7 ms·

You must have some very interesting notes. I think for most of us, the US government wouldn't be particularly interested in our musings, but what do you suggest

by kawfey 6y ago

You must have some very interesting notes. I think for most of us, the US government wouldn't be particularly interested in our musings, but what do you suggest?

sneak 6y ago
My notes do not have to be interesting for me to desire, or deserve, personal privacy.
Lammy 6y ago
It's amazing that people can witness POTUS 44→45 and still make "well I have nothing to hide" arguments :/
- sneak 6y ago
  Regardless of any political situation, it's a rather stark lack of imagination when one can not realize that there are people who are doing things entirely legal and reasonable that absolutely require privacy from the state for their own safety and success, such as labor leaders, political organizers, civil rights leaders, reporters researching state corruption, war crimes, or human rights abuses by the state itself, et c.
  - csydas 6y ago
    Yes, but let's not conflate this specific use case with every day usage. I'm a gigantic privacy advocate and probably senselessly cautious about tons of technologies, but that's the result of a conscious choice. Set and forget encryption, or programs that advertise they can skip the first step, are dangerous in my opinion/experience. It can give the wrong impression about security and lead to dangerous decisions/actions or lack thereof. The concept behind thoughtless encryption is noble, but for all encryption models/schemes I know of, it has to be a concentrated and intentional decision else you end up with: - Lost data due to key mismanagement (not a bad thing, but extremely inconvenient) - Incomplete or ineffective encryption - Vehicles for intentional deception that allow bad actors to get you to share sensitive/personal data under the impression that it's protected and much much more. Steve Yegge said it best when he said that Security and Usability are constantly at odds, and from my perspective, this is a good thing to some degree. With so many FUD apps that promise security, for the time being is a very convenient litmus test for laypersons to know "how much should I trust this app?" I know that it's popular on HN to shit on Telegram, but in my current country of residence, Telegram is the most popular messenger program...for normal non-secretive messaging. It is extremely well known not to trust TG for secret conversations, illegal purchases or any other illegal activities, and so on. Not even on the basis of the security model of secret chats, but the discoverability of them. Basically the thought is "If you could find it without being a member of some ring of trust, so can the police". It's one reason why the conversations that frequently happen on HN about Telegram feel so misguided to me -- those who have conversations that may put themselves at risk __aren't using the app for such conversations__. They're not using any such apps, and either doing disposable communications (burner phones, pen and paper convos, etc), or they're arranging meetings in other ways. Encryption/security has been commoditized by app and platform creators and packaged into a marketing tool. I wouldn't trust Telegram or Signal any more than I'd trust WhatsApp, Messenger, Messages, or whatever Google's monthly name for their chat app is to have such conversations in most countries. To wrap it back to the GP's comment, I get the complaint about Apple Notes not being E2E encrypted -- but, if you've got sensitive data that needs to be recorded, why are you cloud-syncing it in the first place with a company that has frequently been investigated/prodded by the US Government, and even more frequently probed/violated by data exfiltration companies that work directly with the aforementioned government?
- stu2b50 6y ago
  They're not saying they have nothing to hide, they're saying they're not joting down quick notes of anything they have to hide.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    I would agree that self-censorship is one of the most insidious effects of surveillance if that's what you mean :)
    - GekkePrutser 6y ago
      I have to agree... I'm very conscious of this now when I'm talking on the phone. Not that I really have anything to hide, but I'm always wondering how something would be perceived by someone who is listening in. It's not a nice feeling at all. This is one of the reasons I hate mass-surveillance so much. Just that feeling that everything I do or say is on the record.
      - lioeters 6y ago
        Sadly, I find myself thinking similar paranoiac thoughts simply talking in person at home. We have a number of devices with microphones, and when friends visit, they bring their own devices with who knows what kind of untrustworthy apps (looking at you, Facebook!). Sure, we're normal citizens with "nothing to hide" - but I've become wary of any possible channel of data collection, regardless of whether the end consumers are private parties or state agencies. It's dystopian, that I'm having to consciously censor my speech in case anyone is listening. Same with HN - I doubt my comments are of any value to outsiders, but it's possible that someone will associate my real-life identity with this online account, and dig through (i.e., put the data through some extractive process) to assign various values, for unknown consumers - probably advertisers, but maybe even some "good citizen index". Thankfully I live in the EU (oops, another data point leaked), where there's at least some level of privacy protected by law.
    - lazyjones 6y ago
      Carelessly making personal stuff available to interested parties was never a good idea in human history. You don't know who will see it in 10, 20, 50 years from now and what repercussions it might bring. So, hide your stuff by default and not based on your trust in the current administration or lack thereof.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  It's amazing that people can witness POTUS 44→45 and still make "well I have nothing to hide" arguments :/ Unless you have a really short memory, I think you mean POTUS 39→45. And while by a lot of measures POTUS 45 has been a disaster, POTUS 44 did far more damage to privacy than 45 has (yet).
  - Lammy 6y ago
    I'm not talking about any specifics of either administration, only about having them back-to-back with polar-opposite reactions from most people. I hope that would make anyone on any side think twice before handing "their guy" some fun new weapon, but I probably hope for too much.
  - moneywoes 6y ago
    Can you elaborate on this please?
    - peruvian 6y ago
      It's not that complex. Our personal privacies have deteriorated with either party in power for decades. Both Dems and GOP have voted to extend the Patriot Act and similar acts. Most of the NSA/PRISM drama happened under Obama (PRISM in 2007 with Bush, to be fair) and I'm not sure anything changed by 2016. So singling out Trump isn't really relevant or even useful.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        A Story In Two Headlines: "NSA offering 'billions' for Skype eavesdrop solution" (2009) — https://www.theregister.com/2009/02/12/nsa_offers_billions_for_skype_pwnage/ https://www.theregister.com/2009/02/12/nsa_offers_billions_f... "Microsoft Buys Skype for $8.5 Billion. Why, Exactly?" (2011) — https://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/ https://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/
perrohunter 6y ago
The important question here is: What do they know? Who decides what they do with that? Who decides who decides?
_kwmj 6y ago
I'm afraid this came across as an unfortunate and disingenuous response to someone's comment about privacy. A feeble variation of "I have nothing to hide" I'd say. For the last part: Standard Notes, Joplin, jrnl, FS Notes (possibly), nvAlt (not actively developed) etc.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
Nobody's particularly interested in you taking a shit or jerking off, either, but I'll bet you close the door when you do.
ben509 6y ago
There just need to be snippets that can be taken out of context for you to be crucified by a mob. That's happening every week or so.

by kawfey 6y ago

You must have some very interesting notes. I think for most of us, the US government wouldn't be particularly interested in our musings, but what do you suggest?

sneak 6y ago

My notes do not have to be interesting for me to desire, or deserve, personal privacy.

Lammy 6y ago

It's amazing that people can witness POTUS 44→45 and still make "well I have nothing to hide" arguments :/

sneak 6y ago
Regardless of any political situation, it's a rather stark lack of imagination when one can not realize that there are people who are doing things entirely legal and reasonable that absolutely require privacy from the state for their own safety and success, such as labor leaders, political organizers, civil rights leaders, reporters researching state corruption, war crimes, or human rights abuses by the state itself, et c.
- csydas 6y ago
  Yes, but let's not conflate this specific use case with every day usage. I'm a gigantic privacy advocate and probably senselessly cautious about tons of technologies, but that's the result of a conscious choice. Set and forget encryption, or programs that advertise they can skip the first step, are dangerous in my opinion/experience. It can give the wrong impression about security and lead to dangerous decisions/actions or lack thereof. The concept behind thoughtless encryption is noble, but for all encryption models/schemes I know of, it has to be a concentrated and intentional decision else you end up with: - Lost data due to key mismanagement (not a bad thing, but extremely inconvenient) - Incomplete or ineffective encryption - Vehicles for intentional deception that allow bad actors to get you to share sensitive/personal data under the impression that it's protected and much much more. Steve Yegge said it best when he said that Security and Usability are constantly at odds, and from my perspective, this is a good thing to some degree. With so many FUD apps that promise security, for the time being is a very convenient litmus test for laypersons to know "how much should I trust this app?" I know that it's popular on HN to shit on Telegram, but in my current country of residence, Telegram is the most popular messenger program...for normal non-secretive messaging. It is extremely well known not to trust TG for secret conversations, illegal purchases or any other illegal activities, and so on. Not even on the basis of the security model of secret chats, but the discoverability of them. Basically the thought is "If you could find it without being a member of some ring of trust, so can the police". It's one reason why the conversations that frequently happen on HN about Telegram feel so misguided to me -- those who have conversations that may put themselves at risk __aren't using the app for such conversations__. They're not using any such apps, and either doing disposable communications (burner phones, pen and paper convos, etc), or they're arranging meetings in other ways. Encryption/security has been commoditized by app and platform creators and packaged into a marketing tool. I wouldn't trust Telegram or Signal any more than I'd trust WhatsApp, Messenger, Messages, or whatever Google's monthly name for their chat app is to have such conversations in most countries. To wrap it back to the GP's comment, I get the complaint about Apple Notes not being E2E encrypted -- but, if you've got sensitive data that needs to be recorded, why are you cloud-syncing it in the first place with a company that has frequently been investigated/prodded by the US Government, and even more frequently probed/violated by data exfiltration companies that work directly with the aforementioned government?
stu2b50 6y ago
They're not saying they have nothing to hide, they're saying they're not joting down quick notes of anything they have to hide.
- Lammy 6y ago
  I would agree that self-censorship is one of the most insidious effects of surveillance if that's what you mean :)
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    I have to agree... I'm very conscious of this now when I'm talking on the phone. Not that I really have anything to hide, but I'm always wondering how something would be perceived by someone who is listening in. It's not a nice feeling at all. This is one of the reasons I hate mass-surveillance so much. Just that feeling that everything I do or say is on the record.
    - lioeters 6y ago
      Sadly, I find myself thinking similar paranoiac thoughts simply talking in person at home. We have a number of devices with microphones, and when friends visit, they bring their own devices with who knows what kind of untrustworthy apps (looking at you, Facebook!). Sure, we're normal citizens with "nothing to hide" - but I've become wary of any possible channel of data collection, regardless of whether the end consumers are private parties or state agencies. It's dystopian, that I'm having to consciously censor my speech in case anyone is listening. Same with HN - I doubt my comments are of any value to outsiders, but it's possible that someone will associate my real-life identity with this online account, and dig through (i.e., put the data through some extractive process) to assign various values, for unknown consumers - probably advertisers, but maybe even some "good citizen index". Thankfully I live in the EU (oops, another data point leaked), where there's at least some level of privacy protected by law.
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    Carelessly making personal stuff available to interested parties was never a good idea in human history. You don't know who will see it in 10, 20, 50 years from now and what repercussions it might bring. So, hide your stuff by default and not based on your trust in the current administration or lack thereof.
reaperducer 6y ago
It's amazing that people can witness POTUS 44→45 and still make "well I have nothing to hide" arguments :/ Unless you have a really short memory, I think you mean POTUS 39→45. And while by a lot of measures POTUS 45 has been a disaster, POTUS 44 did far more damage to privacy than 45 has (yet).
- Lammy 6y ago
  I'm not talking about any specifics of either administration, only about having them back-to-back with polar-opposite reactions from most people. I hope that would make anyone on any side think twice before handing "their guy" some fun new weapon, but I probably hope for too much.
- moneywoes 6y ago
  Can you elaborate on this please?
  - peruvian 6y ago
    It's not that complex. Our personal privacies have deteriorated with either party in power for decades. Both Dems and GOP have voted to extend the Patriot Act and similar acts. Most of the NSA/PRISM drama happened under Obama (PRISM in 2007 with Bush, to be fair) and I'm not sure anything changed by 2016. So singling out Trump isn't really relevant or even useful.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      A Story In Two Headlines: "NSA offering 'billions' for Skype eavesdrop solution" (2009) — https://www.theregister.com/2009/02/12/nsa_offers_billions_for_skype_pwnage/ https://www.theregister.com/2009/02/12/nsa_offers_billions_f... "Microsoft Buys Skype for $8.5 Billion. Why, Exactly?" (2011) — https://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/ https://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/

perrohunter 6y ago

The important question here is: What do they know? Who decides what they do with that? Who decides who decides?

_kwmj 6y ago

I'm afraid this came across as an unfortunate and disingenuous response to someone's comment about privacy. A feeble variation of "I have nothing to hide" I'd say. For the last part: Standard Notes, Joplin, jrnl, FS Notes (possibly), nvAlt (not actively developed) etc.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

Nobody's particularly interested in you taking a shit or jerking off, either, but I'll bet you close the door when you do.

ben509 6y ago

There just need to be snippets that can be taken out of context for you to be crucified by a mob. That's happening every week or so.