121–130 of 139 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
OP Here. Thanks for the feedback. When I started to write the article, I was set to give a list of things we can follow to improve privacy. In the middle, I noticed the arguments why you should do it were not clear. As I said in another comment, it's not clear for my mother the consequences of oversharing, so it's not easy for me to tell her not do do so. The reality is that it really depends. Maybe you do need to fl…
While taking the class, I came to realize the paper trail you leave the moment you become an adult is immense and almost impossible — from a government perspective — to eliminate entirely. If you require a license or own property, you have no choice but to be in the system. You literally have to disconnect from society and live as a hermit in the woods (and even then I wouldn’t doubt the ability to be tracked.)
The digital realm has only made this paper trail exponentially impossible to control, even if you’re consciously trying. I’ve adopted the practice of limiting my digital footprint as much as possible (within reason). I don’t have accounts or engage with the social media walled gardens. I am very conscious of the media I consume. For instance, I don’t follow my curiosity about topics an on platforms where an algorithm might force feed me — if I wanted to know about a conspiracy theory for giggles, I’d read on Wikipedia, not watch a video on YouTube.
And, finally, ad and tracker blockers at every possible level. I figure if someone has me profiled, I can at least block the tailored message they’re sending.
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 ta…
Occam's Razor suggests it probably is his real name. There are a few other biographic details online which I suppose someone could verify if they cared enough, especially if they were local and he actually lives in Perth. He's certainly been using that name since the early 80s.
It's mostly that he just completely avoids fandom and publishing circles and he's of an age where photos of you mostly didn't randomly show up on the Internet unless you deliberately put them there. And he is apparently determined to keep it that way.
This is actually a pretty good example of a person who could probably be found pretty easily if someone, and certainly the government, really wanted to but they keep out of the public eye except for their books and the occasional interview.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, ove…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
". 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…
> they get your legal consent whether you like the way they do it or not. Facebook tracks millions of people who never sogned up to a facebook account and has never agreed to anything
[1] https://themarkup.org/pixel-hunt/2022/06/16/facebook-is-rece...
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…
I’d follow the money as opposed to some study. Social media isn’t a boogeyman responsible for everything but it is a critical channel to influence. My mom gets bombarded with crazy tales of Joe Biden taking gasoline away, etc. I get lots of crazy dramatic fundraising requests from EFF, broadband advocates, etc. It’s real and it works.
Thirty years ago your mom would likely be listening to talk radio, if that's the kind of media diet she's looking for. There's lots of deep reasons why people consume what they consume, I just think it's wrong to attribute a lot of agency to these platforms.
It's actually comforting to think that twitter, FB etc are destroying discourse when in reality it's people on the sites, out of their own volition, or through (lack of) education, socialization, etc.