5 ms·

A great example that should remind people that it's probably best to assume that everything they say or do online (offline as well) is now (and forevermore) pub

A great example that should remind people that it's probably best to assume that everything they say or do online (offline as well) is now (and forevermore) public. Assume that anything you say or do has the ability to be seen by anyone and everyone around the globe instantly - without any methods of recourse. The genie is out of the bottle. Hence one should adapt one's own behaviour and act accordingly (that doesn't mean that you should get paranoid - just be more careful :). Reduce risk and watch what you say from now on.

fossuser 14y ago
I've been saying this for a while too. There's no such thing as online privacy - privacy is dead. It's better that the default for most things online is public since any privacy setting is just an illusion of security. Of course there are some notable exceptions to this (encrypted backup services that encrypt locally before backup), but for the most part if it's online and at least some other people can see it - everyone can see it.
- adrusi 14y ago
  using encryption it's completely possible to make any information exchange as secure as it can possibly be without accounting for humans on the other end leaking the information.
  - fossuser 14y ago
    That's exactly the reason it isn't secure.
- EGreg 14y ago
  Yeah, if you think that, then you should read this :) http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120110469#b http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120110469#b It took me a loooong time to figure out how to do privacy and social networking at the same time, using only web technology. Actually it can't be provably private using web technology because you have to trust the server -- which is why we need this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2024164 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2024164
andreasvc 14y ago
It doesn't have to be that way; it's very easy to lock down your facebook settings to friends-only. I think it's quite ridiculous that that's not the default. This pessimistic assumption you mention where anyone can see everything might be the safest, but it's just not how humans work. When you're surrounded by a bunch of friends (or their status messages), you don't assume the rest of the world is overhearing you as well.
- fromhet 14y ago
  I believe that when people say that everything on the internet is in the public domain they imply that even private data is subject to hackers and such. And if someone got root of Zuckerbergs cellar server (or, wait, somethig) they would be able to do what they wished with our data.
- confluence 14y ago
  You are right about that option. But I find it prudent to always reduce the chance of a type 2 error and increase the chance of a type 1 error (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4081972 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4081972). It is best to assume the worst and trust nothing whilst acting probabilistically than to assume perfection/trust and act deterministically. Hence, in this case, if you assume everything is public, you reduce the harm that can come to you when the trust you have in a service fails you (as it may well do). Just like an investor - take on risk, minimise uncertainty and price catastrophe correctly. This gives you the best of both worlds - risk priced in proportion to reward. You can have your cake and eat it too - if you only take a slice and no more.
  - mduerksen 14y ago
    As a completely off-topic side note: Since I was introduced to statistics, I always forgot which error was type 1 and which was type 2. I had to read your link to find out. In code, "int errorType = 1;" would be a badly chosen variable :) The expressions "false positive" and "false negative" reveal more semantics than "type 1" and "type 2", and are therefore much easier to remember.
TeMPOraL 14y ago
In principle it has always been so - whatever you do leaves an permanent imprint in people and things around you. It's just that the Internet is a new, much more efficient way to navigate and explore the Great Web of Causality. So what was true just in principle, now became true in practice.
imgabe 14y ago
The other option is to arrange your life such that you don't have to care what other people think about your status messages. Not necessarily easy for everyone, but much more satisfying in the long run.

fossuser 14y ago

I've been saying this for a while too. There's no such thing as online privacy - privacy is dead. It's better that the default for most things online is public since any privacy setting is just an illusion of security. Of course there are some notable exceptions to this (encrypted backup services that encrypt locally before backup), but for the most part if it's online and at least some other people can see it - everyone can see it.

adrusi 14y ago
using encryption it's completely possible to make any information exchange as secure as it can possibly be without accounting for humans on the other end leaking the information.
- fossuser 14y ago
  That's exactly the reason it isn't secure.
EGreg 14y ago
Yeah, if you think that, then you should read this :) http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120110469#b http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120110469#b It took me a loooong time to figure out how to do privacy and social networking at the same time, using only web technology. Actually it can't be provably private using web technology because you have to trust the server -- which is why we need this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2024164 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2024164

andreasvc 14y ago

It doesn't have to be that way; it's very easy to lock down your facebook settings to friends-only. I think it's quite ridiculous that that's not the default. This pessimistic assumption you mention where anyone can see everything might be the safest, but it's just not how humans work. When you're surrounded by a bunch of friends (or their status messages), you don't assume the rest of the world is overhearing you as well.

fromhet 14y ago
I believe that when people say that everything on the internet is in the public domain they imply that even private data is subject to hackers and such. And if someone got root of Zuckerbergs cellar server (or, wait, somethig) they would be able to do what they wished with our data.
confluence 14y ago
You are right about that option. But I find it prudent to always reduce the chance of a type 2 error and increase the chance of a type 1 error (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4081972 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4081972). It is best to assume the worst and trust nothing whilst acting probabilistically than to assume perfection/trust and act deterministically. Hence, in this case, if you assume everything is public, you reduce the harm that can come to you when the trust you have in a service fails you (as it may well do). Just like an investor - take on risk, minimise uncertainty and price catastrophe correctly. This gives you the best of both worlds - risk priced in proportion to reward. You can have your cake and eat it too - if you only take a slice and no more.
- mduerksen 14y ago
  As a completely off-topic side note: Since I was introduced to statistics, I always forgot which error was type 1 and which was type 2. I had to read your link to find out. In code, "int errorType = 1;" would be a badly chosen variable :) The expressions "false positive" and "false negative" reveal more semantics than "type 1" and "type 2", and are therefore much easier to remember.

TeMPOraL 14y ago

In principle it has always been so - whatever you do leaves an permanent imprint in people and things around you. It's just that the Internet is a new, much more efficient way to navigate and explore the Great Web of Causality. So what was true just in principle, now became true in practice.

imgabe 14y ago

The other option is to arrange your life such that you don't have to care what other people think about your status messages. Not necessarily easy for everyone, but much more satisfying in the long run.