41–50 of 126 posts
> Our mission is clear - we aim to unravel the magic of FOSS, Linux, and self-hosting to individuals seeking a break from the shackles of Big Tech. IMO, it's not only Big Tech that poses a threat on privacy and freedom. Big Governments are other threat that, IMO, it's much harder to fight against it.
> Our mission is clear - we aim to unravel the magic of FOSS, Linux, and self-hosting to individuals seeking a break from the shackles of Big Tech. IMO, it's not only Big Tech that poses a threat on privacy and freedom. Big Governments are other threat that, IMO, it's much harder to fight against it.
And so monetised has it become that any attempt by government to reign in the pervasive surveillance, it could potentially have a noticeable effect on the employment rate as all those "smartest people on the planet working very hard on getting better click rates" in the big tech surveillance industry are legislatively made redundant. Bad politics.
This would also dry up a fair portion of the ... lobbyist funding ... governments receive.
Plus governments handily use these private enterprises profiting from pervasive surveillance to take the pulse of the citizenry for the purposes of staying in power - the very reason they're in government in the first place.
So, yeah, Government, as they are, are a significant part of the problem from a number of angles.
privacy is important but the article is strange because all of the things described can be opted-out of. in the case of Telly you are explicitly trading off privacy in order to receive a free product. don't consume if you don't agree. there are certain situations in which you might be OK with the privacy implication. I, for example, would be OK with receiving a free car ride if I had to watch an advertisement while t…
> Is it unfortunate that Meta and Google track you across the internet? Sure, but it's ultimately not necessary for your participation in society I'm honestly astonished by this claim. For many the products provided by Meta and Google--Facebook, Whatsapp, Gmail, WeChat, etc--are deeply important to their lives. These tools are the way people connect and communicate with friends and families, conduct business, and in…
Fundamentally though, even if you are tracked by Facebook you being banned on Facebook isn't going to stop you from living your life. If that is the case then that is indeed problematic.
We will have to agree to disagree. I care about surveillance only to the extent that if the person doing has the ability to stop my participation in society. To that extent Meta cannot do much damage (to me at least).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy and private property rights are deeply intertwined (it is, for example, what makes it unlawful for me to walk into your house uninvited and install a hidden camera, or to walk up to your house and stare through your bedroom window while you make love to your partner). Would you argue that, because historically a right to own and control access to private property has "been rare for most people", we shouldn't…
I think here you're conflating phsyical security (am I safe in my home) with privacy (am I unobserved). Yes, I would argue that controlling information access to property should not be considered a fundamental right - in that it's practically un-enforceable for privacy purposes already; I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property without fear of bumping into some stranger though.…
So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was?
That's a strange argument.
> I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property without fear of bumping into some stranger though.
Why?
If I walk onto your property and stare in your windows, if "physical security" is important but "privacy" isn't, why should you be allowed to stop me? I'm not threatening you. I'm just watching you. Sounds fine to me.
Or perhaps you'd be fine if I just did it from the public sidewalk with a telephoto lens aimed at your bedroom?
What if I then took a bunch of naked photos of you and your partner and then posted them online? Would you be okay with that? If not, why not, if privacy is not a fundamental right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it unfortunate that Meta and Google track you across the internet? Sure, but it's ultimately not necessary for your participation in society I'm honestly astonished by this claim. For many the products provided by Meta and Google--Facebook, Whatsapp, Gmail, WeChat, etc--are deeply important to their lives. These tools are the way people connect and communicate with friends and families, conduct business, and in…
Those examples you gave inherently must track you in order to function. I'm talking about accessory cases, e.g. "Facebook pixel." That case is problematic, but also easy to avoid - don't go to sites that for example use Facebook comments. Fundamentally though, even if you are tracked by Facebook you being banned on Facebook isn't going to stop you from living your life. If that is the case then that is indeed problem…
No. They don't. What gave you that idea?
> That case is problematic, but also easy to avoid - don't go to sites that for example use Facebook comments.
Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion.
That's not a slight! That's actually a huge problem with the debate, as few people truly understand the issues well enough to have a fully informed opinion on the topic.
I disagree that it's a fundamental right. Over most of history privacy has been rare for most people, with the provisio that if you really wanted a private conversation you could have one in the middle of an open field in daylight with a reasonable expectation that your conversation would not be compromised. These days there can be no such expectation, and we need to separate out discussion of day-to-day privacy from…
> I disagree that it's a fundamental right. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Also, what does it mean to free from arbitrary interferrence with privacy? Interferrence implies more than observation, in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I disagree that it's a fundamental right. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere. Also, what does it mean to free from arbitrary interferrence with privacy? Interferrence implies more than observation, in my view.
So is the word "life" mentioned also once. Do we need to argue also about that? Declarations and constitutions are not supposed to include rigorous definitions. See also:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those examples you gave inherently must track you in order to function. I'm talking about accessory cases, e.g. "Facebook pixel." That case is problematic, but also easy to avoid - don't go to sites that for example use Facebook comments. Fundamentally though, even if you are tracked by Facebook you being banned on Facebook isn't going to stop you from living your life. If that is the case then that is indeed problem…
> Those examples you gave inherently must track you in order to function. No. They don't. What gave you that idea? > That case is problematic, but also easy to avoid - don't go to sites that for example use Facebook comments. Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion. That's not a slight! That's actually a huge problem with the debate…
Yes they do. How could Google serve you email without knowing what your email address is, for instance?
> Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion.
No, it's probably that I'm not as injected in the internet as you, probably. You can easily live a very full life and barely use the internet, let alone Facebook. This conversation reminds me of someone who told me that they need Discord to live. Just silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think here you're conflating phsyical security (am I safe in my home) with privacy (am I unobserved). Yes, I would argue that controlling information access to property should not be considered a fundamental right - in that it's practically un-enforceable for privacy purposes already; I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property without fear of bumping into some stranger though.…
> Yes, I would argue that controlling information access to property should not be considered a fundamental right - in that it's practically un-enforceable for privacy purposes already; So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was? That's a strange argument. > I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property witho…
How do you propose putting that cat back in the bag?
I also think that if we had legislated for privacy, supposing that we had realised its important early enough, what would that battle look like? I expect it would go as well as the war against drugs; if nothing else miniaturisation makes it practically unenforceable anyway, and legislation might protect you against individual harm but would do nothing against state level, or large corporation, action.
> If I walk onto your property and stare in your windows, if "physical security" is important but "privacy" isn't, why should you be allowed to stop me? I'm not threatening you
Given that we are unable to discern intent prior to action (when that intent is only manifest in thought), strangers lurking are always going to be a different problem to strangers peeking; it's analagous to copyright law vs. property law.
> Or perhaps you'd be fine if I just did it from the public sidewalk with a telephoto lens aimed at your bedroom?
I'm not saying that I'm immune to our societies' privacy hangups; but ideally I should be - I do think we should try and stop judging others for harmless actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those examples you gave inherently must track you in order to function. No. They don't. What gave you that idea? > That case is problematic, but also easy to avoid - don't go to sites that for example use Facebook comments. Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion. That's not a slight! That's actually a huge problem with the debate…
> No. They don't. What gave you that idea? Yes they do. How could Google serve you email without knowing what your email address is, for instance? > Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion. No, it's probably that I'm not as injected in the internet as you, probably. You can easily live a very full life and barely use the internet, l…
There is no one who would describe that as "surveillance" and I'd expect you to know that.
Voluntarily divulging information in order to make use of a service is obviously completely fine.
Turning around and selling that information is not.
Augmenting that information with additional data from across multiple sources--whether that data is voluntarily or involuntarily divulged--is also not fine.
Buying and selling those augmented datasets, also not fine.
And that is what Meta, Google, and so many of these other companies do. That's what surveillance capitalism is.
> No, it's probably that I'm not as injected in the internet as you, probably. You can easily live a very full life and barely use the internet, let alone Facebook.
Frankly, that suggests to me you're the outlier, not me.
Facebook has nearly two billion worldwide daily active users.
WeChat is used every single day in parts of the world not just to communicate with people but to engage in basic daily commerce.
WhatsApp is the way countless individuals stay in touch with friends and family.
You might be oddly disassociated from big tech and the internet, and thus it may be very easy for you to have a cavalier attitude about surveillance capitalism.
Most folks absolutely are not.