4 ms·

Privacy Isn't Dead. Far from It

100 points by fsflover 3y ago

mitchbob 3y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39370799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39370799
veunes 3y ago
Sometimes this depends on where you live
- mrd3v0 3y ago
  All the time. Most countries in the world don't have data privacy laws, and in fact have the opposite as law of the land. EFF and other non-profits are just very western outlets. Not a critique as much as a reality I wish they'd disclose more often.
mc32 3y ago
A bit tangential, but it seems that there is more acceptance for censorship than there has been for a while. There is also more acceptance for violating the understanding of protecting journalistic sources -CBS apparently took possession of personal notes and files of a reporter it fired. I don't think the Pentagon Files would fly today. You can find more and more articles arguing why censorship is a good thing.
- vaylian 3y ago
  Or maybe it's just propaganda that is spread by the censors?
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: A. entities conducting surveillance, such as data brokers. B. entities wanting to manufacture consent through campaigns consisting of content that is non-geniune or ragebaity. C. fatherless immature 13-year-olds (or actors at that maturity level) that still think Internet trolling is funny in 2024. D. entities that really want the Internet to behave like a one-way broadcast medium, like television. No one actually wants A, B, and C other than entities that are A, B, and C. A decent portion probably doesn't want D either. All of these have been increasing in scale on the Internet as time passes. I'm all for using a global public square, but I am not going to respect it or use it really unless there is way for me to avoid A, B, and C. The government shouldn't do this. It'd be nice if the platform could do this automatically as a feature, but it's not a solved problem yet. And that's OK - if the platform lets me manage what I see, I can solve it myself, which it's really a "me" problem anyway. It'd be nicer if the platform lets me and like-minded individuals subscribe to and manage blocklists, and if I think the blocklist manager is off their rocker, I can unsubscribe to it. And if the government required "public squares" on the Internet to have such a feature, that'd be awesome, but I'm not holding my breath. You can call this censorship if you want, but if it's initiated and chosen by me and not the government or other arrangements of authorities where you cannot opt out, then so what?
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: [...] How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Seems pretty arbitrary.
    - mc32 3y ago
      I don't agree with the Ps take. China, Russia and Iran definitely do not want a filter-free internet. They want to suppress discourse. They censor because they want to control the narrative and to deliver their own propaganda. Western nations seem to have become attracted to the approach authoritarians have been using since we had a printing press. We saw that with Covid and also with the infamous Hunter Biden laptop as well as with mass shootings --sometimes they disclose info, other times they don't disclose info.
    - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
      Experience and this is observable by anyone. Your use of the word arbitrary is incorrect.
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        You've provided no reasoning to support your claims, even when I asked you to. I therefore dismiss your claims as an arbitrary opinion.
- rnd0 3y ago
  It is weird and disturbing that free speech has become seen as a far right value as if the only reason anyone would support free speech would be to use slurs. Freedom of speech is the freedom to dissent; you can't have dissent in a society that doesn't allow freedom of speech. Yet the left has become strangely anti-free speech and supportive of censorship. Both the left and the right are depressingly authoritarian, at least from where I'm standing -but you'd expect fascists (and their supporters) to be.
  - mc32 3y ago
    It's become labeled as far right because anything that doesn't fit a narrative is lumped in with far-right activity. You want border security = far right. Want eVerify enforced = far-right. Would rather devote taxes to homeless and US citizen poor people rather than immigrants entering illegally = far right. So it's not only neo-nazis and the kkk and the like who are classified as "far-right" it's just about any one who on social issues does not align with a progressive agenda is labeled far right. Basically Biden of the early 2000s would be classified as far-right today. Clinton's presidency would be labeled far right, if he ran today as he ran in the late 90s. That said, both the actual far lefts and the actual far rights do love authoritarianism and censorship --no question.
veilmail 3y ago
[dead]
mateo1 3y ago
Very true, and not just about privacy. Cynicism is flourishing in our societies for two reasons: -It's supported by those in a position of power, as a cynic is someone who stops trying to counter them, often successfully. -It enables us to stop putting effort towards a common goal without feeling guilt, as by telling ourselves "it's over" "we lost" "there's no point" we can just give up; trying to convince ourselves that our effort didn't mean anything. This article is a great reminder that our effort matters, and this is not a win/lose game. There's always more to lose, and we'll find out how much if we don't try. There's no giving up on life, there's no giving up on participating in society. We have to fight for our rights, even if it's small, inconvenient and seemingly thankless battles every day. This is what makes all the difference in the world.
- santoshalper 3y ago
  The key is to stop looking at progress as a war to be won, but as a value to be instilled and maintained in a society. We will always struggle to improve our society and human civilization - it will never end. This may seem daunting or exhausting, but it's the reality of life. Cynicism undermines our motivation to make progress, and that is why so much disinformation is intended to muddy the waters and make people feel hopeless. The reality is - there is no way in hell any of us should want to have been born 1,000 or even 100 years ago and things will be much better in a century or a millennium if we keep pushing for it.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    Progress in what direction? Is progress ever finished? It's an important question. If the answer is "no," then progress (whatever that means) must continue forever. This has quite a few disturbing implications. If the answer is "yes," then arises the question of "toward what? How will we know when we are done?"
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 3y ago
      Progress toward a cynicism free society. Sounds wonderful of course.
calvinmorrison 3y ago
bartered rights with governments are ONLY a shaky peace deal. The only thing that holds that deal together is the willingness of an aggrieved party damage the other party. It's anarchy behind a thin veil. The only thing that prevents the government organ from taking away all our hard negotiated rights over hundreds of years is the fact they're afraid they'll get strung up on fence posts with their intestines hanging out while children pelt them with vegetables and vultures consume their rotting flesh.
- RajT88 3y ago
  > The only thing that prevents the government organ from taking away all our hard negotiated rights over hundreds of years is the fact they're afraid they'll get strung up on fence posts with their intestines hanging out while children pelt them with vegetables and vultures consume their rotting flesh. This is why Democracy exists - voters express their displeasure by voting people out of office. Save a lot of beheadings a la the French Revolution. In Europe, a similar dynamic exists for armed conflicts between nations and Eurovision.
  - calvinmorrison 3y ago
    We only got to "Democracy" by constantly the constant bloody deposition of kings and queens and their soldiers, allies and other forces, yes.
    - GuB-42 3y ago
      Not really, in fact, the French revolution and the "democracy" (included was a period called the "reign of terror") that followed was closely followed by a empire, and the French people were happy with that newfound stability. I think that what motivated the transition to democracy the prosperity made possible by the industrial revolution. No longer we need a population of dumb muscle since machines do better. Instead we need a healthy, well educated population, capable of innovation, so that we can build and operate better machines. And that's not the kind of population a coercitive regime creates.
privacyisntdead 3y ago
Very glad to see EFF put this out there. We’re just some of the people who saw the problem coming before others. Now others are catching up. Also, had this username since the Apple CSAM debacle and we all see how that went. Stay positive!
bluetomcat 3y ago
I feel that “privacy” is a wrong way of framing the problem. Sure, we may have end-to-end channel encryption, iPhone security lockouts and GDPR regulation. Still, everytime you shoot a photo with your mobile phone, an impersonified algorithm identifies the faces on the photo and knows how you and your children looked years ago. Most online services you use have built a psychological profile based on your behaviour. They offer you stuff that puts you in unease. Human actors with questionable motivation tune these algorithms.
hatch7 3y ago
> Americans’ Outrage At Unconstitutional Mass Surveillance Made A Difference It objectively did not. Ten years after Snowden nothing significant has changed. In support of their argument, EFF states "some of the National Security Agency’s most egregiously illegal programs and authorities have shuttered or been forced to end" which is a painfully ignorant assumption which is not based on any objective evidence. > Privacy Options Are So Much Better Today Today, almost all people are forced to make a choice between two proprietary closed source platforms - iOS and Android - both of which are much worse options for privacy than even the Windows desktop equivalents from ten years ago. Eff goes on to recommend a closed source messenger app from Facebook - the jokes just write themselves. They even scare readers away from the oh-so-hard to use GPG, at which point you really have to wonder what their ulterior motive is. The whole article is just hilariously out of touch.

100 points by fsflover 3y ago

mitchbob 3y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39370799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39370799

veunes 3y ago

Sometimes this depends on where you live

mrd3v0 3y ago
All the time. Most countries in the world don't have data privacy laws, and in fact have the opposite as law of the land. EFF and other non-profits are just very western outlets. Not a critique as much as a reality I wish they'd disclose more often.

mc32 3y ago

A bit tangential, but it seems that there is more acceptance for censorship than there has been for a while. There is also more acceptance for violating the understanding of protecting journalistic sources -CBS apparently took possession of personal notes and files of a reporter it fired. I don't think the Pentagon Files would fly today. You can find more and more articles arguing why censorship is a good thing.

vaylian 3y ago
Or maybe it's just propaganda that is spread by the censors?
tenebrisalietum 3y ago
The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: A. entities conducting surveillance, such as data brokers. B. entities wanting to manufacture consent through campaigns consisting of content that is non-geniune or ragebaity. C. fatherless immature 13-year-olds (or actors at that maturity level) that still think Internet trolling is funny in 2024. D. entities that really want the Internet to behave like a one-way broadcast medium, like television. No one actually wants A, B, and C other than entities that are A, B, and C. A decent portion probably doesn't want D either. All of these have been increasing in scale on the Internet as time passes. I'm all for using a global public square, but I am not going to respect it or use it really unless there is way for me to avoid A, B, and C. The government shouldn't do this. It'd be nice if the platform could do this automatically as a feature, but it's not a solved problem yet. And that's OK - if the platform lets me manage what I see, I can solve it myself, which it's really a "me" problem anyway. It'd be nicer if the platform lets me and like-minded individuals subscribe to and manage blocklists, and if I think the blocklist manager is off their rocker, I can unsubscribe to it. And if the government required "public squares" on the Internet to have such a feature, that'd be awesome, but I'm not holding my breath. You can call this censorship if you want, but if it's initiated and chosen by me and not the government or other arrangements of authorities where you cannot opt out, then so what?
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: [...] How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Seems pretty arbitrary.
  - mc32 3y ago
    I don't agree with the Ps take. China, Russia and Iran definitely do not want a filter-free internet. They want to suppress discourse. They censor because they want to control the narrative and to deliver their own propaganda. Western nations seem to have become attracted to the approach authoritarians have been using since we had a printing press. We saw that with Covid and also with the infamous Hunter Biden laptop as well as with mass shootings --sometimes they disclose info, other times they don't disclose info.
  - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
    Experience and this is observable by anyone. Your use of the word arbitrary is incorrect.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      You've provided no reasoning to support your claims, even when I asked you to. I therefore dismiss your claims as an arbitrary opinion.
rnd0 3y ago
It is weird and disturbing that free speech has become seen as a far right value as if the only reason anyone would support free speech would be to use slurs. Freedom of speech is the freedom to dissent; you can't have dissent in a society that doesn't allow freedom of speech. Yet the left has become strangely anti-free speech and supportive of censorship. Both the left and the right are depressingly authoritarian, at least from where I'm standing -but you'd expect fascists (and their supporters) to be.
- mc32 3y ago
  It's become labeled as far right because anything that doesn't fit a narrative is lumped in with far-right activity. You want border security = far right. Want eVerify enforced = far-right. Would rather devote taxes to homeless and US citizen poor people rather than immigrants entering illegally = far right. So it's not only neo-nazis and the kkk and the like who are classified as "far-right" it's just about any one who on social issues does not align with a progressive agenda is labeled far right. Basically Biden of the early 2000s would be classified as far-right today. Clinton's presidency would be labeled far right, if he ran today as he ran in the late 90s. That said, both the actual far lefts and the actual far rights do love authoritarianism and censorship --no question.

veilmail 3y ago

[dead]

mateo1 3y ago

Very true, and not just about privacy. Cynicism is flourishing in our societies for two reasons: -It's supported by those in a position of power, as a cynic is someone who stops trying to counter them, often successfully. -It enables us to stop putting effort towards a common goal without feeling guilt, as by telling ourselves "it's over" "we lost" "there's no point" we can just give up; trying to convince ourselves that our effort didn't mean anything. This article is a great reminder that our effort matters, and this is not a win/lose game. There's always more to lose, and we'll find out how much if we don't try. There's no giving up on life, there's no giving up on participating in society. We have to fight for our rights, even if it's small, inconvenient and seemingly thankless battles every day. This is what makes all the difference in the world.

santoshalper 3y ago
The key is to stop looking at progress as a war to be won, but as a value to be instilled and maintained in a society. We will always struggle to improve our society and human civilization - it will never end. This may seem daunting or exhausting, but it's the reality of life. Cynicism undermines our motivation to make progress, and that is why so much disinformation is intended to muddy the waters and make people feel hopeless. The reality is - there is no way in hell any of us should want to have been born 1,000 or even 100 years ago and things will be much better in a century or a millennium if we keep pushing for it.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  Progress in what direction? Is progress ever finished? It's an important question. If the answer is "no," then progress (whatever that means) must continue forever. This has quite a few disturbing implications. If the answer is "yes," then arises the question of "toward what? How will we know when we are done?"
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 3y ago
    Progress toward a cynicism free society. Sounds wonderful of course.

calvinmorrison 3y ago

bartered rights with governments are ONLY a shaky peace deal. The only thing that holds that deal together is the willingness of an aggrieved party damage the other party. It's anarchy behind a thin veil. The only thing that prevents the government organ from taking away all our hard negotiated rights over hundreds of years is the fact they're afraid they'll get strung up on fence posts with their intestines hanging out while children pelt them with vegetables and vultures consume their rotting flesh.

RajT88 3y ago
> The only thing that prevents the government organ from taking away all our hard negotiated rights over hundreds of years is the fact they're afraid they'll get strung up on fence posts with their intestines hanging out while children pelt them with vegetables and vultures consume their rotting flesh. This is why Democracy exists - voters express their displeasure by voting people out of office. Save a lot of beheadings a la the French Revolution. In Europe, a similar dynamic exists for armed conflicts between nations and Eurovision.
- calvinmorrison 3y ago
  We only got to "Democracy" by constantly the constant bloody deposition of kings and queens and their soldiers, allies and other forces, yes.
  - GuB-42 3y ago
    Not really, in fact, the French revolution and the "democracy" (included was a period called the "reign of terror") that followed was closely followed by a empire, and the French people were happy with that newfound stability. I think that what motivated the transition to democracy the prosperity made possible by the industrial revolution. No longer we need a population of dumb muscle since machines do better. Instead we need a healthy, well educated population, capable of innovation, so that we can build and operate better machines. And that's not the kind of population a coercitive regime creates.

privacyisntdead 3y ago

Very glad to see EFF put this out there. We’re just some of the people who saw the problem coming before others. Now others are catching up. Also, had this username since the Apple CSAM debacle and we all see how that went. Stay positive!

bluetomcat 3y ago

I feel that “privacy” is a wrong way of framing the problem. Sure, we may have end-to-end channel encryption, iPhone security lockouts and GDPR regulation. Still, everytime you shoot a photo with your mobile phone, an impersonified algorithm identifies the faces on the photo and knows how you and your children looked years ago. Most online services you use have built a psychological profile based on your behaviour. They offer you stuff that puts you in unease. Human actors with questionable motivation tune these algorithms.

hatch7 3y ago

> Americans’ Outrage At Unconstitutional Mass Surveillance Made A Difference It objectively did not. Ten years after Snowden nothing significant has changed. In support of their argument, EFF states "some of the National Security Agency’s most egregiously illegal programs and authorities have shuttered or been forced to end" which is a painfully ignorant assumption which is not based on any objective evidence. > Privacy Options Are So Much Better Today Today, almost all people are forced to make a choice between two proprietary closed source platforms - iOS and Android - both of which are much worse options for privacy than even the Windows desktop equivalents from ten years ago. Eff goes on to recommend a closed source messenger app from Facebook - the jokes just write themselves. They even scare readers away from the oh-so-hard to use GPG, at which point you really have to wonder what their ulterior motive is. The whole article is just hilariously out of touch.