Live data from Hacker News

Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

brookings.edu

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

#21
post #2

A defeatist piece. If you're determined and have initiative you can achieve a lot. If you depend on the legislators in society, like this author, you may indeed be doomed. But you don't need to be. The good thing is that with defensive measures you can stop much of it. With retroveillance you may even be able to strike back from time to time.

We need privacy at the societal level though. Even if I have perfect privacy for myself, bad actors who invade everyone else’s privacy are still able to influence society in a way that has never been possible before. Think of the election interference made possible solely by the huge amounts of data these companies have.

Even if I have perfect privacy, I’m still screwed if I live in a society where 99% of people don’t.

Re: Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

#22
post #2

A defeatist piece. If you're determined and have initiative you can achieve a lot. If you depend on the legislators in society, like this author, you may indeed be doomed. But you don't need to be. The good thing is that with defensive measures you can stop much of it. With retroveillance you may even be able to strike back from time to time.

100% privacy can be hard, for some people also next to impossible to achieve, but making spying more difficult and expensive is still worth. Surveillance is pervasive because it is relatively cheap; what if suddenly it became more costly after people change their habits and adopt safer technologies? Companies do that for profits, and governments use taxpayers money; forcing them to spend more by putting obstacles will hit where it hurts the most.

Re: Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

#24
"We're going to have a more private internet. It's either going to be through tech or regulation, or through users making choices with what they download or the extensions they use or how they interact with publishers through subscriptions or other mechanisms."

https://www.wired.com/story/can-killing-cookies-save-journal...

Re: Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

#27
post #25

Sadly your online identity with Apple or Google is essentially mapped to a mobile phone one way or the other. Then the same is indeed linked to your financial accounts, so there is no proper way to disconnect the same.

Use different phone numbers with all of them and don't use a mobile phone number, get a bunch of cheap virtual numbers.

Re: Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

#28

Why isn’t the wealth and power of the targets mentioned in debates for privacy ? I mean, no one cares to know the private details of the powerless, and who has the power to know the private details of the powerful ? There must be some analogue to eat or be eaten for privacy. Some people like reading tabloids.

> no one cares to know the private details of the powerless

I think you may want to reevaluate your thoughts on that.

Both times democracy was birthed, it happened so because the elite (cultural, political and economic) of society agreed that a majority rule that protected its minorities was the best way to secure long term stability and welfare. Because giving everyone (this hasn’t actually included everyone in most of of the history of democracy) a voice was the most efficient way of nobody getting their head cut off by angry mobs (to variating success).

Sure you could have a dictatorships but from the Roman Empire up until modern day China, that wasn’t exactly a great idea if you wanted your society to prosper. Not because dictatorships don’t work, but because they take immense and unopposed structure of governance that isn’t too bogged down by corruption to pull of successfully.

The Romans did it by making each providence rely on the others. One producing weapons, another tools and trade and a third food. Along with a massive standing army this made rebellion hard, and having very few external enemies meant the oligarchy was “free” to fuck around during their long periods of competent leadership. This is very simplified and not completely accurate, but it’s a good enough picture of what made the last prominent dictatorship work.

Until modern day China rose to power, but how did it move from Maos cultural revolution to what modern day China is today? I’d argue that control and information are the key answers.

Because how do you control all those powerless people, who are actually the real power of your society if they ever join together? Where “western” communism and socialism from Marx to Lenin always focused on the time after the revolution where the proletariat would have taken control and redistributed the wealth of society, Maos take was always that the revolution never ended. His doctrine was one of information control, and while that obviously didn’t work so well 50 years ago, it works really well in a works where the elite knows everything about you at all times.

You can’t assemble in secret. You can’t spread dissent. You can’t have the wrong religion. You can’t even jaywalk without society knowing and being able of intervening before they have to resort to the more drastic measures of their North Korean neighbours.

This is what total surveillance gets you. A society for people who fit in to have prosperous lives, and, the capability to weed out anyone who doesn’t early enough that you don’t need to “sanitise” the whole field in which they grow.

Re: Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

#29
post #13

This reminds me of an observation whose name escapes my feeble attempts to Google, that roughly states government bureaucracies tend to find more things to grow into over time, rather than diminish. Wish I could find what it was… I remember reading about it in the context that if you wanted to grow your underdeveloped country, you should do as western countries did 50-100 years ago, rather than copying current instit…

Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

Re: Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

#30
post #4

One idea would be a "Privacy Bastion" business that proxies transactions for people. Maybe I'm authenticated with several, and distribute transactions across them. When they get hacked, I'm jacked, but still.

Would it be similar to Blur (www. abine.com)?
Post reply on HN