7 ms·
this, and pretty much only this: "Suddenly, everybody knows, and nothing's changed," security technologist and author Bruce Schneier told Ars. "It was never a
by incomplete 8y ago
this, and pretty much only this:
"Suddenly, everybody knows, and nothing's changed," security technologist and author Bruce Schneier told Ars. "It was never a campaign issue. We tried to make it one. We failed... the subsequent changes are very small."
- qrbLPHiKpiux 8y agoChanges are small because the masses read about it and shrugged their shoulders.
- noja 8y agoThey shrugged their shoulders because we (the techies) didn't adequately explain it to them.
- __s 8y agoJohn Oliver discussed how to adequately explain in a segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M tl;dw people care when dick pics are being surveilled
- gaelian 8y agoI remember watching that segment and thought it was a great illustration of the problem of people not truly caring about their privacy unless given a highly visceral and easy to understand explanation. The thing is though, even this kind of explanation doesn't seem to stick over time.
- icelancer 8y agoThe Fappening should have triggered that type of reaction. It didn't. Because it wasn't the average person who got snooped on, just celebrities. And people love looking at celebrities, nude and otherwise.
- enraged_camel 8y agoNah, we did. Here's the hard truth: the overwhelming majority of Americans don't care about being surveilled. They may say they do, but at the end of the day, the issue doesn't affect most of them directly (or even indirectly) and therefore goes to the bottom of the pile.
- ThrowawayR2 8y agoThey're far more concerned with being able to put food on the table and being able to retire someday than anything else. Can you really blame them?
- brokenmachine 8y agoPeople are so consumed with living hand-to-mouth that they don't have the energy to care about current or future tyranny. So... well played, government.
- acct1771 8y agoBread and circuses until they realize they've been stripped. Then, Rome.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> we (the techies) didn't adequately explain it to them We’re also perfectly happy making money in the employment of those making the problem worse, e.g. Facebook. Silicon Valley has neither the political stamina nor moral high ground for solving this problem. In its absence, there isn’t a clear coalition leader.
- cmroanirgo 8y agoI always used a series of arguments on the "I've got nothing to hide" mentality. I've always responded, with: "Yes you do. Do you have curtains on your windows? Do you wear clothes? If you don't care about privacy, open your curtains and walk down the street naked." But the fact is that apathy is so high, that people don't give a damn when they're installing some app -- we're too focused on getting what we want (at that moment in time), and really not caring about sending up personal details to the cloud. When I try to talk about apps (eg Messenger, WhatsApp) that requires access to the contact list -- everyone I've spoken to really don't care. They don't care that my details are sent to some company (FB) because they want to use WhatsApp. When I try to talk about state level surveillance, I try to liken it to some sleazy guy taking photos up a woman's dress. It's wrong, no matter how you go about it. Just because I'm "in public" in no way suggests that I should be subjected to a "fully exposed" surveillance system. The same goes for the internet. Of course, this last part is non-legal rhetoric of mine, but I genuinely feel that if I think that I should have an expectation to privacy, regardless of my location, then the civil and polite thing to do is to respect that. State level surveillance all too easily disregards civility and politeness in the pursuit of their goals.
- godelski 8y agoI've had better success talking about hackers and foreign agents. Which are also a real threat. But if people are quoting Goebbels they probably don't think an evil person that would use these tools would rise to power. But when explaining how foreign governments and hackers can use the same tools (because NOTHING is unhackable), people get worried. A simple example: recently there was the article about the DEA and ICE putting cameras in streetlights [0]. It is easy for the common person to understand how such a thing could be hacked and used to stalk someone. But the examples you use should target your audience and illustrate why they personally should be concerned. Because talking about turnkey tyranny is fairly abstract to most people. [0] https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillance-cameras-in-streetlights/ https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillan...
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> nothing's changed 2FA, E2E communications, TLS everywhere, tightening security on our phones and computers, Congress rolling back some of the NSA’s dragnet powers, allied countries switching to open source and re-evaluating intelligence sharing agreements, and a sharp rise in VPN use is nothing?
- auslander 8y ago> E2E communications What popular by masses E2E encrypted comms are there?
- GuiA 8y agoI’m surprised by the amount of my non techie friends who are using Signal.
- godelski 8y agoI try to get all my friends to use it. Since a lot like to use WhatsApp anyway it usually isn't too hard. But Signal doesn't have a push from a big company like WA does. Generally it is my friends from India that I can't move, because all of their communication is done with WA anyway. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that such a stronghold could happen for Signal too. But it needs to be spread by word of mouth.
- Forbo 8y agoWhatsApp and FB messenger now use the Signal protocol for their encrypted comms.
- jameskegel 8y agoI don’t trust them to implement the protocol without deviating from the accepted safe practices surrounding them. It is against their interest.