18 ms·

When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

500 points by petethomas 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
archvile 9y ago
"Snowden’s revelations made people aware of what was happening, but little changed as a result." Actually I'd be willing to bet the level of spying the alphabet agencies are doing now is 10 times worse than it was when Snowden stole those documents.
benbenolson 9y ago
The difficult part isn't getting people to understand that Internet privacy is important or at risk; nearly every person that I know (tech-savvy or not) understands that companies like Google and Facebook are in the business of collecting their data, and don't want them to. However, companies like these have human habit on their side: most people use these services daily, and will continue doing so unless it's easier or more convenient to do otherwise. That means that in order to reverse the trend of users continuously using these services, an alternative must be created that's better in every way, and default on all platforms that people use. In the case of Facebook, it's a chicken-and-egg problem: many people that I know will not use another social media platform because nobody else that they know uses it, but nobody else that they know uses it because they don't use it.
- tcd 9y ago
  > and don't want them to...an alternative must be created Of course, collecting user data is fundamental to providing these services, for FREE - without this, Youtube's algorithm would be awful and Google Maps wouldn't be able to show real time information, and you would be paying for all of the services users want for free. If it's free, you are usually the product, and information just so happens to be the currency of choice. I very much doubt people would pay for search, maps, youtube, keep, plus, email, translate, android, allo, duo, docs/sheets/slides, chrome, earth... And many, many more listed here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/
- Kadin 9y ago
  It's worth remembering how Facebook got to the userbase that it currently has -- they didn't start out targeting "everyone on the planet", which is an almost impossibly hard challenge because of the network effects you note. Instead, they started off providing closed social networks for existing groups of users -- colleges, starting with a small number of elite colleges and slowly broadening out from there -- until eventually it became a public social network and the de facto standard at least within the US. The networks that have attempted from the start to get everyone to sign up have mostly failed. E.g. Google Plus, which had some feature advantages over FB at the time, started out much too ambitiously in my opinion and suffered from a "Potemkin village" issue where (unless you had a circle of friends who all joined it) it felt empty, and I suspect many users never used it more than a few times. The only recent network I've seen to go the Facebook route is Nextdoor, which at least in my anecdotal experience seems to be becoming a thing. By providing a semi-closed social network based on physical proximity (neighborhoods), it provides immediate value to a new user. I'm not sure of the details of their rollout strategy, but at least at one point they insisted on mailing you a physical postcard in order to verify your address (much like FB's original validation on specific .edu email domains). Anyway, if anyone out there is thinking of challenging Facebook on the social-network front, I would put some significant thought into the rollout strategy and aim not to compete with Facebook circa 2017, but instead to compete with Facebook circa 2004. As other networks have opened themselves up, there's a constant vacuum at the lower, more-specific, more-exclusive, closed end of the spectrum which provides a lower barrier to entry.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    I think discord has better potential to be the next social media juggernaut, I know most of my social media interaction goes through discord. As our lives move more and more online discord seems to be the digital equivalent of the roman forums and I appreciate the ability to jump into a conversation with my friends in the same way I would IRL. Mostly I appreciate the ability to be parts of different groups, the ease with which you can join groups, and the fact that you can host your own friend group. I realize this isn't Discord's mission statement or intent but it is a position they find themselves in.
- EGreg 9y ago
  http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169
carrier_lost 9y ago
I appreciate Bruce Schneier's pragmatism and his acknowledgement that the problem is bigger than an individual can reasonably be expected to solve, if that individual wishes to participate in modern society. Too often, privacy concerns are met with, "Use Tails + Tor + a hosts file + a burner phone + a burner laptop, etc. etc." But Grandma isn't going to do that, and frankly neither am I. While an individual chooses to use online services, at a certain point societal and career expectations make it not really much of a choice at all. There must be a better way than placing all of the burden on the individual.
- benbenolson 9y ago
  Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government. I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with. I'm unfamiliar with the decision, but why split up a company like Microsoft in 1999, but leave Facebook and Google alone?
  - hammock 9y ago
    >Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government Thought you were going to say "regulate privacy protections." Instead you went for breaking up monopolies. Impressive leap
    - simias 9y ago
      He has a point though. Right now if you have an android smartphone, use gmail and google search you're telling google basically everything you do, where you are, what you have an interest in and the people you know. Each of these services in isolation can know a great deal about you but being able to correlate the data makes it so much worse. That's why I try to avoid putting all of my eggs in the same basket, I have an android phone but I use duckduckgo for search, my own server for email and firefox for browsing the web. If Mozilla, my server host or ddg decides to betray me (or gets hacked) at least they only have access to a slice of my life.
rdtsc 9y ago
> Snowden’s revelations made people aware of what was happening, but little changed as a result. Things got worse and that's expected. After all these things were made public, if there was no mass outrage the perpetrators learned a valuable lesson - they can increase their activities without much fear. Pretty sure at this point NSA doesn't even have to play games with masking / unmasking filtering US citizens, they might as well stop jumping through hoops and just record and search everything they like.
- superioritycplx 9y ago
  The outrage was probably there, but it was skillfully smeared as tinfoil hattery, as usual.
j_s 9y ago
One resource I haven't seen mentioned on HN much: Michael Bazzell is an expert on both sides of internet privacy. https://privacy-training.com/ https://privacy-training.com/ vs. https://inteltechniques.com/ https://inteltechniques.com/ "Hiding from the Internet" vs. "Open Source Intelligence Techniques" https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Bazzell/e/B007GNUI92/ https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Bazzell/e/B007GNUI92/ "The Complete Privacy & Security Podcast" (42 episodes so far) https://inteltechniques.com/podcast.html https://inteltechniques.com/podcast.html
- acobster 9y ago
  Definitely interested in that podcast, but I must say I find it ironic that they're running JS from Google Analytics and Scorecard Research. :D
hnaccy 9y ago
I'm already extremely pessimistic about these things. Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. Additionally machine learning asymmetrically benefits those with the resources to fully leverage large amounts of data collection and compute power AKA not you or me. Any state in history would have loved to have been able to watch its citizens at all times and know what they're doing and likely thinking. It just wasn't feasible until now. The big last line we haven't but will inevitably crossed will be the automation of force. At least suicide is always an option.
- ashark 9y ago
  I'd go farther: I'm unsure that communication technologies past approximately the telegraph have actually improved quality of life more than they've harmed it. At least in developed countries (simply don't know enough about life in un-/under-developed countries to have an opinion).
  - westmeal 9y ago
    How so?
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  But at that point, society would basically be full-on Cyberpunk. Screw suicide, form a gang of runners and start planning heists on manufacturing facilities and factories, lay traps for driverless truck shipments or hijack them electronically, etc. Hide in the margins, among the slums and tenements to which overpopulation and consolidation have relegated vast swarms of people. Heck, I've already gotten transdermal implants set and removed by people who maybe weren't, you know, licensed practitioners. The moral rule of law is already out the window, and financial laws had already may as well not exist. The only practical compulsion that law has left is that many people can still have an acceptable life while complying with it. Enriching yourself by skimming the margins of those with enough capital to print money wouldn't exactly be immoral. Automation of force, or something along those lines, would pretty much cinch it. I think plenty of people would decide it's time to have a chat with a local lathe/mill owner, stick a flamethrower on their quadcopter, and loot the few places where opulence still existed. Get away with a couple decent jobs, and you could pretend you were in that upper echelon of 'people with lots of money' all along. Right now, if you're good at a trade like construction, welding, medicine, engineering, etc, you can probably find stable employment options and at least afford to exist. But when those people of practical means start to get systemically marginalized, I'll bet we'll see a huge resurgence of people trying modern versions of The Italian Job.
rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
I once asked Bruce Schneier at a conference to scare me. He told me to consider the associations between data. Bits and pieces that Google knows about me, that Facebook knows about me, that Amazon knows about me...think of all of those little meaningless bits of data being associated all together to build a picture perfect model of my life, and then sold to advertisers, who know enough about your life to attempt to manipulate it at every step. And if advertisers can pull up every saleable bit of data about me with enough accuracy to sell me products that I actually want, then anyone with enough money and desire can get that same data, use the same associations, and understand more about me than most of my closest friends, all before taking one step away from the computer. I'm still afraid.
- tambienben 9y ago
  But what have you done about it?
  - 0xCMP 9y ago
    But what can you do as an individual? I think that's what we're all struggling with.
    - tambienben 9y ago
      There is no single good answer; that's why people struggle with it. The solutions are disparate, and vary depending on your threat model. Answers to these problems aren't available and packaged in a one-size-fits-all solution that your average middle-class family has the time or ambition to take advantage of. Some solutions exist, however--and more are being developed. In a lot of ways, I see the issue boiling down to how much you're willing to be inconvenienced.
  - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    Well it definitely put the nail in the coffin of social media (except HN) for me. I was already creeped out after the Snowden revelations but hearing Schneier in person was like a smack to the face. I use DuckDuckGo instead of Google in most cases, and I avoid Facebook (and particularly Messenger) unless absolutely necessary, and I have become much more conscious of my online activity.
komali2 9y ago
They caught me at line 1 with a curious thought: >and have grudgingly accepted that being monitored by corporations and even governments is just a fact of modern life. I wonder which is the more "shocking" or "surprising" that society deems it acceptable - monitoring by corporations, or monitoring by governments?
- nocman 9y ago
  Just because people have accepted something doesn't mean they deem it "acceptable". When your choices are "use a service and be monitored" or "don't use the service", it can be quite limiting if you really need that service to, say, do your job and feed your family. Yes I know there are alternative services, but often they either 1) don't work well enough to really be a viable alternative and/or 2) don't provide any more confidence that they are not monitoring you also. Of course all of this is made worse by the fact that the monitoring is mostly happening in the background, so it isn't "in your face" all of the time. I think most people who are aware of it have chosen to just ignore it as best they can, because there doesn't appear to be any practical way of avoiding it.
  - jack6e 9y ago
    > Just because people have accepted something doesn't mean they deem it "acceptable". Actually, that is exactly, literally what it means. Perhaps you mean that just because we find something acceptable, we don't deem it moral, or optimal, or desirable. The distressing reality presented in the interview is that we accept non-benevolent, non-ideal options because they are good enough to be accepted, and not bad enough to be rejected. But accepting something, by definition, means you consider it accept-able, or, "able to be accepted."
    - nocman 9y ago
      Yeah I knew someone would come back with that -- but that's only true if you tie a very strict one-to-one meaning between every use of the verb "accept" and the adjective "acceptable". Words have subtle meanings. If you paid attention to my post, I was clearly drawing a line between the fact that people accept the fact that they really don't have a good alternative to using, say, Google. But they may not find it acceptable that Google data mines their searches to sell their info to advertisers. So while they "accept" their situation, they clearly don't find it "acceptable". Much as you might accept the fact that you have to work for a boss who is a jerk, because you have no other employment options. So you don't find the situation acceptable, but you have to accept it anyway.
almonj 9y ago
a Basket of Figs and a Letter, did by the way eat up a great part of his Carriage, conveying the remainder unto the Perfon to whom he was di- rected, who when he had read the Letter, and not finding the quantity of Figs anfwerable to what was there fpoken of, he accufes the Slave of eating them, telling him what the Letter faid againft him. But the In- dian (notwithftanding this proof) did confidently abjure the Fa&, curling the Paper, as being a falfe and lying Witnefs. After this, being lent again with the like Carriage, and a Letter expreffing the juft number of Figs that were to be delivered, he did again, according to his former Pra- ctice, devour a great part of them by the way.
- bwanab 9y ago
  Censorship is a valid concern, but I'm not sure what it has to do with on-line privacy.
stephengillie 9y ago
What does a post-privacy world look like?
- 1001101 9y ago
  Roll up the shades.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    Maybe fear isn't the right reaction. We have almost no privacy, and the world isn't ending. Many of us goto work or school, just as before we were so heavily surveiled. Also, who makes money off us being afraid of not having privacy?
    - 482794793792894 9y ago
      The already linked Panopticon shows that a lack of privacy can lead to severe mental problems. The Stasi subdued an entire country via surveillance and that before the internet, before CCTV and before everyone voluntarily carried a microphone in their pocket.
      - 1001101 9y ago
        Watching The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) had a profound impact on me. I was aware of ECHELON, Carnivore, DCS, Wm. Binney, etc. before Snowden, but since Snowden/Greenwald, it really became visceral. It's been a rough ride for me, and many people I know.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  ...authoritarian, yet in a manipulative fashion rather then upfront. Rings a bell?
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
pnathan 9y ago
Consider lobbying your government officials to improve regulations concerning this. Maybe get together with other people in your city who care about this particular issue. This needs to be changed at a regulatory national level, but it's usually the case that major cities or states lead the charge in the US. The system can be made to work for you, if you're willing to work with it.
ProfessorLayton 9y ago
Mobile has certainly made things worse. I recently kicked off every google app from my phone. The dark UX pattern of shared logins (login to google express = login to gmaps etc) was too annoying to deal with. It's not that I've stopped using their services, but instead switched to their web version. Same with Twitter et al. Even Uber has very serviceable web versions of their app. As a bonus I get better battery life, and the use of Safari's content blocker, so YouTube web is even better than the app. I'm also able to silo these services into their own browser if don't want to keep logging in every time due to private browsing.
- Rotareti 9y ago
  > Mobile has certainly made things worse. I totally agree! It's easy and convenient to run a PC on FOSS, but it's a real pain to do the same with a smart phone. I just tried to run a FOS OS on my phone. I gave up because in order to flash the OS image I had to install non-reproducible binaries from some website and there was no sane way around.
EternalData 9y ago
I think there's something to be said about looking at the business incentives of the people you deal with on the Internet. Google, plain as day, is using you as training data. DuckDuckGo bills itself as the privacy-minded alternative. You shouldn't be surprised if Google violates your privacy. If DuckDuckGo does, that's the end of their business model.
grondilu 9y ago
Can someone explain to me why this so-called "privacy" is such a big deal on internet? Can't internet, or at least a major part of it, be considered a public place? I mean, when I walk in the street, I do not wear a mask (I suspect that'd be illegal in my country), yet I do not worry about someone using surveillance cameras to track all my activities. Sure, it could technically be done but I'm not that important : nobody would bother. Therefore I vaguely consider myself anonymous when I walk in the street, not because my identity is hidden, but because it's mixed in thousands of others : "hidden in plain sight", as they say. Couldn't things be similar on internet? Or do we really all have to hide our identity like criminals?
- losteverything 9y ago
  It's about ease. Before the internet, it was very hard for the average person to find out stuff. Maybe not having a ring on the finger meant they are single. Or are they divorced? Now, it is just too easy. And commonplace. Sure, all if our lifes events could have been collected. They were called biographers. Now they are called everyman. Data had always been collected. Just never easily retrieved. For me, i am appalled that some people i know think absolutely nothing about googling a person they just met. To me, they were not reared properly of they do that.
- carrier_lost 9y ago
  You might not be important now. But you might be "important" in the future due to your affiliation with a political group, religion or even your skin color. You never know which way the political winds will blow. And data is kept forever.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vbuwivbiu 9y ago
  ok go ahead and publish all your email, chat messages and bank account details here now
  - grondilu 9y ago
lowbloodsugar 9y ago
Really enjoyed William Hertling's Kill Process on this very subject. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30658546-kill-process https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30658546-kill-process
rotrux 9y ago
We're all screwed. But at least we're all screwed together!
- to_bpr 9y ago
  And there's a great many HN users/readers who've been happy to write the code that is totally f-ing us over.
Chardok 9y ago
"Opting out doesn’t work. It’s nonsense to tell people not to carry a credit card or not to have an email address. And “buyer beware” is putting too much onus on the individual. People don’t test their food for pathogens or their airlines for safety." This is a brilliant line and it works so well because he is absolutely right: it should not be on the burden of the consumer to make sure their products are safe, be it from listeria or a spy device disguised as a children's toy. I don't know what needs to happen for people to get outraged, but privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue. Perhaps we need to see what Google and Facebook actually have on us...
- ProAm 9y ago
  > but privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue Honestly most people don't care and money talks... This is the new normal, better get used to it. This fight was lost a long time ago.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    Yes, money talks. Which is why free software that is guaranteed to stay free is a resilient solution if we can develop it. Privacy violations exist so middle men can make money. Cutting out the middle men solves the privacy problem AND motivates people by saving them money.
    - ProAm 9y ago
      > Cutting out the middle men solves the privacy problem AND motivates people by saving them money. Too many middle men. How many middle men are inbetween you and me right now with this post? Probably 5 companies at a min? People are interested in saving money but not at the expense of their time or convenience. I agree with you, but it's just never going to happen.
      - kerkeslager 9y ago
        There is definite value in cutting out a few of those middlemen or even just decreasing their capabilities.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 9y ago
What internet privacy? I seemed to have it a dozen years ago, but I must have misplaced it because I haven't seen it in a long, long time.
pgodzin 9y ago
Google, for instance, has a ton of data about me. They don't sell that data directly to advertisers, because if they give up that data then it loses all value to Google because the advertisers would then be able to resell it. So instead they let advertisers target specific demographics of people, leveraging what they know about me. As long as I use an adblocker and individual information isn't sold to insurers for example, what's the harm to me?
- newscracker 9y ago
  Democracy and freedom, in general, depend on people who fight against the powers of the time from trampling rights and controlling people through different means. So even if you're somehow not troubled by anyone who has or can obtain more (aka damaging) information to use against you, there are many people who struggle all the time so your life can be better (and not get worse). And for those people, corporations that collect a lot of data, who are in turn answerable to government requests (like NSLs in the U.S.), are landmines that could trip any moment and endanger them and everyone else they work with. Society has a lot to lose if we don't value privacy, because privacy is fundamental to have and to retain freedom in the constant struggle that we have with various entities. So if you care about freedom for humans, you must care about privacy. Otherwise it'd be hypocritical. For a better and concise article on this, read "Privacy protects bothersome people" [1] by Martin Fowler. [1]: https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.htm...
- 482794793792894 9y ago
  The data is stored on Google's server, therefore can be accessed by the NSA, FBI, CIA and by the However-Many Eyes' intelligence agencies. All of those places can be breached, can accidentally leak your data or can even change their mind about keeping your data secret. And given that they're most likely storing this data indefinitely, that chance is 100%. It's going to become public at some point. How long it takes until that happens and how accurate/harmful that data then still is to your current life is a different question. But personally, I see no reason to unnecessarily risk that.
septarol 9y ago
When I place a sticker over my laptop's camera, people think I am freak or acting like a hacker. In fact, I just want to protect my freedom. However, society doesn't care freedom. They care just their popularity and don't want to be alienated. I think this is where problems come from.
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  Use clear tape, electrical tape or some tape that matches the color of your machine. Honestly though, your explanation should be sufficient. If it isn't, you'd have to wonder the tech. understanding of the person who's questioning you in the first place.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  I could wear a tinfoil hat and claim I was protecting my freedom. That doesn't make it a great idea. Of course nobody wants to be alienated. We do a lot of stupid shit to fit into society. But with the range of potential attacks on your freedom, putting a post-it note on your webcam is right up there with tinfoil hats. There are real actions you could be taking to defend your freedom - like contacting your representatives in government, or donating to organizations that fight for your rights, or telling your friends and family why they should care. You can vote with your dollars, and vote with your actual vote, and your feedback. After all that's done, fine, put up the post-it note. But you can at least write "remember to get milk" on it so people don't assume it's a tinfoil hat.
  - 0xBA5ED 9y ago
    I wouldn't call it "tinfoil hat" because the cost/benefit is extremely low. Negligible effort in exchange for piece of mind. It's a reasonable trade-off. You can never be sure what all your software is doing unless you piece together your own linux system from scratch.
    - peterwwillis 9y ago
      That's what a tinfoil hat is. Nobody wants to watch your particular webcam, just like the government does not want to influence your particular brain. But people put on the tinfoil hat anyway because it's cheap and it gives them piece of mind. You could also just implement strong security guarantees according to best practice for your OS, but the piece of paper is definitely much cheaper and more effective for this one purpose.
zerebubuth 9y ago
> My hope is that technologists also get involved in the political process — in government, in think-tanks, universities, and so on. How does one do this? What might Bruce Schneier be thinking of that the EFF, Liberty, Privacy International, etc... are currently not doing? In some sense, it seems like this might be solved "generationally", once the majority of elected representatives are "natively" computer-literate. Based on the average age of politicians, that might take 30-40 years.
cramer40 9y ago
Check this out. https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
ducttape12 9y ago
I've gone down the rabbit hole of trying to protect my privacy. Basically, unless you move to the mountains with no cell phone, no internet access, and grow your own food, someone somewhere will be tracking you. You'll go crazy trying to close all the loopholes (ready to fry the RFID chips on your car tires?)
cinquemb 9y ago
Only thing people should fear are the downside risks of submitting themselves and becoming reliant upon walled gardens, people in mass only give such their power… perhaps most have decided that the convenience of such gardens are worth it for now. The mass surveillance/advertising state runs on abundant and prevalent hardware and software full of flaws that can be used in favor for those who seek to exploit such, from nation states, to well financed actors, to individuals. The common man has less to loose, than an general's affair with his aid conducted over gmail… and hey, when you are a relative nobody in a society, whats sitting on a couple of iOS 0days from your dev exp, waiting for a better day? I guess succumbing to fear porn from our best institutions is an option…
newscracker 9y ago
I'm dejected by two things - that privacy invasions are increasing over time and that there's barely any outrage (or outrage that lasts) against these. I feel more and more trapped when I see that most people I know don't care about privacy on the Internet or Internet based services. I point them to how it could be bad for them (including Martin Fowler's excellent article, "Privacy protects bothersome people" [1]), but it all falls on deaf ears. Or they shrug their shoulders in defeat saying it's a lost cause and that it's better not even to think about it. I'm truly stumped, and can't imagine what tragic event or events will wake people up and get them to take action at a personal level, along with organizing and campaigning for privacy. As of now, I doubt if there will ever be a mass resistance for several decades (leaving the gates wide open for more invasions and power grabs). [1]: https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.htm...
fundabulousrIII 9y ago
No one I know in my world uses Facebook and we only use Google for search because the experience with other engines are lackluster. Give me a better search engine and I'll use that if the obvious abuses aren't too egregious. There is another way to opt out of data collection and that is to deep packet rewrite every communication out of your computer from every application (where suddenly encryption is your enemy) :P
- drukenemo 9y ago
  Use www.startpage.com, you search Google via a proxy.
astrobe_ 9y ago
When a company includes in their TOS a clause that prohibits their customer to speak online negatively about their product, everyone draw the pitchforks because that's an unacceptable violation of the freedom of speech. Why doesn't it happen for the right to privacy? Perhaps people feel powerless or don't care. People are also powerless against the food industry or don't always care about security. One of the roles of states and governments is to fix those situations. Law makers should focus their efforts on strongly protecting the fundamental right to privacy. It should be made easy (and free) for anyone to challenge those abusive EULAs, TOS and other contracts that require end users to abandon their rights in order to use a service. If the contract is deemed abusive, the service should be blocked until the contract is rewritten.
krisclarkdev 9y ago
Internet privacy is a farce. From the way the technology was designed to the way the information that's collected is used/misused. I do think there are equal parts buyer beware on the client side as well as ethics on the implementation side. I think that "internet privacy" will be akin to "the war on drugs" in the long term. A good idea but in the end just another way for government line it's pockets. Until the internet is completely redesigned the best hope we've got it encryption and VPN's and that's a strech.
peterwwillis 9y ago
> In the 1970s, Congress passed a law to make a particular form of subliminal advertising illegal because it was believed to be morally wrong. That advertising technique is child’s play compared to the kind of personalized manipulation that companies do today. The legal question is whether this kind of cyber-manipulation is an unfair and deceptive business practice, and, if so, can the Federal Trade Commission step in and prohibit a lot of these practices. Three things here: 1. Nobody has ever proved subliminal messaging can actually subvert a person's will, which was reflected in court cases. Even a modern experiment set up by the BBC (apparently the only such study since the 50's) showed no effect. 2. The FTC has never said anything about subliminal messaging, so it's unlikely they would now. 3. Subliminal messaging never helped pay for users' free services. Let's face it - we live in a different world. The old ideas of privacy, whatever they were, are erased when there's a carrot attached to it, and no stick. Schneider is doing a great deed in trying to drum up support for increased privacy regulations, but this is a stupid argument toward that end.
pronik 9y ago
One point that I think comes too short in every discussion on privacy is that you are not always in control of your data and you never can be fully. Say we consider a privacy-paranoid individual who is taking great care not to put his personal data online. And then we take a look at his or her parents or friends or colleagues who most certainly will keep his or her real name bundled with phone number(s) and (e-mail) address(es) in their address book synced to their Google or Apple or Microsoft account. It just happens, there is only so much you can do about it. Your data is out there and it's only the question of the security measures the data holder implemented that's keeping it safe. (Basically, it's nothing new, many people have your data, but possibly only in the "offline world" -- think insurance, prospective or current employers, even your go-to car repair guy. It's just that we normally have a law for protecting the offline data and ways to enforce it and almost nothing alike in the online world.) Privacy is something that has to be enforced on a population, and not simply recommended to an individual. The only institution that can reasonably do that is the government, by introducing data protection laws, abiding by them and allowing a third-party to verify they really keep their promise. Until then, we might not have a choice.
rjplatte 9y ago
The problem is, many people know how much they're being monitored each day, and simply don't care.
carapace 9y ago
"Internet privacy" is an oxymoron. I've come to believe that total surveillance is the perfection of democracy, not its antithesis. We are experiencing a fundamental phase shift in the entire structure of society. The true horror of technological omniscience is that it shall force us for once to live according to our own rules. For the first time in history we shall have to do without hypocrisy and privilege. The new equilibrium will not involve tilting at the windmills of ubiquitous sensors and processing power but rather learning what explicit rules we can actually live by, finding, in effect, the real shape of human society.
denisehilton 9y ago
There is no such thing as privacy anymore. Even the encrypted communication is not private as far as i know.

500 points by petethomas 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

"Snowden’s revelations made people aware of what was happening, but little changed as a result." Actually I'd be willing to bet the level of spying the alphabet agencies are doing now is 10 times worse than it was when Snowden stole those documents.

benbenolson 9y ago

The difficult part isn't getting people to understand that Internet privacy is important or at risk; nearly every person that I know (tech-savvy or not) understands that companies like Google and Facebook are in the business of collecting their data, and don't want them to. However, companies like these have human habit on their side: most people use these services daily, and will continue doing so unless it's easier or more convenient to do otherwise. That means that in order to reverse the trend of users continuously using these services, an alternative must be created that's better in every way, and default on all platforms that people use. In the case of Facebook, it's a chicken-and-egg problem: many people that I know will not use another social media platform because nobody else that they know uses it, but nobody else that they know uses it because they don't use it.

tcd 9y ago
> and don't want them to...an alternative must be created Of course, collecting user data is fundamental to providing these services, for FREE - without this, Youtube's algorithm would be awful and Google Maps wouldn't be able to show real time information, and you would be paying for all of the services users want for free. If it's free, you are usually the product, and information just so happens to be the currency of choice. I very much doubt people would pay for search, maps, youtube, keep, plus, email, translate, android, allo, duo, docs/sheets/slides, chrome, earth... And many, many more listed here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/
Kadin 9y ago
It's worth remembering how Facebook got to the userbase that it currently has -- they didn't start out targeting "everyone on the planet", which is an almost impossibly hard challenge because of the network effects you note. Instead, they started off providing closed social networks for existing groups of users -- colleges, starting with a small number of elite colleges and slowly broadening out from there -- until eventually it became a public social network and the de facto standard at least within the US. The networks that have attempted from the start to get everyone to sign up have mostly failed. E.g. Google Plus, which had some feature advantages over FB at the time, started out much too ambitiously in my opinion and suffered from a "Potemkin village" issue where (unless you had a circle of friends who all joined it) it felt empty, and I suspect many users never used it more than a few times. The only recent network I've seen to go the Facebook route is Nextdoor, which at least in my anecdotal experience seems to be becoming a thing. By providing a semi-closed social network based on physical proximity (neighborhoods), it provides immediate value to a new user. I'm not sure of the details of their rollout strategy, but at least at one point they insisted on mailing you a physical postcard in order to verify your address (much like FB's original validation on specific .edu email domains). Anyway, if anyone out there is thinking of challenging Facebook on the social-network front, I would put some significant thought into the rollout strategy and aim not to compete with Facebook circa 2017, but instead to compete with Facebook circa 2004. As other networks have opened themselves up, there's a constant vacuum at the lower, more-specific, more-exclusive, closed end of the spectrum which provides a lower barrier to entry.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  I think discord has better potential to be the next social media juggernaut, I know most of my social media interaction goes through discord. As our lives move more and more online discord seems to be the digital equivalent of the roman forums and I appreciate the ability to jump into a conversation with my friends in the same way I would IRL. Mostly I appreciate the ability to be parts of different groups, the ease with which you can join groups, and the fact that you can host your own friend group. I realize this isn't Discord's mission statement or intent but it is a position they find themselves in.
EGreg 9y ago
http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169

carrier_lost 9y ago

I appreciate Bruce Schneier's pragmatism and his acknowledgement that the problem is bigger than an individual can reasonably be expected to solve, if that individual wishes to participate in modern society. Too often, privacy concerns are met with, "Use Tails + Tor + a hosts file + a burner phone + a burner laptop, etc. etc." But Grandma isn't going to do that, and frankly neither am I. While an individual chooses to use online services, at a certain point societal and career expectations make it not really much of a choice at all. There must be a better way than placing all of the burden on the individual.

benbenolson 9y ago
Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government. I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with. I'm unfamiliar with the decision, but why split up a company like Microsoft in 1999, but leave Facebook and Google alone?
- hammock 9y ago
  >Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government Thought you were going to say "regulate privacy protections." Instead you went for breaking up monopolies. Impressive leap
  - simias 9y ago
    He has a point though. Right now if you have an android smartphone, use gmail and google search you're telling google basically everything you do, where you are, what you have an interest in and the people you know. Each of these services in isolation can know a great deal about you but being able to correlate the data makes it so much worse. That's why I try to avoid putting all of my eggs in the same basket, I have an android phone but I use duckduckgo for search, my own server for email and firefox for browsing the web. If Mozilla, my server host or ddg decides to betray me (or gets hacked) at least they only have access to a slice of my life.

rdtsc 9y ago

> Snowden’s revelations made people aware of what was happening, but little changed as a result. Things got worse and that's expected. After all these things were made public, if there was no mass outrage the perpetrators learned a valuable lesson - they can increase their activities without much fear. Pretty sure at this point NSA doesn't even have to play games with masking / unmasking filtering US citizens, they might as well stop jumping through hoops and just record and search everything they like.

superioritycplx 9y ago
The outrage was probably there, but it was skillfully smeared as tinfoil hattery, as usual.

j_s 9y ago

One resource I haven't seen mentioned on HN much: Michael Bazzell is an expert on both sides of internet privacy. https://privacy-training.com/ https://privacy-training.com/ vs. https://inteltechniques.com/ https://inteltechniques.com/ "Hiding from the Internet" vs. "Open Source Intelligence Techniques" https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Bazzell/e/B007GNUI92/ https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Bazzell/e/B007GNUI92/ "The Complete Privacy & Security Podcast" (42 episodes so far) https://inteltechniques.com/podcast.html https://inteltechniques.com/podcast.html

acobster 9y ago
Definitely interested in that podcast, but I must say I find it ironic that they're running JS from Google Analytics and Scorecard Research. :D

hnaccy 9y ago

I'm already extremely pessimistic about these things. Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. Additionally machine learning asymmetrically benefits those with the resources to fully leverage large amounts of data collection and compute power AKA not you or me. Any state in history would have loved to have been able to watch its citizens at all times and know what they're doing and likely thinking. It just wasn't feasible until now. The big last line we haven't but will inevitably crossed will be the automation of force. At least suicide is always an option.

ashark 9y ago
I'd go farther: I'm unsure that communication technologies past approximately the telegraph have actually improved quality of life more than they've harmed it. At least in developed countries (simply don't know enough about life in un-/under-developed countries to have an opinion).
- westmeal 9y ago
  How so?
leggomylibro 9y ago
But at that point, society would basically be full-on Cyberpunk. Screw suicide, form a gang of runners and start planning heists on manufacturing facilities and factories, lay traps for driverless truck shipments or hijack them electronically, etc. Hide in the margins, among the slums and tenements to which overpopulation and consolidation have relegated vast swarms of people. Heck, I've already gotten transdermal implants set and removed by people who maybe weren't, you know, licensed practitioners. The moral rule of law is already out the window, and financial laws had already may as well not exist. The only practical compulsion that law has left is that many people can still have an acceptable life while complying with it. Enriching yourself by skimming the margins of those with enough capital to print money wouldn't exactly be immoral. Automation of force, or something along those lines, would pretty much cinch it. I think plenty of people would decide it's time to have a chat with a local lathe/mill owner, stick a flamethrower on their quadcopter, and loot the few places where opulence still existed. Get away with a couple decent jobs, and you could pretend you were in that upper echelon of 'people with lots of money' all along. Right now, if you're good at a trade like construction, welding, medicine, engineering, etc, you can probably find stable employment options and at least afford to exist. But when those people of practical means start to get systemically marginalized, I'll bet we'll see a huge resurgence of people trying modern versions of The Italian Job.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago

I once asked Bruce Schneier at a conference to scare me. He told me to consider the associations between data. Bits and pieces that Google knows about me, that Facebook knows about me, that Amazon knows about me...think of all of those little meaningless bits of data being associated all together to build a picture perfect model of my life, and then sold to advertisers, who know enough about your life to attempt to manipulate it at every step. And if advertisers can pull up every saleable bit of data about me with enough accuracy to sell me products that I actually want, then anyone with enough money and desire can get that same data, use the same associations, and understand more about me than most of my closest friends, all before taking one step away from the computer. I'm still afraid.

tambienben 9y ago
But what have you done about it?
- 0xCMP 9y ago
  But what can you do as an individual? I think that's what we're all struggling with.
  - tambienben 9y ago
    There is no single good answer; that's why people struggle with it. The solutions are disparate, and vary depending on your threat model. Answers to these problems aren't available and packaged in a one-size-fits-all solution that your average middle-class family has the time or ambition to take advantage of. Some solutions exist, however--and more are being developed. In a lot of ways, I see the issue boiling down to how much you're willing to be inconvenienced.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Well it definitely put the nail in the coffin of social media (except HN) for me. I was already creeped out after the Snowden revelations but hearing Schneier in person was like a smack to the face. I use DuckDuckGo instead of Google in most cases, and I avoid Facebook (and particularly Messenger) unless absolutely necessary, and I have become much more conscious of my online activity.

komali2 9y ago

They caught me at line 1 with a curious thought: >and have grudgingly accepted that being monitored by corporations and even governments is just a fact of modern life. I wonder which is the more "shocking" or "surprising" that society deems it acceptable - monitoring by corporations, or monitoring by governments?

nocman 9y ago
Just because people have accepted something doesn't mean they deem it "acceptable". When your choices are "use a service and be monitored" or "don't use the service", it can be quite limiting if you really need that service to, say, do your job and feed your family. Yes I know there are alternative services, but often they either 1) don't work well enough to really be a viable alternative and/or 2) don't provide any more confidence that they are not monitoring you also. Of course all of this is made worse by the fact that the monitoring is mostly happening in the background, so it isn't "in your face" all of the time. I think most people who are aware of it have chosen to just ignore it as best they can, because there doesn't appear to be any practical way of avoiding it.
- jack6e 9y ago
  > Just because people have accepted something doesn't mean they deem it "acceptable". Actually, that is exactly, literally what it means. Perhaps you mean that just because we find something acceptable, we don't deem it moral, or optimal, or desirable. The distressing reality presented in the interview is that we accept non-benevolent, non-ideal options because they are good enough to be accepted, and not bad enough to be rejected. But accepting something, by definition, means you consider it accept-able, or, "able to be accepted."
  - nocman 9y ago
    Yeah I knew someone would come back with that -- but that's only true if you tie a very strict one-to-one meaning between every use of the verb "accept" and the adjective "acceptable". Words have subtle meanings. If you paid attention to my post, I was clearly drawing a line between the fact that people accept the fact that they really don't have a good alternative to using, say, Google. But they may not find it acceptable that Google data mines their searches to sell their info to advertisers. So while they "accept" their situation, they clearly don't find it "acceptable". Much as you might accept the fact that you have to work for a boss who is a jerk, because you have no other employment options. So you don't find the situation acceptable, but you have to accept it anyway.

almonj 9y ago

a Basket of Figs and a Letter, did by the way eat up a great part of his Carriage, conveying the remainder unto the Perfon to whom he was di- rected, who when he had read the Letter, and not finding the quantity of Figs anfwerable to what was there fpoken of, he accufes the Slave of eating them, telling him what the Letter faid againft him. But the In- dian (notwithftanding this proof) did confidently abjure the Fa&, curling the Paper, as being a falfe and lying Witnefs. After this, being lent again with the like Carriage, and a Letter expreffing the juft number of Figs that were to be delivered, he did again, according to his former Pra- ctice, devour a great part of them by the way.

bwanab 9y ago
Censorship is a valid concern, but I'm not sure what it has to do with on-line privacy.

stephengillie 9y ago

What does a post-privacy world look like?

1001101 9y ago
Roll up the shades.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  Maybe fear isn't the right reaction. We have almost no privacy, and the world isn't ending. Many of us goto work or school, just as before we were so heavily surveiled. Also, who makes money off us being afraid of not having privacy?
  - 482794793792894 9y ago
    The already linked Panopticon shows that a lack of privacy can lead to severe mental problems. The Stasi subdued an entire country via surveillance and that before the internet, before CCTV and before everyone voluntarily carried a microphone in their pocket.
    - 1001101 9y ago
      Watching The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) had a profound impact on me. I was aware of ECHELON, Carnivore, DCS, Wm. Binney, etc. before Snowden, but since Snowden/Greenwald, it really became visceral. It's been a rough ride for me, and many people I know.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
...authoritarian, yet in a manipulative fashion rather then upfront. Rings a bell?
dredmorbius 9y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

pnathan 9y ago

Consider lobbying your government officials to improve regulations concerning this. Maybe get together with other people in your city who care about this particular issue. This needs to be changed at a regulatory national level, but it's usually the case that major cities or states lead the charge in the US. The system can be made to work for you, if you're willing to work with it.

ProfessorLayton 9y ago

Mobile has certainly made things worse. I recently kicked off every google app from my phone. The dark UX pattern of shared logins (login to google express = login to gmaps etc) was too annoying to deal with. It's not that I've stopped using their services, but instead switched to their web version. Same with Twitter et al. Even Uber has very serviceable web versions of their app. As a bonus I get better battery life, and the use of Safari's content blocker, so YouTube web is even better than the app. I'm also able to silo these services into their own browser if don't want to keep logging in every time due to private browsing.

Rotareti 9y ago
> Mobile has certainly made things worse. I totally agree! It's easy and convenient to run a PC on FOSS, but it's a real pain to do the same with a smart phone. I just tried to run a FOS OS on my phone. I gave up because in order to flash the OS image I had to install non-reproducible binaries from some website and there was no sane way around.

EternalData 9y ago

I think there's something to be said about looking at the business incentives of the people you deal with on the Internet. Google, plain as day, is using you as training data. DuckDuckGo bills itself as the privacy-minded alternative. You shouldn't be surprised if Google violates your privacy. If DuckDuckGo does, that's the end of their business model.

grondilu 9y ago

Can someone explain to me why this so-called "privacy" is such a big deal on internet? Can't internet, or at least a major part of it, be considered a public place? I mean, when I walk in the street, I do not wear a mask (I suspect that'd be illegal in my country), yet I do not worry about someone using surveillance cameras to track all my activities. Sure, it could technically be done but I'm not that important : nobody would bother. Therefore I vaguely consider myself anonymous when I walk in the street, not because my identity is hidden, but because it's mixed in thousands of others : "hidden in plain sight", as they say. Couldn't things be similar on internet? Or do we really all have to hide our identity like criminals?

losteverything 9y ago
It's about ease. Before the internet, it was very hard for the average person to find out stuff. Maybe not having a ring on the finger meant they are single. Or are they divorced? Now, it is just too easy. And commonplace. Sure, all if our lifes events could have been collected. They were called biographers. Now they are called everyman. Data had always been collected. Just never easily retrieved. For me, i am appalled that some people i know think absolutely nothing about googling a person they just met. To me, they were not reared properly of they do that.
carrier_lost 9y ago
You might not be important now. But you might be "important" in the future due to your affiliation with a political group, religion or even your skin color. You never know which way the political winds will blow. And data is kept forever.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vbuwivbiu 9y ago
ok go ahead and publish all your email, chat messages and bank account details here now
- grondilu 9y ago

lowbloodsugar 9y ago

Really enjoyed William Hertling's Kill Process on this very subject. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30658546-kill-process https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30658546-kill-process

rotrux 9y ago

We're all screwed. But at least we're all screwed together!

to_bpr 9y ago
And there's a great many HN users/readers who've been happy to write the code that is totally f-ing us over.

Chardok 9y ago

"Opting out doesn’t work. It’s nonsense to tell people not to carry a credit card or not to have an email address. And “buyer beware” is putting too much onus on the individual. People don’t test their food for pathogens or their airlines for safety." This is a brilliant line and it works so well because he is absolutely right: it should not be on the burden of the consumer to make sure their products are safe, be it from listeria or a spy device disguised as a children's toy. I don't know what needs to happen for people to get outraged, but privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue. Perhaps we need to see what Google and Facebook actually have on us...

ProAm 9y ago
> but privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue Honestly most people don't care and money talks... This is the new normal, better get used to it. This fight was lost a long time ago.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  Yes, money talks. Which is why free software that is guaranteed to stay free is a resilient solution if we can develop it. Privacy violations exist so middle men can make money. Cutting out the middle men solves the privacy problem AND motivates people by saving them money.
  - ProAm 9y ago
    > Cutting out the middle men solves the privacy problem AND motivates people by saving them money. Too many middle men. How many middle men are inbetween you and me right now with this post? Probably 5 companies at a min? People are interested in saving money but not at the expense of their time or convenience. I agree with you, but it's just never going to happen.
    - kerkeslager 9y ago
      There is definite value in cutting out a few of those middlemen or even just decreasing their capabilities.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

PeterisP 9y ago

What internet privacy? I seemed to have it a dozen years ago, but I must have misplaced it because I haven't seen it in a long, long time.

pgodzin 9y ago

Google, for instance, has a ton of data about me. They don't sell that data directly to advertisers, because if they give up that data then it loses all value to Google because the advertisers would then be able to resell it. So instead they let advertisers target specific demographics of people, leveraging what they know about me. As long as I use an adblocker and individual information isn't sold to insurers for example, what's the harm to me?

newscracker 9y ago
Democracy and freedom, in general, depend on people who fight against the powers of the time from trampling rights and controlling people through different means. So even if you're somehow not troubled by anyone who has or can obtain more (aka damaging) information to use against you, there are many people who struggle all the time so your life can be better (and not get worse). And for those people, corporations that collect a lot of data, who are in turn answerable to government requests (like NSLs in the U.S.), are landmines that could trip any moment and endanger them and everyone else they work with. Society has a lot to lose if we don't value privacy, because privacy is fundamental to have and to retain freedom in the constant struggle that we have with various entities. So if you care about freedom for humans, you must care about privacy. Otherwise it'd be hypocritical. For a better and concise article on this, read "Privacy protects bothersome people" [1] by Martin Fowler. [1]: https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.htm...
482794793792894 9y ago
The data is stored on Google's server, therefore can be accessed by the NSA, FBI, CIA and by the However-Many Eyes' intelligence agencies. All of those places can be breached, can accidentally leak your data or can even change their mind about keeping your data secret. And given that they're most likely storing this data indefinitely, that chance is 100%. It's going to become public at some point. How long it takes until that happens and how accurate/harmful that data then still is to your current life is a different question. But personally, I see no reason to unnecessarily risk that.

septarol 9y ago

When I place a sticker over my laptop's camera, people think I am freak or acting like a hacker. In fact, I just want to protect my freedom. However, society doesn't care freedom. They care just their popularity and don't want to be alienated. I think this is where problems come from.

FilterSweep 9y ago
Use clear tape, electrical tape or some tape that matches the color of your machine. Honestly though, your explanation should be sufficient. If it isn't, you'd have to wonder the tech. understanding of the person who's questioning you in the first place.
peterwwillis 9y ago
I could wear a tinfoil hat and claim I was protecting my freedom. That doesn't make it a great idea. Of course nobody wants to be alienated. We do a lot of stupid shit to fit into society. But with the range of potential attacks on your freedom, putting a post-it note on your webcam is right up there with tinfoil hats. There are real actions you could be taking to defend your freedom - like contacting your representatives in government, or donating to organizations that fight for your rights, or telling your friends and family why they should care. You can vote with your dollars, and vote with your actual vote, and your feedback. After all that's done, fine, put up the post-it note. But you can at least write "remember to get milk" on it so people don't assume it's a tinfoil hat.
- 0xBA5ED 9y ago
  I wouldn't call it "tinfoil hat" because the cost/benefit is extremely low. Negligible effort in exchange for piece of mind. It's a reasonable trade-off. You can never be sure what all your software is doing unless you piece together your own linux system from scratch.
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    That's what a tinfoil hat is. Nobody wants to watch your particular webcam, just like the government does not want to influence your particular brain. But people put on the tinfoil hat anyway because it's cheap and it gives them piece of mind. You could also just implement strong security guarantees according to best practice for your OS, but the piece of paper is definitely much cheaper and more effective for this one purpose.

zerebubuth 9y ago

> My hope is that technologists also get involved in the political process — in government, in think-tanks, universities, and so on. How does one do this? What might Bruce Schneier be thinking of that the EFF, Liberty, Privacy International, etc... are currently not doing? In some sense, it seems like this might be solved "generationally", once the majority of elected representatives are "natively" computer-literate. Based on the average age of politicians, that might take 30-40 years.

cramer40 9y ago

Check this out. https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

ducttape12 9y ago

I've gone down the rabbit hole of trying to protect my privacy. Basically, unless you move to the mountains with no cell phone, no internet access, and grow your own food, someone somewhere will be tracking you. You'll go crazy trying to close all the loopholes (ready to fry the RFID chips on your car tires?)

cinquemb 9y ago

Only thing people should fear are the downside risks of submitting themselves and becoming reliant upon walled gardens, people in mass only give such their power… perhaps most have decided that the convenience of such gardens are worth it for now. The mass surveillance/advertising state runs on abundant and prevalent hardware and software full of flaws that can be used in favor for those who seek to exploit such, from nation states, to well financed actors, to individuals. The common man has less to loose, than an general's affair with his aid conducted over gmail… and hey, when you are a relative nobody in a society, whats sitting on a couple of iOS 0days from your dev exp, waiting for a better day? I guess succumbing to fear porn from our best institutions is an option…

newscracker 9y ago

I'm dejected by two things - that privacy invasions are increasing over time and that there's barely any outrage (or outrage that lasts) against these. I feel more and more trapped when I see that most people I know don't care about privacy on the Internet or Internet based services. I point them to how it could be bad for them (including Martin Fowler's excellent article, "Privacy protects bothersome people" [1]), but it all falls on deaf ears. Or they shrug their shoulders in defeat saying it's a lost cause and that it's better not even to think about it. I'm truly stumped, and can't imagine what tragic event or events will wake people up and get them to take action at a personal level, along with organizing and campaigning for privacy. As of now, I doubt if there will ever be a mass resistance for several decades (leaving the gates wide open for more invasions and power grabs). [1]: https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.htm...

fundabulousrIII 9y ago

No one I know in my world uses Facebook and we only use Google for search because the experience with other engines are lackluster. Give me a better search engine and I'll use that if the obvious abuses aren't too egregious. There is another way to opt out of data collection and that is to deep packet rewrite every communication out of your computer from every application (where suddenly encryption is your enemy) :P

drukenemo 9y ago
Use www.startpage.com, you search Google via a proxy.

astrobe_ 9y ago

When a company includes in their TOS a clause that prohibits their customer to speak online negatively about their product, everyone draw the pitchforks because that's an unacceptable violation of the freedom of speech. Why doesn't it happen for the right to privacy? Perhaps people feel powerless or don't care. People are also powerless against the food industry or don't always care about security. One of the roles of states and governments is to fix those situations. Law makers should focus their efforts on strongly protecting the fundamental right to privacy. It should be made easy (and free) for anyone to challenge those abusive EULAs, TOS and other contracts that require end users to abandon their rights in order to use a service. If the contract is deemed abusive, the service should be blocked until the contract is rewritten.

krisclarkdev 9y ago

Internet privacy is a farce. From the way the technology was designed to the way the information that's collected is used/misused. I do think there are equal parts buyer beware on the client side as well as ethics on the implementation side. I think that "internet privacy" will be akin to "the war on drugs" in the long term. A good idea but in the end just another way for government line it's pockets. Until the internet is completely redesigned the best hope we've got it encryption and VPN's and that's a strech.

peterwwillis 9y ago

> In the 1970s, Congress passed a law to make a particular form of subliminal advertising illegal because it was believed to be morally wrong. That advertising technique is child’s play compared to the kind of personalized manipulation that companies do today. The legal question is whether this kind of cyber-manipulation is an unfair and deceptive business practice, and, if so, can the Federal Trade Commission step in and prohibit a lot of these practices. Three things here: 1. Nobody has ever proved subliminal messaging can actually subvert a person's will, which was reflected in court cases. Even a modern experiment set up by the BBC (apparently the only such study since the 50's) showed no effect. 2. The FTC has never said anything about subliminal messaging, so it's unlikely they would now. 3. Subliminal messaging never helped pay for users' free services. Let's face it - we live in a different world. The old ideas of privacy, whatever they were, are erased when there's a carrot attached to it, and no stick. Schneider is doing a great deed in trying to drum up support for increased privacy regulations, but this is a stupid argument toward that end.

pronik 9y ago

One point that I think comes too short in every discussion on privacy is that you are not always in control of your data and you never can be fully. Say we consider a privacy-paranoid individual who is taking great care not to put his personal data online. And then we take a look at his or her parents or friends or colleagues who most certainly will keep his or her real name bundled with phone number(s) and (e-mail) address(es) in their address book synced to their Google or Apple or Microsoft account. It just happens, there is only so much you can do about it. Your data is out there and it's only the question of the security measures the data holder implemented that's keeping it safe. (Basically, it's nothing new, many people have your data, but possibly only in the "offline world" -- think insurance, prospective or current employers, even your go-to car repair guy. It's just that we normally have a law for protecting the offline data and ways to enforce it and almost nothing alike in the online world.) Privacy is something that has to be enforced on a population, and not simply recommended to an individual. The only institution that can reasonably do that is the government, by introducing data protection laws, abiding by them and allowing a third-party to verify they really keep their promise. Until then, we might not have a choice.

rjplatte 9y ago

The problem is, many people know how much they're being monitored each day, and simply don't care.

carapace 9y ago

"Internet privacy" is an oxymoron. I've come to believe that total surveillance is the perfection of democracy, not its antithesis. We are experiencing a fundamental phase shift in the entire structure of society. The true horror of technological omniscience is that it shall force us for once to live according to our own rules. For the first time in history we shall have to do without hypocrisy and privilege. The new equilibrium will not involve tilting at the windmills of ubiquitous sensors and processing power but rather learning what explicit rules we can actually live by, finding, in effect, the real shape of human society.

denisehilton 9y ago

There is no such thing as privacy anymore. Even the encrypted communication is not private as far as i know.