4 ms·

I know. But that's really where I, personally, make the decision to not care. Group chat with two dozen mates equals stupid banter, exchange of memes, lately so

I know. But that's really where I, personally, make the decision to not care. Group chat with two dozen mates equals stupid banter, exchange of memes, lately some pictures of the young ones everyone seems to suddenly have, recaps of school day mischief. I don't say anything there I wouldn't say in a crowded room and neither does anyone else. For something as deviously criminal as 'you got pot man?', the private chat function is alright. Obviously the 'nothing to hide' fallacy is nonsense, but so is pretending every communication warrants the highest security parameters at our disposal. Signal is a nice app, have it installed among pretty much every other messenger. But none of my friends, colleagues and coworkers use it. I have one contact out of almost a thousand on there. The desktop client only runs in a browser, Telegram can be open on all kinds of devices and synch up (ncTelegram on a VPS where pretty much all my communication is relayed, in my case)... I know all the criticism, from the question of why they had to cook up their own crypto and nonfree server to the Russians behind it. It's still the best app I could sell to a lot of people who're not even close to tech literate.

newscracker 10y ago
> Obviously the 'nothing to hide' fallacy is nonsense, but so is pretending every communication warrants the highest security parameters at our disposal. I don't agree with this view that every communication, especially online, does not warrant the highest security parameters at our disposal. Assuming there are alternatives with better privacy and security available, I believe we (or the ones who care about such things) should adopt those and evangelize those among others we know. The default should be to treat communication between different parties as nothing but their own business, and nobody else should be snooping around for any purpose. Other than the above are concerns of a larger magnitude - most people don't understand the true implications of not having privacy/security until it personally affects them. So I always try to push people to use something that's better (may not necessarily be perfect) privacy-wise. Also, when the lowest common denominator is filled by privacy invading platforms, all of humankind stands to lose because of the way money is made by these platforms and how "easy" or "free" those appear to be in the eyes of the users. In a larger sense, we're probably sabotaging the availability and legality of private/secure/easy-to-use communication platforms for the people it matters most to, like those in a repressed regime, journalists/investigators who go against the current powers, etc. TL;DR: (Usability concerns aside) We have nothing to lose by treating every communication as warranting the highest privacy and security. But we do have a lot to lose by doing otherwise.

newscracker 10y ago

> Obviously the 'nothing to hide' fallacy is nonsense, but so is pretending every communication warrants the highest security parameters at our disposal. I don't agree with this view that every communication, especially online, does not warrant the highest security parameters at our disposal. Assuming there are alternatives with better privacy and security available, I believe we (or the ones who care about such things) should adopt those and evangelize those among others we know. The default should be to treat communication between different parties as nothing but their own business, and nobody else should be snooping around for any purpose. Other than the above are concerns of a larger magnitude - most people don't understand the true implications of not having privacy/security until it personally affects them. So I always try to push people to use something that's better (may not necessarily be perfect) privacy-wise. Also, when the lowest common denominator is filled by privacy invading platforms, all of humankind stands to lose because of the way money is made by these platforms and how "easy" or "free" those appear to be in the eyes of the users. In a larger sense, we're probably sabotaging the availability and legality of private/secure/easy-to-use communication platforms for the people it matters most to, like those in a repressed regime, journalists/investigators who go against the current powers, etc. TL;DR: (Usability concerns aside) We have nothing to lose by treating every communication as warranting the highest privacy and security. But we do have a lot to lose by doing otherwise.