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

111–120 of 139 posts

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

#111

Post by ghaff »

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.

Writer is probably one of the easier ways to be largely pseudonymous. No need for anyone other than some people at your publisher and some friends/family to know the connection. Reclusive writers is even something of a trope. Of course, no images also presumably means no book signings, cons, basically any public appearances--especially these days when everyone has a camera in their pocket.

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

#112

Post by mrob »

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…

You don't need any additives to dissolve 120g/l of sugar into water. Wikipedia lists sucrose solubility as approximately 2000g/l at 25C, and HFCS has even higher solubility. The phosphoric acid is to make it taste better. 120g/l would taste unpleasantly sweet without the acidity.

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

#113

Post by nunorbatista »

snowmizuh-04 wrote: post #93

There's another option, which few are able to implement. Sign off entirely. Stop using the digital Machine. Humans lived this way for all but the most recent wink of an eye. Many humans still do. Think of the monastics on Mt Athos. When I first saw the title, I thought the author was going to discuss truly taking the red pill. I was disappointed to read just another '10 things you can do to increase your privacy' pie…

OP here. Fair criticism thanks. As I stated in another comment, I was going to make this a list of things you could do, but the argument to why you should do it was not clear, at least for me. This is the purpose of the article: explain my mother why. The how will come later.

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

#114

Post by photochemsyn »

mrob wrote: post #112
photochemsyn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't need any additives to dissolve 120g/l of sugar into water. Wikipedia lists sucrose solubility as approximately 2000g/l at 25C, and HFCS has even higher solubility. The phosphoric acid is to make it taste better. 120g/l would taste unpleasantly sweet without the acidity.

Right that makes sense.

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

#115

Post by brewdad »

throwamon wrote: post #9
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.

What are your other social media handles?

You're going to have to put in the effort. No one said OP has to make it easy and cross-index everything for you. That's why we have computers to do the work.

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

#116

Post by brewdad »

nunorbatista wrote: post #83
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.

I hate that we have brought back the serial novel in 38 parts for the sake of "engagement". Write the article or don't but I've seen too many of these things get abandoned before enough useful info gets published.

Pass.

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

#117

Post by ryanisnan »

fsflover wrote: post #96
t_mann wrote: post #94

Usually when a question is asked in a headline one would expect the article to at least attempt to answer it. This piece doesn't guide you on how to make trade-off decisions between privacy and usability, it doesn't even give concrete tips on how to improve privacy (apart from a single mention of password managers, where it doesn't even say whether they should be used or avoided). This is as useless for beginners as…

Some concrete advises: https://prism-break.org

I find sites like this very hard to accept at face value. For example, on iOS, they say to avoid Authy for MFA but recommend a project called Tofu. This may be a sensible recommendation but they give zero supporting information as to why.

I have nothing against Tofu (maybe the texture) but if you are going to convince someone that an opensource project made by mostly one person with very little financial backing, over a corporate MFA provider, data or rationale is required!

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

#118

Post by nunorbatista »

brewdad wrote: post #116
nunorbatista wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate that we have brought back the serial novel in 38 parts for the sake of "engagement". Write the article or don't but I've seen too many of these things get abandoned before enough useful info gets published. Pass.

Believe it or not, it's not for the sake of engagement. I also use the internet and find articles with 2 parts to be disappointing but I felt like there was enough value in part 1 alone.

800+ words on an email client on a phone is just too much and there are better options to read long-form. I could make it smaller, but I would risk leaving out an important part I wanted to debate.

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

#119

Post by throwaway290 »

spunker540 wrote: post #44
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?

Nobody is denying advertising works. But most of the time ads are trying to win you over vs competitors in the market. Most of it is predicated on the fact that you are in the market for something, and they want you to choose them over someone else. I doubt coca-cola is targeting non-soda drinkers in their advertisements. But they want you to pick coke over Pepsi. Even if you create an open source drug that cures can…

Coca-Cola competes not with Pepsi. If you chose Pepsi, you will not suddenly choose Coca-Cola if if shows a flashier ad.

Coca-Cola competes with: a glass of water, a cup of tea or coffee, an actual meal, a walk outside, a meditation, a nothing (just you chilling and keeping watching YT), your vision of yourself as someone who is not a Coke drinker (so e.g. Coke drinkers in adverts tend to be active, adventure-seeking, well-socialized and loved).

It advertises most certainly not to make the product known, that's done by putting it on shelves in stores. Invading your attention at home or while doing anything other than shopping is strictly banking on triggering an impulse and/or trying to adjust your self-image to allow the possibility of you seeing yourself as the type of a person who uses the product.

Similarly McD and SBX compete with local parks and benches, Netflix competes with woodwork (and indeed sex), YouTube competes with going out (and thus Uber, in locations with poor public transport), Uber competes with not going out (and thus YouTube), etc. to various degrees.

(Things are different with advertisements especially for lesser known products without IRL presence. An advert != an advert.)

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

#120

Post by blep_ »

sentirism wrote: post #97
wolverine876 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This really can't be overstated. Propaganda was highly effective even as words on pieces of paper distributed once a week or infrequent AM radio broadcasts. I believe the old idea that would hold even more so now is that the only defense against propaganda is essentially to be illiterate. It is really hard to propagandize a person who can't read. The more informed a person believes themselves to be about the world fr…

Illiterate people can listen to radio (or now, videos) just fine, though. Text isn't special, the content is.
Post reply on HN