4 ms·

> a government hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect A future government - one that is very different from the one currently in powe

> a government hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect A future government - one that is very different from the one currently in power or that you ever imagined possible - could use that data against you with great effect. A foreign government hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect. An institution hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect. A corporation hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect. A stalker could use that data against you with great effect. And so on.

tracker1 3y ago
The case with foreign govts are expressly part of why I'm unlikely to ever visit certain countries. Being critical of a foreign govt online can get you in trouble if you ever need/want to visit. Best case, you get turned back... but can only imagine how bad a worst case could get. Or, having your own govt take you out with a drone strike while on foreign soil.
ashleyn 3y ago
A media outlet hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect - and it's already happened. The owners of Sanctioned Suicide were deanonymised by the NYT in part from illegally obtained data - the Epik breach.[1] These were individuals who intended on staying pseudonymous, operated something that was legal-but-disagreeable-to-the-public, but yet fell victim to a hack that spilled their identity. And in spite of that, journalists felt it ethical to use illegally obtained data in part to "out" them. Nobody to my knowledge called out the problems with this - or that this same ethically fraught tactic may one day be used by organised harassers and right-wing outlets to deanonymise people seeking abortion or gender-affirming care. Here in the US, the First Amendment makes any legal remedy to this hard to achieve. Yet still, we could be doing far better than to passively condone the use of illegally obtained data in investigative journalism to highlight unpopular, perhaps even vile, but legal activities. [1]: https://archive.ph/eL4dS https://archive.ph/eL4dS
- fmajid 3y ago
  Or the despicable doxxing by the NYT of Scott Alexander, author of the blog State Star Codex.
fmajid 3y ago
One of my wife's friends was married to a senior Google engineer, and after a messy divorce needed help to avoid stalking by him. In addition to being a privacy roach motel, Google had shockingly bad controls and auditing to detect and punish abuse, not sure if that's still the case but I wouldn't be surprised.

tracker1 3y ago

The case with foreign govts are expressly part of why I'm unlikely to ever visit certain countries. Being critical of a foreign govt online can get you in trouble if you ever need/want to visit. Best case, you get turned back... but can only imagine how bad a worst case could get. Or, having your own govt take you out with a drone strike while on foreign soil.

ashleyn 3y ago

A media outlet hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect - and it's already happened. The owners of Sanctioned Suicide were deanonymised by the NYT in part from illegally obtained data - the Epik breach.[1] These were individuals who intended on staying pseudonymous, operated something that was legal-but-disagreeable-to-the-public, but yet fell victim to a hack that spilled their identity. And in spite of that, journalists felt it ethical to use illegally obtained data in part to "out" them. Nobody to my knowledge called out the problems with this - or that this same ethically fraught tactic may one day be used by organised harassers and right-wing outlets to deanonymise people seeking abortion or gender-affirming care. Here in the US, the First Amendment makes any legal remedy to this hard to achieve. Yet still, we could be doing far better than to passively condone the use of illegally obtained data in investigative journalism to highlight unpopular, perhaps even vile, but legal activities. [1]: https://archive.ph/eL4dS https://archive.ph/eL4dS

fmajid 3y ago
Or the despicable doxxing by the NYT of Scott Alexander, author of the blog State Star Codex.

fmajid 3y ago

One of my wife's friends was married to a senior Google engineer, and after a messy divorce needed help to avoid stalking by him. In addition to being a privacy roach motel, Google had shockingly bad controls and auditing to detect and punish abuse, not sure if that's still the case but I wouldn't be surprised.