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

81–90 of 139 posts

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

#81

Post by nunorbatista »

ghaff wrote: post #23

It's a bit hard for me to understand what's being argued for here. For many people in publicly visible positions, it's not practical to avoid having an online identity under your real name. This is not even exclusively a white collar issue for someone who speaks at conferences etc., how about a contractor who needs an online presence to find clients? Certainly there are steps someone can take to be make themselves in…

OP Here. I'm arguing the *why* you should care and *what* can happen. The article is a reflection on how I can explain my mother that she should care. Going invisible online doesn't mean you have to limit your presence - it really depends. That's why I think there are some fair criticism about the last paragraph of the article, that really doesn't tell you what to do.

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

#82

Post by nunorbatista »

TylerE wrote: post #2

I don't bother. Not worth the effort. I assume everything I do is (potentially) seen by someone, and the typical approaches are only going to make me look more suspicious.

OP Here. Don't forget the great majority of data breaches are due to very basic issues i.e. unsecure passwords, shared credentials, unsecure API endpoints, etc. When hackers try to find their target, unless very specific cases, they start with the easiest path. This is where you have a word to say. They may come for you, but with the right settings, it might not be worth the hassle.

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

#83

Post by nunorbatista »

Twisell wrote: post #66

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.

OP here. It's a fair criticism, thanks. I have a limit of around 800 words per article. This is a newsletter, otherwise would be too long. It's the format I believe works best.

The idea is also to discuss the what and the how of online privacy. The list of actions can get pretty long, so I decided to divide the article while I was writing it.

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

#84

Post by nathias »

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?

Advertising works in the sense it makes a product's existence known, everything beyond that is advertising of advertising ...

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

#85

Post by beefield »

jodrellblank wrote: post #55
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…

> " cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however " "Then he said he was going to buy the book with cash, so nobody could trace the purchase to him and exploit his interests for commercial purposes" - Calvin, talking about his Dad, in Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, December 1993. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/12/07

What's the opposite of "aged like milk"?

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

#86

Post by sweetbitter »

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.

Use FOSS, now the price of direct compromise rises above $0. Turn on NoScript? Whoops, there goes like 90% of web tracking, goodbye surveillance capitalists. Use Tor or other multihop for casual browsing? Most adversaries will now be incapable of tracing an arbitrary circuit of an arbitrary user. Cost of tracking activity is now way up there.

It's true that against an adversary with enough money to surveil massive swathes of ISPs worldwide, strong anonymity is not viable for casual use- that kind of thing requires networks of fixed-rate dummy traffic tunnels, public/open LAN networks, proper operational security with devices, avoiding as much social interaction as possible, the whole shebang.

Political action is needed, but I fail to see how we can actually get past dark money like super PACs and such.

Failing that, if enough people use their general purpose machines in a subversive manner, they themselves will become more difficult to suppress.

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

#87

Post by wooque »

beefield wrote: post #85
jodrellblank wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however " "Then he said he was going to buy the book with cash, so nobody could trace the purchase to him and exploit his interests for commercial purposes" - Calvin, talking about his Dad, in Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, December 1993. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/12/07

What's the opposite of "aged like milk"?

Aged like fine wine

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

#88

Post by [deleted] »

beefield wrote: post #85
jodrellblank wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however " "Then he said he was going to buy the book with cash, so nobody could trace the purchase to him and exploit his interests for commercial purposes" - Calvin, talking about his Dad, in Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, December 1993. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/12/07

What's the opposite of "aged like milk"?

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #60
netr0ute wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Monero, which is supposedly completely anonymous even with chain tracking?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/mastercard-to-buy-blockchain... Lets assume Monero is untraceable. Did MasterCard buy a company that cannot deliver on its promise of Monero tracing. In 2020, it was announced that American tax dollars were paid by DHS to CipherTrace for "tools" to trace Monero transactions. Thought experiment: What is the financial incentive to keep transactions "untraceable". Is it greater than the f…

For example, IRS paying $625,000 award to company who can help trace Monero

https://sam.gov/opp/5ab94eae1a8d422e88945b64181c6018/view

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

#90

Post by tboughen »

photochemsyn wrote: post #50
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?

IIRC a liter of Coca-Cola contains ~120g of sugar, and they need to add phosphoric acid to make it all go into solution. In fact, so much phosphoric acid that it makes a good de-rusting agent, i.e. any iron oxide (rust) will, after being soaked in Coca-Cola overnight, be converted to iron phosphate, which is easily removed with a light scrub. In addition, regularly consuming that much sugar puts you at high risk for…

It’s an interesting comment, and a nice line about Coca Cola that I’ll definitely steal!

But the conspiracy theory part is obviously untrue. A less educated population is a less productive population, and a less productive population is a poorer population. Less income means less spending on products and less tax revenue. A group with sufficient skill to implement this conspiracy would know this, so wouldn’t do it.

(A counter is that the group could be made up of advertisers pushing inferior goods (income elasticity of demand is negative) and government authoritarians - but why would they be so much more competent than the luxury goods pushers and libertarians?)

Post reply on HN