4 ms·

>I basically don't consider anything I do online "really" private. The only reason I assume nobody knows what I do there is that I presume nobody cares. Thats

>I basically don't consider anything I do online "really" private. The only reason I assume nobody knows what I do there is that I presume nobody cares. Thats for /You/ though. Laws are for /everyone/. Also, everyone does private things on the net. Any credit card transaction should be a private dealing. If all your google searches were put up for the public to see, I don't think you'd be too happy about that. For others, they could have very negative social consequences. I would argue hard privacy laws are more important on the internet, because you can mass collect data and make infinite copies, but in real life you can't mass collect the contents of homes and where things have been. The physical barrier is by itself a natural privacy maker, something that is important to try to replicate in communication with data.

grondilu 10y ago
> Any credit card transaction should be a private dealing. I'm no expert but I believe they are since they use encryption. I don't think republicans plan to ban encryption.
- neikos 10y ago
  If you can see the exchange happen, then it is not really private. You don't need to know how much I spent, but just that I spent something. That already is enough to not make it private anymore.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Republicans, FBI, and NSA tried to do exactly that during the Crypto Wars. Their next proposal was an escrow scheme where secret people in government agencies with history of corruption & targetting dissidents would get copies of all our secrets. They eventually relented on the ban and partially on exports. Now, they're back at it again scaremongering about the Four Horsemen being reason to give them our secrets again: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal...
  - ythn 10y ago
    If you think Democrats are not guilty of trying to weaken encryption and/or expand anti-privacy capabilities, you are mistaken.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Such false equivalence is harmful if you're a proponent of strict privacy laws. Even if Democrats were exactly as bad as Republicans in every regard, you could actually choose to randomly thank them for their dedication to privacy. Do that often enough, you'll soon see Democratic politicians adopting pro-privacy positions. In reality, it seems quite obvious that despite all, there is at least a marginal difference between the parties with regards to not only privacy, but many other closely-linked issues, i.e. net neutrality. If you get frustrated because these measures don't go far enough and buy into the "they're-all-corrupt-each-worse-than-the-other"-narrative, you're removing all incentives for them to act in your interest.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        You presume all incentive isn't already removed.
      - battlebot 10y ago
        They look at us as little children who need to me managed from cradle to grave. Nothing more.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      They're both currently anti-privacy. It was Clinton Administration that originally compromised with escrow and then allowing crypto. Also expanded FOIA use. The conservatives in the military, esp running NSA, wanted it banned. Then conservatives passed Patriot Act and issued State of Emergency creating a lightweight, selective form oc martial law with bulk surveillance and indefinite detention without trial. Also reduced public access to government info. Obama reversed Democrat accomplishments in privacy by expanding on those conservative policies and laws. New Republican President is trying to crank them up to the next level on top of showing himself to be a threat to individuals or companies for arbitrary, unpredictable reasons motivated by ego. So, both parties suck at privacy but one did something for it once under pressure. Republicans are consistently in favor of trading liberty for temporary, limited security if it's not their firearms, speech, or press.

grondilu 10y ago

> Any credit card transaction should be a private dealing. I'm no expert but I believe they are since they use encryption. I don't think republicans plan to ban encryption.

neikos 10y ago
If you can see the exchange happen, then it is not really private. You don't need to know how much I spent, but just that I spent something. That already is enough to not make it private anymore.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Republicans, FBI, and NSA tried to do exactly that during the Crypto Wars. Their next proposal was an escrow scheme where secret people in government agencies with history of corruption & targetting dissidents would get copies of all our secrets. They eventually relented on the ban and partially on exports. Now, they're back at it again scaremongering about the Four Horsemen being reason to give them our secrets again: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal...
- ythn 10y ago
  If you think Democrats are not guilty of trying to weaken encryption and/or expand anti-privacy capabilities, you are mistaken.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Such false equivalence is harmful if you're a proponent of strict privacy laws. Even if Democrats were exactly as bad as Republicans in every regard, you could actually choose to randomly thank them for their dedication to privacy. Do that often enough, you'll soon see Democratic politicians adopting pro-privacy positions. In reality, it seems quite obvious that despite all, there is at least a marginal difference between the parties with regards to not only privacy, but many other closely-linked issues, i.e. net neutrality. If you get frustrated because these measures don't go far enough and buy into the "they're-all-corrupt-each-worse-than-the-other"-narrative, you're removing all incentives for them to act in your interest.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      You presume all incentive isn't already removed.
    - battlebot 10y ago
      They look at us as little children who need to me managed from cradle to grave. Nothing more.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    They're both currently anti-privacy. It was Clinton Administration that originally compromised with escrow and then allowing crypto. Also expanded FOIA use. The conservatives in the military, esp running NSA, wanted it banned. Then conservatives passed Patriot Act and issued State of Emergency creating a lightweight, selective form oc martial law with bulk surveillance and indefinite detention without trial. Also reduced public access to government info. Obama reversed Democrat accomplishments in privacy by expanding on those conservative policies and laws. New Republican President is trying to crank them up to the next level on top of showing himself to be a threat to individuals or companies for arbitrary, unpredictable reasons motivated by ego. So, both parties suck at privacy but one did something for it once under pressure. Republicans are consistently in favor of trading liberty for temporary, limited security if it's not their firearms, speech, or press.