9 ms·

Back then people took the idea of privacy really seriously. From what I saw what mostly killed it was the mobile phone revolution. The entire mobile ecosystem

by api 4y ago

Back then people took the idea of privacy really seriously. From what I saw what mostly killed it was the mobile phone revolution. The entire mobile ecosystem was basically built to productize the user. A few oddballs pointed this out and were ignored because phones are shiny. The "mobile mentality" bled back into the entire rest of the computing ecosystem and this is where we are today. Ultimately it's rooted in economics. People like free stuff, and the only way to give it to them is to monetize it indirectly via ads and surveillance.

jeffbee 4y ago
"Back then" everyone's name, address, and phone number was printed in a big book that was distributed for free to everyone in town.
- api 4y ago
  You could opt out of that and many people did. Opting out required contacting one entity once. In fact I seem to recall that they asked if you wanted your number listed when you got a phone line, at least in some places. It requires a tremendous amount of technical skill and diligence to opt out of the everything-is-malware hellscape we (our industry) created.
  - gramie 4y ago
    You had to pay to keep your number/address unlisted. It wasn't just a request.
    - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
      Not in the UK you didn't.
- nilespotter 4y ago
  [dead]
- ssss11 4y ago
  And like today, did the data brokers digitise those details and link them with your shopping history, your medical records, and your financial details? Of course not. Stop trying to trivialise privacy. Despite addresses being printed in a big book years ago, it was for regular people to look up other regular people. The situation today is much more dire.
Bran_son 4y ago
> Ultimately it's rooted in economics. People like free stuff, and the only way to give it to them is to monetize it indirectly via ads and surveillance. It's more than economics - they actively attack privacy and user control. E.g. DRM anti-circumvention laws, the impossibility of buying a CPU without Intel Management Engine (or AMD equivalent) unless you're a government agency [1], forcing the Trusted Platform Module on users, the gradual vanishing of rootable-phones and proliferation of apps that require a non-rooted phone, no more non-smart TVs, etc. Countless cases where there are no freedom-respecting options available for commoners at any price. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Commercial_ME_disablement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Commer...
- csdvrx 4y ago
  There's a huge difference between TPM and IME: with TPM, you can put your own keys, and use the TPM to refuse payloads not signed with your keys (ex: a Windows install thumbdrive) With AMT/IME or BootGuard, you don't get that control: you can't replace the bootguard keys (as it's a way to kill the secondary market of CPUs being resold and used in a different motherboard) and with AMT you can't fully disable it unless you're a government agency as you said. The technology isn't bad, it's the actual implementation that's wrong by avoiding certain features which could give the user more freedom.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Yeah security is good but it needs to serve the user, meaning they must be able to have full control over it if they so desire. I also hate Apple's Mac and iOS closedness. Sure, on Mac you can disable SIP but you will disable its security completely, and you will also lose access to some of the OS features. There should be a way to sign your own code and simply allow that to be trusted with full protection, just like it is on generic intel systems with secure boot where you can easily add your own signing keys.
    - bpye 4y ago
      > I also hate Apple's Mac and iOS closedness. Sure, on Mac you can disable SIP but you will disable its security completely, and you will also lose access to some of the OS features. On an Apple Silicon Mac you can have multiple operating systems installed, with different security configuration. It's totally possible to have both Asahi and macOS installed without disabling any security features in macOS.
mindslight 4y ago
IMO the main culprit of the sea change is ubiquitous network connectivity, which allowed widespread adoption of centralized backhaul/control based software architectures The secondarily, the workings of software are increasingly opaque to most people. This leaves people unaware of what is actually being done. It seems that when most people are shown a snapshot of surveillance records about themselves they get seriously concerned, but otherwise out of sight out of mind. The solution in the modern day is the same as the solution back then - endeavor to run software that is designed to represent your own interests rather than those of its authors. It doesn't particularly matter if my CPU, or any other component, has a serial number, camera, microphone, GPS receiver, etc, if I'm not trusting software that will take sensitive data and send it off to hostile parties.
- orangecat 4y ago
  IMO the main culprit of the sea change is Ubiquitous network connectivity Right. I'm dreading the day when platform vendors decide that connectivity is fast and ubiquitous enough so that "your" "computer" should become a dumb framebuffer with all processing and storage done in their data centers, which will eliminate the last vestiges of user privacy and control.
- api 4y ago
  That's true from a technical point of view, but I was referring to the social and behavioral angle. It seems like it was mobile that killed the commitment to privacy in the minds of users. My only real reservation about the EV revolution is that this is doing similar things to people with regard to cars. An EV is just a car with a battery and a motor instead of a gas tank and an ICE, but the "form factor change" seems like it can be used as a pretext to introduce a lot of other changes like your car no longer being yours. Teslas are too cloud connected already, and Ford is talking about a car that can repossess itself at their command. When you pay off your car does this feature get turned off? I doubt it. It seems like it's easy to use any change as a pretext to smuggle other perhaps less palatable changes in alongside it.
  - mindslight 4y ago
dustingetz 4y ago
“people like free stuff” is something many/most would agree with and yet i wonder if an equally powerful explanation is that people weight the concrete thing in hand more than the abstract vague fear that they can’t tell if it even actually threatens them? i.e. when the privacy heist finally turns on the everyman rather than outliers, we may get another shot at privacy. If it even does!
bombolo 4y ago
> People like free stuff, and the only way to give it to them is to monetize it indirectly via ads and surveillance. Even if you pay, this still happens anyway.
- api 4y ago
  A market where people pay directly for the product is necessary but not sufficient for a market that contains privacy-conscious products. If nobody will pay for anything, you literally can't run a business in the market without resorting to some backhanded way of getting paid like selling out your users. If people will pay, it's possible to run such a business. This does not however guarantee that businesses won't misbehave. There's always the temptation to double-dip. Contrast Apple and Microsoft. Apple so far has at least somewhat resisted the temptation to double-dip and sell their users out to ads and spyware. Microsoft couldn't care less as evidenced by the ad and shovelware laden monstrosity that is Windows 11. There's no guarantee that Apple won't move further to the dark side, but since people pay directly for Apple products they at least can try to stay honest. (... and they've to some extent branded themselves as privacy conscious, so going to the dark side could harm their brand.) Consumer awareness, choice, and in some cases regulation are required to get the rest of the way there.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    If apple doesn't sell ads, Apple will. They MUST increase revenue and at some point anyone willing to buy an iphone will own one. At that point they will have no choice. Apple isn't this privacy champion that you make it out to be.
hayleox 4y ago
I think it's also just the growth of the industry in general. Tech enthusiasts care about privacy, but your average consumer is unconcerned. Only 26.2 percent of US households had an internet connection in 1999,[1] so the tech enthusiasts were a larger piece of the market. But by the time the iPhone launched in 2007, 75% of Americans were using the internet.[2] [1]: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119358&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119358&page=1 [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/209117/us-internet-penetration/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/209117/us-internet-penet...
j45 4y ago
I’m not entirely sure privacy was taken more seriously then. In some ways the genie was out of the bottle too fast with social media for new users in awe to know any better for 10-15 years. It could be a similar genie is already out of the bottle moment with GPT for some, and hopefully there’s enough people online now with more than awareness of new tech outpacing user sophistication and to some degree legislation.
LocalH 4y ago
People take the idea of privacy really seriously today, as well. But just like then, not enough people take it seriously. Obviously, despite the number of people who did take it seriously 25 years ago, the companies didn't really care, they still did what they did and structured the industry to become rent-seekers. The problem with regulation is that the biggest companies pay people a lot of money to figure out how to best game the system, with the goal being infinite growth. Even if you try to regulate this type of behavior, there will be a large number of lawyers and businesspeople trying to figure out how to stretch the letter of the law as far as they can, and the biggest ones may even decide that they'd rather pay any related fines, than give up their user data revenue stream. To create effective legislation, you should also at least make a sensible attempt at figuring out if there might be any unintended consequences. I don't have an answer, other than to say that perhaps there should be a lobbying group for privacy with the same dedication to trying to figure out how to game the system, but to further privacy rather than to erode it. Fight fire with fire. I genuinely wish anyone who tries this good luck in raising the capital it would need to be competitive.

by api 4y ago

jeffbee 4y ago

"Back then" everyone's name, address, and phone number was printed in a big book that was distributed for free to everyone in town.

api 4y ago
You could opt out of that and many people did. Opting out required contacting one entity once. In fact I seem to recall that they asked if you wanted your number listed when you got a phone line, at least in some places. It requires a tremendous amount of technical skill and diligence to opt out of the everything-is-malware hellscape we (our industry) created.
- gramie 4y ago
  You had to pay to keep your number/address unlisted. It wasn't just a request.
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    Not in the UK you didn't.
nilespotter 4y ago
[dead]
ssss11 4y ago
And like today, did the data brokers digitise those details and link them with your shopping history, your medical records, and your financial details? Of course not. Stop trying to trivialise privacy. Despite addresses being printed in a big book years ago, it was for regular people to look up other regular people. The situation today is much more dire.

Bran_son 4y ago

> Ultimately it's rooted in economics. People like free stuff, and the only way to give it to them is to monetize it indirectly via ads and surveillance. It's more than economics - they actively attack privacy and user control. E.g. DRM anti-circumvention laws, the impossibility of buying a CPU without Intel Management Engine (or AMD equivalent) unless you're a government agency [1], forcing the Trusted Platform Module on users, the gradual vanishing of rootable-phones and proliferation of apps that require a non-rooted phone, no more non-smart TVs, etc. Countless cases where there are no freedom-respecting options available for commoners at any price. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Commercial_ME_disablement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Commer...

csdvrx 4y ago
There's a huge difference between TPM and IME: with TPM, you can put your own keys, and use the TPM to refuse payloads not signed with your keys (ex: a Windows install thumbdrive) With AMT/IME or BootGuard, you don't get that control: you can't replace the bootguard keys (as it's a way to kill the secondary market of CPUs being resold and used in a different motherboard) and with AMT you can't fully disable it unless you're a government agency as you said. The technology isn't bad, it's the actual implementation that's wrong by avoiding certain features which could give the user more freedom.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Yeah security is good but it needs to serve the user, meaning they must be able to have full control over it if they so desire. I also hate Apple's Mac and iOS closedness. Sure, on Mac you can disable SIP but you will disable its security completely, and you will also lose access to some of the OS features. There should be a way to sign your own code and simply allow that to be trusted with full protection, just like it is on generic intel systems with secure boot where you can easily add your own signing keys.
  - bpye 4y ago
    > I also hate Apple's Mac and iOS closedness. Sure, on Mac you can disable SIP but you will disable its security completely, and you will also lose access to some of the OS features. On an Apple Silicon Mac you can have multiple operating systems installed, with different security configuration. It's totally possible to have both Asahi and macOS installed without disabling any security features in macOS.

mindslight 4y ago

IMO the main culprit of the sea change is ubiquitous network connectivity, which allowed widespread adoption of centralized backhaul/control based software architectures The secondarily, the workings of software are increasingly opaque to most people. This leaves people unaware of what is actually being done. It seems that when most people are shown a snapshot of surveillance records about themselves they get seriously concerned, but otherwise out of sight out of mind. The solution in the modern day is the same as the solution back then - endeavor to run software that is designed to represent your own interests rather than those of its authors. It doesn't particularly matter if my CPU, or any other component, has a serial number, camera, microphone, GPS receiver, etc, if I'm not trusting software that will take sensitive data and send it off to hostile parties.

orangecat 4y ago
IMO the main culprit of the sea change is Ubiquitous network connectivity Right. I'm dreading the day when platform vendors decide that connectivity is fast and ubiquitous enough so that "your" "computer" should become a dumb framebuffer with all processing and storage done in their data centers, which will eliminate the last vestiges of user privacy and control.
api 4y ago
That's true from a technical point of view, but I was referring to the social and behavioral angle. It seems like it was mobile that killed the commitment to privacy in the minds of users. My only real reservation about the EV revolution is that this is doing similar things to people with regard to cars. An EV is just a car with a battery and a motor instead of a gas tank and an ICE, but the "form factor change" seems like it can be used as a pretext to introduce a lot of other changes like your car no longer being yours. Teslas are too cloud connected already, and Ford is talking about a car that can repossess itself at their command. When you pay off your car does this feature get turned off? I doubt it. It seems like it's easy to use any change as a pretext to smuggle other perhaps less palatable changes in alongside it.
- mindslight 4y ago

dustingetz 4y ago

“people like free stuff” is something many/most would agree with and yet i wonder if an equally powerful explanation is that people weight the concrete thing in hand more than the abstract vague fear that they can’t tell if it even actually threatens them? i.e. when the privacy heist finally turns on the everyman rather than outliers, we may get another shot at privacy. If it even does!

bombolo 4y ago

> People like free stuff, and the only way to give it to them is to monetize it indirectly via ads and surveillance. Even if you pay, this still happens anyway.

api 4y ago
A market where people pay directly for the product is necessary but not sufficient for a market that contains privacy-conscious products. If nobody will pay for anything, you literally can't run a business in the market without resorting to some backhanded way of getting paid like selling out your users. If people will pay, it's possible to run such a business. This does not however guarantee that businesses won't misbehave. There's always the temptation to double-dip. Contrast Apple and Microsoft. Apple so far has at least somewhat resisted the temptation to double-dip and sell their users out to ads and spyware. Microsoft couldn't care less as evidenced by the ad and shovelware laden monstrosity that is Windows 11. There's no guarantee that Apple won't move further to the dark side, but since people pay directly for Apple products they at least can try to stay honest. (... and they've to some extent branded themselves as privacy conscious, so going to the dark side could harm their brand.) Consumer awareness, choice, and in some cases regulation are required to get the rest of the way there.
- bombolo 4y ago
  If apple doesn't sell ads, Apple will. They MUST increase revenue and at some point anyone willing to buy an iphone will own one. At that point they will have no choice. Apple isn't this privacy champion that you make it out to be.

hayleox 4y ago

I think it's also just the growth of the industry in general. Tech enthusiasts care about privacy, but your average consumer is unconcerned. Only 26.2 percent of US households had an internet connection in 1999,[1] so the tech enthusiasts were a larger piece of the market. But by the time the iPhone launched in 2007, 75% of Americans were using the internet.[2] [1]: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119358&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119358&page=1 [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/209117/us-internet-penetration/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/209117/us-internet-penet...

j45 4y ago

I’m not entirely sure privacy was taken more seriously then. In some ways the genie was out of the bottle too fast with social media for new users in awe to know any better for 10-15 years. It could be a similar genie is already out of the bottle moment with GPT for some, and hopefully there’s enough people online now with more than awareness of new tech outpacing user sophistication and to some degree legislation.

LocalH 4y ago

People take the idea of privacy really seriously today, as well. But just like then, not enough people take it seriously. Obviously, despite the number of people who did take it seriously 25 years ago, the companies didn't really care, they still did what they did and structured the industry to become rent-seekers. The problem with regulation is that the biggest companies pay people a lot of money to figure out how to best game the system, with the goal being infinite growth. Even if you try to regulate this type of behavior, there will be a large number of lawyers and businesspeople trying to figure out how to stretch the letter of the law as far as they can, and the biggest ones may even decide that they'd rather pay any related fines, than give up their user data revenue stream. To create effective legislation, you should also at least make a sensible attempt at figuring out if there might be any unintended consequences. I don't have an answer, other than to say that perhaps there should be a lobbying group for privacy with the same dedication to trying to figure out how to game the system, but to further privacy rather than to erode it. Fight fire with fire. I genuinely wish anyone who tries this good luck in raising the capital it would need to be competitive.