4 ms·

> [...] We need politics. We need laws to regulate both government and corporate aggregation and handling of private information. Sure, but I don't think the "

> [...] We need politics. We need laws to regulate both government and corporate aggregation and handling of private information. Sure, but I don't think the "why bother when another obstacle stands in the way?" argument is a good one. We have also seen that secret laws make regulation difficult since public oversight is not possible without government transparency; your final paragraph seems to imply current-situation + politics = trust in government and no need for privacy software.

pron 13y ago
I would guess that at least 99.9% of all leaked private information is given voluntarily to corporations. Privacy software is a solution to the remaining 0.1% (probably far less than that). That's neither a solution nor a step in the right direction. In fact, I would say that it's a step in the wrong direction, as it calls attention to a far smaller threat while hiding the far bigger one. This is yet another misdirection, that only serves to give a false sense of security. Privacy software will be needed when criminal electronic surveillance becomes prevalent (as it will, some day soon). But the way it's presented now plays into the hands of those who wish to use the NSA fiasco (which, to be sure, it is) to hide a much more serious problem. It's not a solution — it's a diversion.
- mikegerwitz 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but there is no way to quantify that. Consider, for example, a recent Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/no-this-isnt-a-scene-from-minority-report-this-trash-can-is-stalking-you/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/no-this-isnt-a-scene... What about the MAC addresses that Google gathered when driving around for street view? What about data that software gathers on your PC or mobile devices without your knowing, or location data that is made available to mobile carriers and law enforcement simply by the act of communicating with a cell phone tower? What of spyware/maleware, etc? Even so, the "leaked private information [...] given voluntarily to corporations" is very different than dragnet surveillance. There is no way to know as of yet exactly how much information has been gathered through such programs, but recent revelations suggest startling amounts of data that are far more invasive and vast than anything that could ever be leaked: more information than the NSA is capable of processing, as mentioned in the Guardian's XKeyscore revelation article. So, no; not 0.1%. > But the way it's presented now plays into the hands of those who wish to use the NSA fiasco (which, to be sure, it is) to hide a much more serious problem. I don't see how suggesting software to help limit the scope of surveillance does anything to hide the underlying problem. If anything, it brings action upon it and suggests that users will not stand for being surveilled in this manner.
  - pron 13y ago
    > What about the MAC addresses that Google gathered when driving around for street view? What about data that software gathers on your PC or mobile devices without your knowing, or location data that is made available to mobile carriers and law enforcement simply by the act of communicating with a cell phone tower? What of spyware/maleware, etc? Great, so we can say that far more information flows to corporations, voluntarily or involuntarily, than to the government. And privacy software won't help with most of the cases you mentioned. > There is no way to know as of yet exactly how much information has been gathered through such programs, but recent revelations suggest startling amounts of data that are far more invasive and vast than anything that could ever be leaked: more information than the NSA is capable of processing, as mentioned in the Guardian's XKeyscore revelation article. I would still venture to say that Google analyses (if not collects) far more private information than the NSA, and unlike the NSA, Google uses that information all the time. > I don't see how suggesting software to help limit the scope of surveillance does anything to hide the underlying problem. If anything, it brings action upon it and suggests that users will not stand for being surveilled in this manner. Because, it's like having an awareness campaign after a horrible home-invasion that encourages people to dig moats in their back yards, and all the while their kids are letting strangers in through the front door. It's saying, there's a privacy issue, and here it is, while it's somewhere else completely. A classic diversion.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  I'm a lot less worried about targeted advertisements and their trackers (which are easily blocked) than I am about a police state. Internet filtering is already a serious problem. And it's not unreasonable to think they could start cracking down on piracy much more in the future. Also intercepted emails and private messages and stuff will be around forever.
  - pron 13y ago
    First, I think you're underestimating the effects of targeted advertising on the soul :) Second, targeted advertising proves that the information is analyzed constantly and being used constantly — all day, every day; it's far more prevalent than people being arrested for downloading Iron Man 3. Third, Google says it's collecting information for targeted advertising, just like the government says it's collecting information for counter-terrorism. Even if Google is to be believed, that doesn't mean they won't be using that information for something else tomorrow.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      I agree, but it's a lot easier to block or just avoid that kind of spying. That's a lot different than the NSA putting backdoors into your computer, or reading all your private texts, emails, and phone calls. And the same tools can be used to fight both. Tor for example, allows you to hide your IP, and various browsers and tools prevent you from accidentally leaking private information to identify you to these websites. Secure operating systems and programs protect you from private hackers and adware just as much as they do from government hackers.

pron 13y ago

I would guess that at least 99.9% of all leaked private information is given voluntarily to corporations. Privacy software is a solution to the remaining 0.1% (probably far less than that). That's neither a solution nor a step in the right direction. In fact, I would say that it's a step in the wrong direction, as it calls attention to a far smaller threat while hiding the far bigger one. This is yet another misdirection, that only serves to give a false sense of security. Privacy software will be needed when criminal electronic surveillance becomes prevalent (as it will, some day soon). But the way it's presented now plays into the hands of those who wish to use the NSA fiasco (which, to be sure, it is) to hide a much more serious problem. It's not a solution — it's a diversion.

mikegerwitz 13y ago
I'm sorry, but there is no way to quantify that. Consider, for example, a recent Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/no-this-isnt-a-scene-from-minority-report-this-trash-can-is-stalking-you/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/no-this-isnt-a-scene... What about the MAC addresses that Google gathered when driving around for street view? What about data that software gathers on your PC or mobile devices without your knowing, or location data that is made available to mobile carriers and law enforcement simply by the act of communicating with a cell phone tower? What of spyware/maleware, etc? Even so, the "leaked private information [...] given voluntarily to corporations" is very different than dragnet surveillance. There is no way to know as of yet exactly how much information has been gathered through such programs, but recent revelations suggest startling amounts of data that are far more invasive and vast than anything that could ever be leaked: more information than the NSA is capable of processing, as mentioned in the Guardian's XKeyscore revelation article. So, no; not 0.1%. > But the way it's presented now plays into the hands of those who wish to use the NSA fiasco (which, to be sure, it is) to hide a much more serious problem. I don't see how suggesting software to help limit the scope of surveillance does anything to hide the underlying problem. If anything, it brings action upon it and suggests that users will not stand for being surveilled in this manner.
- pron 13y ago
  > What about the MAC addresses that Google gathered when driving around for street view? What about data that software gathers on your PC or mobile devices without your knowing, or location data that is made available to mobile carriers and law enforcement simply by the act of communicating with a cell phone tower? What of spyware/maleware, etc? Great, so we can say that far more information flows to corporations, voluntarily or involuntarily, than to the government. And privacy software won't help with most of the cases you mentioned. > There is no way to know as of yet exactly how much information has been gathered through such programs, but recent revelations suggest startling amounts of data that are far more invasive and vast than anything that could ever be leaked: more information than the NSA is capable of processing, as mentioned in the Guardian's XKeyscore revelation article. I would still venture to say that Google analyses (if not collects) far more private information than the NSA, and unlike the NSA, Google uses that information all the time. > I don't see how suggesting software to help limit the scope of surveillance does anything to hide the underlying problem. If anything, it brings action upon it and suggests that users will not stand for being surveilled in this manner. Because, it's like having an awareness campaign after a horrible home-invasion that encourages people to dig moats in their back yards, and all the while their kids are letting strangers in through the front door. It's saying, there's a privacy issue, and here it is, while it's somewhere else completely. A classic diversion.
Houshalter 13y ago
I'm a lot less worried about targeted advertisements and their trackers (which are easily blocked) than I am about a police state. Internet filtering is already a serious problem. And it's not unreasonable to think they could start cracking down on piracy much more in the future. Also intercepted emails and private messages and stuff will be around forever.
- pron 13y ago
  First, I think you're underestimating the effects of targeted advertising on the soul :) Second, targeted advertising proves that the information is analyzed constantly and being used constantly — all day, every day; it's far more prevalent than people being arrested for downloading Iron Man 3. Third, Google says it's collecting information for targeted advertising, just like the government says it's collecting information for counter-terrorism. Even if Google is to be believed, that doesn't mean they won't be using that information for something else tomorrow.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    I agree, but it's a lot easier to block or just avoid that kind of spying. That's a lot different than the NSA putting backdoors into your computer, or reading all your private texts, emails, and phone calls. And the same tools can be used to fight both. Tor for example, allows you to hide your IP, and various browsers and tools prevent you from accidentally leaking private information to identify you to these websites. Secure operating systems and programs protect you from private hackers and adware just as much as they do from government hackers.