7 ms·

You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Il

by hbt 10y ago

You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.

appleiigs 10y ago
I'd extend it to: you'd be a fool to trust anyone with your data and privacy. At least law enforcement is working under the premise of the good of society (albeit, implemented poorly), compared to Google and Facebook which is working to monetize you.
- skybrian 10y ago
  They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society. Of course we're all familiar with the ways consumers can gamed and all the ways adtech makes the Internet suck, but the argument about good intentions works at least as well as it does for law enforcement. (Maybe better because it's not about coercion.)
  - appleiigs 10y ago
    Yes, good point. Google and Facebook aren't going to throw me in jail.
    - colejohnson66 10y ago
      But they could cause your car insurance rates to go up (just not this time) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/facebook-scuppers-algorithmic-car-insurance/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/facebook-scuppers...
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    > They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society. Advertising doesn't just "connect buyers and sellers" but can also generate demand for products that are worthless otherwise. The diamond industry is the obvious example. You might say that this stimulates the economy but I would argue it's an example of the broken window fallacy.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  What difference does it make under your argument whether they are trying to monetize the data or not? As long as they have your data, it's at risk. It's the same for Apple and Microsoft as it is for Google and Facebook. That Tim Cook pretends not to understand it doesn't mean we have to buy his misguided marketing speak.
  - appleiigs 10y ago
    I did say not to trust anyone. But there is a certain point where you are going to need to trust a service provider and intent and actions matter a lot at that point.
chongli 10y ago
Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians."? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert more trustworthy than a politician?
- MrLeap 10y ago
  Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This isn't to say that every technology expert can be trusted. The hope is that many eyes looking at the problem helps move the needle. Politics might as well be the science of deception. My pithy opinion is that nearly everyone is more trustworthy than a politician.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This is ... myopic. Do you think ransomeware is written by politicians? All malicious software is written by technology experts. Is not that I trust politicians, far from it: we know they're all lying crooked thieves. But you think "technology experts are more trustworthy."
    - MrLeap 10y ago
      If you think ransomware affects the aggregate that much, i'd call that hyperopic.
  - fulafel 10y ago
    Technology experts will be more often working against your interests than politicians, because politicians will usually have some public interest motive and voter accountability, technology experts often work for "ad tech" and spooks.
anonbanker 10y ago
On top of encrypting everything/using VPNs, you'd have to be a fool to trust your data to a Five Eyes country in $current_year. Put that encrypted data/email on a server in Iceland or Seychelles, completely out of reach of the panopticon. You'd be almost as large a fool incorporating in a Five Eyes country for the same reasons. Bermuda and Nevis are beautiful countries for more than just the scenery. Take your assets, and even your liabilities out of the country who doesn't respect your privacy. This is how you truly vote with your wallet in the 21st century.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  And I'm supposed to believe Iceland, Seychelles, Bermuda, and Nevis aren't crawling with secret agents, double-agents, tripple-agents, octuple-agents, moles, and honeypot operators. Come now, I've watched my fair share of Hollywood spy movies.
  - anonbanker 10y ago
    let's just say that the choices I have made in those regards have provably kept me out of a jail cell.

by hbt 10y ago

appleiigs 10y ago

I'd extend it to: you'd be a fool to trust anyone with your data and privacy. At least law enforcement is working under the premise of the good of society (albeit, implemented poorly), compared to Google and Facebook which is working to monetize you.

skybrian 10y ago
They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society. Of course we're all familiar with the ways consumers can gamed and all the ways adtech makes the Internet suck, but the argument about good intentions works at least as well as it does for law enforcement. (Maybe better because it's not about coercion.)
- appleiigs 10y ago
  Yes, good point. Google and Facebook aren't going to throw me in jail.
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    But they could cause your car insurance rates to go up (just not this time) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/facebook-scuppers-algorithmic-car-insurance/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/facebook-scuppers...
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  > They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society. Advertising doesn't just "connect buyers and sellers" but can also generate demand for products that are worthless otherwise. The diamond industry is the obvious example. You might say that this stimulates the economy but I would argue it's an example of the broken window fallacy.
lern_too_spel 10y ago
What difference does it make under your argument whether they are trying to monetize the data or not? As long as they have your data, it's at risk. It's the same for Apple and Microsoft as it is for Google and Facebook. That Tim Cook pretends not to understand it doesn't mean we have to buy his misguided marketing speak.
- appleiigs 10y ago
  I did say not to trust anyone. But there is a certain point where you are going to need to trust a service provider and intent and actions matter a lot at that point.

chongli 10y ago

Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians."? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert more trustworthy than a politician?

MrLeap 10y ago
Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This isn't to say that every technology expert can be trusted. The hope is that many eyes looking at the problem helps move the needle. Politics might as well be the science of deception. My pithy opinion is that nearly everyone is more trustworthy than a politician.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This is ... myopic. Do you think ransomeware is written by politicians? All malicious software is written by technology experts. Is not that I trust politicians, far from it: we know they're all lying crooked thieves. But you think "technology experts are more trustworthy."
  - MrLeap 10y ago
    If you think ransomware affects the aggregate that much, i'd call that hyperopic.
- fulafel 10y ago
  Technology experts will be more often working against your interests than politicians, because politicians will usually have some public interest motive and voter accountability, technology experts often work for "ad tech" and spooks.

anonbanker 10y ago

On top of encrypting everything/using VPNs, you'd have to be a fool to trust your data to a Five Eyes country in $current_year. Put that encrypted data/email on a server in Iceland or Seychelles, completely out of reach of the panopticon. You'd be almost as large a fool incorporating in a Five Eyes country for the same reasons. Bermuda and Nevis are beautiful countries for more than just the scenery. Take your assets, and even your liabilities out of the country who doesn't respect your privacy. This is how you truly vote with your wallet in the 21st century.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
And I'm supposed to believe Iceland, Seychelles, Bermuda, and Nevis aren't crawling with secret agents, double-agents, tripple-agents, octuple-agents, moles, and honeypot operators. Come now, I've watched my fair share of Hollywood spy movies.
- anonbanker 10y ago
  let's just say that the choices I have made in those regards have provably kept me out of a jail cell.