3 ms·

It's deeply ironic that this webpage wants me to give it my email address and card details before letting me read the rest of the article. https://archive.is/Th

It's deeply ironic that this webpage wants me to give it my email address and card details before letting me read the rest of the article. https://archive.is/Th5vB https://archive.is/Th5vB

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paxys 2y ago
That's called paying for things, and isn't ironic in the slightest.
- Retr0id 2y ago
  I buy things without giving away my personal information all the time.
  - paxys 2y ago
    How do you pay for things online without sending over details of a payment instrument?
    - TimeBearingDown 2y ago
      Bitcoin or Ether from a new subaddress. Monero for more privacy, or use the former currencies after exchanging from Monero.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Maybe they should be asking people to mail them cash.
  - paxys 2y ago
    And how do you tie that cash back to an online account?
    - Retr0id 2y ago
      Mullvad has it figured out: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/cash-still-king https://mullvad.net/en/blog/cash-still-king Now, I don't expect a newspaper to go to such lengths, but it is nonetheless ironic for an article that tells me not to give up my information to ask for my information in the same breath.
    - laweijfmvo 2y ago
      you could wrap the cash in a sheet of torn off paper, with your SSN written on it.
    - observationist 2y ago
      There are many service and product vendors that accomplish this, depending on the exact things they sell. Mullvad being a premium example - you can maintain as much anonymity as you want; they get their money, retain only whatever they are legally required to based on the nature of the transaction, and it can even be entirely anonymous through cryptocurrency. It is possible, and even admirable, for companies to do this. The only reason to hoover up as much identity data as possible is to maxmimize earnings, reselling harvested data to the highest bidder exclusively, or to the greatest number of purchasers. It's not necessary or good to contribute to panopticon surveillance. The game being played is not anywhere close to informed consent or educated consumers making rational choices. It's universally deceptive and the underlying intent of the system is to maximize the amount of money being extracted from consumers while minimizing the cost, creating chains of middlemen and operators inflating the price of a good or service without adding value to the end-user. It's not a valid free market tactic - it is not morally or ethically justifiable, despite the endless rationalization and dodginess muddying the water. If it's not illegal, it will be done. If the penalty doesn't outweigh the profit, it will be done even if it's illegal. We need some serious protections of consumer data, with c-suite decision makers going to prison, billion dollar companies shut down and liquidated, and a ruthless FAFO regulatory system put into place. Our current laws are oriented around 1980s notions of computer security and our data protections are rooted in quill and parchment era verbiage. We need to recalibrate and relegislate based on a modern understanding of personal data, with principles of ephemerality and cryptographic protections baked in that protect and support individual citizens first and foremost.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

It's deeply ironic that this webpage wants me to give it my email address and card details before letting me read the rest of the article. https://archive.is/Th5vB https://archive.is/Th5vB

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

paxys 2y ago

That's called paying for things, and isn't ironic in the slightest.

Retr0id 2y ago
I buy things without giving away my personal information all the time.
- paxys 2y ago
  How do you pay for things online without sending over details of a payment instrument?
  - TimeBearingDown 2y ago
    Bitcoin or Ether from a new subaddress. Monero for more privacy, or use the former currencies after exchanging from Monero.
moffkalast 2y ago
Maybe they should be asking people to mail them cash.
- paxys 2y ago
  And how do you tie that cash back to an online account?
  - Retr0id 2y ago
    Mullvad has it figured out: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/cash-still-king https://mullvad.net/en/blog/cash-still-king Now, I don't expect a newspaper to go to such lengths, but it is nonetheless ironic for an article that tells me not to give up my information to ask for my information in the same breath.
  - laweijfmvo 2y ago
    you could wrap the cash in a sheet of torn off paper, with your SSN written on it.
  - observationist 2y ago
    There are many service and product vendors that accomplish this, depending on the exact things they sell. Mullvad being a premium example - you can maintain as much anonymity as you want; they get their money, retain only whatever they are legally required to based on the nature of the transaction, and it can even be entirely anonymous through cryptocurrency. It is possible, and even admirable, for companies to do this. The only reason to hoover up as much identity data as possible is to maxmimize earnings, reselling harvested data to the highest bidder exclusively, or to the greatest number of purchasers. It's not necessary or good to contribute to panopticon surveillance. The game being played is not anywhere close to informed consent or educated consumers making rational choices. It's universally deceptive and the underlying intent of the system is to maximize the amount of money being extracted from consumers while minimizing the cost, creating chains of middlemen and operators inflating the price of a good or service without adding value to the end-user. It's not a valid free market tactic - it is not morally or ethically justifiable, despite the endless rationalization and dodginess muddying the water. If it's not illegal, it will be done. If the penalty doesn't outweigh the profit, it will be done even if it's illegal. We need some serious protections of consumer data, with c-suite decision makers going to prison, billion dollar companies shut down and liquidated, and a ruthless FAFO regulatory system put into place. Our current laws are oriented around 1980s notions of computer security and our data protections are rooted in quill and parchment era verbiage. We need to recalibrate and relegislate based on a modern understanding of personal data, with principles of ephemerality and cryptographic protections baked in that protect and support individual citizens first and foremost.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]