71–80 of 173 posts
How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
Maybe he bought the surrounding houses to make it harder for snipers? He's not exactly a popular guy, and there are a lot of guns in America.
How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
because 1 is not an opinion but a fact. and probably a fact he probably disagree with, like you people don't care about privacy but it's not exactly his fault. then his job is to capitalize on it. why would he care. you would probably do the same ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem like you are aware that WhatsApp hired Moxie Marlinspike, the creator of the Signal encryption protocol, to re-implement it for WhatsApp. AFAIK it is still used in WhatsApp today. I will take this moment also to mention that "re-implement" isn't exactly right in that they modified the protocol slightly to allow for someone in control of the administration server to change a user's private key without…
> I will take this moment also to mention that "re-implement" isn't exactly right in that they modified the protocol slightly to allow for someone in control of the administration server to change a user's private key without their knowing, so that the admin can decrypt the E2E communications using the known key. Do you have a source for that claim?
https://boelter.blog/2016/04/whats-app-retransmission-vulner...
How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
Maybe he bought the surrounding houses to make it harder for snipers? He's not exactly a popular guy, and there are a lot of guns in America.
Do you know him personally or has he done something for you? Why do you believe he is a person of integrity?
How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
because 1 is not an opinion but a fact. and probably a fact he probably disagree with, like you people don't care about privacy but it's not exactly his fault. then his job is to capitalize on it. why would he care. you would probably do the same ..
Non-technical people within my circle appreciate GDPR. They fall into recent Apple's privacy advertising, FWIW. Many of my non-IT business peers have moved to private email services long ago — e.g. Protonmail, Mailbox.org, Fastmail, etc. — regardless of Google's Eric Schmidt[1] anti-privacy stance back in the day. Almost everyone I constantly communicate with use Telegram, and privacy of comms (FWIW) was among selling points at the time of switching the IM.
I won't exaggerate the value of privacy for a general public. But since Snowden's publications, Cambridge Analytica scandal and GDPR discussion with a widespread media coverage, common citizens became much more privacy-concerned, at least in Europe.
Below I quote highlights from the recent FRA (EU Agency for Fundamental Rights) survey report "Your rights matter: Data protection and privacy - Fundamental Rights Survey", June 2020[2]:
> 41% do not want to share any personal data with private companies, almost double the number compared to public bodies;
> the type of personal data influences people’s willingness to share. Only around 5% want to share their facial images or fingerprints with private companies;
> 72% know the privacy settings on their smart phones. But 24% do not know how to check the privacy settings on their apps;
> 55% fear criminals or fraudsters accessing their personal data. Around 30% worry about advertisers, businesses and foreign governments’ access to information without them knowing;
> 33% do not read the terms and conditions when using online services compared with 22% who always read them;
> 69% know about the GDPR. A similar number know their national data protection supervisory authority (71%);
> only 51% are aware that they can access their personal data held by companies.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid...
[2] https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-20... (PDF)
How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
In tax-exempt organizations or any organization with "self-dealing" prohibitions, you can still get any benefit you want with asset prices.
So for example, your own private foundation can own all the houses around yours (and be rented if so desired) and be sold strategically to give newer indications of market value for your own house. Sell them all at once and you may be cratering market values for your personal property, or you may be raising the property value, but as long as the funds come from the market and you don't have a self-dealing prohibition. Your personally held property being eligible for contribution to that foundation too (or other tax exempt organization type that you might not have any control over), with its current value being a consideration. Although Zuckerberg famously has an LLC that is not tax-exempt for their philanthropic missions, it doesn't mean he/they don't have any tax-exempt organizations, and they're definitely not precluded from forming or using one in the future and transferring those assets when convenient.
Yes, you also have the privilege of aiming to get more privacy.
Latching on to any one thing just reveals how little privilege you have in comparison. Many other people wouldn't talk about it, as they employ similar strategies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://app.wire.com already has that feature and it is based on signal protocol.
Has it been audited by external, independent security researchers?
Yes, with published reports, but it looks like they haven't published new ones in a few years.
How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
Maybe he bought the surrounding houses to make it harder for snipers? He's not exactly a popular guy, and there are a lot of guns in America.