Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

cyb3rsecurity.tips

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#31

Post by doubleunplussed »

defrost wrote: post #22

FWiW Greg Egan has had a good run - 40 years online, 10+ novels, many short stories, Hugo and Campbell awards (and others) . . . and yet: No verified images nor any evidence that is indeed his real name.

I always assumed it was his real name, but I suppose that was just an unexamined assumption.

Gwern Branwen is a prolific [1] netizen who is also completely anonymous. I don't know how people like him [2] do it. Surely the people who know him IRL are aware of what he's working on day-to-day and someone would be able to connect the dots. Unless he lives alone or his housemates are completely offline - and he doesn't talk to anyone IRL about what he does at home.

[1] Sometimes on Twitter or Hacker News I legitimately just scan my eyes around the screen expecting a comment from or link to Gwern to be already in my field of vision.

[2] I have seen since-scrubbed evidence Gwern is a "him" though he now seems to hide that too

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#32

Post by kornhole »

wolverine876 wrote: post #25
kornhole wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that political action is needed, but I have almost no hope that any substantive legal changes will pass in near future. Big money and power prevent proposals from getting anywhere. It is up to us to protect ourselves and loved ones. It is a fun sport to evade the surveillance state.

> I have almost no hope that any substantive legal changes will pass in near future This is the most popular move against action, to convince people it is hopeless. In fact, when the people want something strongly enough, it certainly happens. There is a long, well-established history of it.

I encourage everybody to continue trying, but I am also realistic. I often write my senators and congress people here in California about these issues and proposed bills. They send me back canned letters telling me to pound sand, save the children, blah blah. They are heavily funded by the surveillance capitalists, and the intelligence agencies rely on that data.

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#33

Post by AlexanderTheGr8 »

I have a different perspective and a question for HN. We always ask how to prevent corporations from surveilling us. How about letting them surveil BUT giving incorrect information? Intentionally do things (manually or automated) that gives them completely incorrect information about you.

Avoiding surveillance is becoming very hard. But giving incorrect information is very easy.

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#34

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #24
kornhole wrote: post #3

Author does not mention the major reason I care which is that allowing others to know what we are doing, thinking, saying, where we are going.. either individually or collectively anonymously or not, gives them power over us in many ways to predict, manipulate, dispossess.. which leads to the imbalances we have today of the haves and have nots of data. The people who say big tech already has so much data on them so w…

It also leads to manipulation. People don't want to hear that - they think, as imagine many people reading this are thinking, that they aren't manipulated. People are manipulated on a large scale. States, advertisers, political movements, and others are investing a lot of money in it. They are getting something for their money. That is the most important issue; that is the power in our society. Propaganda was effecti…

In the old country, there was a story ( which since I heard variants of ) my parents told me trying to explain why it is not a good idea to share details of your life with strangers, which goes something like this.

Secret police was trying to recruit a dissident to be their informer, but he was resisting. They tried to bribe him. They tried to cajole him. They tried to threaten him. He did not break.

One day a senior agent went by to introduce himself. When the dissident started to protest, the senior agent waved him away. 'We already know everything there is to know about you. We even know you drink tea and not coffee.' The treats, speeches and monetary gain had no hold on the dissident, but when he learned someone close to him betrayed him, he internally gave up.

The moral of the story is and always has been the same. Information is valuable. You may not think it is, but someone does. Do you think that someone has your best interest at heart?

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#36

Post by stormbrew »

Barrin92 wrote: post #11
kornhole wrote: post #3

Author does not mention the major reason I care which is that allowing others to know what we are doing, thinking, saying, where we are going.. either individually or collectively anonymously or not, gives them power over us in many ways to predict, manipulate, dispossess.. which leads to the imbalances we have today of the haves and have nots of data. The people who say big tech already has so much data on them so w…

>either individually or collectively anonymously or not, gives them power over us in many ways to predict, manipulate, dispossess The thing is, is that actually true? What always comes to mind for me is the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which involved their self-declared 'psychometric targeting', which it turned out, after scientists did some studies had a measurable effect of zero on people's behaviour[1]. People lov…

"High fidelity targeting" working and "having a lot of data about people's choices and habits allows you to better manipulate them" are related but not identical things. It seems at least plausible to me that pre-internet advertising wasn't really much worse than what we have now, there's just more ways to attach cost to outcome.

But the amount of data companies have on their markets now is astounding, and can be used in more ways than just directly targeted ad serving.

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#37

Post by protonbob »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #33

I have a different perspective and a question for HN. We always ask how to prevent corporations from surveilling us. How about letting them surveil BUT giving incorrect information? Intentionally do things (manually or automated) that gives them completely incorrect information about you. Avoiding surveillance is becoming very hard. But giving incorrect information is very easy.

I would say that it is becoming much harder. You need a real address to ship your items to that they will later correlate all of your activity to for example. In addition, many social media sights are requiring verification with government IDs. Try creating a Facebook account with fake details. They are able to filter these out pretty easily.

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#38

Post by woojoo666 »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #33

I have a different perspective and a question for HN. We always ask how to prevent corporations from surveilling us. How about letting them surveil BUT giving incorrect information? Intentionally do things (manually or automated) that gives them completely incorrect information about you. Avoiding surveillance is becoming very hard. But giving incorrect information is very easy.

The only tool I know of like this is Ad Nauseum [1]

[1]: https://adnauseam.io/

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#39

Post by usernomdeguerre »

nr2x wrote: post #28
fragmede wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think you're not being manipulated, you're deluded. Advertising works . It worked before the Internet and there's even more of it now. We do still have individual agency but don't you want a cool refreshing Coca-Cola right about now?

Actually the research is fairly mixed as we’re dealing with N-variable systems of technology, communication, economics, and a non trivial amount of fraud.

Is it mixed because the effect is mixed? Low effect?

Or is it mixed because it is resistant to observation? Hard to test for?

Re: Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

#40

Post by AlexanderTheGr8 »

protonbob wrote: post #37
AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #33

I have a different perspective and a question for HN. We always ask how to prevent corporations from surveilling us. How about letting them surveil BUT giving incorrect information? Intentionally do things (manually or automated) that gives them completely incorrect information about you. Avoiding surveillance is becoming very hard. But giving incorrect information is very easy.

I would say that it is becoming much harder. You need a real address to ship your items to that they will later correlate all of your activity to for example. In addition, many social media sights are requiring verification with government IDs. Try creating a Facebook account with fake details. They are able to filter these out pretty easily.

I believe there's some misunderstanding. I meant letting them know who you are, but giving incorrect information about your beliefs and thoughts. I still believe that giving incorrect information can be very effective.

Even if Google/NSA knows your name, they can only see the online activity that you choose to do. You can intentionally choose to give them very incorrect online activity.

For example, intentionally visit websites (manually or automated) that you don't believe it. This will trip up their algorithm. How are they supposed to know what you actually think or believe in?

Post reply on HN