Slashdot Mirror


On Internet Privacy, Be Very Afraid (harvard.edu)

Cybersecurity expert and Berkman Klein fellow Bruce Schneier talked to the Gazette about what consumers can do to protect themselves from government and corporate surveillance. From the interview: GAZETTE: After whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations concerning the National Security Agency's (NSA) mass surveillance operation in 2013, how much has the government landscape in this field changed?
SCHNEIER: Snowden's revelations made people aware of what was happening, but little changed as a result. The USA Freedom Act resulted in some minor changes in one particular government data-collection program. The NSA's data collection hasn't changed; the laws limiting what the NSA can do haven't changed; the technology that permits them to do it hasn't changed. It's pretty much the same.
GAZETTE: Should consumers be alarmed by this?
SCHNEIER: People should be alarmed, both as consumers and as citizens. But today, what we care about is very dependent on what is in the news at the moment, and right now surveillance is not in the news. It was not an issue in the 2016 election, and by and large isn't something that legislators are willing to make a stand on. Snowden told his story, Congress passed a new law in response, and people moved on.
GAZETTE: What about corporate surveillance? How pervasive is it?
SCHNEIER: Surveillance is the business model of the internet. Everyone is under constant surveillance by many companies, ranging from social networks like Facebook to cellphone providers. This data is collected, compiled, analyzed, and used to try to sell us stuff. Personalized advertising is how these companies make money, and is why so much of the internet is free to users. We're the product, not the customer.

75 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Im glad I never started using the Internet by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 5, Funny

    dam thing is just a horror story

  2. Why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    If internet companies and cell phone providers are tracking me and know every thing about me, why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian.

    In this day and age of ads that track what you do to custom provide ads for you- why are 3/4 of the ads I see ads either targeted for older women, or ads encouraging me to date older women.

    All I can conclude is that the great google in the sky thinks I'm a middle aged lesbian.

    The other 1/4 ads I see are actually on point, IT based, etc... but that constant ads for "don't use makeup do this if you're over 50" get me confused.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re: Why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Based on your search terms I imagine. We all have fetishes don't worry.

    2. Re:Why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian by burtosis · · Score: 1

      You made me realise I've been using adblockers everywhere for so long I have no idea what kind of ads they're trying to show me.

      Maybe they are trying to show you ads for ad-blocking

    3. Re: Why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Man, I must really mess up Google's data on me because my fetish is searching for stuff on Google.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian by mikael · · Score: 1

      Because you have DHCP and you have inherited the IP address of someone who was into that sort of thing? Using the reverse location lookup based on IP address, I've lived in the Tower of London, under London Bridge, the Yorkshire Moors, Newcastle-upon-Tyme and Leeds.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Because you have DHCP and you have inherited the IP address of someone who was into that sort of thing? Using the reverse location lookup based on IP address, I've lived in the Tower of London, under London Bridge, the Yorkshire Moors, Newcastle-upon-Tyme and Leeds.

      Advertisers have gone beyond IP addresses, because like the lawsuits have stated, an IP address doesn't identify a person. Especially at companies where you can have hundreds of people behind 1 IP address and it becomes important to identify the right people. It's why they have so many pervasive tracking measures.

      Or someone might be at a WiFi hotspot, and thus that person may travel between 5-10 different IPs a day (home, work, school, coffeeshop, mobile data etc).

      IP addresses have turned into the least reliable form of person identification ever - sometimes there are lots of people behind 1 IP, and people change IPs often enough.

    6. Re:Why do they think I'm a middle aged lesbian by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      A better question would be why the fuck are you still seeing ads?

      Are you one of those button smashing fakers that's too dumb to know how to actually block them for good, or what?

      I had turned on Ad-Blocking, but it broke the functionality of a couple of sites I need to access for work.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  3. Nobody cares by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People willingly give up all of their privacy millions of times a day for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people don't give a shit about privacy.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Nobody cares by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Totally agree with this. A lot of people around are all exited when they get targeted ads. I get f**king upset, but I seem to be the only one.

    2. Re:Nobody cares by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      They only don't care because they don't fully grasp what's being done and how it can impact their lives. Don't underestimate how dumb and unaware the average person can be.

    3. Re:Nobody cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they don't understand how it's impacting their lives then it must not be impacting them very much, don't you think?

      Online privacy is a concern, but really in our society it's sort of a luxury concern. People that have most of their other worries solved start worrying about their privacy. If you're worried about being thrown out of your apartment because you can't pay the rent or being pulled over and given a ticket you can't pay because you can't afford to fix your car's broken turn signal, then Internet privacy probably won't make your list of things to think about.

    4. Re: Nobody cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I almost never get relevant ads. I think to myself yeah right, robots taking over. Can't even choose a proper fucking advertisement.

    5. Re:Nobody cares by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The story I heard is that the Indians sold Manhattan for some beads, mirrors, etc., because they weren't from Manhattan, just hunting there. Hey, free beads!

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Nobody cares by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      They're not well targeted though...

      Search: white shirt
      Site: Here's a white shirt
      Me: just what I wanted, buy!
      INTERNET: HI WE HEARD YOU LIKE WHITE SHIRTS, WE HAVE WHITE SHIRTS, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS WHITE SHIRT?!

      For weeks afterwards.

    7. Re:Nobody cares by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Totally agree with this. A lot of people around are all exited when they get targeted ads. I get f**king upset, but I seem to be the only one.

      Well I see it as an improvement over getting generic ads for penis enlargement, sexy singles, and punching monkeys from the earlier days of the internet. If I'm going to ignore something at least it can be relevant.

    8. Re:Nobody cares by strikethree · · Score: 1

      ... but I seem to be the only one.

      Then the media is doing its job effectively. You are NOT the only one. Making people who care about a subject feel isolated from each other is how you stop a revolution before it starts.

      Again, you are NOT the only one who cares about the surveillance.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  4. Re:Yep. And it's worse registering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Remember that you assholes who disparage ACs. You registered users are the morons.

    Time to change my IP again ..... suck it LOSERS!

    You're a fool if you think that's going to stop them tracking you Steve.

  5. Re:Yep. And it's worse registering. by XXongo · · Score: 1

    Remember that you assholes who disparage ACs. You registered users are the morons.

    You're adorable!

    It's so cute that you think that by being an AC, the companies aren't tracking you.

    They know who you are and what sites you surf to. It's only the other people reading posts that you're "anonymous" to.

  6. I'm afraid of empty fearmongering. by engineerErrant · · Score: 1

    Seriously, "be very afraid"? Of what, seeing a poorly-targeted ad?

    This kind of sky-is-falling rhetoric is usually accompanied by some hysterical but hypothetical situation - what if we are denied jobs for our political stances? What if our employer found out we watch pee-pee porn? What if the jack boots come and...yadda yadda yadda. This post doesn't even bother with that anymore, which I think is what the real threat is in modern times - mindless, shrieky fearmongering about abstract threats. That's basically Fox News's business model, and it gave us Trump.

    We've been living with these "dire threats" for a long time now, and nothing has materialized. I don't care if my employer knows my adult entertainment preferences, because they still need my skills. If I'm denied a job for my political stances, they were probably doing me a favor anyway. And if the jack boots aren't at my door under Fuhrer Trump, they aren't coming. Plus, the jack boots probably have their own porn preferences to hide.

    I'm not saying it's not an outrage that our government is disregarding the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the others by now. Of course it is, and that's worth discussing. But how, concretely, bad are those things in our everyday lives? Can we at least remain civilized enough to not sound like a bunch of damn conspiracy nuts, long enough to consider that other priorities might be more worth our "fear"?

    1. Re:I'm afraid of empty fearmongering. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      which I think is what the real threat is in modern times - mindless, shrieky fearmongering about abstract threats.

      "Nothing is terrible except fear itself" -- Sir Francis Bacon

    2. Re:I'm afraid of empty fearmongering. by dromgodis · · Score: 1

      I am not worried about anyone trying to sell me stuff I don't want.

      I am not worried about my employer, insurance company or spouse finding out my browsing history, opinions or habits.

      I am mildly worried that my government will use my online behaviour against me.

      I am very worried that companies will use my behaviour to tint or change my world view by more precisely manipulating and tailoring my news feeds, search hits, education resources etc in order to achieve political or economic interests.

      I am terrified by the thought that this manipulation will inevitably be performed by ever smarter algorithms which have extremely egoistic target functions.

    3. Re:I'm afraid of empty fearmongering. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My auto insurance premiums are based on my car, my area, and my record as a good driver. Auto insurance is a competitive market, and charging higher rates to someone for something unrelated to driving safety loses money. My health insurance is a group policy. If it wasn't, I suppose they could find something significant to my health from my postings, but that's unlikely to change the rates, which in many cases are set at group levels. I've already been denied life insurance for health reasons (depression), no internet required. If the insurance company wants to know something, they ask about it, and if they find out you've lied they don't pay out. I don't see what the downside is in showing me ads for things I'm interested in, although I haven't seen that work well yet. Selling appropriate meds to appropriate people does not strike me as being a catastrophe.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:I'm afraid of empty fearmongering. by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      I am not worried about anyone trying to sell me stuff I don't want.

      If the targeted ads reveal sensitive information about you, such as being pregnant, or even having a bad case of hemorrhoids, then there is cause to be concerned.

      I am not worried about my employer, insurance company or spouse finding out my browsing history, opinions or habits.

      So you don't care about possibly being passed up for advancement because who you voiced political support for. You're not concerned about the insurance cartel's placing you in a high-risk category or preemptively canceling your policy because you may develop a sudden and intense interest in certain types of diseases.

      I am mildly worried that my government will use my online behaviour against me.

      No offense intended, but perhaps you lack imagination. poor humor on facebook can brand you a felon.

      I am very worried that companies will use my behaviour to tint or change my world view by more precisely manipulating and tailoring my news feeds, search hits, education resources etc in order to achieve political or economic interests.

      I am terrified by the thought that this manipulation will inevitably be performed by ever smarter algorithms which have extremely egoistic target functions.

      There is every reason to expect this. Witness the destruction of Youtube as a free speech platform, the manipulation of search results for the purpose of 'inclusiveness', and Facebook's prior 'experiments' in manipulating users with selective news articles.

      Up next are turing-test capable bots that will be used to drive consensus. The efficiency in which new mantras infest the various echo chambers makes me wonder the extent in which this is already utilized.

    5. Re:I'm afraid of empty fearmongering. by dromgodis · · Score: 1

      I see that it is not obvious that my first three statements reflect my personal state only. I am a boring, not very controversial, rather transparent person who live in a pretty free country. Other people live under different conditions and they may (or should) fear those issues to a higher degree.

      Witness the destruction of Youtube as a free speech platform, the manipulation of search results for the purpose of 'inclusiveness', and Facebook's prior 'experiments' in manipulating users with selective news articles.

      I definitely share your concerns there. However, one should not mistake any social media platform for a free speech platform. As I see it, they are all driven by an agenda, and that agenda can change over time. Even the one that starts out with the ambition of free speech tend to digress when the free speech is not free in the right direction.

    6. Re:I'm afraid of empty fearmongering. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I am very worried that companies will use my behaviour to tint or change my world view by more precisely manipulating and tailoring my news feeds, search hits, education resources etc in order to achieve political or economic interests.

      Then don't let them? Or at least make it really hard for them, to the point that it's not worth their time. I've got an RSS feed, and I pull into it a wide variety of news feeds. I don't let someone curate that list for me. Now the individual news sites do that, but again, they don't do that to target me, because they can't - to them I look like an RSS aggregator. And by spreading my news between a dozen sites, theoretically I should be washing out a lot of the targeting.
       
      Similar with search - I tend to split my browsing up between a couple of different browsers, and I use a different search on each. My assumption is that these competitors don't share data, and don't have a good way to link me across browsers visiting different sites using different search engines even if they do share data.
       
      It doesn't mean it's impossible to try to track and manipulate me, but it's far more difficult than everyone who just gets their news from Facebook and Twitter.
       
      What you and I should both be afraid of, however, is that this will happen to 90%+ of the population, and their voices and choices will drown out ours. That's the really scary thing.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  7. Re:Fine by vux984 · · Score: 1

    rule 34. they will.

  8. Afraid? Alarmed? by taustin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The only thing to be afraid of or alarmed over is the possibility of getting caught doing something illegal, unethical, or otherwise with negative consequences if people find out you're doing it.

    Irritated, annoyed, miffed, yeah, sure, it's all those things. I make a point of avoiding companies to whatever degree I can, when they do things like that. But afraid? Alarmed? Hardly. Just another hand-wringing outrage monkey with a book to sell.

    1. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."

      Everyone has something to hide, even you.

    2. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >The only thing to be afraid of or alarmed over is the possibility of getting caught doing something illegal, unethical, or otherwise with negative consequences if people find out you're doing it.

      That's the least of the problems.

      The innocents on the no-fly list are a great example of what can go wrong.

    3. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by taustin · · Score: 1

      Since I've never written a book, what would I sign? Your man boobs?

    4. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by taustin · · Score: 1

      If there were fewer obstacles to all pervasive surveillance, perhaps it would be more accurate.

      Whatever problems exist, some hand-wringing outrage monkey with a book to sell using "GIVE ME MONEY OR YOU'LL DIE!!! AND DINGOS WILL EAT YOUR BABY!!! AND SOMEONE WILL KICK YOUR DOG!!!" isn't going to solve anything.

    5. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by jodido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very naive idea that only the guilty have something to fear. The cops don't care if you're "innocent" or "guilty"--witness the vast numbers of people in jail right now who are not guilty. They care about arrests and convictions and along with the prosecutors will use whatever means they have at their disposal to get a conviction on whoever they decide fits their idea of who's guilty.

    6. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unless you are doing something that small minded hateful people in positions of power don't want you to do.

      Like Boycott Israel over the ethnic cleansing it is doing in Palestine.

      WAKE UP.

    7. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by dromgodis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only thing to be afraid of or alarmed over is the possibility of getting caught doing something illegal, unethical, or otherwise with negative consequences if people find out you're doing it.

      What's legal, ethical and acceptable today may not be after the next election or revolution.

    8. Re: Afraid? Alarmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have coverage sir.

    9. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by erapert · · Score: 2

      I didn't speak out when they came for the Jews because I wasn't a Jew so I had nothing to hide...
      I didn't speak out when they started censoring all information about Tianamen Square because I wasn't Chinese...
      I didn't speak out when political dissidents were being doxed, harrassed, bullied, fired, fined, imprisoned and even executed because I wasn't a dissident or I didn't live in Thailand etc. ...
      I didn't speak out because I never expected such things to happen here in the glorious utopia of the West where we're all so far above all that petty nonsense because we're such perfect ubermensch and our politicians are sublimely moral...

    10. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I assume you will be returning the PC that you are currently using to post... after all the CPU was designed in Israel.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      "Give me 14 lines written by the most honest of men, and I shall find something (within) to hang them"

      *You* may have nothing to hide, but someone who is looking to hang you, *will* find something, even if it's made up.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    12. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This guy has clearly never been illegally surveilled for something he didn't do. As if the fucking law mattered one bit. Idiot.

    13. Re:Afraid? Alarmed? by dillee1 · · Score: 1

      They don't care who is guilty. They just want higher arrest / prosecution rate to improve crime stats to boost their career. To achieve that end they don't even care about your survival.
      TLDR; civilians are just expendables which they can maimed/killed for the lulz and used for their personal gain, without backfire.

  9. Re:Yep. And it's worse registering. by erapert · · Score: 1

    They know who you are and what sites you surf to. It's only the other people reading posts that you're "anonymous" to.

    Still, anonymous posting would help prevent random idle IRS agents from just finding you... or, more realistically, prevent random assholes from doxing you.

  10. Why is it wrong? by mi · · Score: 1

    This data is collected, compiled, analyzed, and used to try to sell us stuff.

    Frankly, I do not see, how this is automatically wrong.

    As long as I'm not prosecuted for visiting certain cites or posting certain comments...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Why is it wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Thought Police will be there shortly. Please put your hands in the yellow circles.

    2. Re:Why is it wrong? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      This data is collected, compiled, analyzed, and used to try to sell us stuff.

      Frankly, I do not see, how this is automatically wrong.

      As long as I'm not prosecuted for visiting certain cites or posting certain comments...

      How long do you suppose it would take for some authoritarian do-gooders to do exactly that?

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    3. Re:Why is it wrong? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      On it's face, there is nothing wrong with this and that's why they are able to keep going with it. But think about how the data never goes away, and eventually always gets out, and things start to loo a little darker.

      Consider if beer was made illegal this evening. Enforcement could trivially scan purchase histories of every American and find out who likes to drink beer every night and do something about it.

      What if LEO needs a scapegoat for some dirty action? It's pretty easy to find somebody that looks the part, and match up some online activity to look incriminating while considered against some dirty action. Even if you ARE a model citizen.

      You are a fine upstanding citizen today, but who knows what may change tomorrow? It truly is only a matter of time, and its almost already too late.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  11. Mesmerizing by david.g.holt · · Score: 1

    It is just phenomenal what the tech leaders have done on a global scale. Almost breath taking. I was there in 1999 when EVERYONE stood their ground. No way are they giving up their personal information to big brother. Orwell's 1984 references were an every day topic. "I'll live off grid before I sign up to MySpace (the social preference at the time)". Here we are a mere 18 yrs later, the entire globe are standing in line to give anyone whatever they ask so they can have access to the next popular thing. I have come to find out this is a generational change. Each generation will submit to giving up their privacy so they can be part of the crowd. Privacy won't even be an issue the next few years. Only us old farts living off the fat of the land will be safe from all the online scourge. Only to be spied on by a multitude of satellites and some future distance scanning devices. Where has all the aluminum foil hat folks gone?

    1. Re:Mesmerizing by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where has all the aluminum foil hat folks gone?

      They're all gone. The problem is, when you walk around with an aluminium foil hat all the time and you happen to have half a sandwich to store in the fridge for later, you just grab your hat and... then it's too late.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  12. Re:Already there by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    >>As a person with political opinions and a life philosophy considered "radical" by the mainstream

    You must be a really, really cool guy! I wish I knew bad hombres like you in real life!!

  13. The media LOVES the spying and leaking by zaphod · · Score: 1

    That's why they don't put privacy in the news. They get some great dirt on people thanks to the NSA,etc. and then turn around and report on it. Whatever you think about Trump, most of the Russia news came via leaks from government spy agencies. That should be concerning to everyone.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
  14. No fear here by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    I live in Canada, and all our documents are encoded in UTF-EH, making them incompatible with other systems on the planet.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  15. Re:Meh by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    everyone's done something illegal at some point or another; a TLA would just need to have the motivation to look hard enough to find it.

    That lack of motivation and interest is the only thing keeping you safe.

  16. Re:Yep. And it's worse registering. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    You just gave me an idea for a new detective TV show: Magnum I.P.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  17. It's worse than you think it is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I started using Tor for everything possible about two months ago, mainly because Comcast are such lying cunts.
    Guess what? Companies like Cloudflare punish you for using Tor, put up barriers, make it difficult or even impossible.
    Then there's websites themselves that detect you're on a Tor exit node, and block you completely.
    Then there's websites that just plain won't function, because your Tor exit node is in the wrong country. Try ordering a pizza from Dominos using Tor; you can't, it runs you in circles, always ending back at their corporate website.
    You can't use VPNs because you can't trust them to not collect data on your internet usage either.
    Using anonymous proxies? You may as well just hand over your data, in person, then bend over and accept being buggered with a smile.
    About the same time I started withdrawing some cash to pay for everything I buy in person with cash instead of plastic, so purchases can't be tracked. Unfortunately with cameras all over the goddamned place and facial recognition being cheap and easy think the best that does is make it more difficult for them.

    The only way to win this game is to not play. Stop using the Internet entirely. Paper bills mailed to you via USPS, then paper checks sent to pay them. Don't use cable or even satellite TV, get an antenna and watch free OTA broadcast. Redbox for DVDs/Bluray movies. Pay cash for your gas and groceries and whatever else you buy in person. Don't give out your phone number or real name when asked.

    Of course if you're an IT person you'll never get a job again. So it goes with many high-tech jobs. "What do you mean, you don't use the internet, have no social media, no email? LOL get out of here, next candidate please!". Reduce your 'Internet footprint' as much as possible. Use cash for things. Avoid paying with plastic. Don't use the Internet for anything you can use an alternative for instead. Tell people to not post pictures of you on social media or mention your name (real friends will comply; kick the rest to the curb for disrespecting your wishes). That's what you have to do if you want to maintain some level of privacy anymore. Good luck. :-/

  18. Re:Meh by Bodhammer · · Score: 1
    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  19. Re:Meh by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    As long as I haven't done anything illegal...

    You should know better than to think the "nothing to hide" routine is a legitimate argument. Besides the law is a farce, designed to enhance revenue and squash dissent. It can change like the weather.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. Why do you presume status quo? by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you think a totalitarian government that will use the data provided by these vendors as a means of culling the population as an impossible thing?

    You're ignoring the last 200 years of history, then. Imagine what 19th century monarchs or 20th century totalitarians might have done with such a treasure trove.

    Do you really think it will never happen again? Think again.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Why do you presume status quo? by mi · · Score: 1

      Do you think a totalitarian government that will use the data provided by these vendors as a means of culling the population as an impossible thing?

      It is possible, but improbable...

      You're ignoring the last 200 years of history, then.

      If you aren't wearing a bullet-proof armor 24x7, then you are ignoring 200 years of history of people shot by strangers and relatives alike...

      Point is, there is risk to everything... You need to show, the risk is big enough to justify sacrificing conveniences — and even rights — to alleviate it...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Why do you presume status quo? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Lacking that "treasure trove", totalitarians like Stalin and Mao went after entire ethnic/cultural groups or depended on informants. Do you think that's better?

    3. Re:Why do you presume status quo? by HBI · · Score: 1

      It made sniffing out the actual dissidents harder, certainly. The number of people within those nations willing to inform on their activities or performing acts of passive resistance are proof positive of that.

      Why would we want to make their job easier?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:Why do you presume status quo? by HBI · · Score: 1

      The risk is so high if the data collection is compromised to bad actors that it is worth sacrificing quite a lot to avoid the dragnet.

      You can evaluate based on your own desire to be a test case.

      Those who are too ignorant to see the risk probably aren't of interest anyway. In effect, they are right about themselves.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    5. Re:Why do you presume status quo? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Without those actual dissidents, we wouldn't know things like the actual contents of the KGB archives. We also wouldn't have known that the Soviets were bluffing during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Moreover, the Soviet Bloc would still exist if it weren't for them.

      There is a good reason to want dissidents. Making them easy to identify is stupid.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  21. Re:"Google has half of my email" by PPH · · Score: 1

    If you "can't because MY JAHHHHHHB requires blah blah"

    Now, now Hillary. Chill out.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  22. In Soviet Russia ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... Internet uses YOU!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  23. So far, ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... so good.

    The Internet tries to sell me stuff. So what? Most of it is stuff that I don't need. I just bought a fancy tool for rebuilding my car's engine. And NOW the ads pour in to sell me that tool. And if it's something I don't need, ignoring the ads is pretty easy. I don't feel pressured to buy useless shit.

    What I try to avoid (and have been successful so far) is to get pigeon-holed into a market segment that 'they' think has bundles of money. I'm a tight-wad who has an eye for value. So don't run out and slap that higher price tag on your shit when I come browsing your site. On the other hand, I'm an opinion leader in a wealthy and influential group. So having me seen driving one of your cars around will pay off in the end.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Re:Meh by thomn8r · · Score: 1

    As long as I haven't done anything illegal I'm unsure why my content viewing matters...

    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.

  25. it's not about criticable activities. by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    Your post carries a very surprising statement : that the risk on you is only if you do some criticable activities.
    (it also denotes a specific way of seeing life)
    Most of the people don't do criticable activities, so, as you say, there is no frightening around this.

    But they *buy* things on internet -so they can be stolen. (I personally was, twice)
    But they *publish* personal info on internet -so this can be used (you really are on holidays all next week, and you even published a picture of your front door with its GPS location? Really? And you have a friends subgroup specifically titled with your political preferences, over there in Gmail cloudy memory? Really?)

    And all of the above has nothing to see with criticable activities. We all have holidays.

    I, for one, believe these things are critical : I say critical, and not 'potentially dangerous', because it should be obvious the thing already happened.
    There is no need to consider some new laws -the opening *has* happened.
    What didn't happen yet is some government using it systematically.
    It's not new laws that we need, nor actually more prudence -it's way too late.

    What we need is think about how to behave when some powerful institution starts exploiting internet seriously.
    How to prepare ourselves.
    I have *very few* ideas, and I believe if we don't think about it, when we need it we won't react properly.

    --
    Herve S.
  26. Mostly Ok by Thyamine · · Score: 1

    If I get targeted ads, I'm ok with that. Seeing things that may actually be interesting or relevant is somewhat useful. It's not 'scary'. You go to sites, that gets saved in a database, people query the database. It's not some 'magical' or 'evil' thing occurring. Now if that information is curated and used by someone who has less capitalist plans for it (government, agencies, Someone Bad (TM)) then I get worried, and that is where the problem could be. We have no idea on who/when/how it's being accessed to complain or worry.

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    1. Re:Mostly Ok by DogDude · · Score: 1

      It's a lot more than targeted ads. Companies know where you go (and when), they know who you talk to, what you talk to other people about, etc. Virtually all details of your private life are being cataloged and archived every day.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  27. Re:Meh by gnick · · Score: 1

    To summarize Bodhammer's link:

    Does the average American unwittingly commit three felonies a day?

    No, but somebody wrote a book about it.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  28. If by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    You needed Snowden to point out the obvious, and you demand that nothing be known about you - you probably need to sell everything you own, tear up your credit cards, Social Security card, get rid of the car, then move to Idaho, on a horse and wagon, then become a subsistence farmer.

    The intertoobz and computers on it are inherently not secure. By nature and purpose, they are not secure. Security is the opposite of the internet's basic design. If you demand security, this ain't the place to get it.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  29. Got a proof yesterday... by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

    I googled something, eflite timber, checked some videos and rcgroups forum. 10 minutes later in my facebook feed I had an ad placement for the e-flite timber offered by some store...

    --
    "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:Got a proof yesterday... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Is that a bad thing or a good thing?
       
      I ask, because you were obviously interested in the product, and you're using Facebook's services which get paid for by advertisements. For them to pay the bills by offering you something you're interested in seems to be a win for everyone.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  30. Re:Meh by mikael · · Score: 1

    Look at that TV news reporter who rescued the USA flag from muddy flooded ground in Texas. That would get spun as "Man steals USA flag from residents garden in broad daylight in front of TV cameras".

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  31. Re:Meh by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

    So just because you don't have anything to say means you don't need the First Amendment? (I'm not saying your comment did or didn't add to the discussion. I meant it more "big picture.")

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.