What does a post-privacy world look like?
Roll up the shades.
When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
21–30 of 264 posts
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#22I appreciate Bruce Schneier's pragmatism and his acknowledgement that the problem is bigger than an individual can reasonably be expected to solve, if that individual wishes to participate in modern society. Too often, privacy concerns are met with, "Use Tails + Tor + a hosts file + a burner phone + a burner laptop, etc. etc." But Grandma isn't going to do that, and frankly neither am I. While an individual chooses t…
Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government. I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with. I'm unfamiliar with the decision, but why split up a company like Microsoft in 1999, but leave Facebook and Google alone?
We simply need laws against data brokerage.
And prohibit ad-based monetization on services with >100M users.
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#23Consider lobbying your government officials to improve regulations concerning this. Maybe get together with other people in your city who care about this particular issue.
This needs to be changed at a regulatory national level, but it's usually the case that major cities or states lead the charge in the US.
The system can be made to work for you, if you're willing to work with it.
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#24I once asked Bruce Schneier at a conference to scare me. He told me to consider the associations between data. Bits and pieces that Google knows about me, that Facebook knows about me, that Amazon knows about me...think of all of those little meaningless bits of data being associated all together to build a picture perfect model of my life, and then sold to advertisers, who know enough about your life to attempt to m…
But what have you done about it?
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#25Mobile has certainly made things worse.
I recently kicked off every google app from my phone. The dark UX pattern of shared logins (login to google express = login to gmaps etc) was too annoying to deal with.
It's not that I've stopped using their services, but instead switched to their web version. Same with Twitter et al. Even Uber has very serviceable web versions of their app.
As a bonus I get better battery life, and the use of Safari's content blocker, so YouTube web is even better than the app. I'm also able to silo these services into their own browser if don't want to keep logging in every time due to private browsing.
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#26I think there's something to be said about looking at the business incentives of the people you deal with on the Internet. Google, plain as day, is using you as training data. DuckDuckGo bills itself as the privacy-minded alternative. You shouldn't be surprised if Google violates your privacy. If DuckDuckGo does, that's the end of their business model.
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government. I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with. I'm unfamiliar with the decision, but why split up a company like Microsoft in 1999, but leave Facebook and Google alone?
It's not against the law to have a monopoly - it's against the law to exploit having a monopoly to enter another market. Microsoft was seen to be exploiting it's consumer OS market share to gain a monopoly in the browser market and the productivity software market, AIUI.
And as Jim Clark, co-founder of Netscape, said in a recent interview on This Week In Startups the problem was Microsoft was not just bundling their browser (not a big deal), but pressuring OEMs that they'd be unable to sell Windows or lose access if they bundled Netscape too.
They used their monopoly position to force vendors to prevent Netscape from being bundled. Thats where they went too far.
Disclosure: IANAL
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#28I appreciate Bruce Schneier's pragmatism and his acknowledgement that the problem is bigger than an individual can reasonably be expected to solve, if that individual wishes to participate in modern society. Too often, privacy concerns are met with, "Use Tails + Tor + a hosts file + a burner phone + a burner laptop, etc. etc." But Grandma isn't going to do that, and frankly neither am I. While an individual chooses t…
Doesn't he address this by saying make this a political issue?
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government. I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with. I'm unfamiliar with the decision, but why split up a company like Microsoft in 1999, but leave Facebook and Google alone?
We simply need laws against data brokerage. And prohibit ad-based monetization on services with >100M users.
Why does the number of users matter?
Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests
#30I'm already extremely pessimistic about these things. Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. Additionally machine learning asymmetrically benefits those with the resources to fully leverage large amounts of data collection…
But at that point, society would basically be full-on Cyberpunk. Screw suicide, form a gang of runners and start planning heists on manufacturing facilities and factories, lay traps for driverless truck shipments or hijack them electronically, etc. Hide in the margins, among the slums and tenements to which overpopulation and consolidation have relegated vast swarms of people. Heck, I've already gotten transdermal implants set and removed by people who maybe weren't, you know, licensed practitioners.
The moral rule of law is already out the window, and financial laws had already may as well not exist. The only practical compulsion that law has left is that many people can still have an acceptable life while complying with it. Enriching yourself by skimming the margins of those with enough capital to print money wouldn't exactly be immoral.
Automation of force, or something along those lines, would pretty much cinch it. I think plenty of people would decide it's time to have a chat with a local lathe/mill owner, stick a flamethrower on their quadcopter, and loot the few places where opulence still existed. Get away with a couple decent jobs, and you could pretend you were in that upper echelon of 'people with lots of money' all along.
Right now, if you're good at a trade like construction, welding, medicine, engineering, etc, you can probably find stable employment options and at least afford to exist. But when those people of practical means start to get systemically marginalized, I'll bet we'll see a huge resurgence of people trying modern versions of The Italian Job.