6 ms·

>Even if you don't use them they'll collect data on you in many different ways They don't because I don't leave javascript execution on like grandma opening ev

>Even if you don't use them they'll collect data on you in many different ways They don't because I don't leave javascript execution on like grandma opening every email attachment she receives. Other people's behaviors are their business but it's pretty easy to ask people not to upload photos of you. And if it happens, well, it's actually not a big deal. Google recaptchas are super annoying and require whitelisting google javascript so I don't go to sites that block me with them. So you see how taking responsibility for my own behavior works here and I don't need people with guns to coerce other people and cause far more damage than the original "problem".

pmoriarty 6y ago
This is like someone who thinks the video cameras that are now ubiquitous in public places and stores are not a problem because he never leaves his home. Or that web tracking is not a problem because he always uses Tor. Or that emails sent and stored in plain text are not a problem because he always encrypts them with gpg. Well, you have to realize that the vast majority of people don't, and there's a massive societal impact of such widespread surveillance. The security-conscious technical elite who are willing to live a digitally monastic lifestyle (as Stallman does when he refuses to browse the web except through email) might be able to avoid some of that surveillance (though even then most of them admit they would be unable to stop surveillance by a well financed and determined adversary), but most everyone else either can't, won't, or don't realize there's a problem. The result is a digital dystopia that we're already in, but that's growing worse by the day. The consequences of it have already been felt by dissidents, victims of harassment, stalking and identity fraud, and increasingly by kids who grow up thinking a world without privacy is natural. It's only bound to get worse from here.
- superkuh 6y ago
  No, it's not. It's like someone who thinks removing video cameras on private property does not in any way justify bringing over people with guns to coerce the owner. It's like the guy knows the people with the cameras are jerks and doesn't go to their house for BBQ.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    I'm not even talking about people with cameras in their homes. Take a look at the ubiquity of cameras in London for an example. Cameras are everywhere, and you'll be on hundreds if not thousands of them on a typical day walking around London. They're on street corners, in shops, restaurants, apartment building hallways, schools, playgrounds, tennis courts, parks, and pretty much everywhere else you go to. As an individual, you only option for not being videotaped is to stay home. All your finger wagging about these people being jerks isn't going to change a thing. I also really don't get why you're fixated on guns as being the only solution. You could simply make laws against it, and if they don't comply you could fine people/companies, or take away their business licenses. No guns necessary.
    - superkuh 6y ago
      I don't live in London. I live in a region without pervasive surveillance. It sounds terrible and I'm sorry you have to deal with it. This applies both in the literal and figurative sense. Don't live in metaphorical London. You don't have to. It's your choice. You don't need to call in people who threaten to use physical force to get their way. Just take responsibility and move.
      - pmoriarty 6y ago
        London's just an example. Many other cities are the same, and every year more and more cameras are installed in more and more places all over the world. Video surveillance is just one example too, web tracking, tagging people in photos, facial recognition, email surveillance, spyware, workplace surveillance, profiling of various kinds, and much more is getting more and more prevalent as the technology that allows it becomes more sophisticated, cheaper, and widely available. Yes, you could try to move to more and more rural locations, further and further away from other people that might spy on you, disconnect yourself as much as possible from the internet (as Stallman has), and maybe, if no one powerful or knowledgeable enough cares about you, you might sneak under the radar and be free. But what about your kids? What about your family? What about your friends or the rest of society? Most people aren't willing to go to such extremes, even if they have the means, knowledge, and care enough to do so. No. The solution can not be individual. That's failed for decades now. Collective action must be taken. Not violent action, but legal and financial action, and educating more people about why it matters and what they can do apart from trying to run away.

pmoriarty 6y ago

This is like someone who thinks the video cameras that are now ubiquitous in public places and stores are not a problem because he never leaves his home. Or that web tracking is not a problem because he always uses Tor. Or that emails sent and stored in plain text are not a problem because he always encrypts them with gpg. Well, you have to realize that the vast majority of people don't, and there's a massive societal impact of such widespread surveillance. The security-conscious technical elite who are willing to live a digitally monastic lifestyle (as Stallman does when he refuses to browse the web except through email) might be able to avoid some of that surveillance (though even then most of them admit they would be unable to stop surveillance by a well financed and determined adversary), but most everyone else either can't, won't, or don't realize there's a problem. The result is a digital dystopia that we're already in, but that's growing worse by the day. The consequences of it have already been felt by dissidents, victims of harassment, stalking and identity fraud, and increasingly by kids who grow up thinking a world without privacy is natural. It's only bound to get worse from here.

superkuh 6y ago
No, it's not. It's like someone who thinks removing video cameras on private property does not in any way justify bringing over people with guns to coerce the owner. It's like the guy knows the people with the cameras are jerks and doesn't go to their house for BBQ.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  I'm not even talking about people with cameras in their homes. Take a look at the ubiquity of cameras in London for an example. Cameras are everywhere, and you'll be on hundreds if not thousands of them on a typical day walking around London. They're on street corners, in shops, restaurants, apartment building hallways, schools, playgrounds, tennis courts, parks, and pretty much everywhere else you go to. As an individual, you only option for not being videotaped is to stay home. All your finger wagging about these people being jerks isn't going to change a thing. I also really don't get why you're fixated on guns as being the only solution. You could simply make laws against it, and if they don't comply you could fine people/companies, or take away their business licenses. No guns necessary.
  - superkuh 6y ago
    I don't live in London. I live in a region without pervasive surveillance. It sounds terrible and I'm sorry you have to deal with it. This applies both in the literal and figurative sense. Don't live in metaphorical London. You don't have to. It's your choice. You don't need to call in people who threaten to use physical force to get their way. Just take responsibility and move.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      London's just an example. Many other cities are the same, and every year more and more cameras are installed in more and more places all over the world. Video surveillance is just one example too, web tracking, tagging people in photos, facial recognition, email surveillance, spyware, workplace surveillance, profiling of various kinds, and much more is getting more and more prevalent as the technology that allows it becomes more sophisticated, cheaper, and widely available. Yes, you could try to move to more and more rural locations, further and further away from other people that might spy on you, disconnect yourself as much as possible from the internet (as Stallman has), and maybe, if no one powerful or knowledgeable enough cares about you, you might sneak under the radar and be free. But what about your kids? What about your family? What about your friends or the rest of society? Most people aren't willing to go to such extremes, even if they have the means, knowledge, and care enough to do so. No. The solution can not be individual. That's failed for decades now. Collective action must be taken. Not violent action, but legal and financial action, and educating more people about why it matters and what they can do apart from trying to run away.