Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Privacy Paranoia

dvbuser writes "The privacy debate is well known these days — organizations that track every click, geolocation, image, you name it. So now I sit here today monitoring my IP blockers, obfuscation algorithms, tor relay and each packet that goes in or out of every device that I operate. I even wear a hat always when I go outdoors, never carry a cell phone, and never look up (well, not all of that is true). But is it really that bad? Am I simply going to wind up completely out of touch with the modern world, where the next generation so boldly (for want of a better word) goes? What's wrong with targeted advertising? And if the feds can track my every movement — who cares? Sure, I don't want to be a victim of identity theft, and I like to download some p0rn every now and then, but I don't want to exclude myself from society, or spend copious hours trying to preserve it, merely from paranoia or at the very least from an overbearing sense of privacy. What does the average Slashdotter do to preserve their privacy (or what's left of it) while still making the most out of what the web has to offer?"

323 comments

  1. You misspelled pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    pr0n!

  2. Posting anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    For obvious reasons.

    1. Re:Posting anonymous by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Posting anonymous for obvious reasons" is fairly close to the truth.

      *** What does the average Slashdotter do to preserve their privacy (or what's left of it) while still making the most out of what the web has to offer? *** asked the submitter.

      1. Easy - sit at home and do your normal internetting.

      2. If you are going to do something sketchy online, go to your local coffeehouse four towns away and do it there. Alternatively, go for a wardrive.

      3. If you are going to do anything massively sketchy, think long and hard about doing it in the first place. If you are still justified in doing said deed, buy a USB wireless card and use a CD based Knoppix. Proceed to step 2 as described above.

      4. If you are going to do something insanely illegal, don't do it. Kiddie pr0n, DDOSes, etc fall into this category. Chances are great that you'll be looking at felonies when (not if - just a matter of time) you get pinched.

      5. ???

      6. Profit!

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    2. Re:Posting anonymous by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who finds it outrageous that you put harming children at the same level than knocking down a web server?

      Ok maybe it's not you but the government. Still WTF..

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    3. Re:Posting anonymous by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who finds it outrageous that you put harming children at the same level than knocking down a web server?

      Ok maybe it's not you but the government. Still WTF..

      Not to poop on the hate party, but: looking at child porn is to harming children as looking at a "Saw" movie is to torturing innocents. A DDOS that creates months worth of work to fix the damage is more harmful.

      Now, producing child porn (real CP mind you, not anime drawings) - I can get behind you that it is a much more heinous crime.

  3. Use aliases. by bmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fuck Zuckerberg. Half of the people on my "friends" list use aliases. I use an alias.

    And I don't put anything out there that I wouldn't be ashamed of my mom seeing.

    Use the technology, but for gawd's sake cover your ass and don't be stupid. If you don't know how to maintain true anonymity (I'm behind 7 proxies!), then just use common sense.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Use aliases. by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Use the technology, but for gawd's sake cover your ass and don't be stupid. If you don't know how to maintain true anonymity (I'm behind 7 proxies!), then just use common sense.

      Agreed.

      It's not the targeted advertisements that worry me. It's that the wrong people get information about me. That I get into embarrassing situations with pieces of information going to places they shouldn't without my approval. It might even be possible to extort people if you have the right info.

      So, I would advise you (guy from TFA) that you don't need to wear the hat if you just go to the supermarket... but if you don't want your wife to find out that you have a mistress, and you pass some camera's on the way there, then the hat is advisable.

      -- Remember: If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government - but you still have a lot to hide. Why? Because it's none of their f*cking business.

    2. Re:Use aliases. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      And I don't put anything out there that I wouldn't be ashamed of my mom seeing.

      Friend your mom like I did and your problem is solved! :)

      I do use Facebook, but mostly as a big contact list. It's great when we travel near where some infrequently-contacted cousin lives and I can just lift their contact info from Facebook rather than calling around trying to update my long-out-of-date address book. It's also nice to see what someone's kids look like and such without having to sift through my emails looking for that link to Picasa/Kodak/etc.

      Anyway, if I were doing such a thing that I needed privacy, I'd probably use someone else's connection - and not the same connection every time. I'd pay for services with pre-paid credit cards bought with cash while wearing a hoodie and sunglasses. One of the services I would first purchase would be an out-of-country VPN, and I'd frequently change accounts. I'd consider having a special PC dedicated just to the activity that needed so much privacy, and while on that PC I'd assume a completely different identity. While doing said activity, make sure the phone in your pocket is off! And don't use EasyPass. If I had the financial means, I'd probably also rotate phones/computers.

      That would at least set up some roadblocks, but I don't do any of that - I think the worst thing I do online is subscribe to Giganews.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not taking advise from someone who is selling my information and neither from someone who gets behind 7 proxies(!) to post on a newssite.

    4. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not just your facebook alias. Given the amount of tracking tools available for companies out there, it wouldn't be impossible to follow you along the internet to a site where you've input your real name.

    5. Re:Use aliases. by syousef · · Score: 1, Funny

      And I don't put anything out there that I wouldn't be ashamed of my mom seeing.

      Friend your mom like I did and your problem is solved! :)

      You friended HIS mom?!?!? Duuuude, that's soooo wrong!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:Use aliases. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The corollary to that would perhaps be "you don't need to hide it if it's not worth anyone's while to find it"; admittedly with crowdsourcing, and the decreasing cost of automated data processing, it's pretty easy to pull individual data from the huge conglomeration that's produced every day, but the limiting requirement is still that somebody needs to take the time to act on that data.

      I completely understand the principle of the original question, but I do think they need a little perspective on the practical side: the chance of anyone caring what you, as an individual, are doing is near-zero. Unless you've pissed off people in your monkeysphere enough that they'll go digging for your name, there's probably not much chance of any of the information about you surfacing beyond its minuscule impact on aggregate marketing data. Those improbable edge-cases are maybe still worth taking some precaution against, but in general it's not worth too much worry. The real question, of course, is whether you truly care about the principle above and beyond any practical danger it poses to you?

    7. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is it wrong, his mom is HOT!

    8. Re:Use aliases. by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 2

      And I don't put anything out there that I wouldn't be ashamed of my mom seeing.

      Wait... you only post stuff that you know will offend your Mother!?
      That's just mean!

    9. Re:Use aliases. by Tomahawk · · Score: 2

      "If you don't know how to maintain true anonymity (I'm behind 7 proxies!)"

      Each of which logs your every click...

    10. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BWA-Ha-Ha-Ha-Hah-Ha-Hah-Ha-Ha-Ha ad nauseum

    11. Re:Use aliases. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But today, there is a risk in posting anything that might offend anyone. What if your employer finds it? What if your potential future employer finds it while googling on candidates for the job? It isn't advisible to say anything at all under your real name any more, not when everything is archived and googleable. There is nothing you can say on any issue remotely political without the risk of upsetting someone, and that someone may be your now-or-future co-worker or boss.

    12. Re:Use aliases. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      True. For this reason it's best to separate a pseudonymous identity you use for forums etc. from one you use for online shopping or any business that's tied to your credit card or real information (including Facebook, if you must have an account).

      I wish I knew what the world would be like earlier, I set up a lot of things I use now in a simpler time (I still have to get my ass off this gmail address ^, Google's so creepy now.) Just a few years ago I saw no problem with my mobile devices not using full-disk encryption. And converting an existing Linux install to use LVM encryption is a gigantic PITA, trust me, I've tried. I'm thinking about clean-installing, even with a heavily customized installation it might be less work.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:Use aliases. by Lurker187 · · Score: 3, Funny

      She's a MILF (Mother I'd Like to Friend).

      What, what did you think I meant?

      --
      [command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
    14. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each of which logs your every click...

    15. Re:Use aliases. by ladoga · · Score: 2

      Imagine what can happen if some autocratic regime gets into power in and confiscates all the data that social network corporations have in store of their users. Then the said regime can use that data to search for probable dissidents and make their lifes hard. IMO that's good enough reason for not to use high profile social networking services with anything linked to your own name.

      So for me it's not about telling something I don't want my mum to hear. Such things could cause only minor problems, maybe a lost job at worst. But there are scenarios that could lead in loss of ones life.

      I don't think something like above is likely to happen anytime soon, but it doesn't hurt to play safe. I use open protocols like XMPP and IRC with known (or own) servers and have control of logs myself when it's possible. Probably my contact information (even if I try to avoid spreading such details) and discussions I've taken part in are still all over the world in various message boards, but the least I can do is to try to stay in control of my data where I can.

    16. Re:Use aliases. by bmo · · Score: 1

      And sure as shit, nobody here gets that it's a joke.

      Crikes.

      When I wrote that, I was going to write "I'm behind 7 Boxxies!" but I figured it was too obscure and everyone was going to have to google the phrase and thus the joke would be ruined.

      But no, people like you have to make me /explain/ the joke and kill it myself. You turned me into *that guy,* the guy that explains all the jokes.

      Gah.

      --
      BMO

      For the lazy: http://tinyurl.com/6272za7

    17. Re:Use aliases. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      It isn't advisible to say anything at all under your real name any more, not when everything is archived and googleable. There is nothing you can say on any issue remotely political without the risk of upsetting someone, and that someone may be your now-or-future co-worker or boss.

      If you have such frail conviction in your own beliefs and values... I believe what I believe regardless of what someone else thinks of it, and if my boss would fire me over it then I probably wouldn't be happy working there any ways. If it gets to the point that I can't find any job because of my opinions, then there are bigger problems in the world.

    18. Re:Use aliases. by mulvane · · Score: 1

      I didn't stop at friending her...I "poked" her as well.. :-)

    19. Re:Use aliases. by bmo · · Score: 1

      You only really need to encrypt /home

      Have /home on its own partition. Mine is only 25GB - and really, only 5GB are being used. Everything else is offloaded to other partitions and that stuff doesn't need encryption. It's all music and video.

      Tar up /home
      Save it somewhere. You should already have an external USB, firewire, or esata external drive.
      Repartition the drive with gparted and make space at the end of the drive for a /home partition.
      Create an encrypted volume for /home
      Copy your stuff back to /home
      Delete the stuff on the external drive.
      Make the external drive an encrypted volume and use it for backups.

      Then clean all free space with bcwipe. It's free for download if you download the source tarball and build it yourself. Don't be silly, do only one or two passes, not the default.

      I see no reason for whole drive encryption. Zero. Zilch. The OS doesn't need to be encrypted, your multimedia doesn't need encrypting. Only your important files need it.

      --
      BMO

    20. Re:Use aliases. by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While no one may care, I still protect some basics.
      I have a little perl script that does nothing but grab a random number of random words from my dictionary and performs google searches on those words, then gets a random number of hits from the search query.
      It doesn't do anything with the results, just discards them to dev/nul but my real searches are likely lost in all that noise.
      I use my real name on facebook, specifically so people can find me, but I post almost nothing.
      On forums like this I use an alias. I've three distinct on-line persona and I keep them relatively separate

      That said, the odds that anyone actually cares about what I do is remote, but I do not rely on that as my only defense of who I am.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    21. Re:Use aliases. by skids · · Score: 1

      This.

      If we had another bout of McCarthyism right now (some might cite the interminable WoT as such, but it doesn't run quite as deep yet as McCarthyism did... yet) it would not just be dangerous to have ready-made dossiers for every citizen available for the plucking, even the information on small aggregates would be dangerous in those kinds of hands. The paranoid autocrat no longer needs to "round up all the Japanese", he can develop much more sophisticated profiles by which to find and persecute completely innocent people and manipulate others.

      But as to the OP: no, you can't spend your life incognito on the Internet and still reap all the benefits it has to offer socially. The modern American civilian has been taught to be scared of gun-wielding psychos and medical conditions, because it is good for sales. The establishment will never teach them to be as afraid of online profiling. (At best the people promising to protect you against ID theft will hock their goods, and the new federal consumer protection bureau will manage to squeeze out some product before Republicans manage to slash or sabotage it.) The reason is that a bunch of paranoid Internet users aren't going to borrow/consume as much -- being that they will have a much less active social life -- no Jones's to keep up with, for one.

      So you are stuck in a world where people are going to do the stupid thing and hop in feet first. Interacting online with these people is a risk to your own personal privacy, but not doing so makes you a hermit. If you are willing to play the odds, then I suggest concentrating on low-maintenance transparent security measures, and also doing what you can to build support and awareness for legal protections (both existing and new) against sale of personal profiling information.

      Really you get punished either way. A good (and not entirely abstract) analogy is the supermarket loyalty card: If you get one, whether or not under your real name, you will be profiled and marketed to, and eventually that record may be identified as your real self, and has the potential to be used to hurt you in various ways. If you do not get the loyalty card, you are economically punished with higher prices and will be working at a disadvantage for the rest of your life.
      (and if you sign up for a new loyalty card under a different ID every month at a different branch, you are still economically punished because you have to burn your time doing so.)

      So if you get punished or put at risk regardless, might as well get politically active about it.

    22. Re:Use aliases. by Chatterton · · Score: 2

      Except that more and more company are doing a google search on your name when you send your CV... The chance that you next boss is caring about what you, as an individual, are doing is not near zero. And a photo of you drunk, smoking some weed (or something that look like), or any non conventional posture could cost you your next job. Some don't get a job or get fired for these kind of things right now. And unfortunatly it is not alway you that post these kind of information :-/

    23. Re:Use aliases. by anyGould · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, I would advise you (guy from TFA) that you don't need to wear the hat if you just go to the supermarket... but if you don't want your wife to find out that you have a mistress, and you pass some camera's on the way there, then the hat is advisable.

      I'd extend that - so long as you never intend on having a mistress, you're probably OK. Because they'll be able to tell from your changing patterns that something is up.

      That's the freaky part about things like Facebook's new "tracking like buttons" and the "let us manage your forums for you" features - my newspaper turned on the "you must log in to Facebook to write us" feature, and frankly, it feels a little expensive to have to hand over access to your complete profile in order to give them content to publish...

    24. Re:Use aliases. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Spoken with the confidence of one who has not had to spend a year or more living on benefits and recieving one rejection letter after another. For those of us in the real world, a job is a very nice thing to have - and I don't want to lose mine.

    25. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is good advice. Wearing the hat all the time actually makes you more identifiable - "oh look, it's that guy who always wears a hat".
      I suggest that if you're going to use the hat approach to disguise yourself, a variety of hats in different styles is the way forward.

    26. Re:Use aliases. by indeterminator · · Score: 2

      The solution is for everyone to post their drunk/stoned/naked pics on the web, and make sure they're easy to find. Then employers cannot care anymore, if they still want someone to do the job.

    27. Re:Use aliases. by JustABlitheringIdiot · · Score: 1

      recieving one rejection letter after another

      Whoa, you mean people still send out rejection letters? Generally I never hear back from prospective employers (I've applied to probably 12 different companies over the last year heard back from 1), even when I try to follow up myself I get nowhere. After enough time passes I just give up hope completely.

    28. Re:Use aliases. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, yes. But it's never a specific rejection letter - it's always a simple mass-mailing to everyone who applied and failed. Even if you went to an interview, they won't say why you're being rejected, just that you are.

    29. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that your identity can be recovered purely based on the topology of the social networks you are part of don't you?

      There are many such attacks and they are proven to work relatively well, for instance:
      http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf

      Bottom line, you can't really use social network software without exposing most or all of your identity (your age group, browser config, interests, etc...) to the people providing you with the service.

    30. Re:Use aliases. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      But it's never a specific rejection letter - it's always a simple mass-mailing to everyone who applied and failed. Even if you went to an interview, they won't say why you're being rejected, just that you are.

      So you have no reason to believe you were rejected based on anything you said or did, only that you didn't get the job. A job is a very nice thing to have -- one might argue necessary -- but I'm not going to self-censor before I see evidence that people are losing their livelihoods based on "remotely political" comments they've made, if then.

    31. Re:Use aliases. by pr0nbot · · Score: 2

      It's not enough for YOU to be careful about what you put out there; a lot about you can be inferred from what your friends put out there.

      E.g. you may not want Google to know your phone number and home address, but guess what? Chances are if one of your friends has an Android phone, chances are they've sync'd their contacts up to Google, including all your details, a picture of you, your birthday, etc.

      Your friends are busily posting pictures of you on Facebook, possibly geotagged and timestamped, and are happily tagging them with your name. They keep spamming your email address with invites to join Facebook and LinkedIn. You may be declining, but guess what? Facebook and LinkedIn keep track of those invites, along with all the details your friends submitted about you (e.g. your full name, job title etc).

      There was a story a few years back about the UK DNA register. The expert explained that as long as they had roughly 10% of the population in the database, it didn't matter if people opted out, they could still be identified by matches against their relatives' DNA and inferences from other records (e.g. birth records).

      I think the same is true of the online world; you can try to opt out, but others will happily splurge everything they know about you, and you can't control that.

    32. Re:Use aliases. by IsThisNickTaken · · Score: 1

      What about your OS swapfile?

    33. Re:Use aliases. by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I've applied to somewhere between 100-200 companies in the past year. I got a couple of automated replies saying the job opening was canceled, and only one human reply (in that case I sent an email to a address meant for general inquiries at a small company asking if they were hiring - they weren't).

      So to add to your small dataset of 12 companies - I think we can conclusively say that no one sends out rejection letters anymore :)

    34. Re:Use aliases. by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Maybe "HIS" mom is a hot MILF? What's wrong with that?

    35. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most likely the perl script is sending a different set of headers to Google than your web browser does, so its requests could be filtered out easily.

      Also, trying to hide your requests among random noise probably isn't very effective, since your requests are highly non-random.

    36. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I don't put anything out there that I wouldn't be ashamed of my mom seeing.

      So you only post things you would be ashamed of your mom seeing? Brave man.

    37. Re:Use aliases. by tandelaf · · Score: 0

      My ex-GF's stripping video is "important" :D

    38. Re:Use aliases. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      We can back it up for you if you upload it to my SFTP server (secure).

    39. Re:Use aliases. by hodet · · Score: 1
      I use the "If you wouldn't print it in the paper or shout it on a street corner rule".

      Pretend you took out an ad in the paper with your picture. Would you print the following?

      - I got wasted with my friends the other night!!!
      - I am leaving town tomorrow and won't be back for two weeks. woot!!
      - I work for . They suck donkey balls, don't ever buy their useless shit... lol
      - This is what my kid looks like! Ah so cute, starts school tomorrow at
      - My boss is an asshole, lol, I just posted this on the World's worst bosses site

      People people, common sense is all it takes. Use old world approach to using new technology.

    40. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >you don't need to wear the hat if you just go to the supermarket...
      Well, if you use the supermarket's VIP card to get your little discount, understand that they are tracking every single item that you have ever purchased. They know that you have dandruff and hemorrhoids, two dogs and an infant. And they share this information with other companies so that they have an aggregate of you. People willingly give up all of this personal information for a few cents off.

    41. Re:Use aliases. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      True, but there's a vast gulf between the OP's attitude of "So now I sit here today monitoring my IP blockers, obfuscation algorithms, tor relay and each packet that goes in or out of every device that I operate. I even wear a hat always when I go outdoors, never carry a cell phone, and never look up (well, not all of that is true)." and your hypothetical situation of "The first picture to come up when someone Googles my name is that time I ended up handcuffed to the goat with my testicles painted orange". Preventing things from being directly and publicly linked to your name is quite different to preventing the monitoring from happening in the first place.

      There's also the fact that, as another poster pointed out, your boss should really be able to cope with the fact that you're not on duty 24/7, nobody meets some absurd standard of 'morality' that they seem to set, and there's nothing wrong with a good party once in a while; I do realise, however, that in the real world the luxury of a decent, reasonable boss is something that many people don't have.

    42. Re:Use aliases. by donutz · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming your perl script uses a logged in google session if that's what you do in your browser. Is your perl script using the same user agent as your web browser? Do you allow javascript to run on google.com in your browser? Does your script run all the time, periodically (but randomized intervals), while you're awake, or does it run around the times you generally are searching for real? That's just a few ways that Google could determine which searches are really you and which are a script.

    43. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      /tmp and swap need to be encrypted... I bet you'd be surprised how much information we could get out of your computer.

    44. Re:Use aliases. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government

      Except if they change the rules, have malicious intentions, make a mistake, or a combination of those three (they're humans, too, so those are very possible). Privacy is important to reduce the chances of those three things happening.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    45. Re:Use aliases. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      It runs if firefox is not active. (random intervals)
      The dictionary is based loosely on my interests.
      The script reports to be the same UA as my firefox browser best as my local apache server can tell.
      I would like to make the script into a proxy server in the future so it can actually learn from the sites I go to, but I've not had the time to do that yet.
      As to JS, it allows the same domains as my no-script settings.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    46. Re:Use aliases. by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      "random words from my dictionary"
      are the words kiddie and porn in there?
      or any other words that in the right context mean something illegal or at lest looked down on?

      --
      warning pointless sig
    47. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obscuring your tracks with noise? You might consider TrackMeNot.

      http://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/

    48. Re:Use aliases. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The key is misinformation. It helps if you have a common name to prevent people successfully Googling you in the first place but if you put out enough obviously erroneous data it puts everything in doubt. It will also be hard to blackmail you or misuse the information against you in court because the fake stuff discredits it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Use aliases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're insane. Nobody actually cares about what you do. Even if you are remarkable, do you really think your anonymity is protecting you? I say it is limiting you. Most of the best opportunities you'll find online (job with the CIA, how many of us have had the recruitment test?) will require you to reveal your identity in any case. Why not claim your ID now?

    50. Re:Use aliases. by wwphx · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine applied to be a tech writer on a nationally syndicated tech radio show. Late in the process after several very successful interviews they searched for his email address and found his side job as a photographer, which included work of attractive, naked women nicely lit up under black light and fluorescent body paints. Oh, no! Boobies! It was not sexually explicit, there were no penises, he didn't get the job because of boobies.

      Myself, when I apply for a job, I have a Gmail account not linked to this handle or my LJ or my FB. It links to a web site where I used to post things in my specific field and is rather positive on my professional abilities. Searching for my name is very difficult as there is a municipality in the Eastern US with the same name. (yes, my real name is Hammond Massachusetts).

      And no, my experience is that overall no one sends out rejection letters anymore, you just get silence. I did hear from one recruiter who said one employer thought I was overqualified for the position and that they were afraid I'd jump as soon as something better came along, even though I'd spent 9 years at my previous employer and 3 1/2 at the one before that and 3 at the one before that.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    51. Re:Use aliases. by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Even if most people don't find anything wrong with the things I do, there is always the chance that someone who's attitude is a lot less relaxed than mine will disapprove of some of the things that I do/have done.
      And if that person is in a position of authority or influence over my life, or my family's lives (school board, community center organizer, scout parent council...) their opinion can have negative consequences for us.

      Not that it should be any of their damn business, but some people seem go out of their way to make trouble for some reason.
      I see no reason to make it any easier for them to find out anything about me, no matter how innocuous *I* might find that bit of information.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    52. Re:Use aliases. by knowledgeempire · · Score: 1

      I was looking for Zuckerberg the other day but he had his Facebook Places turned off.

      --
      @knowledgeEmpire
  4. obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does the average slashdotter do to preserve their privacy (or what's left of it) while still making the most out of what the web has to offer?

    Post AC, duh!

    1. Re:obvious by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > > What does the average slashdotter do to preserve their privacy

      > Post AC, duh!

      Using HTTP and without a proxy...no, you don't post AC!

      Regards,

      Your ISP, TLA, etc.

    2. Re:obvious by pla · · Score: 1

      Using HTTP and without a proxy...no, you don't post AC!

      True, but I think we have some reasonable middle-ground to occupy here...

      Since the early days of the internet, I have used aliases online. I have taken care to use encrypted protocols whenever possible, and thoroughly separate my personal accounts from my work accounts from my random-online-crap accounts. And when necessary, I know how to guarantee "real" online anonymity, though the effort almost always outweighs the benefits.

      Still, I have no delusions of online privacy for the vast majority of what I do. If a random TLA government agency took an interest in me, they could certainly correlate most of my various online activities. But at what level of effort? Put simply, I don't interest anyone enough to bother; jumping through hoops to obfuscate my activity on a regular basis would arguably make me a more interesting target.

      So to answer the FP author - Don't bother. Take a few basic precautions, but just realize that in the modern world, your privacy depends almost entirely on blending into the background noise, not on adopting increasingly complex technological means of concealment.

    3. Re:obvious by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > I don't interest anyone enough to bother

      Do you know that? You can't possibly! In fact, these days it's enough to know someone, who knows someone, who is interesting to someone else to get into the dragnet.
      Besides, the being of interest part used to be a fairly real-time affair. Now with things saved even officially in various locations for several months or years or forever, the accumulated data can be searched and mined again and again. So you may not be of interest today (or any of your friends), but that is now always subject to change at any time for as long as you live (think Google and them having never deleted ANY search result as of yet. Extrapolate to the rest of your activities and life.)

      > jumping through hoops to obfuscate my activity on a regular
      > basis would arguably make me a more interesting target.

      Another, IMHO, probably baseless assumption at worst or the surveillance state at its best (self-censorship etc.).
      Where's the line anyway? Using HTTP? Using SSL? Using SSH tunnels? Using Tor or your own private VPN and Proxies? Many of these are perfectly legit and who knows how many millions of such connections are going on this very second simultaneously. So what's to be afraid of?

    4. Re:obvious by drtsystems · · Score: 1

      So to answer the FP author - Don't bother. Take a few basic precautions, but just realize that in the modern world, your privacy depends almost entirely on blending into the background noise, not on adopting increasingly complex technological means of concealment.

      This really is the best advice. The thing is we are tracked so much and by so many different sources that there really is no hope of maintaining privacy anymore. Sure if that was my goal, to "live off the grid," I could probably do it, but not without sacrificing most aspects of a normal life.

      The thing to realize is that you blend into the background noise. In a world with nearly 7 billion people, its not hard to do that. In fact, that is in itself a type of security.

      Analogy time (because I love them): If you are at a sports game and talking with your friends, are you worried about others overhearing your conversation? I mean sure, the people next to you (someone like your mom on Facebook) may hear what you are saying. But will the cop at the bottom row? Yea, sure, he could hear you if he wanted you. And watch everything you are doing. But will he? No, because you are just one person in a sea of thousands. On the other hand, what if you had a ski mask on and were whispering secretively to everyone? Yea, sure as hell he will pay attention then.

    5. Re:obvious by pla · · Score: 1

      Another, IMHO, probably baseless assumption at worst or the surveillance state at its best (self-censorship etc.). Where's the line anyway? Using HTTP? Using SSL? Using SSH tunnels? Using Tor or your own private VPN and Proxies? Many of these are perfectly legit and who knows how many millions of such connections are going on this very second simultaneously. So what's to be afraid of?

      In spirit, I agree with you completely. In practice, wearing a hijab to the bank might fall within your first amendment rights, but it sure doesn't do much for preserving your anonymity when you appear on the evening news as the person that got tackled by a swat team after refusing to show ID to the bank's rent-a-cop.

      So I suppose this all boils down to: Do you want privacy, or do you want to flaunt your right to the same? If the latter, good for you (and I mean that), thanks for fighting for the rest of us. If the former, rather than using Tor just to read Slashdot, you'd accomplish more by teaching others such basic steps as using FF's Private Browsing mode and how to use GPG.

  5. Its not a problem of privacy. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its what other people do with your information.

    would you really care if the society didnt have any bias in regard to downloading porn, and found out that you have been downloading porn ? no.

    its because society is acting/reacting on that information that you are desiring to have privacy. if nobody cared that your ass was bare or not, you wouldnt hesitate from going about naked. which was the case in early days of mankind. then we developed a bias that says asses should be covered. despite that the ass is still there, hidden, and everybody knows it.

    same goes for govt. why would you care if govt. know what you did, if the govt. was not going to do anything bad with that information ? no.

    so problem is not hiding what you are doing. problem is out there, in the society and government and so on. (actually govt. is included in society).

    solution of this is ultimate transparency. nothing should be hidden, nothing should be judged if it doesnt harm another human being. this also goes for governments. there should be no secrets.

    there will remain no need for privacy or secrecy then.

    1. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by peragrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The big thing is your actual privacy hasn't really changed in the last 100 years. access to public information has simply gotten easier.

      People never realized just how much of their "private" life was actually public. I have worked with companies that owned complete sets of phone books. Not the simple white pages you see but the $100 a volume hard cover reverse look up by phone number, or address volumes. This was public information for the last 50 years. you just had to pay for access, as it was expensive to compile into usable data. Now it is cheap to do so and so people are suddenly aware of how much of their supposedly "private" lives are actually public and they get all scared and panicky.

      If you live in a glass house you don't walk around naked unless you want the neighbors to see your naked body.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I take it you've read The Light of Other Days .

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days

    3. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      That only works when you're part of the majority. But everyone is part of some minority. If given enough access to your personal life anyone can find a reason to discriminate against you. The masses are ignorant to the legacy they are leaving behind and it is quite possible that in the future we elect a despot into office that uses the decades of personal information collected by these service to control the populace.

    4. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I was just about to post a link to that - it's as good a take on the privacy argument as I've seen anywhere, well worth reading even if you end up disagreeing. I really don't think we're going to get very far trying to rein in government (and large company) surveillance of us, so it seems to me that rather than spending time and effort trying that tack, we might actually be better off just pushing for more reciprocal surveillance instead. All of their arguments (especially the classic "if you've done nothing wrong, you won't mind us watching") work just as well in reverse, and it might actually be better for society if we do realise that we're basically all as bad as each other.

    5. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...its because society is acting/reacting on that information...

      Yay! Somebody else gets it.. Yes, always address the response. And it's exactly the same when dealing with "offensive", "slanderous", or "libelous" speech, or any hearsay. But... it's much more convenient to attack a single target. The "leader", so to speak.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Sprouticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that almost every power base in the world (government, Religion, Corporations, schools, the militiary, cliques, clubs, etc operates on the basis of limiting your options and hiding information and judging other people.

      Transparency is a laudable goal, but until we as a race can exceed our current ability, all transparency will do is ultimately liimit society**. People will revert to the pre-industrial village era where everyone knew everyones business and the local moral police came down hard on people who went out of the norm.

      Except this will not be a local envelope, it will be national at least and in some cases global. We will have the LEAST tolerant and MOSt vocal among us trying to limit everything we do.

      ** I am speaking of transparency at an individual level, not at a corporate or governmental level.
      there is also the profit issue and the creepy issue which are completely different but no less compelling arguments.

    7. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > access to public information has simply gotten easier.

      Become easier. Become.

      There are plenty of specific verbs in the English lexicon. Let's not cease using them through laziness and lack of imagination.

    8. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by scruffy · · Score: 1

      solution of this is ultimate transparency.

      That is unrealistic. People will always want to keep secrets.

      I think (a part of) a solution is to limit discrimination based on personal information. My car insurance rates should be based on whether I have been a safe driver or not (past accidents, traffic violations, and so on), not on personal information that correlate with safe driving (credit report, home ownership, and so on). My company should retain/fire me based on my job performance, not on what I do or say off the job.

      The boundaries are not so clear-cut, but I think the principle should be in place.

    9. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you live in a glass house you don't walk around naked unless you want the neighbors to see your naked body.

      In other words, if you're somehow forced to move to a glass house, you pretty much lose the option of going around naked. People are rightly scared about that. There is the other side of the coin of total transparency: it may well be that society does not stop caring about some of the stuff hitherto done privately or anonymously; but continue to judge it harshly or even prosecute it.

      For example: the online political debates are much more open, frank and no-holds-barred than before; not just because of the instant nature of online debates, but also because people can partake anonymously in most cases. If we're forced to post under our own names, then even the things that we are not afraid to admit to or mention in the company of friends or colleagues can affect our jobs or our lives once it is committed online for the world to see. There are already countless examples of people losing their jobs or getting in trouble over more or less innocent online posts. This means that the online debate will likely become much more reserved, sedate, and "safe". Personally I think that's a big loss.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    10. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pretty true.

      The main example that I see is people getting into trouble because someone else at the party they went to put an incriminating photo on facebook. Or a google search revealing public information about your personal life to an employer.

    11. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by somersault · · Score: 1

      "Anonymous Coward was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them."

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by somersault · · Score: 1

      That depends what you define as "bad". I look at porn, but I don't plan on cheating with partners, renting hookers, going on a drugs binge, whatever. Sure, it might be a little embarrassing for me for some people to even know that I have ever browsed for porn, but I doubt anything I've ever done would get me kicked out of office if I was a politician, etc. If I do something, I generally don't give a fuck who knows I've done it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded! Great book.

    14. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      An interesting question would be where the line is crossed between public information and illegal electronic surveillance. Many states have very restrictive wire-tapping laws that don't even allow sympathy for the "I did it to protect my baby" defense.

      If it's done electronically, without your express consent, it's probably illegal - if you're an individual. Make that a corporation and it seems you're forgiven...

      On the whimsical side, perhaps we could get a class action thing going - we're looking at $10,000 per cookie here. Sure, the lawyer will get the lion's share, but even if we only made $10 per cookie ;)

    15. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard copy phone directory? That must've been some time ago, I know of at least five companies that maintain, on a national level here in Sweden, a complete listing of pretty much every phone number in use (with prepaid anonymous cellphones being listed with what little information they have and government-owned numbers sometimes only being identified by some random code which by the right person can be deciphered into meanings like "Infantry regiment 13, leased hotline from airbase 21" or "Bunker 17J3 Line 2").

    16. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regards to anonymous political discourse: If you're not willing to put your name next to your speech, then why should anyone give that speech any consideration?

    17. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the content of that speech ought to matter more than the name of the author.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    18. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big thing is your actual privacy hasn't really changed in the last 100 years. access to public information has simply gotten easier.

      If access to public information has gotten (much) easier, then privacy HAS changed. Remember the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and how that note was publicly displayed "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'"? Would you say that this really WAS a perfectly fine public display that wasn't really different from, say, putting it in the newspaper, or delivering a note to each affected household or so? Of course not.

      What's more, the definition of "public" has changed, too. If, around the time of the founding fathers, I walked down the street with a friend talking about something, our conversation would be public. On the other hand, you had to be both spatially and temporally close to listen in, and there was no way of preserving it, short of having someone write down what we said, by hand - certainly no automated way.

      THAT has changed, though. If I talk to someone - say, you - on Slashdot, anyone with Internet access, no matter where they are in the world, will be able to read this exchange, not just now but also in the future. And anyone can save the conversation, store it, sift through it, correlate it and otherwise data-mine it to their hearts content.

      Don't you think that this constitutes a remarkable change of what "public" means? And don't you think that therefore, actual privacy has changed, too?

    19. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      No it hasn't changed. if you walked down a street 200 years ago anyone could follow you and hear most of it. Or if you laid plans for a revolution at a tavern the guy drinking bear in the next table can hear everything you say.

      I can't tell you the number of times I have sat at a bar, and just took mental notes of the conversations around me. it is simple to do, and a decent mental exercise.(FIltering random conversations from background noise)

      The only difference it is easier to do, and people write down their conversations in the library where anyone can walk up to and read later anyways.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    20. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That woman though didn't do it to protect her baby, that woman was crazy. she took hundreds of photos of every bump and bruise her child ever received and tried to use that as abuse. Independent doctors confirmed that the only thing they found troubling was that the mother made her child sit for each one of those photos.

      Crazy bitch is a perfect description of her. bi-polar and paranoid obessive compulsive also describe her well.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >nothing should be judged

      Humans stop judging? Impossible.

    22. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by couchslug · · Score: 0

      "but continue to judge it harshly or even prosecute it."

      At some point the only defense is violence. Consider the ultimate act of defiance, the kamikaze bombing. It's actually the best tactic for an individual fed up with oppression. There are no personal consequences due to instant painless death, so there is no deterrent to the dedicated.

      This country was founded in blood and fire. It was freed by shooting and bayoneting enough British and Hessians that they packed up and left. Freedom is predicated on willingness to kill your oppressor and sometimes die trying.

      Things are cozy now. If they cease to be that, kill the human obstacles. Peaceful change is "nice", but if it ceases to be an option then revolt and slay your masters and anyone else who gets in the way.

      That's why we have a Second Amendment. A military and police force divided by revolt hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of controlling a country the size of the US without "consent of the governed".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    23. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      define harm.. see the problem?

    24. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by SanityLapse · · Score: 1

      Strangely energetic and enterprising words for a guys that goes by "couchslug"

    25. Re:Its not a problem of privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honesty is going to be decreasingly optional as time marches forward...

  6. Not Enough by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

    If your hat isn't foil lined, they've already got you.

    1. Re:Not Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it is, they know where you buy your tin foil.

    2. Re:Not Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but... what kind of foil? The extensive literature I've read on the Internets is very confusing. There seems to be no consensus at all on what type of foil works and what doesn't, whether to put the shiny side out or inwards, whether it wears out and has to be replaced versus it lasts forever, et cetera. How is a paranoid shut-in supposed to figure all of this stuff out????

    3. Re:Not Enough by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's why I borrow a tin foil hat before I decide where to buy my replacement hat.

    4. Re:Not Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that what they sell as tin foil isn't real tin foil, it's just aluminum foil? That's right, your tin foil hat might not even be tin foil to begin with!

    5. Re:Not Enough by Adam+Appel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you will never know.

      --
      They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
  7. a good search engine: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:a good search engine: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes kind sir, please give me more links. I love clicking on links submitted by anon cowards, especially when they appear offtopic!

    2. Re:a good search engine: by muckracer · · Score: 1

      Another search engine claiming to take your privacy serious:

      https://startingpage.com/

      Interesting feature (see settings) is the ability to save your search preferences without a cookie by using a generated URL, which you then use for your Bookmark.
      Also of note is the proxy view option of search results.

    3. Re:a good search engine: by Kosi · · Score: 1

      It's not OT. duckduckgo is a search engine that doesn't track you in the way Google and Bing do, read https://duckduckgo.com/about.html

      There is a shorter URL: https://dukgo.com/

  8. I've got nothing to hide! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See?

  9. Resistance is futile by manicbutt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Live openly, with integrity. Be interesting. Post under your real name. The rest will take care of itself.

    If you're a dick in real life, people won't need to look on the internet for confirmation, they'll know already.

    1. Re:Resistance is futile by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you, Mr. Butt, for those words of wisdom.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Resistance is futile by evanism · · Score: 1

      Are you zuckerburg? You sound like a dick.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    3. Re:Resistance is futile by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Live openly, with integrity. Be interesting. Post under your real name. The rest will take care of itself.

      If you're a dick in real life, people won't need to look on the internet for confirmation, they'll know already.

      Not necessarily.

      For an alternative viewpoint, look at the popularity of homeowners associations. Personally, I hate them because if my neighbor is a lunatic whom won't minimally maintain his property, maybe because he drinks all day (true story!), I really don't care about how his property looks, I want to know if he's a lunatic (so as to avoid him, tell the kids to look out for him, avoid being on the roads at the same time as him, etc). Its a signal. Covering it up with a HOA works in direct opposition to my interests.

      Remember the outcry about GTA and weirdos whom "played the game" by knifing women in the back all day, despite that having nothing to do with progressing in the game and actually works against you? I really want to know whom is a lunatic, so as to avoid them, and keep my women away from him. However, all the Oprah viewers were horrified to find out they have relatives or neighbors or coworkers who were nuts, so their solution is to try to ban the game, so they won't know, therefore, at least from a moron's point of view, its all good.

      Using similar logic, the vast steaming masses don't want to know what can hurt them, w/ regards to others on facebook or whatever, so they would rather cover it all up so we can't see it. I want to know if people around me are nuts, its just that 99% of the population disagrees with me in that regard.

      The vast majority really don't want to know if their kids school bus driver is a smoking member of norml via facebook or tee shirts or whatever. They know they are supposed to say they want to know, but they really don't want to know. And that internal tension in themselves is why they get all uncomfortable about this topic.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, buddy. I want to live closedly, with no integrity.

    5. Re:Resistance is futile by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I realize English is not everyone's first language on /., but I wanted to point out that in all three uses of whom, it should have been who.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    6. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live openly, with integrity. Be interesting. Post under your real name. The rest will take care of itself.

      If you're a dick in real life, people won't need to look on the internet for confirmation, they'll know already.

      Agreed. There really is no other way.

    7. Re:Resistance is futile by DZign · · Score: 1

      Interesting topic - just read Dilberts blog about this:
      http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/seeing_the_past/

      and while having no privacy at all is a weird concept, it'd indeed make for some cool apps like he says.

      Problem with this (and yoru homeowners example) is that it's never black or white. Most people don't really fit in a category, and the question is always where do you draw the line ? How does one decide your neighbour is a lunatic (if he really was then he would be in a mental institution) or just behaves a bit weird sometimes or is just not social ?

    8. Re:Resistance is futile by vlm · · Score: 1

      >Problem with this (and yoru homeowners example) is that it's never black or white. Most people don't really fit in a category, and the question is always where do you draw the line ?

      Lack of binary is a feature not a bug. Lack of a line in the sand is a feature not a bug.

      How does one decide your neighbour is a lunatic (if he really was then he would be in a mental institution)

      Sounds like you're not from the US. Here the psycopaths and lunatics are the leaders, not institutionalized. Seriously, we don't institutionalize people until after the tragedy occurs. If the cops haven't (yet) found a body, they're pretty much out free.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're a dick in real life, people won't need to look on the internet for confirmation, they'll know already.

      Define 'being a dick', though? What seems dickish to you might not seem dickish to me.

      For example - what if I think the Penny Arcade 'The Sixth Slave' comic is funny? If I were to post that under my real name somewhere, especially somewhere prominent, I'm going to have two hordes jumping on me.. the one that screams "Mr. Coward is a Rape Apologist!" And the other going "Mr. Coward is a proud member of The Dickwolves!"

      While I really don't seek to be part of, or antagonized by, either group. I just thought the comic was perfectly funny and the finer points of phrasing used in that comic is not something I want circling around me as a person.

      Doing so in a private setting, with family/friends/whathaveyou, is completely different. I can easily voice that I disagree with either, or both, groups and enter into meaningful discourse with them.

      Living openly, with integrity, no matter how interesting, would be an unwise combination with posting under my real name in that case. So I don't post under my real name. Resistance is not futile.

    10. Re:Resistance is futile by couchslug · · Score: 1

      You need an ordinary life so you don't arouse interest.

      If you do something interesting, invest the work in an alternate, deniable, untraceable life.

      Exploit the lack of privacy by being "normally naked". If you are like me, no one is interested in your (figuratively speaking) old gray balls.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course anyone who knows your real name can just go around impersonating you to make you look like a dick...

    12. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live openly, with integrity. Be interesting. Post under your real name. The rest will take care of itself.

      If you're a dick in real life, people won't need to look on the internet for confirmation, they'll know already.

      This isn't bad advice, except that in practical terms, it's unwise. Too many employers want to control their message, so if Me-The-Employee is too easily linked to Me-The-Private-Citizen, then they will start putting pressure on me as a "representative of the company".

      It's pretty easy to see the colliding forces at work - on one side is places like Facebook, who have a vested interest in making sure they know You Are You, whether you like it or not. Call it marketing, data mining, internet driver's license, whatever - their goal is to be able to compile your complete activities and sell it.

      On the other side are things like Spain's "right to be forgotten", where they want to force information to be deleted from the net (albeit in the dumbest way possible). But I can understand the quiet desperation building when your past won't go into the past.

    13. Re:Resistance is futile by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, Butt happens to be a real surname in quite a few places of the world:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_(name)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_(Asian_surname)

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    14. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The vast majority really don't want to know if their kids school bus driver is a smoking member of norml via facebook or tee shirts or whatever. They know they are supposed to say they want to know, but they really don't want to know. And that internal tension in themselves is why they get all uncomfortable about this topic"

      You sound like a fucking nutcase to me, and I am not in the least joking.

    15. Re:Resistance is futile by maxume · · Score: 1

      The safe thing to do is always use who.

      Ticks off the people that care about 50 year old style guides but matches modern usage just fine.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Resistance is futile by davev2.0 · · Score: 0

      You do understand that if you live with integrity then what you have outlined in your post will not be an issue, right?

    17. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dick in whose opinion? Interesting in whose opinion? Integrity according to whose scale of values?

    18. Re:Resistance is futile by praxis · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points today. I always get them on days when all the stories are uninteresting.

    19. Re:Resistance is futile by praxis · · Score: 1

      You do understand that companies don't always care about you-the-private-citizen's integrity.

      Say you work for Wingdings Inc that makes Widgets. They're marketing department is touting a new ad campaign that focuses on the fact that the Widgets are made in Afghanistan (where you live, work, and where Windgings Inc is headquartered). You, twenty years ago purchased a Gadget and have been happily using it ever since. Gadgets were the predecessor to Widgets, are made in France, and really do everything a Widget does. Gadgets and Widgets, while fulfilling a crucial role in your life, have a gigantic environmental impact. They are also DRMed to be non-transferable, and a consumer only needs one at a time.

      You feel that it would be of high integrity to not dispose of a perfectly good Gadget manufactured twenty years before Widgets Inc was even founded and purchase a new Widget because the environmental impact would be too large. Your employer feels that your photo of you with your Gadget is of the lowest integrity. Who is right?

      The fact is, integrity is not an objective facet of our lives and different entities have different interpretations of it. That example might be fanciful, but there are tons of real-world examples today where integrity is argued on both sides: Wisconsin, Wikileaks are the two W ones that come to mind, to do with the Widget theme.

    20. Re:Resistance is futile by praxis · · Score: 1

      I fail at not editing.

      The environmental impact from the Widgets and Gadgets is from their manufacture. They have identical footprints while in service.

    21. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You come off as pretty damn crazy for someone so concerned about "lunitics and weirdos".

    22. Re:Resistance is futile by davev2.0 · · Score: 0

      What photo of me with my Gadget?

    23. Re:Resistance is futile by uncledrax · · Score: 1

      ... because if my neighbor is a lunatic whom won't minimally maintain his property, maybe because he drinks all day (true story!), I really don't care about how his property looks, I want to know if he's a lunatic (so as to avoid him, tell the kids to look out for him, avoid being on the roads at the same time as him, etc). .

      Huh, I didn't realize you live next door to me.. howdy neighbor!

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    24. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And every comment you make may be used against you out of context in court of law, in decisions about employment or for the pricing of insurance for all time. If you accept privacy is gone the *safe* way to live is by never commenting on anything anywhere without first filtering out anything potentially self-damaging.

      You may want to spend a few thousand a year extra for insurance because you've been interesting and posted in some rock climbing forum but many people can't afford that, particularly when no one can tell you what any given post might cost in advance.

    25. Re:Resistance is futile by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      this assumes that terms like 'integrity' 'interesting', and 'dick' are objective measurements.. they're not. in fact, we're all dicks to somebody, interesting to somebody else (for all kinds of reasons, 'good' and 'bad' to different people at different times), and we all know people judge integrity differently. the difference is point of view and priorities. This is why privacy is important. you can't please everyone, so better off that most remain ignorant of every detail of your life.

    26. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, you don't seem to be very stable there... stop watching oprah all day, and play a little more gta...

      privacy advice : don't post private stuff, in the end all data submitted/collected in any form will be analyzed,
      hopefully not by any weardo, gta playing, women backstabbing sobs...

      posting stuff like " tell the kids", "keep my women away from him" tells me you got a wife and at least one daughter, you're entire post, is nothing more but ranting about your alcoholic unemployed neighbour... we could make a nice profile with this little info...

    27. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cool, except if you want to be a teacher -and- have a drink occasionally. The Texas Association of School Boards, which basically dictates school board policy for the state, is pushing all boards to pass policies that are typically being interpreted by HR departments as "we can and should punish teachers if a picture of them holding a beer bottle appears on the Internet ever."

      Never mind that teachers aren't embarrassed to admit they drink occasionally. Never mind that it's legal. Never mind that most people do it, and most people think it's OK for teachers to imbibe responsibly. All it takes is for certain people in certain places to have a warped view on what's appropriate, and it cuts off rational thinking for an entire industry in an entire state.

    28. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, "Manic" is a common given name.

    29. Re:Resistance is futile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, every use of "whom" in your post is incorrect; they should all be "who".

    30. Re:Resistance is futile by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good until one day when the political world changes around you. Or when otherwise unrelated bits of information are cherry picked from an ocean of web page views and forum posts to form an "undeniable chain of incriminating evidence".

      Transparency is for organizations not individuals. When we form groups (companies or societies) there is a strong societal interest in knowing how that group is conducting its business. Both for members of the group that are not involved in the day-to-day but nonetheless carry an obligation to know. And also from outside the group, for example to ask why there is no disposal charge on the expense reports for the 20 tons of toxic waste the groups factory produces.

      Currently, it seems that groups have more privacy protection then individuals (trade secrets, national interest secretes, privilege of position or power) . I somehow thing that trend will not lead to good ends.

  10. It is the cost of "participation" by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More and more, there is a cost of participation in the modern world. All of the new things we have started to enjoy since the invention of the automobile have come with strings attached. Unless you are a thriving member of the "homeless" you can't earn a single dollar without the government being aware of it. (Which always makes me wonder why we have to voluntarily file taxes? Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree? After all, if THEY disagree after we file, it's a whole lot more hell and a lot more waste of government resources as well.)

    This is how we find ourselves in the state we have now. Both government and business (which some see as two sides of the same coin) have an interest in stripping the public of its privacy, security and rights and do so on a continuously eroding basis. I just wonder how far things can really go before the people really start to feel the pinch? So far, I don't really feel the pinch... just angst over what I see happening.

    1. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People earn money without the government knowing all the time. If you're an independant contractor and make less than I think $6k the company isn't required to report you. So if you have a client a month, then you could earn a decent living that the IRS never knows about.

    2. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Which always makes me wonder why we have to voluntarily file taxes? Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree? After all, if THEY disagree after we file, it's a whole lot more hell and a lot more waste of government resources as well.)

      It has to be complicated enough to have loopholes for the people with enough money to exploit them.

    3. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by erroneus · · Score: 1

      That is until you start spending your money. Is it really necessary to remind you that there are all sorts of red flags and required reporting that goes on when someone pays for things in cash? The amount of cash requiring a report to the government varies and keeps getting smaller and smaller. Not only that, but being found in possession of a "significant" amount of cash often result in confiscation without charges, due process and most often without return to the rightful owner.

      Cash is effectively illegal. Bank account information is available to the government at any time.

    4. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by merlock18 · · Score: 1

      Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree?
      Scumbags need to be able to not pay their taxes for years and dispute the total amount due, paying pennies on the dollar. Then they can complain about tax breaks for the rich while receiving an Income Tax Credit the next year. Redistribution of wealth to the oh-so-poor and helpless lower class is important.

    5. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which always makes me wonder why we have to voluntarily file taxes? Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree? After all, if THEY disagree after we file, it's a whole lot more hell and a lot more waste of government resources as well.

      That's actually how it works on this corner of the world (Finland): you get a pre-filled tax proposal based on the government's data, and only need to file if there's something to correct or add (deductions etc.). Works quite well IMHO.

    6. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      I think next time I upgrade my laptop I'm going to pay in cash to see if I get any odd reactions.

      I did this back in 2003 (Powerbook G4, around $2400 in cash) just for kicks; the folks at the Apple Store didn't even bat an *eye*.

      Maybe the amount has to be larger.

    7. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree? After all, if THEY disagree after we file, it's a whole lot more hell and a lot more waste of government resources as well.

      Most people will not correct it in the government's favor because if the gov knew about the extra income or lack of deductions or whatever, they would have sent it that way.

      By preparing it, they say "This is what we know about you." Instead, they say "Guess what we know and what we don't." The threat of hell keeps a lot of people honest.

    8. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The real test is buying without supplying your identifying information.

      Typically, no one requires or requests your permission or even notifies you that the government is notified when large cash purchases are made. But to buy something in cash and without presenting ID is how you will know best.

    9. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by maxume · · Score: 1

      I was going to reply explaining that there are people concerned that the government sending you a tax statement would lead people to cheating, but one of them already replied.

      Of course, better reporting standards (where it would make sense) and simpler tax rules would also address people cheating, but who cares about sanity.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Americium · · Score: 1

      The government doesn't see cash transactions, whenever you buy something with cash the government doesn't know about it. Unless they are tracking your cc sales they don't know about it either. If you earn a salary and your boss declares it, then they know, but any small business, or tip earners they don't know about.

      This is why you just need a sales tax, then the government never knows what you earn and isn't involved in your economic affairs nearly as much. There would be no tax accountants, auditors... and there wouldn't be a million different types of investments that avoid taxes in different ways (ira's, 401k). You would just earn and invest your money, and pay sales taxes when you spend your hard earned money. Before it's spent it'll be in a bank for them to invest in new businesses instead of being taxed away immediately.

    11. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by davev2.0 · · Score: 0

      People do not "voluntarily file taxes". Such a statement shows a lack of knowledge about the tax laws and how income taxes (which is what you appear to be talking about) work, at least in the U.S. One is required by law to pay taxes AND to file an income tax return form to reconciling the amount one paid in taxes and the amount of taxes owed. Failure to do so is punishable by law. Saying one "voluntarily file taxes" is like saying one "voluntarily does not steal".

      As for generating "a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree", part of it is due to using tax law to modify people's behavior, part is a chance to correct any errors, and part is because they know they don't have all the numbers and that the numbers they have may be incorrect. Some of this is offset by the use of withholding at the payroll level. The IRS knows about what your taxes should be for a set of generic circumstances and allows people to automatically pay the tax directly from their employer. Legally, you do not have to pay any taxes until your file your tax return, but if you earn a taxable income of US$50,000.00, you will have to write a check for US$12,500.00 when you file your taxes.

      One can often earn money without the government knowing. Imagine someone who has, say, a lawn mowing service. He has a truck, a trailer, a lawn mower, edger, trimmer, gas, and maintenance. He is going to charge his clients less than $100 a week, and will often get cash. His deposits will most-likely be less than $5,000.00 a week and often less than $1,000.00 per deposit. His clients will not be filing any forms to record the transaction. The bank will not be filing any forms to record the transactions. The biggest concern will be if the bank ends up filing a 1099INT. If he forgoes bank account all together and works strictly on a cash basis, there does not have to be a record of any transactions. This is why prostitutes don't pay taxes on their earnings. Prostitution is almost always paid for with cash and even if the prostitute opens a bank account, the deposits are often so small that there is no worry about bank notification laws.

    12. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      We have a similar system here in the UK. It's really not that big a deal.

    13. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More and more, there is a cost of participation in the modern world. All of the new things we have started to enjoy since the invention of the automobile have come with strings attached. Unless you are a thriving member of the "homeless" you can't earn a single dollar without the government being aware of it. (Which always makes me wonder why we have to voluntarily file taxes? Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree? After all, if THEY disagree after we file, it's a whole lot more hell and a lot more waste of government resources as well.)

      This is how we find ourselves in the state we have now. Both government and business (which some see as two sides of the same coin) have an interest in stripping the public of its privacy, security and rights and do so on a continuously eroding basis. I just wonder how far things can really go before the people really start to feel the pinch? So far, I don't really feel the pinch... just angst over what I see happening.

      This is actually the way it works here (France): the agency collecting our retirement funds directly feeds our local IRS, and all we have to do is check if the numbers are correct.

    14. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are a thriving member of the "homeless" you can't earn a single dollar without the government being aware of it. (Which always makes me wonder why we have to voluntarily file taxes? Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree? After all, if THEY disagree after we file, it's a whole lot more hell and a lot more waste of government resources as well.)

      I wonder whether you've actually done taxes! There's plenty of stuff on your tax return that the government wouldn't have. Interest income, interest expense, investments, gifts, deductions. All they normally would have is your W-2. Moreover, it's entirely possible to have a job that does not report your income to the government: self-employed, income in the form of cash or bartering, etc.

    15. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by Asgard · · Score: 1

      Legally, you do not have to pay any taxes until your file your tax return, but if you earn a taxable income of US$50,000.00, you will have to write a check for US$12,500.00 when you file your taxes.

      Income taxes have to be paid throughout the year; if you are in a situation where you do not have an employer to do witholding on your income then you have to pay estimated tax payments. You can't just hold on to all the income tax money untill the end of the year and pay it in a lump sum; you'll be penalized for that.

      http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=110413,00.html

    16. Re:It is the cost of "participation" by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      That is for businesses and the self-employed. One can easily not pay any income tax if one is an employee. All one has to do is file the proper W4 form.

  11. Security through Obscurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know in the technical world, "security through obscurity" is a huge red flag. But in the meatworld, it's a beautiful strategy.

    So what if you're tracked? Everyone else is too. Human beings generate so much data that it is infeasible to process it. Even if you can process it, there isn't another human who can comprehend it all.

    You're just a data point in a huge dataset. You're upset about being in the dataset, until you realize just how large and vast the dataset is. You strive for 0 involvement the same way an OCD person strives for perfectly parallel utensils. Both are impossible.

    Simply learn to accept you are a small drop in a very large pond. It's not that scary.

    1. Re:Security through Obscurity by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      I keep my utensils perfectly aligned in a vacuum chamber, using super conducting magnets you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Security through Obscurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just a data point in a huge dataset. You're upset about being in the dataset, until you realize just how large and vast the dataset is.

      ...

      Simply learn to accept you are a small drop in a very large pond. It's not that scary.

      So, basically, you are suggesting "security through flocking"? Let predators have the prey they picked, chances are slim that prey will be you. You should visit slaughterhouse and see for yourself how THAT strategy works well for domesticated animals.

    3. Re:Security through Obscurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats rediculous... I hope you know that. It's true the data set is enormous, no question. But, how long would it take to find you if you were targeted in todays modern world... a simple google search (another enormous dataset) and poof there you are... you, your mom, your dad, and nearly everything you would need to find your current location (and past locations). Don't fool yourself with this madness. They collect data to use it. Period. I personally have been asked to write programs that scour the internet for email addresses of specific targets for marketing purposes (benign imho, but yes i denied the task on principle... though it would be easy enough). It would be simple as pie to round up information on lets say all gun owners in america (increasingly unfair public dissaproval). Id say you could have a 90-95% success rate if you are the government and wanted to do so. Not very obscure is it.

    4. Re:Security through Obscurity by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      That might have been true 20 years ago. Nowadays there are hefty computers and elegant algorithms that can mine that huge pool of data, and anything you do that is either "not normal" or "undesired" has a high likelihood of coming back to bite you. We live in a world where processing huge datasets at the single point level can be easily automated.

      Examples:
      Insurers can take that huge dataset and mine it and plot your insurance based on that data (at which point, they've moved out of underwriting and into reliably overcharging you for a service -- if you had their data, you'd know how to save the money yourself).
      Employers and government officials can make inappropriate inferences based on said dataset -- they decide things about you based on the information they don't have.
      If a money launder/ID thief has thousands of credit card numbers, does it really matter? The fact is, they've got *your* PII, and can abuse it. The fact that everyone else is being affected too isn't going to help you any.

      There are many more examples I could use, but I'm sure you get the point.

      Of course, you were right on the edge of a good idea, which I've already posted to this thread: make your data online unreliable enough, and the data points can't be trusted. Just make sure there's enough data that *could* be tied to you that is obviously not accurate, and anyone attempting to analyze your data is going to have a huge margin of error on any conclusions.

  12. privacy by arnodf · · Score: 0

    I find myself giving up more and more privacy and accepting privacy policies I look over a bit (still better than not reading at all) even though I'm quite concerned about my privacy. I've been telling my mother for months now that she shouldn't create a facebook account and every week she asks it again because she really wants to use it.
    I just don't know anymore

    1. Re:privacy by somersault · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to stop your mother using Facebook? If she wants to use it, why not? Seriously. Targeted ads? Embarrassing photos? What? Unless your mother is actually Sarah Connor, I don't think it's a big deal.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  13. Preserving privacy by pantherace · · Score: 1

    The oldest method: Don't be interesting.

    While a bit tongue in cheek, it's a fairly good way. Even if your data is in whatever databases, if there's no use of it, then it might as well not exist.

    Unfortunately, that works both ways in some cases. I keep hearing about Charlie Sheen. I decided to look a little last night and no one has made a coherent summary of it. Better yet, could everyone stop talking about him?

    Granted, that won't prevent automated things like targeted advertising. However, if you haven't yet developed a mental filter for advertising, I'd get started, it helps on so many things. In fact, if not for being a method for infection/malware, I probably wouldn't use adblock. (That I got tired of the Flash/PDF ads that tried to infect my machine was the ultimate catalyst for that. Too bad for sites that are ad based, but there are enough sleazy ads that they lose out.)

    1. Re:Preserving privacy by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      The data is always useful to someone. Especially someone trying to make money. If you are the most boring person on earth and eat bread and water, walk to work, and only ride a bike as a hobby, the bread water, and bike people are going to be all over you. If you are the most typical person who watch reality TV, drive 8.3 miles to work, has 2.5 kids and a slightly overweight frigid wife....well you are in the demographic for a LOT of vendors.

      Someone will always want that info.

      as someone said above. The best you can do without dropping of fthe grid is keep the things that are really important to you off any digital stack.(website, harddrive, etc)

    2. Re:Preserving privacy by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      "If you are the most typical person who watch reality TV, drive 8.3 miles to work, has 2.5 kids and a slightly overweight frigid wife....well you are in the demographic for a LOT of vendors."

      The company that produces the Fleshlight springs to mind.

    3. Re:Preserving privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no I see an ad that is more relevant to me than what I would have seen if they hadn't targetted me! Oh noes!

  14. Nothing really... by Zapotek · · Score: 1

    ...I use an SSH tunnel now and then just to circumvent certain limits of a certain video delivery service but other than that I don't care.
    I also keep most of my pictures on Facebook where I have only 6-7 friends (my *real* and closest friends); so Facebook wants to track me and has access to a few pictures of me on vacation or a couple of videos of me jamming with my friends, so what...
    All the other people that were on the same vacation spot probably have my face in the background of their photos as well.
    My on-line handle is also closely linked to my real identity and anyone can find my work experience on LinkedIn.

    Of course I protect the things that matter, my private keys, passwords, banking data etc...

    1. Re:Nothing really... by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I think all of it really matters. I'm not saying that you need to keep everything private and be anonymous, but I think the principle is the important part. You should be able to keep things private and be anonymous when you need to be. Some of those rights seem to be being eroded lately.

    2. Re:Nothing really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, here's what I do:

      On Facebook: Plenty of friends, all of whom are familiar with me in real life, none of whom see anything on Facebook they don't already know in real life. It's a good tool for making contact and a good tool for organizing casual groups and events, just don't put anything on there that you don't want the world to see.

      On Google: Block googlesyndication.com and google-analytics.com, and use Ixquick to search Google on my behalf so they can't keep a running tally of everything I do.

      On email: Encrypted connections to the servers, of course. And PGP signatures, not so much to verify my identity as to get everyone who receives my mail thinking about security a little more. They see " --Begin PGP Signature-- ", they ask me "WTF is this?", now I have a way to get them thinking about how easy it is to impersonate someone else online or get private data if they aren't careful. I have eight (I think) email accounts; I wish I had fewer, but I'd still keep at least three to separate work stuff, personal stuff and stuff that's likely to get me spammed by online merchants.

      Browsing: HTTPS where possible to keep casual sniffers at bay. Tor on a Linux VM for stuff I suspect might be dangerous, or that someone might be interested in observing. Mollom and manual vetting for comments on my own site.

      Passwords: A different one for each service, long and complex, locked up with AES in a KeePass database. If anyone compromises one service, or even several services, the whole chain won't come crashing down a la HBGary Federal.

      On my own machines: Firewall in DD-WRT, no DMZ. Work in a limited account; if anything bad does happen, at least it can't spread beyond this machine, to admin accounts, or to my wife's accounts.

      I'm not untrackable, but I'm also not conspicuous about my security. As they say: I don't have to outrun the angry bear, just the dumbest / slowest n00b on the subnet.

    3. Re:Nothing really... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Regarding your Facebook example:
      From your perspective, you've just linked 6-7 of your real friends and posted your photos there.
      From a data miner's perspective (the government, or the person who hacks into Facebook, or the person who exploits one of your real friends' accounts, or facebook employees) this is only a small part of your facebook profile.
      You'll be tracked by the relationship between your tagged images, your firends' tagged images, what you say about your friends, what they say about you, and all this will be correlated with those images uploaded by the other people on the same vacation spot (as your face has been tagged multiple times, giving the facial recognition programs an easy job of spotting you elsewhere).

      Even having a Facebook account that you never use degrrades your privacy significantly if other people know the account belongs to you and reference it.

      Here's something that definitely affects anyone who travels internationally:
      US, UK and Canadian (and likely others) border agencies have full access to your FaceBook, MySpace and LinkedIn profiles. They use this information to profile you -- so if you post to your friends that you live in Buffalo and this weekend you're going to go to a rave in Toronto, you can be sure that US border guards will flag you on your return to check for drugs -- and the Canadian border guards are likely to give you closer scrutiny too.

      Also, you say you protect your passwords and banking data -- but can people find the answers to your "security questions" by mining your FaceBook page? If so, then you can't really rely on your passwords to keep your data safe.

  15. A better word(s) by merlock18 · · Score: 1

    "Tread" or "sprints toward."

    If you've ever handled a penny, the government's got your DNA on file."
    The Simpsons - Who shot Mr. Burns Pt. 2

  16. What does the average Slashdotter do to preserve t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >What does the average Slashdotter do to preserve their privacy?

    stay in his basement...

  17. I read Brin, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    nothing should be hidden, nothing should be judged if it doesnt harm another human being. this also goes for governments. there should be no secrets.

    Tell that to a gay guy who just got his ass kicked by homophobes.

    Tell that to a recovered alcoholic or drug addict (FU AA, people can recover - I've seen it!) who got his shit together but can't get a job or make social contacts.

    Or tell that to an atheist who is considered not to have an "values" and therefore can't get a job. Yeah, try and prove it - illegal my ass!

    No thanks, people are cruel, shallow and small minded.

    1. Re:I read Brin, too. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      if nothing is secret, homophobes kicking other peoples' asses wont be able to do it in secret too. because its not secret, they wont be able to do that.

      if people dont look down on alcoholics, just like how they shouldnt take someone's ass being naked as something that is 'rude', there wont be any need to hide that information either.
      ,BR> same goes for all your examples.

    2. Re:I read Brin, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason you're stupid is that you just take it for granted that removing privacy would somehow cause people to become completely accepting and non-judgmental.

      The homophobes will still play Smear The Queer, because they'll know that the local authorities won't care. Only now it'll be easier for them to find victims.

      The ex-addict and the atheist still won't be able to get jobs because people will still look down on "dirty druggies and heathens".

      And during all this time, people will STILL do things in secret anyway. Because there is not, and never can be, any such thing as "ultimate transparency". You are looking for something that cannot possibly exist and expecting it to do something that - even if it could exist - could not possibly do. You are literally saying that magic is the solution.

    3. Re:I read Brin, too. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      The reason you're stupid is that you just take it for granted that removing privacy would somehow cause people to become completely accepting and non-judgmental.

      the reason you are a moron is that, you had produced that statement out of your ass yourself. nowhere in any prior messages, such a recipe was given by me.

      however, it is true that removal of privacy does indeed cause society to become more accepting of commonly occurring phenomenon. most of the stuff that you take as normal oddities these days, had been sins or offenses against society decades ago. its because it has become apparent that people were doing these in numbers that their 'severity' has been reduced in public perception. unfortunately, this even goes true about crime. it is so common in some countries that, people are taking having a small list of criminal offenses in their record as normal.

    4. Re:I read Brin, too. by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Tell that to a gay guy who just got his ass kicked by homophobes.

      Agreed, but that does also happen when those sorry excuses for a human see that you are gay when you go out, without any Internet involved.

      Tell that to a recovered alcoholic or drug addict (FU AA, people can recover - I've seen it!) who got his shit together but can't get a job or make social contacts.

      Would you really want idiots as social contacts or employers?

      Or tell that to an atheist who is considered not to have an "values" and therefore can't get a job. Yeah, try and prove it - illegal my ass!

      Would you really want to work for a company run by religious fundamentalists?

    5. Re:I read Brin, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your Shift key broke?

    6. Re:I read Brin, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nowhere in any prior messages, such a recipe was given by me.

      Which is why I said you take it for granted; your premise is firmly rooted in that assumption and is impossible to separate from it.

      however, it is true that removal of privacy does indeed cause society to become more accepting of commonly occurring phenomenon. most of the stuff that you take as normal oddities these days, had been sins or offenses against society decades ago.

      This happens as a result of social dialogues brought up by events relating to those issues. It does not simply happen because enough people do X that suddenly everyone else decides that X is okay. Homosexuals, for instance, are not gaining acceptance because suddenly gays are turning up everywhere; their numbers relative to the population at large have been known and more-or-less constant for decades.

  18. My god, I've been getting the wrong st0rff by evanism · · Score: 1

    P0rn, no wonder, I've been getting pr0n all these years. No wonder its all a bit tame.

    --
    Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
  19. Airplane mode save? by asnelt · · Score: 1

    I think this is the right place for a question which I posted too late to another story. I am also a bit paranoid and don't like the idea of being trackable. For this reason I typically have my phone in airplane mode and turn off this mode when I expect phone calls or want to browse / check mails. I still do not really trust the proprietary firmware not to transmit any signals. I would really like to check whether it still transmits anything in airplane mode. Does anybody know an easy and inexpensive way of how to do that? Please don't propose any instructions involving tin foil.

    With regard to this story, I think everyone should try to keep as much privacy as is acceptable for him/her. It always means not participating in some things like social networks or cell phones.

    1. Re:Airplane mode save? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Pulling the battery is probably the cheapest way to increase your confidence in the phone not transmitting anything.

      You could also stick it under a cheapo jury-rigged spectrum analyzer:

      http://ossmann.blogspot.com/2010/03/16-pocket-spectrum-analyzer.html

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Airplane mode save? by Looshi · · Score: 1

      Turn your phone on airplane mode and then place it on top of some computer speakers. The speakers should pick up the interference if it transmits.

      I can't guarantee that will work, but it's pretty cheap and easy.

  20. I'm banking on society changing. by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

    Not very soon, but I'm placing my bet on the assumption that once the children of the digital age (mostly Gen-Y and some younger Gen-Xers) become the majority, people will care less about privacy because there will be less to hide or be ashamed of, hopefully because at that point, a majority of people will become used to freely sharing information about themselves. Hopefully it also means that I can start seeing ads that are interesting to me.

    1. Re:I'm banking on society changing. by vlm · · Score: 1

      Not very soon, but I'm placing my bet on the assumption that once the children of the digital age (mostly Gen-Y and some younger Gen-Xers) become the majority, people will care less about ... because there will be less to hide or be ashamed of, hopefully because at that point, a majority of people....

      "They" said the same things about my parent's generation and smoking weed. By the time I become an adult they'll be selling it in vending machines right next to the Marlboros. Didn't quite turn out that way, did it?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:I'm banking on society changing. by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      Not very soon, but I'm placing my bet on the assumption that once the children of the digital age (mostly Gen-Y and some younger Gen-Xers) become the majority, people will care less about ... because there will be less to hide or be ashamed of, hopefully because at that point, a majority of people....

      "They" said the same things about my parent's generation and smoking weed. By the time I become an adult they'll be selling it in vending machines right next to the Marlboros. Didn't quite turn out that way, did it?

      Whoever said it would be in vending machines was out of their mind to think that. It's not come that far, but weed HAS come a long way. It's only been ~40 years since the counter-culture started and I'd say smoking weed has much less of a stigma now than it did then. I know plenty of people who have and/or still smoke it. This is pure speculation, but I'll bet that more Americans are okay with weed. The reason weed is only legal for medicine right now is because the legalization camp still has to cater to old people who vote my grandparents and the older baby-boomers. It's only going to get better.

    3. Re:I'm banking on society changing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol the hippies thought the same thing, they would change the world, fact is you get older and don't want you neighbor to know what you like to do in the bedroom. Your kids will be perfect just like your parents thought, and there is no reason anyone should know that little Johnny likes to play with matches.

      The idealism of the young unfortunately leads to the jaded bitterness of old age.

  21. Create a fake personna by thomasdz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't really care about "the feds", I care more about some nutcase or group (Westboro baptist church, 4chan, etc) who might take umbrage at my religion, what I do, who I work for, where I live, what I consume, or mis-take some random sarcastic comment that I might make for a real comment.
    So for the most part, I made up a couple of fake names a LONG time ago (1990s) and use them for most of my stuff on the web (eg: reddit, facebook, gmail). Think "Rory Bellows" = "Krusty the Clown" = "Herschel Krustofski"
    I occasionally use my real name (eg: on Slashdot) on technical forums because I know co-workers and perhaps future employers are going to be Googling for my real name and I want to appear to know what I'm talking about....haha

    The important thing is that your are AWARE of the power of Google/Bing in searching, and just in general, the power of technology in tracking you. buy a new pay-as-you-go cellphone each year. go through a proxy or two when surfing the web... but don't just be paranoid, have FUN and be paranoid... think of yourself as Truman Burbank.

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    1. Re:Create a fake personna by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      paranoid guide for mobile phones: the mobile itself has a code and your sim has a code, so don't overlap them if you're paranoid.

      maybe the reason a lot of folk are bothered by loss of privacy is that they got used to that their friends in different circles couldn't interact so they could re-invent themselfs in those circles as different people.. I'm pretty sure everyone knows a few of the type, if they're social people, the same people who start a new chapter in life five times a year. it was a fallacy that it could work even pre-internet though.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Create a fake personna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to appear to know what I'm talking about.....

      If you want to appear to know what you're talking about then why are you posting on /.

  22. Important enough? by louic · · Score: 1

    I am not arrogant enough to think that I am so important that my privacy needs protecting. But I never post my credit card number in my facebook status, and only post what I did, never what I am going to do so that people with bad intentions cannot anticipate when I am away from my house (of which they cannot find the address anyway). That should be enough.

    1. Re:Important enough? by vlm · · Score: 1

      (of which they cannot find the address anyway)

      Unless its a trick question and you're homeless, that seems a wee tiny bit optimistic.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Important enough? by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      I'm so unpredictable, nobody can anticipate my location and momentum at the same time.

    3. Re:Important enough? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The problem is that at some point in the future it might be that important and once your information is on the web you can't get it back. TD Ameritrade lost some of my contact information by incompetent security measures on their database server, that information is out there, and no number of injunctions is going to change that.

      It's really easy to say that it's not that important now, but you don't get to redo it at some point in the future should you change your mind.

    4. Re:Important enough? by louic · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me rephrase that: I am not arrogant enough to think that I am or will be so important that my privacy needs protecting.

    5. Re:Important enough? by improfane · · Score: 1

      It's nothing to do with being important louic, there are malicious people out there and you bad things (tm) could happen to you. Identity theft is just one example.

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    6. Re:Important enough? by louic · · Score: 1

      If you read my first post you will see that I do think about this. But I agree with the author of the /. article that that many people are overreacting. There really is no need to wear your tinfoil hat if you are just an average person doing a bit of web surfing. Did you know that before the internet was there, thick books existed that had everybody's full name and telephone number in it?

  23. Just disable Javascript. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Porn downloads work also with Javascript disabled :-D

  24. Uselessness by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

    I realise that in ask slashdot you were probably looking for geek/technical replies, so feel free to ignore this. I think the Tao principle of uselessness is the best solution to both privacy and security. The parable of the useless tree illustrates this well. If you have no money, you give out all your intellectual property free on the internet, and you don't have a need for expensive possessions, there should be no need for privacy and security. Naturally in the real world this is more a guideline than foolproof rule, to be useless to the US government you have to either have no interest in any kind of politics, or live in a country who's politics don't interest them. With the current economic rules regarding debt it has become virtually impossible to be useless to big corporations. But nevertheless I think it is an important principle to take into account when working out how to secure yourself. Think about how you are most useful to people who would harm you to use you, and see if there are ways you can become less useful to them.

    1. Re:Uselessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be useless to the US Govt, you'd have to not be breathing.

      Until then, they can find some hard labor for you to do, or some more waterboarding.

  25. I was falsely accused of rape, custody battle by GuyFawkes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I *wish* Google latitude / check-in and Android smartphones with GPS were around ten years ago, it would have made my case so much simpler, and prosecuting her so much easier.

    Let's face it, opting out doesn't mean you turn into a ghost that nobody tracks, so you may as well opt in, control it, and who knows, one day it may save your ass....

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:I was falsely accused of rape, custody battle by vlm · · Score: 1

      You'd have to prove you're the one using the phone, or even worse, think of the fun if your phone was "borrowed" and you didn't notice.
      Her side would be all about the tired old "computers never lie" while opening a copy of "paint" to edit the screen capture.

      Technological solutions to social problems never really work. Might help a little, maybe, maybe not.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:I was falsely accused of rape, custody battle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm hearing is yet another great example of why you want to use a service that lets you be in full control of your data.

      Facebook runs a business where you are the goods and someone else is the customer. What you should ask for is social network where you are the customer. And yes, that will involve paying monthly fees. There is no way around it.

      And yes, I would be starting a for-pay social network if I had the know-how and the money to start a startup company. I think someone is going to do it and it's going to be worth billions.

    3. Re:I was falsely accused of rape, custody battle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you may as well opt in, control it, and who knows, one day it may save your ass....

      This is one of the reasons I keep a presence on the internet using my real name. While what you say on the internet can definitely hurt you if you're not careful, it can also help. If someone were to spread rumors about me online, keeping a blog or website under my real name can help me get my side of the story out. Maintaining an internet presence also allows my website (and not someone else's) to be the top Google result for my name. This way, I have considerable control over what other people find out about me when they scour the internet.

    4. Re:I was falsely accused of rape, custody battle by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      The trouble with that is that it gets into the discussion of data ownership, which is far from clear.

      Let's say that your buddy Jeff takes a picture and tags you in it. He has copyright over the picture, and the right to put whatever text he wants with it.

      You may sue him for libel if he tags you in a harmful picture that is not you - probably. IANAL. But I don't believe you can prevent him from listing the fact that you're in a photo that he took if you are. The fact that Facebook &c make it easy to follow a tag chain doesn't change the fact that the information is allowed to exist; Facebook's allowing you to remove yourself from a tag list is actually already giving you more power than you'd have on Jeff's blog or Flickr site. Or in his newspaper, for that matter.

      You see, in your scenario you would indeed be a customer. But so would Jeff.

      Historically the powerful (think newspaper owners) have always had the ability to broadcast whatever facts they chose about whomever they wished (with possible legal consequences to those actions). Now everybody does, admittedly with far narrower readership by default, but potentially with a worldwide reach.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    5. Re:I was falsely accused of rape, custody battle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea- easier said than done. Non-existence prevents them from going after you. The problem is it is against the law. Failure to get a drivers license, vehicular license, etc. Will get your vehicle seized, jail, etc. And both these things make it impossible to get around and earn a living in most places. Even where you can get away without such things you have to have a place to stay. This too requires identification generally. Except where you are breaking the law. Usually. Now if you live with a friend and don't pay room and board, parents, etc. It may not be. However it means you exist too. Non-existent essentially means you got a piece of paper that says you can stay somewhere without identifying you. A means to do this would be a key. That key paid for in cash means you can stay in that place unless disputed. Sadly except for maybe a hotel and few hotels these days will let you stay without identification. Who can afford to live out of a hotel?

  26. One scenario by return+42 · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Senator has an adulterous liaison. One or more federal agencies film it.
    Step 2: Senator receives photographs of adulterous liaison plus anonymous demand to vote a certain way on not-very-important legislation.
    Step 3: Senator caves.
    Step 4: Repeat Steps 2-3 with increasingly important legislation, combined with threat to reveal previous influenced votes as needed.
    Step 5: Under sufficient pressure, Senator eventually votes to increase powers of agencies, weaken constitutional protections, etc.

    Multiply by several senators, congressmen, and judges.

  27. Don't do anything controversial and you'll be fine by guanxi · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about it. As long as you don't do anything controversial, you don't have anything to hide. Examples of what is controversial really vary. Sometimes it's saying something that's politically wrong (e.g., supporting communists, socialists, any minor party, or the wrong major party), or religiously wrong (taking an interest in an unpopular religion, such as Islam currently, or Judaism historically or in some places), or socially wrong (e.g., sexual practices that your neighbors might disapprove of, even if they do it themselves; or humor or fiction that's politically 'incorrect'). It also depends on who is looking; for example, taking the wrong side of the health care debate might discourage some employers, or of the energy debate might discourage others; what if someone with authority has strong feelings about Guantanamo -- maybe it's better to avoid issues like that; and remember that what's politically incorrect can change -- what's ok today might be wrong tomorrow. What's unremarkable today might be a Congressional hearing tomorrow. When people ask, 'which side are you on?', just be sure you've chosen the right one. Also, make sure it's unambiguous; if someone can misinterpret it they probably will, especially if they don't like you.

    Other than that, just do whatever you want online. As long as you do nothing wrong, there is no reason private companies can't log everything you do. In fact, use my computer last thing at night and first thing every morning, so the log is accurate about when I'm sleeping.

  28. Worry about Mallory not Gordon. by elucido · · Score: 1

    Gordon cannot be stopped. Gordon can and must see all or Gordon will destroy, torture, and kill all.

    So you also have Mallory. When you deal with Gordon you know Gordon's name. You know who Gordon works for. You know Gordon. When you are dealing with Mallory, you don't know who Mallory is. You don't know Mallory's motivations. You don't know Mallory.

    The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. You know Gordon is a part of a necessary evil. Mallory could be your rival, your competitor, or just a predator. So while Gordon has to be trained and typically has some orders he is following, all the way up a chain of command, and has selfless motivations, Mallory may have entirely selfish motivations.

    1. Re:Worry about Mallory not Gordon. by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I didn't understand any of this, until I asked Alice and Bob about it.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  29. Unique identity by emagery · · Score: 1

    I do find myself wanting some kind of mobile perma-token that goes to each internet accessing individual. Hi, I am E341-AA0B-C3A9-5505-30FF, and my internet access account began on July 3, 2013! I am male, 27 years old, etc. My token knows that I exist, that only I belong to this token, that I am certifiably human, and maybe that I've demonstrated a preference for buying Anime from Amazon and invest heavily in Silver Mint. -- point being, I don't necessarily think such a token should really store sensitive information about identity, per se... but that it can prove that you are who you say you are when online in some verifiable and prohibitively difficult to steal kind of way (at least it terms of the minimalistic rewards such theft grants). When you read a review on an apartment or a product or a service... when someone trolls you on a forum... etc... you can know first that it's not a machine and second that that person will be accountable for any false information they give. I should think this would even be applicable to voting, taxation, etc. I just can't help getting past the notion that in a communicable universe where one can trust the content they encounter and people are liable for their actions, not only will there be less cybercrime, spamming, etc, but also less incentive to want to engage in them as well.

    1. Re:Unique identity by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      That's what public/private keys are for, and digital signatures...

      Having them for proving identity is one thing, forcing them on each and every connection and thus not allowing anyone to post anonymously is quite another. Privacy issues, yadda yadda.

    2. Re:Unique identity by submain · · Score: 1

      it can prove that you are who you say you are when online in some verifiable and prohibitively difficult to steal kind of way (at least it terms of the minimalistic rewards such theft grants). When you read a review on an apartment or a product or a service... when someone trolls you on a forum... etc... you can know first that it's not a machine and second that that person will be accountable for any false information they give.

      Do you really think people would be honest about a review if they weren't anonymous? I think anonymity has contributed enormously towards honest comments on the internet, since people are less likely to be scared of being persecuted due to their thoughts.

  30. Re:Here's what I do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know why people care so much about Privacy? Because the threats have gotten that bad. You can't even even ask for Universal Studios Privacy Policy when they suddenly spring on you the requirement of getting your fingerprints on entry without them banning you for all associated and partnered tourism areas across the country as well as requesting websites take down your bad reviews about them (Looking at you TripAdvisor). You can't even give your name any more without someone screwing you over.

  31. It's not going to matter anyways by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

    You information paranoid freaks make me sick. How many times do I have to say it? The whole freaking World is going to melt down to chaos soon. Keep hording your information...I'm hording guns, knives, and bullets. We'll see who was right soon enough. BURN BABY BURN!!!! It's all going down!!!

    1. Re:It's not going to matter anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I wasn't so worried about being tracked, I'd login and grant you a point. :/

    2. Re:It's not going to matter anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... but we know where you live and how much/what type of ammunition you've got... you don't even know who we are or when we'll strike.

    3. Re:It's not going to matter anyways by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

      Which is why I shoot at everyone who steps on, flies over, digs under, or encroaches on my property.

  32. if you spy me by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    you'd have to spy me 24/7 and even then you'd come out puzzled and depressed... and it would be an awful bad investment as far as returns are concerned. the better it would be the harder time they'd have even selling targeted adverts. and you'd have to do it over multiple social networks or whatever you want to call bbs's, irc, forums and the internet as a whole. that's one thing about stasi style surveillance, it's an extremely boring and devastating career path to start doing it to random people and would take an extreme number of real human beings to go through the stuff.

    but the problem mobile advertising companies have, it's not your privacy, it's some starving guys in china, taiwan or wherever who are going to game the system, that it would be more fair and more tied to the "real" targeted person than your usual clicks. in the end advertisers are going to care about generated sales though.

    and as far as porno goes - if you're a free man, who cares? ever thought of living honestly? you can get away with a lot these days if you live in the west. that's what freedom is, that nobody is going to oust you just for having a collection of erotic material. though, I got a new explanation, it's an anatomy collection. which is actually sort of true, I can't afford the time or money to observe real models and it would be pretty hard to find someone who could make all the spontaneous facial expressions too and the models are usually naked, usually with first muscles relaxed and the camera goes through many angles. leonardo would be jealous. midgets too. but it's impossible for anyone to try to pile crap on me for having it.

    anyways, if you want to fool ip geolocation shitters, use a mobile connection. but if you're so deep that you wear a hat everytime you go out for privacy, you're easily distinguished by wearing that hat and you're already so far off that you're actually very easy to keep surveillance on since you have habits, the people in your neighborhood will start paying attention to you precisely for acting that way and this will just feed your paranoia and some of the people in your neighborhood will remember you all the same no matter what you do, the same as you will remember some of them and that's just normal.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  33. Re:Was privacy ever a right? by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've changed my mind slightly on this topic after I read about a guy who knew the Feds were trying to keep tabs on him. He publicly shared his geo-information for literally everywhere he went. Blogged publicly about everything he did and everyone he talked to. Tweeted about every little thing he did. And he had as many friends as would have him. This put his entire life out for the public record. This kept the Feds from privately nabbing him and then making up their own story about his life and all of the insidious things they wanted to finger him for.

    I, now, just assume that if the Feds want to get me they will. If they want any info about me they can get it. So who am I fooling by hiding my activity? I would only be making it easier for them to fabricate the narrative of my life and then pin it on me. A very private lifestyle makes it easy for them to get away with it since nobody knows anything about me and could prove otherwise.

    So now I love Google and everything Google Apps. I love my Android phone. I think I'm sort of boring so I'm not the type who uses Facebook much anyway (but I do have an account). I've got a Twitter account but have never really gotten into tweeting. My best defense of my normal, innocent life is for me to be social and use the Internet to control and communicate the narrative of my life.

  34. "But is it really that bad?" by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    No.

    > What's wrong with targeted advertising?

    I don't know. I've never seen any.

    > And if the feds can track my every movement â" who cares?

    Depends on who you are. I don't believe that they track very many people: they simply have no reason to. If they are tracking me they are fools. Of course, if I did think that they might want to track me I certainly would not discuss it here nor am I endorsing what tracking they do .

    > What does the average Slashdotter do to preserve their privacy...

    Squall indignantly about what an outrage it all is while refusing to inconvenience himself in the slightest in order to protect his "details" (most of which are matters of public record).

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:"But is it really that bad?" by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Squall indignantly about what an outrage it all is while refusing to inconvenience himself in the slightest in order to protect his "details" (most of which are matters of public record).

      Maybe they shouldn't be, the last 4 digits of the social security, the ones they typically ask for are typically completely unguarded on bank websites, mother's maiden name frequently used as a way of confirming ones identity is easily looked up in most cases online.

      Individually it's not that big a deal, but when you add those things up, it becomes relatively easy to break into other people's accounts using publicly available information. And since companies frequently don't bother to secure their sites with appropriate measures without being forced, it gets to be a real problem real soon.

    2. Re:"But is it really that bad?" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "It becomes relatively easy to break into other people's accounts using publicly available information."

      That's how Sarah Palin's emails were 'hacked.' This teaches us two lessons: Firstly that it's not that hard to break into email, and secondly that a crime which would be ignored if the victim were a lowly commoner will result in an investigation, prosecution and jail time if the victim has friends in high places.

    3. Re:"But is it really that bad?" by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I wrote: Squall indignantly about what an outrage it all is while refusing to inconvenience himself in the slightest in order to protect his "details" (most of which are matters of public record).

      hedwards writes: Maybe they shouldn't be, the last 4 digits of the social security, the ones they typically ask for are typically completely unguarded on bank websites, mother's maiden name frequently used as a way of confirming ones identity is easily looked up in most cases online.

      And yet you give them the information anyway because it would be inconvenient for you not to. That's my point. And only a fool would answer with his mother's actual maiden name if he is actually concerned about such matters.

      Individually it's not that big a deal, but when you add those things up, it becomes relatively easy to break into other people's accounts using publicly available information.

      Only the accounts of those who choose to give out the information.

      And since companies frequently don't bother to secure their sites with appropriate measures without being forced, it gets to be a real problem real soon.

      Only for those who choose to allow it to. I have secrets (boring ones). I secure them by not disclosing them to anyone without both a need to know and a contractual obligation to keep them confidential. This is occasionally inconvenient. That's life.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:"But is it really that bad?" by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Maybe they shouldn't be, the last 4 digits of the social security, the ones they typically ask for are typically completely unguarded on bank websites, mother's maiden name frequently used as a way of confirming ones identity is easily looked up in most cases online.

      True... but your SSN and mother's maiden name are also easily looked up offline, and have been for decades.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  35. Try not caring by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    Just trust that the big guys in charge are not going to do the wrong thing (ok, not likely, but try to think that way and you'll feel better), and remember that the amount of information flowing over the internet pipes is simply massive. Yes, they can use filtering and regular-expression-type searches to filter out your data, but firstly they have to want to filter out your data. And they really don't care if people are looking at pr0n (unless there are kids involved). Individuals don't matter to them, for the most part. Global trends do matter (especially to advertisers), but individuals don't.

    Break the law, do stuff that you should do, and yes you might raise a red flag. But being a normal person (I assume!), what cause to they have to track anything you do?

    You are insignificant. Remember that, and feel joy in it.

    1. Re:Try not caring by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But a lot of people really do care. They believe it is their duty to protect the morality of the nation by making sure anyone who doesn't live up to their own standards is punished.

  36. Re:Was privacy ever a right? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    So ... the best way to hide from the FBI is to not give them a reason to want to find you?

  37. PGP users on mailing lists make me laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know who they are, every post by a PGP user has that ugly header and footer.

    Oh no! Someone might impersonate you on a mailing list. Get real.

  38. Re:Was privacy evr a right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All rights not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states and the people. Attitudes like yours is specifically why the a number of the Founders of this country were against The Bill of Rights. They knew that idiots at some point would try to claim that "if it's not in the Bill of Rights you don't have that right!". This is why the 10th Amendment exists but idiots like you and idiots in the SCOTUS like Scalia and Thomas seem to conveniently want to gloss over this.

  39. It's a tideous task by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From regular cookies, 1-by-1 pixel images, Facebook like-buttons and Flash cookies, I really don't know what to do anymore. Well, at least they behave like client-side spyware, so I just need to turn my stupid browser into a clever one. Suggestions?

  40. Its a FAD by vlm · · Score: 1

    Its a fad. Remember "that guy" whom wanted all kinds of firewall monitoring to let you know if there is a weird nonconformist packet seen by the firewall? We need reports. We need graphs. We need you to be paged for every individual packet. Because that TCP SYN SSH packet from China (while we're blocking APNIC space anyway, in fact only permitting ssh port IP space from our fellow admins home ISP ranges, and disabled typed in ssh logins going solely pub/priv key auth only) scares me and should scare you and we should all be scared and aware together so we can all watch TV while we're scared and buy lots of stuff from the commercial ads. WTF?

    Eventually you gotta ask, so what are you going to do about it? Whats the end result you're looking for? Fly out to China and beat the guy whom owns the zombied windows PC? Open a ticket with the ISP in China? Call the CIA? Shine the batman emergency light on the clouds? Pray?

    The next (last) step in the fad is to ignore it. Who cares. I got a ssh syn packet this morning from Korea. So what?

    Privacy hand wringing is the same type of fad. So general mills has tracked your changing tastes in breakfast cereal since birth by careful analysis of facebook posts correlated with grocery store loyalty cards. Eventually, after being asked one time, a hundred times, a million times, "What are you gonna do about it?" you'll realize its simply irrelevant, and move on to something new to be scared of.

    Maybe a terrorist behind every tree stump so we gotta give up all our freedoms because they hate our freedoms (oh wait been there done that). From what I read, in the UK the media has them in an absolute frenzy about neighborhood child molesters, maybe we can terrify americans the same way. Or we'll get terrified of space aliens. Or the flu, again. Who knows. Who cares.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Its a FAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep posting in this thread, and you keep subjecting your readers to the grammatical crime of using "whom" when you meant "who."
      Remember: "whom" is not a more fancy way of saying "who." The two are distinct.
      If you use "who" where a "whom" is more appropriate, no one will care.
      If you use "whom" where a "who" is correct, you appear as if you're trying to come off more intelligent than you are.

  41. Identity theft is not worth the risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as a victim of Identity theft I can tell you it's consequences can be FAR beyond anything you can imagine. A ruined credit rating is a sticky thing that can impede your job search and prevent you from buying a home at a decent interest rate. If you are the bread winner this can affect your family, or your attractiveness to a mate. It's psychologically chilling, perhaps a little like being raped but by forces unseen that for all you know might come back.

    I don't know anyone else who had their identity stolen so I assume it must be rare. But it's getting increasingly easy as all your accounts get tied to your e-mail for password recovery and your SS becomes public knowledge.

  42. Use common sense by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1

    There will be instances where it makes sense to be open and honest in your online dealings (close friends, your bank account, your work accounts). Trying to cover up your real identity in those instances could have negative consequences. (explaining to your bank that you really are the Rip Torn on the account...)

    But in instances where you are dealing with strangers, and you may never deal with them again, obfuscate as much as possible.

    I (like many here) run my own mail server. I must have 250 accounts on it right now, as I make up a new account for each online entity. (allows you to delete that account if you start getting spam, etc.) Having that many accounts also dilutes the meta data about you in large databases.

    If you don't have one already, get a P.O. Box. If you sign up to have some piece of lit delivered, have it sent to the P.O. Box and use an alias for a name. I get lots of mail addressed to many different names - the Post Office gets used to it. Again, it dilutes the info about you in databases.

    Think about how you are going to interact with each new online entity (entity meaning store, blog, media, etc.) before you type your first word. There are few places online that really need to know about you - they may want to know about you, but they don't need to.

    I think it goes without saying to watch your cookies and javascript at new sites. (I am always amazed how a single site can have 15 javascripts from other sites. Gives me the creeps.)

    I'm not saying you can escape entirely, but, like an earlier poster said, it's not about whether they know, but how they use that info. And if the info is less accurate and more diffuse, it is less valuable and slightly less likely to be used in a way you don't like.

  43. .....Because it's none of your fucking business! by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

    Gosh, where to begin. I guess I use whatever privacy measures I can for one simple reason...IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS WHERE I GO, WHAT I DO, WHICH PAGES I SCAN, WHAT PRODUCTS I BUY, WHO I DATE, HOW MANY KIDS I HAVE, WHERE I LIVE, OR WHAT I THINK!!! If I chose to divulge such information, it is because I CHOOSE TO, not because I think you have a right to make money off of it. My biggest complaint with the internet is that people have chosen to mis-use it. I loved back in the day how I could go to a chat-room and it was not plagued by fucking chat-bots. I loved being able to type "wherez da warez", and someone would tell me where I could get a solid copy of Photoshop, or Lightwave...without fear of some schmuck at the NSA, DOJ, RIAA or MPAA, using the conversation to justify putting me in a cage. Not to say that I made a habit of doing such things, but the fact remains that the freedom to do them without fear of prosecution existed.

    I always envisioned that the web would be used to liberate humans from the stupid 9 to 5 get up get in the car, take the bus, or train, sit at a desk getting fatter, surviving or merely enduring office-related bullshit/politics for 8 to 12 hours, and drag yourself home reality. But NOOOOOOO, instead the internet has become like a farm, where you are milked for personal data, and your every transaction is being monetized at no benefit to you. Deep down, I think this is the result of employers not utilizing the full potential of the web. That it really represented the end of locality, and has instead been perverted to become the end of privacy, and dignity.

    -Oz

  44. Don't have privacy, don't need it by coldsalmon · · Score: 2

    I know I don't have privacy, and I keep that in mind when going about my business. Really I don't need privacy for the vast majority of what I do -- I'm a very boring person. I don't care if Amazon or Google or the FBI knows that I've bought Chopin's Complete Waltzes, Preludes and Nocturnes. If I ever needed privacy, I could acquire it simply by not using any connected gadgets. I am 28 years old (and I don't care if you know that) so I am a bit older than the "next generation" that the original post talks about, but my friends and I all assume that anything we put online is public information. I don't post embarrassing pictures of myself on Facebook, and I don't post anything that I wouldn't want my clients to read (including this).

    There are issues with employers being effectively able to censor their employees' speech, but this is mostly due to the increased access to publication (e.g. via Facebook and blogging), and is not really a privacy issue in my opinion. Employers still can't legally break into my Google account and read the chatlogs in which I complain about my company. The fact that they can make access to private communications a condition of employment IS a privacy issue, and that should be dealt with via legislation.

  45. Answer: It doesn't matter until it matters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The #1 reason people should be concerned with privacy is controlling how much power we give to those who could oppress us. By giving up privacy we create the potential for great abuse. If someone were to come into political power with the desire and the data to specifically determine who is engaging in "undesirable" behavior, then they could do much more harm than someone who would have to make his case to the population at large. I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but imagine if someone like Hitler could have had 10 years of online tracking information from which to build his perfect society. As free citizens, we should recognize that corruption is a fact of life and actively seek to limit the scope of political power and the potential for abuse.

    As I speak, our (US) government is seeking to collect more and more information about us without our knowledge. Can any of us predict what it will be used for?

    1. Re:Answer: It doesn't matter until it matters. by davev2.0 · · Score: 0

      I am not being oppressed, therefore your argument is invalid.

  46. Re:Was privacy evr a right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rights can't be revoked or suspended for convenience.

    Actually, they can.

  47. You should care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > And if the feds can track my every movement — who cares?
    Invoking Godwin's Law by association, you obviously haven't lived in a country with a powerful secret police yet. Freedom dies by the inch.

  48. the surveillance never ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, given the amount of technology already tracking you, cctv cameras, credit and debit card transactions, filtering of email passing through multiple servers or routers before it gets to you, ISPs being required to maintain browsing histories (in some countries), the only time you finally fall out of surveillance is when you die ( and, since there are cctv cameras being set up in graveyards to catch metal thieves, you're still being watched. Good to know in case you dig yourself up from your own grave in search of an evening snack of BRAINS. a darn rare delicacy, these days.)

  49. Keeping your privacy is a life style change by realsilly · · Score: 4, Informative

    Shred old bills / receipts with any identifying info after the "retain tax info" time frame.
    Shred all Credit Card applications sent to you unsolicited.
    Remove your self from the list to receive unsolicited Credit Card Applications by notifying at least one if not all 3 major Credit bureaus.
    Use dummy email addresses if you can on line that is specifically meant for junk mail.
    Avoid making Credit Card purchase on line when a phone call and complete the same transaction.
    Keep your cell phone as dummied down as possible.
    Watch for warnings from govt. sites that state that your info will become public record if you provide it on-line.
    Let your friends know that your privacy is important and to not share what they know about you in real life or on line.
    Keep your photos off line.
    Quietly lean on friends to keep you in tune with the latest technologies.
    Use Cash where ever possible.

    If you're not willing to be diligent in doing these things and more then you're not ready.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    1. Re:Keeping your privacy is a life style change by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Avoid making Credit Card purchase on line when a phone call and complete the same transaction.

      Wait so you'd rather give you complete credit card info to someone you've never met over the phone rather than use an automated system that can be verified at least partially to be a secure transaction?

      Thanks but no. Using your brain for online transactions (if you have one) is far more secure than just idly giving your details over someone who claims to be an employee of the company you wish to do business with, with no ulterior motives.

    2. Re:Keeping your privacy is a life style change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use Cash where ever possible.

      You can do more for your privacy by doing this single thing than anything else. It's actually easy to do, even if you don't have no fee ATMs around (cash advances on a Debit Card are free at almost all banks, including big ones such as Wells Fargo, make sure your own bank won't charge you a fee for it either, most won't). All anyone knows about you is that you take a couple hundred of bucks out at a bank branch or two (which are likely close to your home or work anyway, and someone knows where those are). 50s spend fine, don't bulge in your pocket, and though most people will check the strip on one or run one of those useless markers over it, they'll make change for one.

      A single investment in accounting software (or use GNU Cash for free) will make it easy to track where you spend your cash anyway.

      Plus you're actually doing more to "stick it to the man" by doing this than anything else. This hurts big banks, and other lenders tremendously and helps the economy at the same time.

      My own bank already knows any dirty buying habits I might have from online purchases, unless I get prepaid debit/credit cards (which frankly seem expensive to me). They're small and I doubt they give a crap, I'd imagine most of their customers have far more dirt in their transactions and it's far funnier to "notice" it on the local pastor's account than mine.

      The biggest change with the advent of the internet is that now if someone tells me they only read Playboy for the articles, I believe them.

    3. Re:Keeping your privacy is a life style change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for opening the debate a bit more.

      Too many people seem to live under the delusion that worrying about privacy is only relevant if:
      - you're doing something socially or legally repressible which "you probably shouldn't be doing in the first place"
      - you're paranoid about governments/corporations/etc. being Evil[TM]

      FACT: everybody has something to hide. Or do you share your bank details with the whole world?
      Privacy and security are tightly linked issues.
      You don't need to be paranoid to KNOW that there is a lot of very well organised people out there with an unhealthy interest in your personal details for perfectly criminal reasons. Identity theft is a thriving business, and the consequences for victims can be VERY serious.
      So as long as banks and the like will be stupid enough to use security questions such as "what's your address", "what's your date of birth", or "what is your mother's maiden name", you'd better not share that information on Facebook or the like (and if you put it in, say, your phone, be careful what rights you grant to the apps you install)

      On a side note, governments insisting on storing more and more personal information in central databases IS a worrying trend, not necessarily because these are EVIL per se, but because they often have a terrible track record at keeping this information secure. And they make such a big tempting target too... And so does Google (I hope no one keeps any sensitive data in their gmail?)

    4. Re:Keeping your privacy is a life style change by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your tips... but I add two more things:
      1) Control the information you put online. If you don't have some sort of profile, it'll flag you as needing more study -- and the only info will be what others say about you.
      2) Just don't use a cellphone. This also lowers your stress level and provides you with more free time in a day.
      3) Salt misinformation. Instead of using cash, use other people's loyalty cards. Don't worry too much about credit cards, as CC data is hoarded very carefully by marketers and isn't likely to get used to profile you in other ways. Use cash for non-standard purchases, but don't worry about your groceries.

  50. Re:Was privacy evr a right? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Rights can't be revoked or suspended for convenience.

    Have you looked around lately? Sure they can.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  51. The most effective the you can do to be anonymous by hickmott · · Score: 1

    Pay in cash whenever practical. It's amazing how many databases this will keep you out of.

  52. One moment please... by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    Before I answer this, I need to put on my tinfoil hat... Now where did I last put that thing?

  53. Re:What does the average Slashdotter do by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1
    I use
    1. a nickname
    2. an obviously fake addres (testingstreet 123 test in afghanistan)
    3. (obviously) fake phone numbers(0123456789)
    4. a spam emailadres
    5. Noscript
    6. no Facebook
    7. no Twitter
    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  54. keep it simple by Pflipp · · Score: 2

    I once knew this guy who didn't watch TV because he thought the commercials were brainwashing. Hard to say he wasn't right, but he was unlucky as hell, too. Not for lack of TV, but from worrying too much.

    If you think your government treats you indecently (i.e. by allowing you to be tracked), speak out while it still allows you to. But be buddhist about it: don't worry that you cannot change the world, just do what you can while you still feel comfortable with it.

    --
    "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    1. Re:keep it simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly right. The end goal is your own peace of mind. The harm done by external actors must be compared to the self inflicted waste of time and energy. For me it is a simple matter. I don't care to participate in many things that risk exposing personal information in the first place, so the only concern is the sort of deep wiretapping/tracking of my pseudo-anonymous comments. This costs me no concern because I cannot fight such a leviathan should it care to actively watch me. I doubt they would anyway unless outspoken anarchists who advocate the non aggression principle from first principle axioms constitute a threat. Even complete objection to these peoples actions won't elicit a response as long as you follow their rules so the only reason to ever be worried is if you do something that puts you in their cross hairs. Otherwise, don't sweat it.

    2. Re:keep it simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I once knew this guy who didn't watch TV because he thought the commercials were brainwashing. Hard to say he wasn't right, but he was unlucky as hell, too. Not for lack of TV, but from worrying too much ...

      Having taken that one step further, claiming that most of TV entertainment and Big Media Movies are brainwashing, I've noticed that I'm a lot happier as a person by having dropped those forms of passive entertainment away from my life. I am not scared of North Korea or the Terrorists. Turns out, the continually present threat only lived in the media, and not in the real world.

      I have also quit reading most of the "newspapers".

      Truth be told, I worry a LOT LESS about life now than I did say six-seven years ago. Sometimes I feel out of touch with people who hold up a conversation about TV personalities and reality- / yellow-media -celebrities, but that's an acceptable give in (some might even call it a bonus).

      Watching Hollywood movies is a lot harder than before, though. Nowadays the product / ideology-placement and conscious re-interpretation of history can be often so visible, that it distracts from enjoying the movie. Is it a bad thing, though, to be more conscious about what you see? (Watching TV is unbearable, though. Especially those shows where they tell you when to laugh -- not even going to the ads.)

      While I have dropped the amount of traditional media I follow to the minimum, I seem to be on quite decent footing regarding generic knowledge of universe, life, etc. in comparison to my peers and the people I meet in real life.

      (PS. I have also numerously told my sister's kids, who hold me in utmost respect, that everything they see on TV (MTV, shows, movies, etc..) is a lie and has no reflection on how the given situation would play out in real life, if it ever were to occur -- nor is it a guideline to life, or a healthy medium to take idols from. This, of course, is not completely true statement either, but it is important that someone they have grown to respect tells them this when they are still young and not living in the reality created by popular media.)

      - 26 yo male.

  55. Privacy is about control by jwunderl · · Score: 1

    Your paranoia is appropriate in inverse proportion to the ability you have to control what information about you is collected, and how it is used. Unfortunately, the mavens of on-line data aggregation want to control and sell that information about you. The symptom is privacy paranoia, but the problem is that you have been turned into the raw material from which valuable data can be mined.

    --
    Thanx,
    John

    When the going gets weird, The weird turn pro.
    - Hunter S. Thompson
  56. Re:The most effective the you can do to be anonymo by muckracer · · Score: 1

    > Pay in cash whenever practical. It's amazing how many databases
    > this will keep you out of.

    And don't use loyalty cards, since that defeats the point of paying cash in the first place. Might cost you certain discounts though. Ditto for CC's.

  57. Doesn't matter now, it may later. by koan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Something more important is how this will play out down the road, will that porno you downloaded suddenly be used against you retroactively in the newly founded America run by ultra right wing religious fanatics?

    Will copy right infringement someday have a death penalty? (you know at least one Hollywood mogul is pushing for that)

    Sure, these are very extreme examples, so come up with your own tamer versions, because I am a cynic, I feel the world will be under constant surveillance once machine AI can access and use the CCTV camera systems, back-scatter scanning while walking down the street, every communication monitored for "key words" decrypted on the fly and stored permanently.
    Hell they may even monitor facial expressions for "malcontents", once all that is in place just imagine what a corrupt government (which they all are) would get up to.

    You're kidding your self if you don't think we are headed for a world of hurt, and all thanks to technology as used by fascist and religious nuts.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Doesn't matter now, it may later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truthfully, I'm more concerned about nuts like you than religious nuts.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter now, it may later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not worried about what some future fascist nightmare state will do with my data, because I will do the smart thing and GTFO. I'm not going to let myself be oppressed then, and I sure as hell won't let myself be oppressed by a future fascist regime before it even exists.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter now, it may later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ted Kaczynski? Is that you?

    4. Re:Doesn't matter now, it may later. by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm all for some measure of prudence in what information people post online, but planning for after a right wing religious-authoritarian takeover is a pretty miserable example, if that is the state of the country, who cares if you are on the persecuted list or not?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Doesn't matter now, it may later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright infringement will never be punishable by death in the US. Why kill someone when you can garnish their wages and make a buck or two off of it? Removing all the people who have every pirated copyrighted material would severely reduce the market size and cut profits for all parts of the entertainment industry.

    6. Re:Doesn't matter now, it may later. by vawwyakr · · Score: 0

      Not disagreeing with you, but you should look up the paper and pencil roleplaying game called "Paranoia".

    7. Re:Doesn't matter now, it may later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't delude yourself into thinking that only ultra right wing fanatics would want to keep all citizens under observation. Left wing fanatics would do the same under the guise of making sure our children our safe from the dangers of not wearing seat belts, cigarette smoke in public places, or a myriad of other things.

      If we as individuals continue to believe that our favored political party is the only beacon of hope standing up to the other insanely evil party, the end result will be that both will push through their preferred surveillance bills.

  58. six lines by FtDFtM · · Score: 1
    If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. This was true 400 years ago. As peragrin says, its about our ability to collect information and assign it to an individual, fairly or otherwise.

    Daniel Solove makes a good case that imbalance between the power of the individual vs society (government and/or corporations) invariably precedes upheaval.

    1. Re:six lines by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
      try my account

      --
      warning pointless sig
  59. The problem is interpretation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About a year ago, some of my co-workers took me skeet shooting at a local skeet range. Never had more fun in my life. Like many many other sports I have gained interest in, I decided to get the gear, which in this case involved buying a shotgun. I didnt get it for protection from the boogie man, fight corrupt polotics or any other such thing. I got one so I can "play" with some of my friends in a sport I enjoy. After going through all the needed screenings they deemed me "safe" and I got my new toy (i call it a toy because I dont use it as a weapon nor ever intend to). None the less, When I go in and out of my apartment, I like to make sure my neighbors dont see that I am going to range. I wrap up my shotgun in a blanket, I use very plain boxes to carry the shells in, and dress like its a day out for a walk. Why? Because I know people form opinions on the craziest things. Who knows what my neighbors might feel, think or believe. Therefore though I am doing absolutely nothing wrong, I keep it to myself. It stays triple locked (trigger lock, guns case lock and in a locked storage box... all with separate keys) and no one knows but my shooting buddies, my wife, and well.... the government. I personally live with integrity, have an outstanding love for life and care for people, but I do not believe at all that transparency is a good thing on the personal level. Too many occasions have led perfectly normal people to be prosecuted over history because of a change in the tide of public opinion. Salem witch trials, the jews of germany, and many others where personal affairs were made a public outrage. Fuck that, stay silent about anything that may be misconstrued or which you are not willing to fight to the death over. I have great faith in individuals but not in masses. In mass, people believe whatever the loudest person says... Or the television. (sorry if this is getting long) We have a right to privacy and we should preserve it. Just think of how easy the Holocaust would be today... no hiding your star of david this time. Hell, wouldnt even have to kill you, just neutralize your assets, make your credit score a 100, and wait for your next drive to pick you up at a the toll booth (they don't need ez-pass, cameras are on every terminal that inspect your license plate). Personal transparency is a dangerous game, we have a right to privacy and we should maintain it.

  60. Re:Was privacy evr a right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's a right, but one that people can easily choose not to exercise. Rights can't be revoked by others, but they can be given up.

    If you mind your own business out-of-view, you will have your privacy. But if you interact with the outside world, you will be seen.

  61. Don't allow them to make you crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, if you live your live in constant fear, they've won, so don't do that. An important, subversive thing you can do is be happy and let the people around you see it and ask why.

    Second, take realistic steps to make your privacy harder to invade. What I do:
    * On the Linux box at home, entire home directory is encrypted with TrueCrypt. While the machine's off, all the private data's in an encrypted file. Yes, including THAT.
    * Surf the web with Tor and Privoxy.
    * Don't identify yourself when it's not necessary.
    * Every month, give some money to the EFF and the ACLU.

    Later I plan to do more, like running FreedomBox as my home router, which will add a public Tor node to the net.

  62. The value of privacy by nethenson · · Score: 1

    Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.

    Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.



    - Schneier: The value of privacy

  63. Re:Was privacy evr a right? by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

    Lately doesn't seem to be any better than historically... there's a trail of tears leading just about everywhere. But with our constitution we can at least expect history to look back and say: "that thing there, that was wrong," or "I'm sure glad someone like Ed. Murrow had the guts to take on the witch hunters."

  64. Don't do anything that would get you in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eric Schmidt said it best: if you're overly concerned about privacy, perhaps you have something to hide. While some might see this as spam, I have a comment to make but don't see a reason to make a complete copy of it here: http://www.gamesareforchildren.com/index.php?/permalink/privacy-death.html.

    The bottom line is that privacy serves two purposes: to protect oneself from harm, and to hide immoral activities. If you take reasonable precautions about the first, the second should be no concern if you have nothing to hide.

  65. You forgot the Ninth Amendment. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

    It covers unenumerated rights and states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Don't feel bad, though. Those SCOTUS assholes you mention are also fond of forgetting the Ninth.

    1. Re:You forgot the Ninth Amendment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I did forget to mention the 9th. But really the 9th and 10th are complimentary in saying that if the feds don't have that power it's for the states or people and that the bill of rights IS NOT a sum total list of all the rights of the people. What's funny is that both Scalia and Thomas claim to be "strict constructionists" and yet can't seem to comprehend the plain wording of these 2 amendments.

    2. Re:You forgot the Ninth Amendment. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 2

      Assholes like Scalia and Thomas like to take the Bible literally and the Constitution metaphorically, when they should be taking the Constitution literally and ignoring the Bible.

  66. babys et al; nazi mutants never saw us coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe that's why they're in such a big tear to kill us/almost every body/mind/conscious non-mutant? fortunately? none of this was totally unexpected, which is subtle 'language' to assert (with heads bowed); they're killing us faster than we had ever dreamed possible, so all bets are off, until such time...... as we're more 'in tune' with each other. see you there?

  67. I know where you live... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, you should have known what information not to give over here. Now we all know who you really are...

  68. You don't have to outrun the bear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you just need to outrun (almost) everyone else. As long as you're not making an idiot out of yourself, not being anonymous when saying silly stuff, not giving off your contact and personal information so that it is easily accessible, you're pretty much safe. Those who can or might do anything to you are more likely to grab low hanging fruit. I try to make sure I am not low hanging enough that it's worth anyone trying to do anything to me.

  69. pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are already so much covertly monitored (i had the chance to look at my repport for a classified job) , that it really doesn't matter anymore , my government already know more about me then iand my mother put together , anybody that believes he still can keep some kind of privacy is living in lalaland , and either needs to stop taking drugs / or start doing some

    1. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we are already so much covertly monitored (i had the chance to
      > look at my repport for a classified job)

      Mind telling us what, for example, was being monitored?

  70. Database Pollution by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

    The best way to preserve privacy is to pollute databases. Data miners now use a variety of sources to 'confirm' information (whether you are male, married, income, political affiliation etc) and the more often you can pollute those databases, the better. If they cannot get a greater than %60 accuracy on your data, you are not a good lead for them.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  71. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I post anonymous. I don't have a Facebook account.

    I never, EVER, Ask Slashdot, because then it would expose my sensitive ignorance.

  72. An Example on Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read somewhere that the highest number of jews killed during the third reich was in the Netherlands. Why so ? - Shortly before the war they had census and once the (new) government was in possession of the data it used it for their purpose.

    What stirs me is, that if I know the set of rules I can choose to obey them (e.g. I wear a casio wristwatch), but if all stuff is recorded and stored, then the new set of rules put into place 5 years later (e.g. wearing casio wristwatch makes you a terrorist* ) will affect my seemingly innocent activity of today. And of course it is an argument, that me not wearing the watch on purpose makes me double bad, because I want to hide the fact that I own a casio wrist watch.

    The economic conditions will cause competition be harder and as people in power are less likely to give up their conveniences, the other in the society need to do so. It is not unlikely that larger groups of people will get the idea of "do something against the bad conditions" and without privacy they have almost no chance of organization and fighting for their rights - thus in power are just to powerfull.

    * see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_accused_of_possessing_Casio_watches

  73. My God THANK YOU!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've wasted years trying to find a decent prawn site.

  74. I don't care by no-body · · Score: 1

    I charge:

    $ 0.3 for every cookie/day stored on my computer beyond the current session
    $ 0.2 for every tracking beacon used

    Next I will work on copyrighting my SS #, name, addresses, birthdays, phone # etc and sue for infringement.

    The TV business model still lacks customers - I am trying to find companies paying me watching TV ads in essence giving me a cut on their ad revenue.

  75. anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first of all I never engage in public discussions of anonymity

  76. Privacy will soon be an anachronism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We aren't being forced to give up our privacy, we're doing it voluntarily. You never really had any privacy anyway, only the illusion of it. Those of us who remember what things were like before the information age cling to the illusion, but those growing up now won't. At some point many decades in the future we'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

  77. Well.... by Adam+Appel · · Score: 1

    I bought a GPS blocker yesterday. Two Reasons; I think they will be illegal soon and (less likely) I may need one.

    --
    They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
  78. ATT told me something interesting by Adam+Appel · · Score: 1

    I know this was at the first CS level but.... I called to find out some info about my iPad data usage after a trip (and after I had canceled my data plan) I was told they could not access any info about my usage with my plan turned off. Oh, and since were on the paranoia conversation, I keep PUSH off. Hey, Its not paranoid, I'm prepared!

    --
    They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
  79. Re:Was privacy ever a right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you're happy to abandon all your privacy because you live in a police state?

    Yeah, there's nothing fucked up about that at all.

  80. 2 way mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone find it funny how our government wants transparency of individuals to "get the gaddamned terrrrrrrorists" but completely nuke assange and wikileaks? Sounds to me like a 2 way mirror. Transparency for the fed? Not a chance. Transparency for the Military? Laughable. Transparency for the oil spill in Louisianna? Covered up (one of the best in history imho).. No no good ladies and sirs, transparency into you is all we want... Naked body scanners for everyone!

    Side note : Anyone remember when radio shack used to be the only company to have the audacity to ask you for your address/telephone?

  81. price of admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lack of privacy is the price of admission to the modern world. Deal with it.

    No, you don't have to participate. You can stay off of MySpace and FaceBook and wherever else. You can scrub your browser clean every time you log off. You can pay for everything in cash. You can avoid smartphones. You can shred every bit of personally identifying information.

    But it makes you a bit of an outsider.

    I'm not a big fan of sports. Couldn't care less about (American) football. And I don't actually watch the Super Bowl. But I'll pay enough attention to know who's playing, and I'll catch a post-game show or read an article afterwards. That way I have some vague idea what my co-workers are talking about the next day, and I'll be able to participate in the conversation. Instead of just sitting there with a blank look on my face.

  82. First, separate privacy from anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like the main thing you really want, is anonymity. Anonymity and privacy are closely related concepts, but they are not quite the same thing, and protecting anonymity is generally a much harder thing to do than protecting privacy. The good news is that if you protect your privacy, then even when anonymity gets compromised, the damage remains very limited.

    To protect privacy, you wouldn't ever use an "IP blocker" (BTW, WTF is that, really? Sounds like bullshit). In some limited circumstances, you might use Tor. But the main thing you would do, is only give your secrets to individualpeople that you trust, and if those secrets are passing over any public medium, you encrypt it, preferably with secure key exchange. If you can't do that (i.e. the other person refuses to use PGP), then you're going to just have faith in that medium, and take a risk. It might work out ok anyway, and it might not, but if it doesn't, it'll be because you didn't protect your privacy.

    If you tell secrets to completely unaccountable strangers hoping that they keep those secrets, that's not a realistic expectation of privacy. That's more of a naive expectation of confidentiality, with a desire for anonymity as a backup, should the confidentiality fail (since it very well might).

    These seem like obvious things, but most people don't always think in these terms, and if you don't, then you won't ever clearly see how to address each of the concerns. And addressing each concern separately is the way to get what you want, since the only catch-all general solution is to do exactly what you mention you want to avoid: living in a box.

  83. Market segmentation by PPH · · Score: 1

    I want to walk into a store and buy a product for the list price. Without someone looking me up in a database to figure out my net worth and steer me to the 'deluxe' product. The web version of this is much more prevalent given the ease of generating custom pages targeted at certain users. On the other hand, I like having vendors load me up with free samples just because I'm an opinion leader and they want me seen with their crap. And I like getting moved to the head of the line at popular clubs.

    So I guess I'd like to be able to switch my anonymity on and off as it suits my needs.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  84. Misunderstandings of Privacy by Luminous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Please do read Daniel J. Solove's article:
    "I've Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

  85. The End is Near! by blackbeak · · Score: 1
    The end of privacy, that is! Whether one is for or against it, privacy is soon to be a relic, unless working methods to counter nano-surveillence devices are devised.

    When virtually invisible, and atmospherically pervasive nano "motes" wirelessly transmit all they see and hear (and it won't be that long!), to say nothing of monitoring the minutia of our individual brain activity emanations, you won't even be able to keep your thoughts private. Forget the foil hats unless you can seal yourself up in one hermetically!

    The end of privacy will mark a tectonic shift in society. It will not be safe to "think outside the box", and the box will close in on us, getting smaller every year.

    If you can Google up a cubic 1mm computer, completely self-contained with solar cells, memory and radio transmitter, made to be implanted in your eye and available today - what do you suppose already exists out there when the rule of thumb is that the military is actually 10-15 years ahead of the public domain? That hummingbird drone thing is a joke!

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  86. I assume everyone is watching by peter303 · · Score: 1

    After getting burned by supposedly expired online chats in 1990s.

    My electronic material periodically disappears in the vastness of the cloud. Then some improved data-mining system makes it retreivable again. This I lern for self-searching over the years.

  87. Is it really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's worse. The problem isn't that knowledge literally is power and that we keep on gathering data and finding news ways of turning that into information and that in turn into knowledge. I mean, yes, that's an issue, but it's only part of it. The real problem is twofold: First, being victim of privacy breaches doesn't hurt until it's far too late to do anything about it any longer, and second, "privacy protection" largely relies on both the goodwill and compliance of third parties and their trustworthyness as guardians of all that data against almost every threat from negligence, to selling the data, to having it stolen, to accidentally leave it somewhere out in the open, to you name it. Privacy-sensitive data may or may not pertain to you, but that is nothing to them; there's no incentive as unless anyone finds out it's nothing to them. And even if they have to inform you after some breach, then what? What're you gonna do about it? Nothing, for you can't; there's nothing to be done except "keep an eye" on your credit rating and so forth, hoping to catch abuse quickly.

    So what we really need is to re-design our systems and our processes to function as well as or better than they do now, with less sensitive data. That's really the only way to do it, it's the only way that scales, and the only way that doesn't see you go mad with paranoia. But so far, our current systems don't allow for it as they far too often require you to hand over lots of sensitive info even just to prove you have it. That's not a proof of you being you, that's an invitation to please start a good solid bout of abuse of your identity. But you have no choice. Fix that and you might justifyably sleep well again.

  88. Well, since everyone's comparing things to China.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember, privacy is only an issue as long as no one is targeting you. So as long as you go with the flow, don't make waves, don't ever try to stand out... you'll be just fine. Chinese people have been doing this for... well, five or six millennia through various authoritarian regimes, to the point where all they talk about in social conversation is food, since it's the one thing that's always been safe throughout this Chairman or that Emperor's reign.

    (Or, freedom of speech. Everyone in China has freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want there! You just might not have freedom AFTER speech.)

    It doesn't matter until one day you decide that SOMETHING has to be done about the trees next to your condo, and you run for HOA, and next thing you know all of the people who think that trees should be left alone even at the expense of cracking open the condos' foundations start digging up every bit of information they can find on you, print it in a newsletter and send it to all 500 homeowners on the property (*cough*... not that I would know anything about that) that suddenly you realize that you're in the fishbowl and everyone can see you take a shit.

    I choose not to participate. I don't mean I choose not to put myself at a point where I can't be viewed. I don't mean that I choose not to use certain things. I mean that I don't watch. For example, when a certain female ESPN correspondent was photographed undressing through a peephole in her hotel, I chose not to look at the photos. When a cable news network decides to cover the latest goings on in an actor's relationships rather than the civil war in a country in North Africa, I change the channel. When political rivals start talking about "her daughter had a baby out of wedlock!" or what have you, I don't bring myself to give a fuck; it has not bearing on whether that person can be a representative of me or not. (Really!)

    Now there are some times I'll watch a train wreck which is clearly scripted for my entertainment purposes with tiger blood and Adonis DNA. And I certainly don't label myself on my Facebook profile any more than I feel is strictly necessary... and I certainly do check the privacy controls to make sure Only Friends can see. I'll keep Location Awareness off on my Android phone, but I certainly won't avoid using GPS at all for when I want to see what's near me.

    But above all, I don't worry about it. I work for an employer that has access to the web surfing habits of tens of thousands of our users. But we don't engage in the peep show because... well, for one thing, there are tens of thousands of users. Even before we get into the discussion of the morality of looking at the data, or the ethics (that it is our customers' data for them to use, and not ours), there's the simple matter that there's so much of it, singling out an individual is just too much effort. And that's with fewer than a hundred thousand users; imagine what having millions of users must be like! It would cost us a ton of money and time to chase down the data. Not only would it cost us lost money and time that wouldn't be geared towards making the product better, but there would be ZERO benefit to doing so for us, and a massive potential cost if our customers were to find out we were doing it. Might not be true for everyone, but I suspect it's true for most of 'em.

    So I'd recommend doing what I'm doing: Do what's reasonable, don't be a peeping tom (and discourage such behavior in your peers), but mostly ... don't WORRY about it.

  89. not so much about the feds by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    when a future employer, coworker, s/o, insurance comgoogles me I don't necessarily want them to know everything about me.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  90. Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject.

  91. A hat? Crack, meet pot. Seriously? by name_already_taken · · Score: 1

    Seriously, "I even wear a hat always when I go outdoors, never carry a cell phone, and never look up"?

    Unless you're wearing the hat because you're bald and want to protect your scalp from UV exposure or the cold, or are a fugitive from justice, you probably should seek some psychiatric or counseling help.

    It's not healthy to live in constant paranoia.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  92. Never give up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never surrender! Not even in the face of Armageddon.

  93. Use your hosts file to 'block' unwanted stuff by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    Anything that will track you, usually uses DNS, and not fixed IP addresses, so view your HTML source (when you can) and add those to your hosts file to 'block'

    For example, I dislike some advertisers, so a snip of my hosts file:
    robert@pip:~$ sudo tail /etc/hosts
    127.0.0.1 www.crackle.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.revsci.net
    127.0.0.1 cs.adxpansion.com ...

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  94. Re:Was privacy ever a right? by couchslug · · Score: 1

    That's a brilliant way to use the system. It also provides cover for sophisticates to operate a parallel "life" not connected to info they are sharing.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  95. I hate to say this, but we need a law. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I am not generally one to suggest even more laws; we have too many already. But there is only one thing that will stop this garbage once and for all, and that is an "Opt-In Only" law for info tracking.

    That is to say, outlawing any tracking unless a person voluntarily opts in to a "service". I would include in the law a provision to very thoroughly "de-personalize" any information that is recorded by your ISP, after 48 hours.

    (I say thoroughly because the "de-personalizing" of data done by a lot of companies is inadequate for protecting privacy, as earlier releases of so-called depersonalized data clearly demonstrated.)

  96. Making the most out of what the web has to offer? by gosand · · Score: 1

    I have yet to see a really good reason I should use things like facebook/twitter. I live in a different state from my family and I do share photos, emails, and even video chat with them. I have a facebook account, under an alias to see what all the hype was about.. and in my opinion it is the single worst piece of widely used technology to be invented in my lifetime. I don't get it. People don't use it for "keeping in touch", they use it to record every stupid thought that comes into their heads. Or worse, use canned thoughts because they're too lazy to think of their own. I have friends (in real life) that use it all the time. I noticed one of them commented that she was following Charlie Sheen on twitter, and that she accidentally exposed herself to some co-workers. And I saw all of this on my Linked-In updates. So I hope potential employers enjoy her mind-ramblings.

    I feel like the old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn - except that the "kids" are people my own age. They are the worst offenders! There is nothing more annoying than talking to someone and have them constantly checking their phone. I am the "tech" guy, but I don't understand the appeal of being plugged in all of the time. And all of this does play into privacy. Once it's "out there" it is on record.

    When I was growing up there was no internet, and while getting my CS degree frequented BBSs and gopher sites - so I can certainly appreciate how far we've come. But I really don't see how these "social" technologies as advancements. People are for some reason willing to forego privacy these days.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  97. Just speak out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have real concerns about privacy, start speaking out. Be loud about it. Get petitions signed. The louder you are about something the more you get heard. Otherwise, don't complain and don't worry. Yes, it will take a while and be tiring, hard work, but that's the way the US has always worked.

  98. Not to mention taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your employee sells goods/services which are taxed, your employee gets taxed on the money they take in, you get taxed when you get paid, and you pay taxes when you buy something, but the people who take your money get taxed on that, and they get taxed when they use that money to support their business, and their employees get taxed when they get paid... with all these taxes it's a miracle that there's any money left that's not going to the government.

  99. Re:Don't do anything controversial and you'll be f by agentultra · · Score: 1

    The funny thing about conforming is that you do society an injustice.

    The world needs radicals but political powers and clandestine powers-that-be do not.

    There are plenty of good and bad aspects to transparency. I'd rather not explore the extremes. Instead we should keep the debate alive and well. We should push back against extreme transparency and make sane choices regarding what privacies we are willing to sacrifice for our collective benefit.

    The best defense against invasion of privacy is to simply be aware and (re)act accordingly.

  100. It all depends on your threat model... by tinfoil2.0 · · Score: 1

    If you think the NSA is surveilling you, they are. If you're concerned about that, I don't have much to say but use cash, avoid tech, and good luck. If you don't want local people snooping your wi-fi transmissions, don't use wi-fi. Or at least use WPA2 and https. A VPN, secure proxy, or SSH tunnel would be a good thing. But unless you have a device with an editable wi-fi MAC address, don't use wi-fi. The MAC address is always plain text no matter what you do to secure your session data. So you can be tracked across time and space by your MAC address. If you don't want your ISP snooping on you, use a VPN, secure proxy, or SSH tunnel (of course then you have to have some trust in the endpoint). You could use Tor, but that's slow. It's a trade-off between how involved you are willing for the precautions to be, and what ease you want in using modern technology. Make sure your DNS requests are routed through the proxy, or your ISP will still know what sites you visited, and when. If you're concerned about the advertising-analytics-social ecosystem tracking you (who isn't?), there are a lot of things you need to do. Keep your browsers clean of cookies (of all kinds: http://samy.pl/evercookie), cache, and history. Change your IP address frequently. Use Tor as much as practical. Use multiple browsers over multiple VPNs, secure proxies, and/or SSH tunnels. Keep browser configs as standard as possible with respect to things that can be detected by a remote web site (Flash, Silverlight, Java, internet plug-ins, fonts, etc). Use multiple physical or Virtual Machines to diversify your accesses. Keep each physical or VM as standard as possible to reduce the bits of entropy that its device fingerprint betrays (https://panopticlick.eff.org/). Browsing on an iPhone is better than browsing on a desktop with unique add-ons, for example. Actively block tracking servers and domains with your hosts file, DNS service, browser add-ons, etc. Yes, we need a good law to make privacy rights fundamental, protected, and with enforcement teeth. But we also know there will always be bad actors who will ignore or work around the law. Bottom line? Do more to protect yourself than you think you need to, then do some more. Defense in depth. Diversification across services, accounts, connections, browsers, machines, etc. And always practice good security, even if you're in a situation where you don't think you have to.

  101. Surveilance matters to me and I don't tolerate it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commercial tracking and profiling for "market research and targeted advertising", and personal data stored in webmail accounts and other "free" services, is wide open to Federal data mining. If you think your beliefs and activities might ever meet a profile that is "of concern" to State or Corporate political operatives including opportunistic private contractors and bounty hunters, now or in the future, stop feeding their databases NOW. In the U.S. our Courts have revoked our 4th Amendment protections against random or politically motivated surveillance in every form, and our Habeas Corpus rights magically disappear when the Word of Power, "Terrorism", is spoken.

    The good news is that the forms of surveillance that matter the most in real life are also the easiest to defeat, and doing so makes routine daily tasks faster and easier, not slower or more complicated. Check out this brief how-to, suitable for all levels of technical skill from Eldrich Cypherpunk to Your Mom: http://thegreendome.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/opt-out-of-internet-surveillance/

  102. dvbuser's Keyboard Statistics Stored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for your submission dvbuser! The sample of your typing that you have provided us is invaluable, a Rosetta stone of sorts, in matching your slashdot identity up to your various other identities on other forums. This will help us complete our psychological profile of you and your interests, should the need to refer to them ever arise.

    Sincerely,

    Department of Homeland Security, Cyberops Division

  103. It's not about your dirty laundry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been a lot of comments to the tune of "If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Those comments miss the whole point of privacy. I don't care if people know what news stories I've been reading, or what I posted on Facebook. What I care about is who knows that I've been browsing to www.BankOfWhatever.com. If they can match that with my name, plus grab my birthday and my mom's maiden name from facebook, they can answer some of those 'security' questions when they call the bank up. No, that's probably not enough to take my money, but if this person happened to get ahold of an account number (lets say they are a clerk at a grocery store and see my check, which has account number printed on it), that's uncomfortably close. No, nobody is interested in what you are searching for or what questionable activities I mentioned on Twitter, but there are plenty of people who are interested in somebody who left enough clues to make stealing from them or stealing their identity easy.

  104. Taxation in Finland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't they just generate a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree?

    Here in Finland we get a Tax proposition at around these days of the year. It is based on the employer reports and pre-tax payments. Then we have till May or June to demand corrections and then they file the final payment or reimbursement statements in the fall. The reimburesements arrive till Chirstmas and back-taxes can be paid in one or two payments in December and January.

    There are some special cases where the proposition can be inaccurate other than tax fraud, but I think they are quite limited. By the way, the whole Finnish law fits into two big books, so I guess we have it a quite streamlined here.

    Oh, and the tax filings are public, they are published by the main newspapers every year. You can even go to the tax office to check anybodys income and taxes paid. Jorma Ollila for instance takes it as a honor to pay 60% of income taxes every year.

  105. Reading /. on Freenet by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 1

    There actually people reading slashdot over Freenet: the /. mirror on a FMS forum seems to be pretty popular considering that the bot that updates it has the highest rating for a non-human on FMS. And they're probably using the private/incognito mode of their browser to use Freenet, since it's the default on the Freenet installer.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  106. Best way to privacy is to have amnesia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try: http://secretsocial.com

  107. Re:Don't do anything controversial and you'll be f by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    I don't get it.. you made the case for why privacy is important and then closed with the typical 'as long as you live a boring life by not doing 'anything wrong' then everything will be fine'. like you said, what's wrong is a subjective thing.. what you did today may be considered heinous 20 years from now, and without any sort of privacy, or even reduced capacity for collective forgetfulness (buried in a filing cabnet..maybe.. vs instant search away) you'll get the shaft for it.

    that or I just missed your sarcastic irony..

  108. Defacto government by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    Basically, it's stupid to allow any incumbent intercontinental despotic dictatorship to have powers you wouldn't trust to a democratically elected government of your own.

    It's crazy to say --for instance-- that the FBI shouldn't be allowed to put a GPS tracker in your vehicle without a warrant, but having your phone company keep logs of your every location is fine and dandy.

    There is a solution, legislation. Enforce built-in privacy from the device manufacturing to the service provider. There is nothing crazy about limiting the power of business. We do it all the fucking time with construction codes, sanitary permits et cetera. Why not this? The free market won't solve this because it's a damned oligarchy and all the corporations are just as evil.

    Don't let articles like this sell you the idea that privacy has no value and is impossible to defend anyway. That's what they want you to think. Nothing more.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  109. Re:A hat? Crack, meet pot. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, "I even wear a hat always when I go outdoors, never carry a cell phone, and never look up"?

    Unless you're wearing the hat because you're bald and want to protect your scalp from UV exposure or the cold, or are a fugitive from justice, you probably should seek some psychiatric or counseling help.

    Either you need help, or you live in the UK and you don't want your face on every CCTV camera in town... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390407-uk-has-1-of-worlds-population-but-20-of-its-cctv-cameras.do

  110. Re:Don't do anything controversial and you'll be f by guanxi · · Score: 1

    make sane choices regarding what privacies we are willing to sacrifice for our collective benefit.

    Fine, as long as it's the choice of each individual, not something imposed on them by neighbors seeking profit or who are apathetic.

    The best defense against invasion of privacy is to simply be aware and (re)act accordingly.

    I disagree. At this point in time, there is nothing effective that a typical end-user can realistically do, unless they stop using the phone and the Internet.

  111. Flow of information by Tomas_Florian · · Score: 1

    I view privacy in the context of information flow.

    Information = power

    I want to maximize my power as an individual without taking too much away from others. To do this I engage in the following strategy:

    Limit the information powerful people can get about me. By doing so I limit their power and increase my own.
    Increase the information I have about powerful people. By doing so I limit their power and increase my own.

    For example, my objection to body scanners is simply in the context of information/power flow. When I get scanned, the information flows to government (or potentially a hacker). Both of these groups have more power/information than I do. They get a freebie from me - I get absolutely nothing in return. If this power disparity went away. I would have no problem with body scanners. Scan everyone, and publish info to everyone else, and I'll go through these all day without a complaint. The key word is "everyone". Those who are left out, gain power at the expense of everyone else.

    It is a 0 sum game - or maybe more like a battle really. The goal is for for everyone to get their fair share. "Fair share" depends which group you belong to. If you are in the government, then Wikileaks is pure evil because they are taking your precious power away from you. If you are a simple citizen, Wikileaks is probably your friend.

    The interesting twist is that there are two types of information. Information you want public and information you want private information. What I described above is an example of private information. For public it's the opposite; spreading it actually increases your power. You could almost give it polarity:

    +information = public .... example: advertisement for a laptop you are selling
    -information = private .... example: your paypal password

    I am posting this under my real name because I'm pretty certain that I'm dealing with +information in this post. But I'm taking a risk .. I could be wrong though.

    This is where neutral polarity comes in. It just means you are not sure if you want it to be public or not yet. Some people air on the side of caution, others take the risk. That's the real difference between the "twittering-facebookers" and "7-proxy-tin-foil-wearing-folks"

  112. Etsy.com reveals customers' real names + purchases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Etsy.com has recently made all users' real names and purchase history available on the web. They can be searched from google (I checked). They are also refusing to contact buyers to alert them to this change. They do allow names to be changed, but only with a two day waiting period. There is a thread on their forum about it herehttp://www.etsy.com/teams/7718/site-help/discuss/6811996/page/1 where they have refused to respond to serious concerns for customer privacy. Since Etsy is refusing to notify its' members, please help me get the word out to them by posting on your website. Thank you.

    Post Script:
    Users are asked for their first and last name at registration, and told that they can include it on their profile if they choose. As of March 1st, however, all register members real names have been publicly posted on the site, connected to their buying history. Etsy has not notified shoppers that this has been done yet. If you know an Etsy shopper, please contact them and tell them about this exposure.

  113. Ben franklin quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
    Ben Franklin
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin