3 ms·

Given how the average person and even the majority of people on tech have been acting the last 6 years I'm at the point where I don't care. I can protect myself

by konfin 5y ago

Given how the average person and even the majority of people on tech have been acting the last 6 years I'm at the point where I don't care. I can protect myself, everyone else is their own responsibility. The more we remove privacy by tech the less we lose it by law which I now think is the much worse outcome.

kf6nux 5y ago
> The more we remove privacy by tech the less we lose it by law On its face, that seems like a false dichotomy. Can you expand? Generally, I see the erosion of our right against unreasonable search and seizure to be something that hurts everyone (regardless of an individual's ability to make fewer searchable spaces).
- konfin 5y ago
  If 99.8% of people can have all their information sized by law enforcement then law enforcement won't see the point of a costly political battle to overturn the 4th amendment. Much like advertising those of us tech savvy enough to install add blockers are subsidized by those who don't.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    "We didn't violate your privacy because we bought the information from a private company that violated your privacy. But it's ok, because you clicked a button, or signed a EULA." That's the legal justification behind law enforcement fusion centers gathering, deanonymizing, and sharing data harvested by adtech firms, device manufacturers, and service providers. It's a gotcha with the same intellectual weight as "I know you are but what am I?" We need legislation with consequences lethal to companiesthat violate privacy. Something like this - Every individual variable that a company wants to obtain from a person should be consensual with no option to select all, and the data and permission should be ephemeral. At any time a person should be able to inspect, delete, or allow continued possession of private data. They should be able to allow or deny sale or transfer of the data, and any recipient of the data must confirm permissions before taking receipt. Any algorithm or software or human analysis of data must be public and transparent. A record of any decision or business logic involving private data must be kept, and that record becomes private data, subject to the same constraints. Stealing someone's identity should have a mandatory minimum of 2 years of community service, and total loss of opt in privileges for 5 years. No free web services or social media if you fuck around with someone else's privacy. Violations result in fines, paid to the victim and more community service. A business caught abusing private data is subjected to a fine of 5% of company net worth per day. Half of the fine goes to the regulatory bureau, half to the victims. Law enforcement must obtain warrants specific to known individuals - no geofencing or search term fishing expeditions. Digital data is subject to the same 4th amendment protections as physical papers and property. Leaks would mean the end of an organization. If a company can't protect private data, then it can't participate in collecting it. I'm sure there are flaws, but the gist of this seems a good starting outline. Anything less won't solve the problems and there should still be a mechanism for consensual participation in data markets. This would nuke credit bureaus, rein in isps and big tech abuses.
ls15 5y ago
> I can protect myself, everyone else is their own responsibility. How does that work if everyone expects you to communicate with them via Whatsapp and their Gmail, or even if you don't, they will happily backup all communication with you in the cloud?
- b112 5y ago
  Yup, including your phone numbers, addresses, pictures they take of you, and more.
bradknowles 5y ago
So long as you are secure in your own systems, you don’t care if they come for the Jews? What about when they come for the gays? How long until you do care? Will there be anyone left to care when they come for you?
- konfin 5y ago
  There wasn't anyone to care when they came for Assange, the gays and the jews were particularly would in condemning him.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Kindly substantiate. (Maybe also edit that presumed typo 'would')
  - connordoner 5y ago
    Ah, yes, some casual, blatant and unsubstantiated homophobia and racism… What more could one want on a Wednesday* morning? Edit: Correct day of the week
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      (I am curious about where we have Monday at UTC-ts 1635318700...)
      - connordoner 5y ago
        Fuck, that is actually a damn good point… It feels like Monday because I got up early. Excuse me!
- krageon 5y ago
  > How long until you do care? What's missing from this question is the recognition the answer can very easily be "probably never". Nothing says "they" (who?) will come for you (for some reason this is always implied) and it is eminently possible the person you are questioning doesn't mind living in a fascist hellscape where their neighbours are regularly dragged off to death camps. Of course, all of that ignores the fact that your question is histrionic. The problems you are referring to are not modern problems and comparing them is a disservice to both situations.

by konfin 5y ago

kf6nux 5y ago

> The more we remove privacy by tech the less we lose it by law On its face, that seems like a false dichotomy. Can you expand? Generally, I see the erosion of our right against unreasonable search and seizure to be something that hurts everyone (regardless of an individual's ability to make fewer searchable spaces).

konfin 5y ago
If 99.8% of people can have all their information sized by law enforcement then law enforcement won't see the point of a costly political battle to overturn the 4th amendment. Much like advertising those of us tech savvy enough to install add blockers are subsidized by those who don't.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  "We didn't violate your privacy because we bought the information from a private company that violated your privacy. But it's ok, because you clicked a button, or signed a EULA." That's the legal justification behind law enforcement fusion centers gathering, deanonymizing, and sharing data harvested by adtech firms, device manufacturers, and service providers. It's a gotcha with the same intellectual weight as "I know you are but what am I?" We need legislation with consequences lethal to companiesthat violate privacy. Something like this - Every individual variable that a company wants to obtain from a person should be consensual with no option to select all, and the data and permission should be ephemeral. At any time a person should be able to inspect, delete, or allow continued possession of private data. They should be able to allow or deny sale or transfer of the data, and any recipient of the data must confirm permissions before taking receipt. Any algorithm or software or human analysis of data must be public and transparent. A record of any decision or business logic involving private data must be kept, and that record becomes private data, subject to the same constraints. Stealing someone's identity should have a mandatory minimum of 2 years of community service, and total loss of opt in privileges for 5 years. No free web services or social media if you fuck around with someone else's privacy. Violations result in fines, paid to the victim and more community service. A business caught abusing private data is subjected to a fine of 5% of company net worth per day. Half of the fine goes to the regulatory bureau, half to the victims. Law enforcement must obtain warrants specific to known individuals - no geofencing or search term fishing expeditions. Digital data is subject to the same 4th amendment protections as physical papers and property. Leaks would mean the end of an organization. If a company can't protect private data, then it can't participate in collecting it. I'm sure there are flaws, but the gist of this seems a good starting outline. Anything less won't solve the problems and there should still be a mechanism for consensual participation in data markets. This would nuke credit bureaus, rein in isps and big tech abuses.

ls15 5y ago

> I can protect myself, everyone else is their own responsibility. How does that work if everyone expects you to communicate with them via Whatsapp and their Gmail, or even if you don't, they will happily backup all communication with you in the cloud?

b112 5y ago
Yup, including your phone numbers, addresses, pictures they take of you, and more.

bradknowles 5y ago

So long as you are secure in your own systems, you don’t care if they come for the Jews? What about when they come for the gays? How long until you do care? Will there be anyone left to care when they come for you?

konfin 5y ago
There wasn't anyone to care when they came for Assange, the gays and the jews were particularly would in condemning him.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Kindly substantiate. (Maybe also edit that presumed typo 'would')
- connordoner 5y ago
  Ah, yes, some casual, blatant and unsubstantiated homophobia and racism… What more could one want on a Wednesday* morning? Edit: Correct day of the week
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    (I am curious about where we have Monday at UTC-ts 1635318700...)
    - connordoner 5y ago
      Fuck, that is actually a damn good point… It feels like Monday because I got up early. Excuse me!
krageon 5y ago
> How long until you do care? What's missing from this question is the recognition the answer can very easily be "probably never". Nothing says "they" (who?) will come for you (for some reason this is always implied) and it is eminently possible the person you are questioning doesn't mind living in a fascist hellscape where their neighbours are regularly dragged off to death camps. Of course, all of that ignores the fact that your question is histrionic. The problems you are referring to are not modern problems and comparing them is a disservice to both situations.