4 ms·

> 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

• 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.
• sova 9y ago
  Cryptography is not magic, and it will become the standard. Privacy can either be provided, demanded, or created. Since nobody wants to demand it, and it is not being provided, there is only one option.
  • Zigurd 9y ago
    I would add that unless data security is the default, it is ineffective. Moreover, it's demonstrably false that data security is hard on usability. Skype became popular because easy-to-use data security made it possible to build a p2p communications product. Most users didn't know or care they were using encrypted communications.
  • phlo 9y ago
    Yes, cryptography will become the standard. No, that won't protect you from the little brothers mentioned in the interview. Your email will travel securely, so the government can't read it. It'll travel securely from Chrome on your Android device to a server somewhere in a Google datacenter. Your web browsing will be encrypted with https, so your ISP will need to use their DNS logs and traffic analysis in order to deduce parts of your browsing history. If you turn off location services, your location won't be stored with Apple, but your Telco needs to know in which cell your phone is located in order to route calls there. And it'd be a terrible waste to just throw that data away the day after, now wouldn't it. Encryption helps. And we need encryption. Everywhere, and as quickly as possible. But privacy is also political issue, and a technical solution alone won't resolve it, no matter how advanced. Oh, and not to forget: Ease of use is the way to mind share, not security. WhatsApp is by far the most widespread secure messenger. Not because of its security; in fact its security used to be terrible. The way in was ease of use, with security added to the mix at a later time. And, more importantly, without disrupting the user experience.
• confounded 9y ago
  Not really. Surveillance as the primary way essential services are paid for is, in relative terms, an extremely new business model, and one that's already adverse to meaningful competition. It's escaped regulation so far mainly as a product of public ignorance and private lobbying. The EU and independent US states are already starting to legislate for consumer/citizen protections. The public response has generally been positive. It's easy to forget that 'surveillance capitalism' was seen by most outside of our bubble as a trivial little industry until fairly recently.
  • ProAm 9y ago
    Surveillance? If the government doesn't monitor us directly they will just go after all the products and services that we use that monitors us already. I dont even think Im being pessimistic here but the line in the sand for legitimate privacy was drawn about a decade ago and we crossed that line. I really think this is the new norm, it's like asking us to use on-prem hardware instead of AWS, sure it's still an option but hardly anyone cares where the hardware is... This is just how it is now.
    • confounded 9y ago
      Wouldn't people have said the same about cable TV in the 90s, CFCs in the 80s, slavery, child labor, etc. etc. ad nauseam? I believe that the system is democratic enough that if people are organized and ask governments nicely, they can have privacy protections. It's really only Google and Facebook that profit substantially from this crap, and there are good arguments that it would be beneficial to the rest of the economy to knock a bit of wind out of their sails for a while (a more diverse range of competitors, a stimulant to VC-investment to try new monetization strategies). Disruption can happen democratically, too!
• guelo 9y ago
  We have representatives that are supposed to care about these types of technical issues so we don't have to. In our republican form of government their job is to make sure that government is working for us. The real problem is that billionaires and corporations have convinced a significant portion of the public that government is evil and should be destroyed and that any kind of commercial restraint is un-american communism.
  • samstave 9y ago
    >>money talks >>>representatives that are supposed to care You can do the math.
    • guelo 9y ago
      I think there's more to it than that. A significant portion of the public sincerely believes that the government should not regulate anything.
      • samstave 9y ago
        Yeah - its not an easy statement... For your privacy protections you must fill out the proper regulations in triplicate: * Be white * Be American* (all restrictions apply) * Be not poor * Be ignorant (Provision already covered under the US Department of Education, so likely you qualify if you dont meet "not poor" provision) * Do not understand politics * etc other factors
      • KGIII 9y ago
        I am in that camp. Except, I'm very much on the left side of the political spectrum. I don't think the government should prohibit this behavior. I would rather they established regulations that ensured notice was given and loss/abuse of this data was prosecuted.
• samstave 9y ago
  "people dont care" There are pleny of ppl that care. the problem is the tools allotted to them to affect change.... ...few....