having private actors look into my history and ban me from their sites or become targeted by hackers and such. That kind of stuff has a chilling effect much more to me than government/NSA/GCHQ, since they seem to have bigger fish to fry and they are ruled by law / principles taught in 'boot camp'
- RodericDay 10y ago
  You wouldn't know about it if someone who was doing anti-government or anti-capitalism stuff got successfully blackmailed before achieving their objective. This would maintain the illusion of things happening without actually allowing them to come to fruition.

retox 10y ago

>Anonymity on the internet is dead All thanks to advertising companies. What a rotten state of affairs.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
All thanks to the users of advertising companies who trade privacy for free or cheaper stuff. We used to have paid, more private tech. Still do actually. Almost no money in it with bankruptcies and acquisitions by shady firms more common than getting on Global 2000.
- throwaway7767 10y ago
  This feels a bit like blaming unsafe working conditions and 12-hour work days at the beginning of the industrial revolution on workers, because they signed the contracts (this was the prevailing narrative from factory owners at the time too). At some point, society came to the conclusion that the workers and factory owners were not on equal footing, and so rules were instated, despite strong protests from the factory owners that contract law was sacrosanct and workers should be free to agree to anything. Perhaps it's time for regulation to solve this dilemma?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Also remember that the factory owners at the time screamed that they could not afford any changes and it would bankrupt them and destroy the economy.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      I dont defend the creepy advertisers but banning their crap would bankrupt and destroy them.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        And imagine the online world loosing both Google and Mozilla. Or development of Firefox, Chrome, and Android slowing to a crawl as they went paid or donation-only. Big companies would win in browser and mobile market by default.
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        Red Herring. Fixing the funding model is an independent problem. I'm not saying that advertising and software development aren't prresently linked through funding. But the process is _fundamentally_ unbundled, through the vehicle of Free Software development and licensing. The costs for advertising are approximately $500 per year per capita in the developed world (~1 billion persons), plus all the associated privacy, surveillance, security, and chilling-effects risks. A shift of that basis from advertising to a syndicated content-and-development support tax would cut the cord between both advertising and content, and advertising and software development. Treating both writing of content (fiction, nonfiction, journalism, research) and software development as public goods could achieve some very strong social benefits (or at least present a different set of problems for us to jaw over on HN, though the concept of a technology startup incubator might also see some ground shifts). Bust out of that box a bit, Nick. Detachable headphones and mics.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
bdcravens 10y ago
We may nerd out over their open source and tech, but aside from a few for-pay services (Apps for Business, Firebase, dev cloud, etc) Google is the largest advertising company in the world. When you choose a Google product, you are choosing that.
zzz157 10y ago
Aww come on, give the NSA some credit!
visarga 10y ago
> All thanks to advertising companies No, it's all thanks to the availability of cheap storage and video cameras and fast internet, driving the price of recording almost to zero. Couple that with the love people have for mobile phones, which are spying devices.

spriggan3 10y ago

It's dead if you use all these "free" services, "free" mobile os and services and "free" apps like Chrome browser, provided by Google,Facebook and co. By using these "freebies" you are willingly giving up data. People are effectively paying with their privacy, it is made completely clear. That's the model the "free" internet chose to go with. People don't seem to care about their privacy or don't understand the consequences of giving up all their data to Google and co. These collected data are not anonymous.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Any website that has any sort of third party analytics or advertising invades privacy. All three of the major browsers invade privacy (or allow it to leak out). Governments monitor and store data directly from ISPs. Windows 10, which isn't free, has tons of privacy issues. The issue is not in any sense limited to "free" things.
retox 10y ago
From a consumer standpoint; is android free? I paid for the phone, I own it outright but Google still seems set on turning me into a cash cow.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  Get a phone that allows you to flash a custom ROM and pick one without Google's apps.
nol13 10y ago
"It's dead if you use all these "free" services, "free" mobile os and services and "free" apps like Chrome browser, provided by Google,Facebook and co. " Don't forget about all of your packets being sniffed at every hop as they go through all those telco routers you pay to use. Dead there to unless you use tor too, but then you just get flagged for using tor.

ffwd 10y ago

I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm curious what specific things you feel are 'chilled'? People in western countries can still write whatever they want - anti-government, anti-capitalism, whatever else. In fact there seem to be more conspiracy theories, Obama hate, and Clinton and David Cameron hate than at any time in human history. Like the most worry I have is having private actors look into my history and ban me from their sites or become targeted by hackers and such. That kind of stuff has a chilling effect much more to me than government/NSA/GCHQ, since they seem to have bigger fish to fry and they are ruled by law / principles taught in 'boot camp'

RodericDay 10y ago
You wouldn't know about it if someone who was doing anti-government or anti-capitalism stuff got successfully blackmailed before achieving their objective. This would maintain the illusion of things happening without actually allowing them to come to fruition.