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

Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#41

Post by dylan604 »

soraminazuki wrote: post #6
1970-01-01 wrote: post #3

>The point here is to reduce harm and improve privacy by small increments at a pace that is realistically sustainable for an average person. Here's the rub. I buy that privacy is not dead, however free privacy is very limiting. Total privacy remains a complicated pay to play game.

Is it though? I don't think even rich individuals enjoy good privacy today. It's just that personal embarrassments cease to matter when you're rich and powerful.

There's a big difference between something you post intentionally that doesn't age well versus theZuckTracker5000(TM) that follows you every where you go on the internet without you explicitly consenting to it. There's a difference between showing people you went to suchandsuch location with suchandsuch friends doing suchandsuch that might only be legal in 28 states versus knowing exactly what you bought from where for how much and when. The graph you make with your posts is not the privacy being discussed. It is about the graph made by the invisible data paparazzi selling the most intimate and private bits of your life with whoever has the cash vs some paparazzi catching you in an unflattering situation from a mile away with a telephoto lens while you think you're having a private moment.

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#42

Post by jonaharagon »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #34
jonaharagon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have a deal with Brave. It was added almost 3 years ago, and nobody has even proposed removing it in the time since. Furthermore, it would be insane and likely illegal for a public charity to strike a deal to serve an undisclosed advertisement for a product from a private company. I think our position on Brave is clear enough from the very first paragraph in the guide: > We recommend Mullvad Browser if you a…

> We recommend Mullvad Browser if you are focused on strong privacy protections and anti-fingerprinting out of the box Just want to put emphasis on “out of the box”. Changing any of the default settings will cause you to stand out. The fingerprinting protection is essentially to have a bunch of people all using the same browser with all of the mechanisms used for fingerprinting being either disabled or giving the sam…

We cover that too [0]. In addition, while I wouldn't blanket recommend a VPN usually, it's important to use a VPN in conjunction with Mullvad Browser (specifically). If you're not blending in with a crowd of similar browsers at the network level too, the fingerprinting protections are a bit pointless.

> Like Tor Browser, Mullvad Browser is designed to prevent fingerprinting by making your browser fingerprint identical to all other Mullvad Browser users, and it includes default settings and extensions that are automatically configured by the default security levels: Standard, Safer and Safest. Therefore, it is imperative that you do not modify the browser at all outside adjusting the default security levels. Other modifications would make your fingerprint unique, defeating the purpose of using this browser.

[0] https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/#mullvad-b...

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#43

Post by soraminazuki »

dylan604 wrote: post #41
soraminazuki wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? I don't think even rich individuals enjoy good privacy today. It's just that personal embarrassments cease to matter when you're rich and powerful.

There's a big difference between something you post intentionally that doesn't age well versus theZuckTracker5000(TM) that follows you every where you go on the internet without you explicitly consenting to it. There's a difference between showing people you went to suchandsuch location with suchandsuch friends doing suchandsuch that might only be legal in 28 states versus knowing exactly what you bought from where f…

I know. What I'm saying is that I don't believe one can escape the network effect of the surveillance apparatus by being rich. What wealth and power can do, is make those who have it immune to the consequences.

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#44

Post by akimbostrawman »

arzke wrote: post #35
dylan604 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you eliminate fingerprinting, that is in and of itself a fingerprint. If you block cookies, that is too. So the person with your IP address and blocks fingerprinting and cookies is you. Someone with your IP address and only blocking cookies could be you as well on another device, or a family member on their device. Either way, they're on to you

> If you eliminate fingerprinting, that is in and of itself a fingerprint. This is why you should "eliminate fingerprinting" by randomizing your fingerprint.

Even a random Fingerprint can be used as identification since you will always have some static values between each session. The better approach would be to get in a big enough group with the same/similar fingerprint. That's how tor browser works.

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#45

Post by belorn »

progmetaldev wrote: post #8
ambicapter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the fascinating effects of the EU's GDPR laws passing is that you can see european data get more expensive for data brokers to sell (I don't have sources for this, just something I read somewhere). Ostensibly, you now have a way to compete with different legislatures as to who is doing the best job of protecting their constituents' privacy-just see who's data is most expensive to aggregate/resell.

It's hard to discover how much money is being made off selling user data, and I think this only leads to smaller companies trading in user data to disappear, while the larger players can do more with your data behind the scenes. The larger companies having fewer competitors allows them to spend more of their time on finding ways that are "legal" to track users, ones which are technically in compliance with existing l…

Larger companies has always been able to break the law and get away with it. That is unlikely to change. However laws do have an effect on such companies, because their protection is only as strong as people are willing to give them exceptions. When they break the law too much and looses popular support, the result in targeted laws that either break the large companies into smaller chunks or impose additional laws that just target the big companies (sometimes by name).

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#46

Post by metalman »

third approach, is to batten down the hatches as tight as possible,pragmatism, with the objective of seeing as little proof, ie: targeted adds, inbox invasions, etc. That they are in fact violating privacy rights wholesale.And so one ,not see or hear much of the material bieng pushed. Two, as a bonus, knowing that it's costing them. And three, returning serve by useing the web and its tools, to sell my business and things for sale, but in a manner that requires a customer to perform a search.

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#47

Post by latexr »

daniel_reetz wrote: post #10
claudiojulio wrote: post #2

I don't trust Privacy Guides. They must have some kind of deal with Brave. They didn't accept Brave and then out of nowhere they start accepting it with the excuse of having a Chromium-based browser.

Agree. Firefox is the only browser I "trust". It does the best job of respecting the user out of any available option. I am the user and I deserve respect. You are also users, and you deserve respect, too.

> Agree. Firefox is the only browser I "trust".

Your personal preference does not prove this website is engaging in shady deals, as the person you’re agreeing with claims.

> It does the best job of respecting the user out of any available option.

Maybe. That too is debatable. Mozilla’s track record with Firefox and privacy has been less than stellar as time goes by.

https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2024/07/14/mozilla-di...

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#48

Post by Terretta »

jonaharagon wrote: post #17
claudiojulio wrote: post #2

I don't trust Privacy Guides. They must have some kind of deal with Brave. They didn't accept Brave and then out of nowhere they start accepting it with the excuse of having a Chromium-based browser.

We don't have a deal with Brave. It was added almost 3 years ago, and nobody has even proposed removing it in the time since. Furthermore, it would be insane and likely illegal for a public charity to strike a deal to serve an undisclosed advertisement for a product from a private company. I think our position on Brave is clear enough from the very first paragraph in the guide: > We recommend Mullvad Browser if you a…

> We recommend Mullvad Browser if you are focused on strong privacy protections and anti-fingerprinting out of the box, Firefox for casual internet browsers looking for a good alternative to Google Chrome, and Brave if you need Chromium browser compatibility.

What about a WebKit based browser?

"Orion comes with state-of-the-art ad and tracker blocking enabled by default, unlike any other browser in existence... Beyond blocking all ads and trackers by default, Orion is also a zero telemetry browser. It protects you from websites on the web, and the browser itself never leaks your private information anywhere."

https://kagi.com/orion/

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#49

Post by Forgeties79 »

notpushkin wrote: post #27
Forgeties79 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people think it’s important to support more browser diversity by not using chromium-based browsers. Some people also think that it’s bad to use pretty much anything produced by Google. Plenty of reasons to want non-chromium browsers

And there’s the other side of the coin: some websites break in Firefox (and other non-Chromium brewsers, perhaps). I’m keeping Ungoogled Chromium just in case (and for testing my own websites, of course). (Remember to complain politely, but loudly, if something works in Chromium only.)

I only started really using Firefox as a daily driver probably two or three years ago so I’ve been lucky to have my compatibility be like… 99.9%. Little snitch and my VPN break far more sites than Firefox does. But I keep brave on hand just in case.

Re: Privacy Is Not Dead: Beware the All-or-Nothing Mindset

#50

Post by notpushkin »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #49
notpushkin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there’s the other side of the coin: some websites break in Firefox (and other non-Chromium brewsers, perhaps). I’m keeping Ungoogled Chromium just in case (and for testing my own websites, of course). (Remember to complain politely, but loudly, if something works in Chromium only.)

I only started really using Firefox as a daily driver probably two or three years ago so I’ve been lucky to have my compatibility be like… 99.9%. Little snitch and my VPN break far more sites than Firefox does. But I keep brave on hand just in case.

Oh yeah, I’ve only run into one serious bug in the past couple of years personally (sorting skills in a LinkedIn profile doesn’t work in Firefox).
Post reply on HN