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

61–70 of 139 posts

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

#61

Post by derevaunseraun »

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #40
protonbob wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vis…

> 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?

Imo the claim "We can suggest what you should do next, what you care about. Imagine: We know where you are, we know what you like." is just a sales pitch to the data industry in disguise.

They know what we do, but it isn't possible to know what we think without making a bunch of assumptions

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

#62

Post by d883kd8 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #51

The only real way to ensure your data isn't being collected and sold in the course of every single transaction you engage in (cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however), is to get data privacy laws passed that forbid this activity by retailers, data brokers, and related entities. The EU has the right idea on this. Ordinary individuals who attempt to use technology to 'go dark' will likely, if they're c…

Zersetsung

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

#63

Post by derevaunseraun »

superb-owl wrote: post #5

I think it's mostly pointless to put more than a basic minimum amount of effort into protecting your own privacy (e.g. sensible social media settings). There are too many surreptitious means of getting your info. Instead we need to focus our efforts on political action. Privacy is not something that can be controlled at the individual level when you're up against billion dollar budgets.

> Privacy is not something that can be controlled at the individual level when you're up against billion dollar budgets.

But the billion dollar budgets are spread across an incredibly broad scale and have to handle a ridiculous amount of data. Certain patterns scale very well for the companies, e.g. using google chrome while logged into the google account

If we just avoid the big players and use a bunch of different, unaffiliated services, it makes mass surveillance more expensive and less likely to yield a strong ROI

Defeatism just gives these companies a better ROI with respect to surveillance, and it also makes us more susceptible to pushes to erode privacy, like the current one to replace passwords with biometric data

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

#64

Post by derevaunseraun »

Also want to add that in the coming years they will start pushing biometric logins (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/11/techscape...) in the coming years. This will tie all accounts to the same biometric data and identity, which will make blanket data harvesting and profiling much easier and more economically feasible.

> As early as 2010, Facebook’s marketing director argued that “online anonymity has to go away.”

These companies have a financial incentive to destroy online anonymity to the detriment of the rest of society, and biometrics are the latest attack

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

#65

Post by rnd0 »

fragmede wrote: post #20
Barrin92 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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?

Pepsi is number 1, because it's the choice of a new generation!

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

#66

Post by Twisell »

TLDR;

This subject is very important so OP took time to write a really long intro, please subscribe to his blog to get the answer next week.

In the meantime feel free to read the discussion in HN because it's probably more interesting until the part 2 eventually comes out.

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

#67

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

bee_rider wrote: post #53
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't disagree with your anecdote in general. But it is somewhat interesting that, in the modern world, the implicit threat of an authority figure knowing this bit of trivia about you wouldn't be all that threatening. To the person in the story, it implies someone fairly close to him is giving information. To us it would be like "did get that bit of information from my Google searches, Facebook likes, or did you go…

This is the part that interests me the most. In a way, its a thousand times worse now. In a practical sense, if the story was told today the story would suggest that any agent would get this information just by asking ISP, banks and maybe Amazon for your history with them. We don't just know that you drink tea. We can predict your daughter is pregnant and know wife is cheating on you. Full blown surveillance requires little to no effort. The amount of mind games you can play with that treasure trove is why you hear concerns IC about people 'going dark'.

I suppose to me how the information is obtained is secondary. The fact that it is obtained at all is an issue. We are only recently becoming better at analytics and seeing patterns that would be considered a little creepy only few decades ago. It is normalized now.

To your point that in the story, the trivia is truly irrelevant. By itself it means nothing. State knows I drink tea. Big whoop. Tons of people these days voluntarily show off eating pastas of all kinds. It is just serves as a way overwhelm the target with a feeling of helplessness ("They know everything"), abandonment("Someone close gave them information"),hopelessness("What is the point?").

So the trivia is not threatening by itself. It is the implication that the agent knows you very well indeed and that knowledge includes trivia.

Now imagine a person visiting you with a short listing of your detailed interests, search history, suspected health issues and inferred psychological profile.

It is a lot less subtle, but it conveys same message ( I know you better than your family, doctor, bookie.. ).

Sorry for the long response, but I just wanted to make sure it is clear that trivia is just a small part of it. As Dennis Reynolds would have said: It is the implication.

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

#68

Post by wolverine876 »

kornhole wrote: post #32
wolverine876 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> realistic

A term people use to justify pessimism, as if that represents reality better than other options such as optimism.

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

#69

Post by sam345 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #51

The only real way to ensure your data isn't being collected and sold in the course of every single transaction you engage in (cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however), is to get data privacy laws passed that forbid this activity by retailers, data brokers, and related entities. The EU has the right idea on this. Ordinary individuals who attempt to use technology to 'go dark' will likely, if they're c…

". This is called mass domestic warrantless surveillance and it is illegal under any reasonable interpretation of the US constitution, and certainly shouldn't be allowed by private parties either."

I don't think this is correct. Google etc are private actors so no state action, no constitutional violation plus they get your legal consent whether you like the way they do it or not. Government agencies if they get the info must get a warrant or have exception or info's use is barred from court and can't be used against you. So why the claim it is illegal mass domestic surveillance? Hyperbole. Mass surveillance that IS used against citizens all the time is China in WeChat, mass camera use, etc. where there are no constitutional or other protections.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

photochemsyn wrote: post #51

The only real way to ensure your data isn't being collected and sold in the course of every single transaction you engage in (cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however), is to get data privacy laws passed that forbid this activity by retailers, data brokers, and related entities. The EU has the right idea on this. Ordinary individuals who attempt to use technology to 'go dark' will likely, if they're c…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN