Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protecting privacy is a losing game today (2018)

brookings.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

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

#31

Post by hypertele-Xii »

throwawaygh wrote: post #9
parsecs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it".. also this system sounds more flawed than what you could do with cryptocurrencies?

> I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it" A legally binding contract with sufficiently punitive clauses. It's a solved problem for people who care about privacy/secrecy. Have you ever worked with highly proprietary or secret data/code in a professional context? > also this system sounds more flawed than what you could do with cryptocurrencies? I have no id…

> It's a solved problem for people who care about privacy/secrecy. Have you ever worked with highly proprietary or secret data/code in a professional context?

You mean like Edward Snowden and stuff?

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

#32

Post by smitty1e »

parsecs wrote: post #7
smitty1e wrote: 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.

I'm not sure how one could end up trusting such organizations besides "just taking their word for it".. also this system sounds more flawed than what you could do with cryptocurrencies?

Neither am I.

Perhaps multiple, layered arrangements.

Trust doesn't scale, though.

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

#33

Post by hungryfoolish »

dheera wrote: post #27
villgax wrote: 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.

Most people in the world won't live their lives this way.

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

#35

Post by yossarian1408 »

spiderice wrote: post #21
MikeGale wrote: 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’…

So construct a government where individuals are not secured or compromised their liberty depending on the outcome of an election. You speak of the popular will being corrupted by an external power, but the tyranny of the majority is enough of a threat to the safety of the individual and the tenants of natural law anyway.

Your perfect society is everybody's perfect society, one where collective force is used to secure individual liberty, and not choke it.

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

#36

Post by specialist »

moksly wrote: post #28
naveen99 wrote: post #19

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…

> ...a majority rule that protected its minorities was the best way to secure long term stability and welfare.

Huh. I hadn't connected the dots between minoritarian rule and surveillance (capitalism) until now. Thanks.

They really are codependent, aren't they?

So advocating majoritarian rule -- more democracy, consent of the governed, etc -- will weaken the pressure for surveillance.

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

#38

Post by naveen99 »

moksly wrote: post #28
naveen99 wrote: post #19

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…

Threats are usually worse from powerful outsiders as well as powerful insiders. And the tools are more selective, cowardly spying and not iron fisted surveillance.

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

#39

Post by jmnicolas »

MikeGale wrote: 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.

While I mostly agree with you, it's a very hard endeavor that only a few extremely motivated individuals can do.

I have a Linux desktop and a GrapheneOS smartphone. However my ISP still knows a lot of things about me (and I'm not sure that a VPN provider would be better) including my geoloc, the websites I go to and how much time I spend on them.

I clean my cookies regularly, I use different browsers for different activities, but with browser fingerprinting it's probably in vain.

So basically I'm 80% there. But it's pretty tiring not to have the same apps / capabilities as others (I lost half my contacts by not having whatsapp), to be conscious that I clicked a Google link by mistake etc

The last 20% are way too much overhead for me (TOR etc).

And frankly I don't know anybody else doing it (IRL).

Post reply on HN