13 ms·

The Internet is a surveillance state

318 points by lignuist 14y ago

rasur 14y ago
"this is how liberty dies.. with thunderous applause"
ftwinnovations 14y ago
"If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope." I couldn't help but laugh when I read that.
- Dn_Ab 14y ago
  Interestingly, I consider that a fair equilibrium. Not something to despair over. I think it would be worse if the director of the CIA could keep privacy but not random individual. That power does not affect ability to avoid lack of privacy means things are becoming more balanced.
  - lostnet 14y ago
    Yes, I'd say privacy is actually much more of a problem for the elite. How many investigations dig up infidelity, etc, in the normal population and then carefully step around it instead of enlarging the investigation? But I do think the power elite are driven by excessive compulsions, and I worry if we eliminate the ones with relatively normal/outside compulsions we will be left with the Machiavellian freaks running everything.
  - doctorstupid 14y ago
    Fair equilibrium? Perhaps anyone can be incriminated, but access to the incriminating evidence is anything but balanced. Remember, he was tracked by the FBI, not some ordinary Joe.
- Torgo 14y ago
  Eh, the director of the CIA has a different threat profile than a regular user. I don't have a security clearance (anymore) that I have to maintain that gives anybody direct reason to consider thwarting tracking to be dangerously suspicious.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
webwanderings 14y ago
> We can use an alias on Facebook I'm not following. How does one use alias on Facebook?
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  Just change your name to a fake name. There's no magic.
  - webwanderings 14y ago
    Well then Facebook doesn't really work or does it? Facebook works best if you keep it confined to your friends and family, the people you know in-person. Having a fake name would defeat that purpose.
    - niggler 14y ago
      Facebook works best when you don't use it :) I prefer in-person discussions. If that's not possible, calling > texting > email > physical mail. every other solution is irrelevant to me.
      - webwanderings 14y ago
        I don't know about you but I have many family members who have practically given up on using email for important announcements like wedding, birth etc. People use Facebook for such communication needs because it is lot more convenient than email. Also, not sure if you noticed but Facebook messaging provides a "return receipt" feature by default. So you know if and when your message (email) is picked up. Try doing that with the free email accounts like gmail, hotmail etc.
        niggler 14y ago
        "I don't know about you " I'm in the fortunate situation where people in my social circle still prefer phone and email to facebook and twitter :) "announcements like wedding, birth etc" I don't know about your social circles, but in mine those announcements demand in-person discussion or phone calls. Even email feel crass for announcing a birth. "Also, not sure if you noticed but Facebook messaging provides a "return receipt" feature" I've never used facebook messaging heh.
seiji 14y ago
[After-post update: I've no idea why this got auto-dead'd. Ideas?] What is the way out though? Nobody cares about privacy. Nobody. Google used to be happy divining long clicks from access logs. Then, they said "screw privacy!" and started explicitly tracking every outbound search click (I'm ignoring all your email, calendars, contacts, and phone data they have). Twitter used to be happy being just messages, then they click-nabb'ed every link. At least the interaction model on twitter is mostly benign. Facebook does mephistopheles-knows-what with everything they have. It can't be good. They're in an unspoken competition with Google for who can get users to voluntarily exploit themselves over the widest personality surface area. Then there's the hundreds of spy-tracking JS, ad networks (Hi, Google/DoubleClick!), ad markets (Hi, AppNexus!), mobile networks logging every URL you visit (Hi, Verizon!) and everything else tracking almost your every move across the Internet. Why don't we just make it illegal to have a webpage without embedding https://js.gov/tracker.js https://js.gov/tracker.js and give the information to everybody in realtime?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
webwanderings 14y ago
And the irony for Schneier would be, if you share this article on Facebook or anywhere, or heck even leave a comment there at CNN, you'd be tracked.
- niggler 14y ago
  For the record, using chrome: - disconnect blocked Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter - ghostery blocked more than 20 scripts from 10 different classes of trackers (e.g. there are 5 different references to DoubleClick resources)
  - webwanderings 14y ago
    You forgot to add. Use chrome without logging in to Google. But then, why bother?
  - ohwp 14y ago
    And while using Disconnect and Ghostery you still got tracked by IP address, your installed fonts, screen resolution, installed plugins, while your internet activity was stored by your internet provider.
    - nawitus 14y ago
      Privacy is not a binary function, it's shades of gray.
    - steveklabnik 14y ago
      For reference: https://panopticlick.eff.org/ https://panopticlick.eff.org/
    - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
      The only way any of that means anything individually identifying is if the two organizations(CNN and your ISP) share data.
- vonuebelgarten 14y ago
  That CNN page itself have a lot of trackers. My adblock filters saved me from these ones: http://i.imgur.com/NGbiIaV.png http://i.imgur.com/NGbiIaV.png
youngerdryas 14y ago
Does anyone have more info on Apple tracking users, he didn't post a link. All I can find is the log file debacle from two years ago.
- zimbatm 14y ago
  I don't have any info on intentional tracking but Macs surely do leak a lot of data. If you install Little Snitch you will have a better feeling of what is being sent over the network. These are the rules that I have regarding apple: * aosnotifyd: aosnotify.me.com * AppleIDAuthAgent: identity.apple.com * apsd: push.apple.com * assistand: apple.com * helpd: apple.com * imagent: apple.com * IMRemoteURLConnectionAgent.xpc: apple.com * ntpd: time.euro.apple.com * SoftwareUpdateAgent: sw.apple.com storeagent: apple.com * SyncServer: configuration.apple.com * ubd: configuration.apple.com * XProtectUpdater: configuration.apple.com The mac is able to change your timezone depending on your location. I don't think it would be too hard for Apple to build a precise profile of my location and movements if they wanted to.
- RexRollman 14y ago
  I've always been under the impression that Apple doesn't worry about that as much because they are more concerned with selling hardware.
ilaksh 14y ago
I think that this is one of the big reasons that privacy-focused named-data networking will become popular. Another reason is that that model fits better with most internet usage today where data is disseminated from a source to a number of users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking Of course, surveillance can be built into those types of systems as well, but I think that the right engineering approach building in features like encryption and anonymity, especially combined if possible with mesh networks, could be a big advantage for privacy. Also see http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan
xxchan 14y ago
Hahaha, there's a hilarious typo in the article. ".. one of the leaders of the LulzSac hacker movement.." It feels oddly appropriate.
nwzpaperman 14y ago
People have control over their individual online use cases and should assume more personal responsibility for managing their online profile. It is voluntary to join the LE email spam network, FB/G privacy invasion operations, disqus commenting, etc. It's a shame that these social networks that were intended to enable friend and family (biz in LE case) have devolved into open public access to your personal interactions. As they further infringe on the original use cases more people will leave them for alternative solutions.
- nsmartt 14y ago
  unfortunately, the average user is convinced that one has no problem if one has nothing to hide. i don't foresee the average user deciding to jump ship without a strong push.
  - gnosis 14y ago
    I don't think the typical user thinks he's got nothing to hide. More probably, he doesn't realize just how much he's spied on or by whom. Nor does he realize how the information these spies gather on him could be or is being used to his detriment. He also probably doesn't know about any privacy-respecting alternatives, or if he does, he finds them too much of a pain to use, or doesn't want to sacrifice his Facebook friends or his nifty smartphone. Fortunately, the masses are slowly becoming educated, more computer literate, and more privacy/security aware overall. It is heartening to see stories about online privacy on mainstream news sites like CNN. Being a victim of identity theft, stalking, or harrassment can also be an unfortunate but powerful wake up call to the need for privacy. It's a slow process, but the more people become aware of their vulnerability and victimization by the surveillance state, the more they will try to seek alternatives and call for positive change. I just hope by then it won't be too late.
    - nsmartt 14y ago
      I wish I could agree, but I recently explained to one of my most intelligent friends just how much tracking is done, by whom, and how. She just argued that she didn't have anything to hide. A few days later, she admitted that I might have a point, but still wasn't interested in ditching Facebook. I hope you're right. If something doesn't change for the masses, alternatives will never really gain traction.
gnosis 14y ago
Many if not most HN users create software and internet infrastructure. Collectively, we have so much power. Yet much of what we make (directly or indirectly) is what the surveillance state is built on. It relies on us to build it, make it work, and keep it running. If we care at all about privacy, we should think carefully about the privacy impact of what we make, and try to make a positive difference (or at least do no harm).
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  I highly doubt that's a stable or dominant strategy. As long as there's pressure to build systems, they will find people to build them. Not to mention, those sorts of jobs can be fun, intellectually challenging problems. Like Narus - we probably agree it's not in the world's interest to have companies or governments with such technologies. But offered money and a chance to work on such a system, I'd work on it in a heartbeat. It's unlikely that there will be a shortage of qualified people or that the extra money required will make any impact. And you could always take such jobs, and donate to the EFF. This is such a common argument, I'm sure it has a name.
  - bravohippo 14y ago
    That's despicable. The way we look at the inventors of mustard gas, lobotomies, and torture wheels is the way history will look at you. You must be a terrible person to be willing to directly further evil in the name of money and "fun".
    - RougeFemme 14y ago
      Those were all technologies that were "known" to be "evil". But to get that point, there were probably scientific advancements made that were pretty benign, in isolation. And those advancements were probably used to develop other technologies that were "known" to be "good". The people working on those earlier advancements had no way (necessarily) of knowing what would be derived from their work. The same is true of technological advancements advancements today. The people who first started working on the internet probably had no idea (for the most part) of the privacy issues that have arisen. Ditto for satellites, GPS. . .
richardjordan 14y ago
The elephant in the room that CNN doesn't want to talk about or admit to is that much of the problem lies in Big Media (of which CNN is obviously a part). US/Western media companies are more aligned with the government of China than any notion of freedom when it comes to the interests they pour money into (as opposed to platitudes they might espouse). The push to lock down computers and make it hard/impossible to buy one that doesn't clearly identify you - so that you cannot "steal" big media content - is exactly what makes it hard/impossible to prevent yourself being tracked and surveilled. Can knowledgeable hackers beat the system...? Sure, somewhat, and increasingly this is harder and harder to do. But society is lost in the middle not on the fringes. We live in the Panopticon [1] and this is a problem for many reasons. When a small elite can strengthen its ability to pull the levers of power decision making is concentrated in a smaller and smaller group. Small groups make worse decisions than large scale collective "marketplaces" of ideas and thought. This is what allowed the US and the West to flourish for so long. But it's easily lost. We are moving to a world where elections lead to less and less change, where major problems are going unresolved and punted to a future on the assumption that exponentially growing challenges can be out-waited. The only hope is in the increased connectivity of the Internet, access to information, and ability to share dissenting views. As this is taken away, to preserve Hollywood profits, and in the name of "security", we run further and further off the cliff. Even Wylie Coyote has to look down eventually and see that it's time to fall to the canyon floor. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
- return0 14y ago
  Now, you 're attacking the messenger and sidestepping the issue. The kinds of surveillance the article talks about are inherent in the structure of the internet, hardly anything to do with hollywood lockdowns.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    If a man bursts into the room armed to the teeth, points pistols at us and yells that the problem in society today is too many guns, it's okay to attack that messenger and point out that he is part of the problem. Yes for brevity I skipped a couple of steps in my argument that I knew/assumed most folks on HN wouldn't need spelling out >> surveillance can be beaten by various forms of anonymizing technology >> such technology requires control of your technology environment, hardware & software >> big media companies such as the one printing the article (albeit one by a respected security researcher whose articles I read - via Google Reader - le sigh) are among those entities most aggressive in restricting access, by you and I, to control over our technology choices. [Updated to correct imprecise language] So... the messenger - or at least the part I criticized, CNN - is not a neutral party in this story and as such it's perfectly legitimate to question their role and interests in the message. Clearer?
robomartin 14y ago
Sorry, I can't resist. And, I'll preface this by saying OF COURSE I AM JOKING. Here it goes: I've clashed many times with folks here on HN who are super-pro-government liberals. They take every opportunity to point out how government has built everything of value to us and how government has wisely invested in infrastructure and other projects that make our lives possible. The implication, of course, is that we should be pro-government, pay more taxes and be thankful we are allowed to flourish under such a system. One of their favorite things to say is "government created the Internet". Fantastic! Let's take the good with the bad. If government is going to be credited with the good then we credit them with the bad as well. They created such a shitty system that we are all under surveillance, like it or not. Not so you say? Well, this kind of thing was nearly impossible before our government created the Internet. They must have had ulterior motives and knew it could be used for this. Why didn't they protect us with regulations BEFORE the Facebook's and Google's of the 'net were even up and running? They knew what they were creating. Anyhow. I am not much of a comedian but there's a joke in there somewhere. The point is that government is an ass. They fuck-up nearly everything they do. This "internet == surveillance state" thing is very real and it is something governments (PLURAL) are benefiting from immensely. Never before in the history of humanity has it been possible to spy on individual human beings with this degree of granularity. And it won't get any better for probably another five to ten years, if ever.
- bilbo0s 14y ago
  I didn't downvote you, because I think your heart is in the right place. But this statement: "...Well, this kind of thing was nearly impossible before our government created the Internet..." really does betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the technologies that were around before the internet. The government really has had this power for quite a while. In fact, the only difference now... is that people give the government pictures of themselves to match faces to the phone conversations. And, of course, continuous position data... as opposed to the sort of discrete position data you could get in the 70's and 80's.
  - robomartin 14y ago
    Well, I am not a surveillance expert by any possible stretch of the imagination. That said, I seriously doubt governments could access the kind of personal data (behavioral and otherwise) they can today back in the 70's and 80's. sure, if they targeted someone they could follow their life and gather lots of data. That required devoting people to follow, watch, study and record a persons every action. Today things are quite different. A "recording" of everyone's actions is being made every minute of every day. When someone becomes a government target they can virtually rewind the last n years and learn everything about them with nearly zero human cost in relative terms.
jflatow 14y ago
Great read, but I wish he hadn't glossed over the part about not being something the free market can fix; and explained why only strong government will can. He admits that governments are partaking in the frenzy at least as much as are companies, but doesn't explain why it would be easier to get a government to change, than to change a company, or start a new one.
- caseysoftware 14y ago
  There's another aspect to that.. if you're tired of what a company is doing, you can opt out and stop using their services. If enough people do this, they'll change their behavior or simply be no more. We saw that in how Godaddy finally came around against SOPA. When we talk about government, the only way to opt-out is to physically leave and then that can only take you so far.. because even then, you might fall under other countries' jurisdictions no matter where you live. :(
- lowboy 14y ago
  What's the incentive for free market solutions to the problem? The free market is motivated by profit. The gov is ostensibly motivated to serve its citizens. There's a better chance of the latter being effective, IMO.
- aethertap 14y ago
  That's exactly where I got hung up as well. If there is a demand for anonymous access tech, I think that the free market will eventually fill that demand (barring interference from the state). I don't think it's wise to entrust the government with limiting its own powers in general. "Strong government will" rarely seems to mean "empowering people to be free and anonymous," at least in my experience.
- elwin 14y ago
  I think it's more accurate to say that the free market currently does not think that Internet surveillance is a problem. Consumers in general have decided that for Internet services and Internet access devices, factors such as cheapness, ease of use, and trendiness are more important than privacy. Governments are able to reach more definitive consensus than free markets - a market would be not easily be able to make everyone use an anonymizing proxy, for example, but a government could legislate that. Governments can also move costs around, such as by funding a national proxy service with tax money. But on one level, free markets and democratic governments are both just methods that societies use to enforce their collective wills. There are limits to how much their decisions can differ. There's a reason Schneier calls a situation created by Internet companies a surveillance state.
WhoIsSatoshi 14y ago
There is a privacy ecosystem that is rising from it all. There are ways. the TOR network allows you to anonymize your dealings from your ISP. Some sites are now advertising the anonymity and encryption they are using for their services (MEGA). Bitcoin has seen a stellar growth (and still poised to) due to its uncontrollable nature, and can be tweaked to achieve pseudo anonimity through enough shuffling of the coins. Assange puts it best by saying that "The universe believes in Encryption - [it] is the ultimate form of direct non-violent action." What WE can do, is help put the blocks in place...
jiggy2011 14y ago
The technology exists for the privacy conscious to greatly reduce their track-ability. However the problem is that the platform which are becoming more popular for convenience reasons such as ChromeOS or iOS do not necessarily make this stuff easy or even possible. I would be much happier to recommend these systems to people if they did not lose this control.
boi_v2 14y ago
Why not stop using facebook, google, apple and all these surveillance tools? Have you ever asked yourself why you can't remove the batteries of your Iphone? Ow Yes, design is everyting. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-trac... Demand privacy, respect privacy, develop privacy and pay for those that offer it to you. "If you are not paying for a service you are the product being sold" and no, google and facebook were never your friends. Time to wake up!
- zenbowman 14y ago
  "If you are not paying for a service you are the product being sold". Exactly.
- nwh 14y ago
  I highly doubt the battery not being removable is designed to aid in tracking. It's a vital part of making the iPhone smaller. Open one up and look inside if you don't believe me.
richcollins 14y ago
This isn't something the free market can fix He assumes that people care and are willing to change technology but can't for some reason. In my experience, people don't care.
CurtMonash 14y ago
Scheier is right that information will be collected, and that the government will have access to it. That genie is out of the bottle. But there is still hope for reasonable and even strong controls on the USES of information. This is exactly the distinction I've been drawing for years, e.g. in http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy-discussion-needs-to-head/ http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy-discussion...
rapind 14y ago
Eventually there will be some good and accessible options that will enable you to truly opt-out of the internet surveillance state. Other than the occasional embarrassing thing (like googling a dance song) I really can't think of anything I have to hide. Even so, I would pay a subscription fee to keep all of my internet communications completely private. I don't like being profiled, and it feels like an infringement on my freedom. I would even pay enough of a fee that the company I pay it too could in turn pay lobbyists to help protect their interests or headquarter in another country etc. And the worse it gets, the more I'm willing to pay. I'm sure I'm a minority right now, but I think our numbers are growing.
Create 14y ago
http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtReq... https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-18-archive.html#Marlinspike https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-18-archive....
ixacto 14y ago
From a linked article in TFA: "Monsegur was a Tor user, although he was caught after logging on to IRC without going through Tor." So he forgot to route IRC through Tor. Luckily there are a couple live distros that do it automatically, like tails. There are also VPN that accept payment in bitcoin, so anonymity is still preserved. This doesn't matter in the scope of the article though, since obviously we are talking about people who are not going to any precautions to hide their privacy.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
No, no, no, no, no. We are always under surveillance - my neighbours know I stay up late watching crap tv, the bookshop assistant knows I browse the comics section but don't buy, and a hundred people each day see me do weird or normal things. I am not oppressed when they do that. Embarrassed maybe, but not dragged of for "re-education". As long as no-one uses the surveillance to force political outcomes from me or any individual, then this is pollution, not dictatorship. Yes we need radical privacy laws - but not ones trying to put the genie back in the lamp. There are amazing benefits from technology - the sharing of knowledge seamlessly across 7bn people is going to ,produce wonders we cannot guess. But we must embrace this new world - a world without secrecy. For privacy is not secrecy - it is politeness of our neighbours. The problem is not my neighbours who know, it is companies across the world who now know. Their knowledge and actions are kept secret from me - and that must be prevented. Sunlight is the best disinfectant applies to targeted ads as much as corrupt politics. Firstly any organisation that holds informant that can be used to identify and track people must publish the identifications they hold in real time. Expect a cottage industry of telling me about everything about me. Oh and those cottage industries must publish as well. So not a profitable cottage industry. Seen me walk out the door of mcdonalds after paying with my Loyalty card - great mail me the link so I can see. Secondly a legal framework that makes commercial profit from my identity only allowed if I consent and preferably if I get a cut. Want to sell me ads - great pay me. Oh suddenly finding ads less profitable? Want to sell me a coffee after that burger - you could use the freely published info mcdonalds has to fling my phone a coupon - but that's my information. I charge a flat 2c for every commercial use of my info - I get 2c even if I don't want coffee. Thirdly, get used to the idea your wife instantly knows you are sleeping with the secretary.
- eurleif 14y ago
  The surveillance you describe is ephemeral. After you move, your neighbors will forget you ever existed. The bookshop assistant probably forgets you the moment you walk out the door. Internet data is not that way. It potentially lasts forever. A fear I've heard expressed is that in the future, totalitarianism will arrive, and past data will be used against people.
  - 14y ago
rasengan0 14y ago
When the gold rush came, it was easy to see that prospecting was not where the value was at. Smart entrepreneurs sold pans, shovels and dungarees. Likewise in the age of surveillance, the Ciscos and Choicepoints rake in, handing off infrastructure and data to the highest bidder. The gold ran out, but we still have the Gap.
joblessjunkie 14y ago
Rendering Mr. Schneier on CNN's website caused my browser to send requests to: - cnn.com and turner.com - disqus.com - facebook.net, facebook.com, and fbcdn.net - imrworldwide.com - cleanprint.net - outbrain.com - twitter.com and twimg.com - chartbeat.com - linkedin.com - googlesyndication.com and google-analytics.com - scorecardresearch.com - doubleclick.net ...and yields an unending stream of pings to chartbeat.net just to let them know my tab is still open.
- progrock 14y ago
  Wow, that's quite a fingerprint.
- Silhouette 14y ago
  I long ago installed a plug-in that blocks most or possibly all of the above. There are several now that will do this for, say, Firefox. In a related benefit, sites load way faster for me and consume substantially less bandwidth, since I'm not constantly waiting and paying to download the malware that so many sites now feel the need to embed.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    Which one do you like the best?
    - Silhouette 14y ago
      Ghostery takes care of most such things, including blocking the major spying tricks by the likes of Google and Facebook. A decent ad blocker like AdBlock Plus will go some way to helping as well, though it's more of a side effect in that case. There's also BetterPrivacy, which mostly deals with the non-cookie cookies like Flash LSOs. Unfortunately, for reasons I can't fathom, even generally privacy-friendly browsers like Firefox still seem quite happy to send vast amounts of fingerprint-friendly information that serves almost no legitimate purpose to anyone who cares to listen. However, there are clearly people thinking about this, e.g., see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Fingerprinting https://wiki.mozilla.org/Fingerprinting.
dreamfactory 14y ago
A lot of commenters focussing here on technical privacy solutions - but that seems to be missing the current move towards behavioural tracking. And the irony is that this is a lot of the really exciting stuff for many here - look at truelens and storm for example. Given the adulation and reverence here for highly politically engaged and extreme right-wing characters like Peter Thiel, we shouldn't be at all surprised by this kind of outcome.
zenbowman 14y ago
Its not like people are victims here, for the most part they've chosen the "free" privacy violating services over the paid ones every time. If people cared about their privacy, this wouldn't be the case, they'd be willing to pay for useful services. There was a chance that a market could have developed for services that protected privacy, but thats long gone. At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world withoit secrets. Its terrifying to people over 30, but it could lead to a better world, because even those in power cannot escape the watchful eye of Big Brother.
- graue 14y ago
  That's an unfair criticism. If you look upthread, a commenter points out[1] that the CNN page for this article includes at least 10 third-party tracking scripts. Most people are unaware that tracking is going on at this scale, how it works, or what they can do about it. Watch this video[2] of a bunch of people who don't know what a browser is. That's most people. Do you think they understand how internet tracking works? Hardly. You and I, as techies, can perhaps make an informed decision, but most people can't and if you step outside the bubble you'll see that. It's never okay to blame the users for hidden privacy consequences. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5387380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5387380 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ
- betterunix 14y ago
  That would be a fine argument if the majority of computer users actually understood what tracking is being performed and how it is performed. Most computer users have no idea how they are tracked, nor do they understand how they can be tracked. People generally do not know how their computers work, and companies take advantage of that ignorance when they track people. Most people do not understand that they are trading privacy for access to websites and web apps. "At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world [without] secrets" Nonsense. Kids just have a different idea about what should be kept secret. There are still plenty of in-the-closet gay teenagers whose friends understand that they are being trusted with a secret. Plenty of kids have odd habits they do not want to tell their friends about. Teenagers still keep secrets from their parents -- that is basically an invariant. There are many college students who work hard to keep their Facebook profiles "clean" in an attempt to present the best image possible to potential future employers. What has changed is the meaning of keeping things secret. A 15 year old in-the-closet gay teenager most likely has no idea that "deleting" a "private" message sent over Facebook does not actually delete the message from Facebook's servers. That same teenager probably has no idea that his public "friends" list is sufficient to determine that he is gay with high probability. That is the problem society faces right now: people want to keep things secret, but it is very difficult to actually do so. I think that eventually society will adapt and people will learn how to keep secrets in an age of widespread surveillance. It is inevitable: eventually there will be so many incidents of embarrassing secrets being revealed by these various companies that people will start to use technologies to hamper the tracking.
billhorvath 14y ago
I put up a perspective on this not too long ago; see https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/ https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-gover...
billhorvath 14y ago
From my perspective, the problem is that these companies are effectively acting as government agents. FWIW, I blogged about it here: https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/ https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-gover...
billhorvath 14y ago
From my perspective, the problem is that these companies are effectively acting as government agents. FWIW, I blogged about it here: https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/ https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-gover...
logn 14y ago
"Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data about us." My fiance receives tampon ads during the appropriate time of the month on Facebook.
pootch 14y ago
Dr Mr Schnier, Years ago I offered a website actually 2 websites one which used SSH to a proxy and one which scraped google's self pointing links to give people freedom to search anonymously. (You actually linked to my site.) It wasn't long after that that my data center was raided and i started getting calls from the govt. I empathize but Im not putting myself through this ever again
hugofirth 14y ago
This comment probably won't go down well considering the audience ... but here goes: Yes the internet is a surveillance state ... and that is terrible ... except ... except ... is it? My long held belief is that in an age where even the most tech-savvy cannot possibly remain anonymous all the time our best hope for privacy is in the simply overwhelming volume of data being collected. Unless I do something worthy of government attention I have reason to believe no human is going to closely examine my gmail - why on earth would they? Therefore the only breach of privacy is by a parser collecting information for an algorithm. So I get a few ads in gmail ... 90% of the time I ignore them ... the other 10% of the time I would MUCH rather they were targeted at my interests than just meaningless drivel! Furthermore - if the ad revenue collected by these companies allows them to continue to improve a free service I love then power to them! People bitch about ads, without considering the reality that without them most of the service we value which make up the internet would not exist without them. You can't always have your cake and eat it. Lastly I would like to address the point of privacy invasion by a government body. This is nothing new! It has just become easier. I live in the UK - a tiny island with 4,000,000 CCTV cameras. There is probably an accumulation of hundreds of hours of footage of me throughout my life... So What ?! I have done nothing wrong, and if the existence of that footage allows the prevention or solving of even one crime then I'm all for it. If a government body wants your data - the chances are they are going to get it. Through warrant or some other means. The acceleration of this process is not necessarily a bad thing. They are, after all, the elected officials. Anyway /rant (... runs and hides)
- Uhhrrr 14y ago
  i agree with you about how nice it is to have targeted ads (although Google still hasn't gotten good enough that I have ever clicked on anything). The dangers for the government are when it uses its powers to stay elected (Nixon), or spy on activists (Nixon, Bush), or pilfer the IP of other countries (Airbus). And of course these dangers also apply to commercial enterprises - if I were a MS competitor, I sure as heck wouldn't allow Skype in the office.
peripetylabs 14y ago
I used to think people actually wanted privacy. (I did, why wouldn't everyone else?) But the data does not support that hypothesis -- in fact, I think the exact opposite is true. People's personal information is not being stolen from them, it is given away; and not even for free -- more than 70% of the US population [1] pays an ISP a monthly fee in order to connect to Facebook's servers and upload their data. That is how the Internet works -- it is not Facebook sending the SYN packets. In general society (outside of our tiny bubble), not having a Facebook account is considered strange. It is even seen as grounds for suspicion of criminal activity. [2] Everyone says they want to eat right, exercise and be healthy, but more than a third of them are obese. [3] The surveillance state is not happening despite us, it is precisely what the majority of people want, even as they deny it. If you wish to change this unfortunate fact, change the culture. [1] http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook-obsession/ http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook-obsessi... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-te... [3] http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
EEGuy 14y ago
Coincidentally, the CISPA is up for debate again in the House. However you feel about such surveillance, it legal scope and extent is being democratically debated now. You can contact your Representative using this site: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Speak your mind to your Rep. It's how Representative Democracy works.

318 points by lignuist 14y ago

rasur 14y ago

"this is how liberty dies.. with thunderous applause"

"If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope." I couldn't help but laugh when I read that.

Dn_Ab 14y ago
Interestingly, I consider that a fair equilibrium. Not something to despair over. I think it would be worse if the director of the CIA could keep privacy but not random individual. That power does not affect ability to avoid lack of privacy means things are becoming more balanced.
- lostnet 14y ago
  Yes, I'd say privacy is actually much more of a problem for the elite. How many investigations dig up infidelity, etc, in the normal population and then carefully step around it instead of enlarging the investigation? But I do think the power elite are driven by excessive compulsions, and I worry if we eliminate the ones with relatively normal/outside compulsions we will be left with the Machiavellian freaks running everything.
- doctorstupid 14y ago
  Fair equilibrium? Perhaps anyone can be incriminated, but access to the incriminating evidence is anything but balanced. Remember, he was tracked by the FBI, not some ordinary Joe.
Torgo 14y ago
Eh, the director of the CIA has a different threat profile than a regular user. I don't have a security clearance (anymore) that I have to maintain that gives anybody direct reason to consider thwarting tracking to be dangerously suspicious.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

webwanderings 14y ago

> We can use an alias on Facebook I'm not following. How does one use alias on Facebook?

JonnieCache 14y ago
Just change your name to a fake name. There's no magic.
- webwanderings 14y ago
  Well then Facebook doesn't really work or does it? Facebook works best if you keep it confined to your friends and family, the people you know in-person. Having a fake name would defeat that purpose.
  - niggler 14y ago
    Facebook works best when you don't use it :) I prefer in-person discussions. If that's not possible, calling > texting > email > physical mail. every other solution is irrelevant to me.
    - webwanderings 14y ago
      I don't know about you but I have many family members who have practically given up on using email for important announcements like wedding, birth etc. People use Facebook for such communication needs because it is lot more convenient than email. Also, not sure if you noticed but Facebook messaging provides a "return receipt" feature by default. So you know if and when your message (email) is picked up. Try doing that with the free email accounts like gmail, hotmail etc.
      - niggler 14y ago
        "I don't know about you " I'm in the fortunate situation where people in my social circle still prefer phone and email to facebook and twitter :) "announcements like wedding, birth etc" I don't know about your social circles, but in mine those announcements demand in-person discussion or phone calls. Even email feel crass for announcing a birth. "Also, not sure if you noticed but Facebook messaging provides a "return receipt" feature" I've never used facebook messaging heh.

seiji 14y ago

[After-post update: I've no idea why this got auto-dead'd. Ideas?] What is the way out though? Nobody cares about privacy. Nobody. Google used to be happy divining long clicks from access logs. Then, they said "screw privacy!" and started explicitly tracking every outbound search click (I'm ignoring all your email, calendars, contacts, and phone data they have). Twitter used to be happy being just messages, then they click-nabb'ed every link. At least the interaction model on twitter is mostly benign. Facebook does mephistopheles-knows-what with everything they have. It can't be good. They're in an unspoken competition with Google for who can get users to voluntarily exploit themselves over the widest personality surface area. Then there's the hundreds of spy-tracking JS, ad networks (Hi, Google/DoubleClick!), ad markets (Hi, AppNexus!), mobile networks logging every URL you visit (Hi, Verizon!) and everything else tracking almost your every move across the Internet. Why don't we just make it illegal to have a webpage without embedding https://js.gov/tracker.js https://js.gov/tracker.js and give the information to everybody in realtime?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

webwanderings 14y ago

And the irony for Schneier would be, if you share this article on Facebook or anywhere, or heck even leave a comment there at CNN, you'd be tracked.

niggler 14y ago
For the record, using chrome: - disconnect blocked Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter - ghostery blocked more than 20 scripts from 10 different classes of trackers (e.g. there are 5 different references to DoubleClick resources)
- webwanderings 14y ago
  You forgot to add. Use chrome without logging in to Google. But then, why bother?
- ohwp 14y ago
  And while using Disconnect and Ghostery you still got tracked by IP address, your installed fonts, screen resolution, installed plugins, while your internet activity was stored by your internet provider.
  - nawitus 14y ago
    Privacy is not a binary function, it's shades of gray.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    For reference: https://panopticlick.eff.org/ https://panopticlick.eff.org/
  - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
    The only way any of that means anything individually identifying is if the two organizations(CNN and your ISP) share data.
vonuebelgarten 14y ago
That CNN page itself have a lot of trackers. My adblock filters saved me from these ones: http://i.imgur.com/NGbiIaV.png http://i.imgur.com/NGbiIaV.png

youngerdryas 14y ago

Does anyone have more info on Apple tracking users, he didn't post a link. All I can find is the log file debacle from two years ago.

zimbatm 14y ago
I don't have any info on intentional tracking but Macs surely do leak a lot of data. If you install Little Snitch you will have a better feeling of what is being sent over the network. These are the rules that I have regarding apple: * aosnotifyd: aosnotify.me.com * AppleIDAuthAgent: identity.apple.com * apsd: push.apple.com * assistand: apple.com * helpd: apple.com * imagent: apple.com * IMRemoteURLConnectionAgent.xpc: apple.com * ntpd: time.euro.apple.com * SoftwareUpdateAgent: sw.apple.com storeagent: apple.com * SyncServer: configuration.apple.com * ubd: configuration.apple.com * XProtectUpdater: configuration.apple.com The mac is able to change your timezone depending on your location. I don't think it would be too hard for Apple to build a precise profile of my location and movements if they wanted to.
RexRollman 14y ago
I've always been under the impression that Apple doesn't worry about that as much because they are more concerned with selling hardware.

ilaksh 14y ago

I think that this is one of the big reasons that privacy-focused named-data networking will become popular. Another reason is that that model fits better with most internet usage today where data is disseminated from a source to a number of users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking Of course, surveillance can be built into those types of systems as well, but I think that the right engineering approach building in features like encryption and anonymity, especially combined if possible with mesh networks, could be a big advantage for privacy. Also see http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan

xxchan 14y ago

Hahaha, there's a hilarious typo in the article. ".. one of the leaders of the LulzSac hacker movement.." It feels oddly appropriate.

nwzpaperman 14y ago

People have control over their individual online use cases and should assume more personal responsibility for managing their online profile. It is voluntary to join the LE email spam network, FB/G privacy invasion operations, disqus commenting, etc. It's a shame that these social networks that were intended to enable friend and family (biz in LE case) have devolved into open public access to your personal interactions. As they further infringe on the original use cases more people will leave them for alternative solutions.

nsmartt 14y ago
unfortunately, the average user is convinced that one has no problem if one has nothing to hide. i don't foresee the average user deciding to jump ship without a strong push.
- gnosis 14y ago
  I don't think the typical user thinks he's got nothing to hide. More probably, he doesn't realize just how much he's spied on or by whom. Nor does he realize how the information these spies gather on him could be or is being used to his detriment. He also probably doesn't know about any privacy-respecting alternatives, or if he does, he finds them too much of a pain to use, or doesn't want to sacrifice his Facebook friends or his nifty smartphone. Fortunately, the masses are slowly becoming educated, more computer literate, and more privacy/security aware overall. It is heartening to see stories about online privacy on mainstream news sites like CNN. Being a victim of identity theft, stalking, or harrassment can also be an unfortunate but powerful wake up call to the need for privacy. It's a slow process, but the more people become aware of their vulnerability and victimization by the surveillance state, the more they will try to seek alternatives and call for positive change. I just hope by then it won't be too late.
  - nsmartt 14y ago
    I wish I could agree, but I recently explained to one of my most intelligent friends just how much tracking is done, by whom, and how. She just argued that she didn't have anything to hide. A few days later, she admitted that I might have a point, but still wasn't interested in ditching Facebook. I hope you're right. If something doesn't change for the masses, alternatives will never really gain traction.

gnosis 14y ago

Many if not most HN users create software and internet infrastructure. Collectively, we have so much power. Yet much of what we make (directly or indirectly) is what the surveillance state is built on. It relies on us to build it, make it work, and keep it running. If we care at all about privacy, we should think carefully about the privacy impact of what we make, and try to make a positive difference (or at least do no harm).

MichaelGG 14y ago
I highly doubt that's a stable or dominant strategy. As long as there's pressure to build systems, they will find people to build them. Not to mention, those sorts of jobs can be fun, intellectually challenging problems. Like Narus - we probably agree it's not in the world's interest to have companies or governments with such technologies. But offered money and a chance to work on such a system, I'd work on it in a heartbeat. It's unlikely that there will be a shortage of qualified people or that the extra money required will make any impact. And you could always take such jobs, and donate to the EFF. This is such a common argument, I'm sure it has a name.
- bravohippo 14y ago
  That's despicable. The way we look at the inventors of mustard gas, lobotomies, and torture wheels is the way history will look at you. You must be a terrible person to be willing to directly further evil in the name of money and "fun".
  - RougeFemme 14y ago
    Those were all technologies that were "known" to be "evil". But to get that point, there were probably scientific advancements made that were pretty benign, in isolation. And those advancements were probably used to develop other technologies that were "known" to be "good". The people working on those earlier advancements had no way (necessarily) of knowing what would be derived from their work. The same is true of technological advancements advancements today. The people who first started working on the internet probably had no idea (for the most part) of the privacy issues that have arisen. Ditto for satellites, GPS. . .

richardjordan 14y ago

The elephant in the room that CNN doesn't want to talk about or admit to is that much of the problem lies in Big Media (of which CNN is obviously a part). US/Western media companies are more aligned with the government of China than any notion of freedom when it comes to the interests they pour money into (as opposed to platitudes they might espouse). The push to lock down computers and make it hard/impossible to buy one that doesn't clearly identify you - so that you cannot "steal" big media content - is exactly what makes it hard/impossible to prevent yourself being tracked and surveilled. Can knowledgeable hackers beat the system...? Sure, somewhat, and increasingly this is harder and harder to do. But society is lost in the middle not on the fringes. We live in the Panopticon [1] and this is a problem for many reasons. When a small elite can strengthen its ability to pull the levers of power decision making is concentrated in a smaller and smaller group. Small groups make worse decisions than large scale collective "marketplaces" of ideas and thought. This is what allowed the US and the West to flourish for so long. But it's easily lost. We are moving to a world where elections lead to less and less change, where major problems are going unresolved and punted to a future on the assumption that exponentially growing challenges can be out-waited. The only hope is in the increased connectivity of the Internet, access to information, and ability to share dissenting views. As this is taken away, to preserve Hollywood profits, and in the name of "security", we run further and further off the cliff. Even Wylie Coyote has to look down eventually and see that it's time to fall to the canyon floor. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

return0 14y ago
Now, you 're attacking the messenger and sidestepping the issue. The kinds of surveillance the article talks about are inherent in the structure of the internet, hardly anything to do with hollywood lockdowns.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  If a man bursts into the room armed to the teeth, points pistols at us and yells that the problem in society today is too many guns, it's okay to attack that messenger and point out that he is part of the problem. Yes for brevity I skipped a couple of steps in my argument that I knew/assumed most folks on HN wouldn't need spelling out >> surveillance can be beaten by various forms of anonymizing technology >> such technology requires control of your technology environment, hardware & software >> big media companies such as the one printing the article (albeit one by a respected security researcher whose articles I read - via Google Reader - le sigh) are among those entities most aggressive in restricting access, by you and I, to control over our technology choices. [Updated to correct imprecise language] So... the messenger - or at least the part I criticized, CNN - is not a neutral party in this story and as such it's perfectly legitimate to question their role and interests in the message. Clearer?

robomartin 14y ago

Sorry, I can't resist. And, I'll preface this by saying OF COURSE I AM JOKING. Here it goes: I've clashed many times with folks here on HN who are super-pro-government liberals. They take every opportunity to point out how government has built everything of value to us and how government has wisely invested in infrastructure and other projects that make our lives possible. The implication, of course, is that we should be pro-government, pay more taxes and be thankful we are allowed to flourish under such a system. One of their favorite things to say is "government created the Internet". Fantastic! Let's take the good with the bad. If government is going to be credited with the good then we credit them with the bad as well. They created such a shitty system that we are all under surveillance, like it or not. Not so you say? Well, this kind of thing was nearly impossible before our government created the Internet. They must have had ulterior motives and knew it could be used for this. Why didn't they protect us with regulations BEFORE the Facebook's and Google's of the 'net were even up and running? They knew what they were creating. Anyhow. I am not much of a comedian but there's a joke in there somewhere. The point is that government is an ass. They fuck-up nearly everything they do. This "internet == surveillance state" thing is very real and it is something governments (PLURAL) are benefiting from immensely. Never before in the history of humanity has it been possible to spy on individual human beings with this degree of granularity. And it won't get any better for probably another five to ten years, if ever.

bilbo0s 14y ago
I didn't downvote you, because I think your heart is in the right place. But this statement: "...Well, this kind of thing was nearly impossible before our government created the Internet..." really does betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the technologies that were around before the internet. The government really has had this power for quite a while. In fact, the only difference now... is that people give the government pictures of themselves to match faces to the phone conversations. And, of course, continuous position data... as opposed to the sort of discrete position data you could get in the 70's and 80's.
- robomartin 14y ago
  Well, I am not a surveillance expert by any possible stretch of the imagination. That said, I seriously doubt governments could access the kind of personal data (behavioral and otherwise) they can today back in the 70's and 80's. sure, if they targeted someone they could follow their life and gather lots of data. That required devoting people to follow, watch, study and record a persons every action. Today things are quite different. A "recording" of everyone's actions is being made every minute of every day. When someone becomes a government target they can virtually rewind the last n years and learn everything about them with nearly zero human cost in relative terms.

jflatow 14y ago

Great read, but I wish he hadn't glossed over the part about not being something the free market can fix; and explained why only strong government will can. He admits that governments are partaking in the frenzy at least as much as are companies, but doesn't explain why it would be easier to get a government to change, than to change a company, or start a new one.

caseysoftware 14y ago
There's another aspect to that.. if you're tired of what a company is doing, you can opt out and stop using their services. If enough people do this, they'll change their behavior or simply be no more. We saw that in how Godaddy finally came around against SOPA. When we talk about government, the only way to opt-out is to physically leave and then that can only take you so far.. because even then, you might fall under other countries' jurisdictions no matter where you live. :(
lowboy 14y ago
What's the incentive for free market solutions to the problem? The free market is motivated by profit. The gov is ostensibly motivated to serve its citizens. There's a better chance of the latter being effective, IMO.
aethertap 14y ago
That's exactly where I got hung up as well. If there is a demand for anonymous access tech, I think that the free market will eventually fill that demand (barring interference from the state). I don't think it's wise to entrust the government with limiting its own powers in general. "Strong government will" rarely seems to mean "empowering people to be free and anonymous," at least in my experience.
elwin 14y ago
I think it's more accurate to say that the free market currently does not think that Internet surveillance is a problem. Consumers in general have decided that for Internet services and Internet access devices, factors such as cheapness, ease of use, and trendiness are more important than privacy. Governments are able to reach more definitive consensus than free markets - a market would be not easily be able to make everyone use an anonymizing proxy, for example, but a government could legislate that. Governments can also move costs around, such as by funding a national proxy service with tax money. But on one level, free markets and democratic governments are both just methods that societies use to enforce their collective wills. There are limits to how much their decisions can differ. There's a reason Schneier calls a situation created by Internet companies a surveillance state.

WhoIsSatoshi 14y ago

There is a privacy ecosystem that is rising from it all. There are ways. the TOR network allows you to anonymize your dealings from your ISP. Some sites are now advertising the anonymity and encryption they are using for their services (MEGA). Bitcoin has seen a stellar growth (and still poised to) due to its uncontrollable nature, and can be tweaked to achieve pseudo anonimity through enough shuffling of the coins. Assange puts it best by saying that "The universe believes in Encryption - [it] is the ultimate form of direct non-violent action." What WE can do, is help put the blocks in place...

jiggy2011 14y ago

The technology exists for the privacy conscious to greatly reduce their track-ability. However the problem is that the platform which are becoming more popular for convenience reasons such as ChromeOS or iOS do not necessarily make this stuff easy or even possible. I would be much happier to recommend these systems to people if they did not lose this control.

boi_v2 14y ago

Why not stop using facebook, google, apple and all these surveillance tools? Have you ever asked yourself why you can't remove the batteries of your Iphone? Ow Yes, design is everyting. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-trac... Demand privacy, respect privacy, develop privacy and pay for those that offer it to you. "If you are not paying for a service you are the product being sold" and no, google and facebook were never your friends. Time to wake up!

zenbowman 14y ago
"If you are not paying for a service you are the product being sold". Exactly.
nwh 14y ago
I highly doubt the battery not being removable is designed to aid in tracking. It's a vital part of making the iPhone smaller. Open one up and look inside if you don't believe me.

richcollins 14y ago

This isn't something the free market can fix He assumes that people care and are willing to change technology but can't for some reason. In my experience, people don't care.

CurtMonash 14y ago

Scheier is right that information will be collected, and that the government will have access to it. That genie is out of the bottle. But there is still hope for reasonable and even strong controls on the USES of information. This is exactly the distinction I've been drawing for years, e.g. in http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy-discussion-needs-to-head/ http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy-discussion...

rapind 14y ago

Eventually there will be some good and accessible options that will enable you to truly opt-out of the internet surveillance state. Other than the occasional embarrassing thing (like googling a dance song) I really can't think of anything I have to hide. Even so, I would pay a subscription fee to keep all of my internet communications completely private. I don't like being profiled, and it feels like an infringement on my freedom. I would even pay enough of a fee that the company I pay it too could in turn pay lobbyists to help protect their interests or headquarter in another country etc. And the worse it gets, the more I'm willing to pay. I'm sure I'm a minority right now, but I think our numbers are growing.

Create 14y ago

http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtReq... https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-18-archive.html#Marlinspike https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-18-archive....

ixacto 14y ago

From a linked article in TFA: "Monsegur was a Tor user, although he was caught after logging on to IRC without going through Tor." So he forgot to route IRC through Tor. Luckily there are a couple live distros that do it automatically, like tails. There are also VPN that accept payment in bitcoin, so anonymity is still preserved. This doesn't matter in the scope of the article though, since obviously we are talking about people who are not going to any precautions to hide their privacy.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

No, no, no, no, no. We are always under surveillance - my neighbours know I stay up late watching crap tv, the bookshop assistant knows I browse the comics section but don't buy, and a hundred people each day see me do weird or normal things. I am not oppressed when they do that. Embarrassed maybe, but not dragged of for "re-education". As long as no-one uses the surveillance to force political outcomes from me or any individual, then this is pollution, not dictatorship. Yes we need radical privacy laws - but not ones trying to put the genie back in the lamp. There are amazing benefits from technology - the sharing of knowledge seamlessly across 7bn people is going to ,produce wonders we cannot guess. But we must embrace this new world - a world without secrecy. For privacy is not secrecy - it is politeness of our neighbours. The problem is not my neighbours who know, it is companies across the world who now know. Their knowledge and actions are kept secret from me - and that must be prevented. Sunlight is the best disinfectant applies to targeted ads as much as corrupt politics. Firstly any organisation that holds informant that can be used to identify and track people must publish the identifications they hold in real time. Expect a cottage industry of telling me about everything about me. Oh and those cottage industries must publish as well. So not a profitable cottage industry. Seen me walk out the door of mcdonalds after paying with my Loyalty card - great mail me the link so I can see. Secondly a legal framework that makes commercial profit from my identity only allowed if I consent and preferably if I get a cut. Want to sell me ads - great pay me. Oh suddenly finding ads less profitable? Want to sell me a coffee after that burger - you could use the freely published info mcdonalds has to fling my phone a coupon - but that's my information. I charge a flat 2c for every commercial use of my info - I get 2c even if I don't want coffee. Thirdly, get used to the idea your wife instantly knows you are sleeping with the secretary.

eurleif 14y ago
The surveillance you describe is ephemeral. After you move, your neighbors will forget you ever existed. The bookshop assistant probably forgets you the moment you walk out the door. Internet data is not that way. It potentially lasts forever. A fear I've heard expressed is that in the future, totalitarianism will arrive, and past data will be used against people.
- 14y ago

rasengan0 14y ago

When the gold rush came, it was easy to see that prospecting was not where the value was at. Smart entrepreneurs sold pans, shovels and dungarees. Likewise in the age of surveillance, the Ciscos and Choicepoints rake in, handing off infrastructure and data to the highest bidder. The gold ran out, but we still have the Gap.

joblessjunkie 14y ago

Rendering Mr. Schneier on CNN's website caused my browser to send requests to: - cnn.com and turner.com - disqus.com - facebook.net, facebook.com, and fbcdn.net - imrworldwide.com - cleanprint.net - outbrain.com - twitter.com and twimg.com - chartbeat.com - linkedin.com - googlesyndication.com and google-analytics.com - scorecardresearch.com - doubleclick.net ...and yields an unending stream of pings to chartbeat.net just to let them know my tab is still open.

progrock 14y ago
Wow, that's quite a fingerprint.
Silhouette 14y ago
I long ago installed a plug-in that blocks most or possibly all of the above. There are several now that will do this for, say, Firefox. In a related benefit, sites load way faster for me and consume substantially less bandwidth, since I'm not constantly waiting and paying to download the malware that so many sites now feel the need to embed.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  Which one do you like the best?
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    Ghostery takes care of most such things, including blocking the major spying tricks by the likes of Google and Facebook. A decent ad blocker like AdBlock Plus will go some way to helping as well, though it's more of a side effect in that case. There's also BetterPrivacy, which mostly deals with the non-cookie cookies like Flash LSOs. Unfortunately, for reasons I can't fathom, even generally privacy-friendly browsers like Firefox still seem quite happy to send vast amounts of fingerprint-friendly information that serves almost no legitimate purpose to anyone who cares to listen. However, there are clearly people thinking about this, e.g., see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Fingerprinting https://wiki.mozilla.org/Fingerprinting.

dreamfactory 14y ago

A lot of commenters focussing here on technical privacy solutions - but that seems to be missing the current move towards behavioural tracking. And the irony is that this is a lot of the really exciting stuff for many here - look at truelens and storm for example. Given the adulation and reverence here for highly politically engaged and extreme right-wing characters like Peter Thiel, we shouldn't be at all surprised by this kind of outcome.

zenbowman 14y ago

Its not like people are victims here, for the most part they've chosen the "free" privacy violating services over the paid ones every time. If people cared about their privacy, this wouldn't be the case, they'd be willing to pay for useful services. There was a chance that a market could have developed for services that protected privacy, but thats long gone. At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world withoit secrets. Its terrifying to people over 30, but it could lead to a better world, because even those in power cannot escape the watchful eye of Big Brother.

graue 14y ago
That's an unfair criticism. If you look upthread, a commenter points out[1] that the CNN page for this article includes at least 10 third-party tracking scripts. Most people are unaware that tracking is going on at this scale, how it works, or what they can do about it. Watch this video[2] of a bunch of people who don't know what a browser is. That's most people. Do you think they understand how internet tracking works? Hardly. You and I, as techies, can perhaps make an informed decision, but most people can't and if you step outside the bubble you'll see that. It's never okay to blame the users for hidden privacy consequences. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5387380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5387380 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ
betterunix 14y ago
That would be a fine argument if the majority of computer users actually understood what tracking is being performed and how it is performed. Most computer users have no idea how they are tracked, nor do they understand how they can be tracked. People generally do not know how their computers work, and companies take advantage of that ignorance when they track people. Most people do not understand that they are trading privacy for access to websites and web apps. "At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world [without] secrets" Nonsense. Kids just have a different idea about what should be kept secret. There are still plenty of in-the-closet gay teenagers whose friends understand that they are being trusted with a secret. Plenty of kids have odd habits they do not want to tell their friends about. Teenagers still keep secrets from their parents -- that is basically an invariant. There are many college students who work hard to keep their Facebook profiles "clean" in an attempt to present the best image possible to potential future employers. What has changed is the meaning of keeping things secret. A 15 year old in-the-closet gay teenager most likely has no idea that "deleting" a "private" message sent over Facebook does not actually delete the message from Facebook's servers. That same teenager probably has no idea that his public "friends" list is sufficient to determine that he is gay with high probability. That is the problem society faces right now: people want to keep things secret, but it is very difficult to actually do so. I think that eventually society will adapt and people will learn how to keep secrets in an age of widespread surveillance. It is inevitable: eventually there will be so many incidents of embarrassing secrets being revealed by these various companies that people will start to use technologies to hamper the tracking.

billhorvath 14y ago

I put up a perspective on this not too long ago; see https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/ https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-gover...

billhorvath 14y ago

From my perspective, the problem is that these companies are effectively acting as government agents. FWIW, I blogged about it here: https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/ https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-gover...

billhorvath 14y ago

logn 14y ago

"Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data about us." My fiance receives tampon ads during the appropriate time of the month on Facebook.

pootch 14y ago

Dr Mr Schnier, Years ago I offered a website actually 2 websites one which used SSH to a proxy and one which scraped google's self pointing links to give people freedom to search anonymously. (You actually linked to my site.) It wasn't long after that that my data center was raided and i started getting calls from the govt. I empathize but Im not putting myself through this ever again

hugofirth 14y ago

This comment probably won't go down well considering the audience ... but here goes: Yes the internet is a surveillance state ... and that is terrible ... except ... except ... is it? My long held belief is that in an age where even the most tech-savvy cannot possibly remain anonymous all the time our best hope for privacy is in the simply overwhelming volume of data being collected. Unless I do something worthy of government attention I have reason to believe no human is going to closely examine my gmail - why on earth would they? Therefore the only breach of privacy is by a parser collecting information for an algorithm. So I get a few ads in gmail ... 90% of the time I ignore them ... the other 10% of the time I would MUCH rather they were targeted at my interests than just meaningless drivel! Furthermore - if the ad revenue collected by these companies allows them to continue to improve a free service I love then power to them! People bitch about ads, without considering the reality that without them most of the service we value which make up the internet would not exist without them. You can't always have your cake and eat it. Lastly I would like to address the point of privacy invasion by a government body. This is nothing new! It has just become easier. I live in the UK - a tiny island with 4,000,000 CCTV cameras. There is probably an accumulation of hundreds of hours of footage of me throughout my life... So What ?! I have done nothing wrong, and if the existence of that footage allows the prevention or solving of even one crime then I'm all for it. If a government body wants your data - the chances are they are going to get it. Through warrant or some other means. The acceleration of this process is not necessarily a bad thing. They are, after all, the elected officials. Anyway /rant (... runs and hides)

Uhhrrr 14y ago
i agree with you about how nice it is to have targeted ads (although Google still hasn't gotten good enough that I have ever clicked on anything). The dangers for the government are when it uses its powers to stay elected (Nixon), or spy on activists (Nixon, Bush), or pilfer the IP of other countries (Airbus). And of course these dangers also apply to commercial enterprises - if I were a MS competitor, I sure as heck wouldn't allow Skype in the office.

peripetylabs 14y ago

I used to think people actually wanted privacy. (I did, why wouldn't everyone else?) But the data does not support that hypothesis -- in fact, I think the exact opposite is true. People's personal information is not being stolen from them, it is given away; and not even for free -- more than 70% of the US population [1] pays an ISP a monthly fee in order to connect to Facebook's servers and upload their data. That is how the Internet works -- it is not Facebook sending the SYN packets. In general society (outside of our tiny bubble), not having a Facebook account is considered strange. It is even seen as grounds for suspicion of criminal activity. [2] Everyone says they want to eat right, exercise and be healthy, but more than a third of them are obese. [3] The surveillance state is not happening despite us, it is precisely what the majority of people want, even as they deny it. If you wish to change this unfortunate fact, change the culture. [1] http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook-obsession/ http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook-obsessi... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-te... [3] http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

EEGuy 14y ago

Coincidentally, the CISPA is up for debate again in the House. However you feel about such surveillance, it legal scope and extent is being democratically debated now. You can contact your Representative using this site: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Speak your mind to your Rep. It's how Representative Democracy works.