
post
I always gotta love the “why do you refuse the cookies? The site might not work!”.
Sweety I need you to understand that I do not care whether or not the site works. If it doesn’t then it’s not worth my time.
Also I've hardly ever seen a site not work because I rejected the cookies.
Well there’s nonsense like the guardian (I think?) =>Accept our cookies or they become a paywall. But in general I think it’s a sentiment people have that comes from not understanding what cookies are.
Not a thing with the guardian
Also "I don't want to use an adblocker, I find tailored advertising very useful"
Yes I love my brain being hijacked by big tech.
I personally find it easier to use a separate browser for anything I don't need to be logged in for. It deletes all cookies when closed. No need to trust the untrustworthy.
arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
- Edward Snowden
"i have nothing to hide anyways"
"theyre tracking me anyways so it doesnt matter"
"i dont do anything illegal so i dont care if im being tracked"
these quotes make my blood boil
I've also heard
"I'm not important enough for anyone to care what I'm doing."
I'm like honey this shit is automated at population scale. You don't have to be important. You only have to be a human.
I've recently realized that people have no idea how algorithms work. It's also eye-opening when you realize how poorly educated many people are and how bad the literacy rates are.
I've tried as hard as I can to help people around me. They just don't get it. I've provided alternatives and told them they fund fascism when giving info away. I've been trying to help the "I have nothing to hide" club for 15 years now. It's just no use. I have failed to convince a single person.
I just go full anti tech, which people find ironic since I'm in the tech industry, and they poke fun at that
No matter what you do, no matter what you think or say, people will try their darnedest to poke holes at it
But what you *don't * do? That's pretty hard to poke holes at.
"I don't have a Facebook account" is a brickwall to the conversion. That way in their mind, it's not that I don't trust the company, it's that I don't even slightly value the product. I have a damn phone, I have to am required to_ pay for the damn phone. It has group chats. What is the value of Facebook again?
Marketplace? I buy everything brand new and keep it until it's dead
Doomscrolling? Bad habit, not interested
Family connections? I cut most of them off but maybe 4, who know to call/text
Now even thermostats are getting microphones and listening devices, which will absolutely be used to collect data on people from their homes see ecobees new TOS, and the new HoneyWell/ring camera integrations frankly I'm just done with the bullshit. I'm full blown get any phone home technology the fuck out of my house levels of done
But I don't say that when people ask why I changed my thermostat from the $400 Ecobee, which was a standout feature in my home when they walked in.
No. I say "their servers kept going down and causing issues when I needed it to work", because people who somehow manage to live without concerning themselves of targeted pricing or snooping practices do care about slight inconveniences, and for whatever reason "they changed their TOS to get people to agree to let them spy on them without legal reprecussions, and if you don't agree they'll lock you out of your account barring you from using half the stuff you paid to use" is less logical to their pre-occupied brains than "I got inconvenienced twice a year from down servers"
I just go full anti tech, which people find ironic since I'm in the tech industry, and they poke fun at that
It's funny, because they've managed to draw completely the wrong conclusion. You aren't anti-tech despite working in the tech industry, no - you're anti-tech because of working in the tech industry.
The first thing I ask for when buying new appliances is what the have that doesn't have WiFi or Bluetooth. I'm fucking done too!
It's by design. If 80 to 90% or more of people blindly agree to share their contacts and email then the rest of use are caught up in it every time we communicate with them.
You cannot both participate in mainstream social networks and communications platforms and have any real privacy.
I've heard you can ask those people, "if you have nothing to hide would you be OK with a camera in your shower? Recording you have sex?"
I like the saying that privacy is like cancer. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean its not vitally important to solve for society as a whole.
“if you have nothing to hide would you be OK with a camera in your shower?
I like, "OK! Please hand me your phone, unlocked. Let me have it for 24h. I'll give it back to you tomorrow. I won't harm it in any way. I will only look."
Or, "OK! What is your bank account number and password?"
I believe ppl know that everyone has something to hide. It's just an excuse they use.
And those are stupid arguments.
I mean everyone has a threat model. We are online they is giving up some privacy no matter how careful you are online.
That's par for the course my friend. But the response to these cliché statements is what can start to change perspectives! I like highlighting how Big Tech knows them better than they know themselves. Then get into how this means big tech has the ability to change how they view a topic based the specific search results. I then zoom out and explain how this happens for every user similar to them, as well as for every other "group" big tech classifies people under.
I often get something like "But what can we even do about it then?" in response, which more often than not, eventually leads to them admitting they're lazy and things are too convient to switch away from or stop using lol
I usually point out that they were the ones saying that their phones are listening to them and making changes to their instagram\shopping algorithm.
Whenever I hear the "only people with something to hide" comment I reply "oh? Then unlock your phone, hand it to me and leave the room." They always backtrack immediately.
This one is really good. I always say "then why do you have walls in your house" but it doesn't work that well.
Its wild, I remember when my first paycheck came in and a family member posted a picture of it to their social media........ with my name and all on there.
It also doesn't stop with privacy, I remember expressing my distaste for generative LLMs to the same person, and the first thing the next day they post in our discord is some shitty ai meme of me and asked if I liked it? All I said was "ah, I tell you I don't like LLM art and you upload my face to their database, pretty thoughtless of you." The comment went right through one ear out the other.
“There is, simply, no way, to ignore privacy. Because a citizenry’s freedoms are interdependent, to surrender your own privacy is really to surrender everyone’s.
You might choose to give it up out of convenience, or under the popular pretext that privacy is only required by those who have something to hide. But saying that you don’t need or want privacy because you have nothing to hide is to assume that no one should have, or could have to hide anything – including their immigration status, unemployment history, financial history, and health records.
You’re assuming that no one, including yourself, might object to revealing to anyone information about their religious beliefs, political affiliations and sexual activities, as casually as some choose to reveal their movie and music tastes and reading preferences.
Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Or that you don’t care about freedom of the press because you don’t like to read. Or that you don’t care about freedom of religion because you don’t believe in God. Or that you don’t care about the freedom to peaceably assemble because you’re a lazy, antisocial agoraphobe.
Just because this or that freedom might not have meaning to you today doesn’t mean that that it doesn’t or won’t have meaning tomorrow, to you, or to your neighbor – or to the crowds of principled dissidents I was following on my phone who were protesting halfway across the planet, hoping to gain just a fraction of the freedom that my country was busily dismantling.”
-- Edward Snowden
I don't talk about privacy with normies. If they bring it up, I'm happy to discuss.
I think privacy is very slowly becoming more mainstream and a large part of that is thanks to google. Installing "ai" on devices, deleting peoples' accounts, making installing non-play store apps more difficult, will ultimately encourage more people to degoogle their lives.
Because AIs don’t need salaries, don’t unionize, can work 24/7.
For some tasks, AI has already completely obsoleted humans. An AI can write a shitty PR filled newsletter faster and cheaper than a human. It keeps getting better at certain tasks, like programming.
All AI companies want to be the one that controls the best AI. Because if they do, then other companies will pay them to rent out AIs for cheaper than human labor.
Companies fear falling behind. So they dump loads of money into AI. And currently, investors like hearing about AI. So the more companies say and push AI, it increases investment into the company.
It’s way more insidious. “AI” is very much LLMs, or Large language Models. The one thing they excel at is ingesting large amounts of text and summarizing, or looking for key points, as directed, and sometimes with non-exact directions.
Large amounts of text, like your browsing history, your personal cloud-stored files, your chats and messages your email. Your taxes. Your bank records. Your not-yet filed patents. Your medical research. Your political donations. Your protest plans. Your sources for the journalism you are doing.
At scale, society-wide. Zoom back and predict the markets overall sentiment. Zoom in down to a single “undesirable”.
All that “it’ll do human creative jobs you have to pay so much for, and if you reduce headcount you’ll get a nice bonus” is for all the short-thinking middle management and vapid C-levels to get suckered by the Mechanical Turk show into think they’ll get a bonus this quarter by putting all their sensitive information on someone else’s computer.
And once their IT staff is minimized and hardware is out of reach, you have achieved vendor lock-in.
And it’s absolutely incredible how literally everyone seems to have fallen for this shiny turd.
I mean cmon, “Palantir”? They were literally created for this purpose.
If you happen to want to know more on why, there are 2 podcasts that talk about this on a very regular basis:
- Deep Questions with Cal Newport - super chill guy that every week has an episode on ai reality check. Usually explains quite at length why something is happening on ai why is factual or not
- Better offline - Ed can be quite opinionated and sometimes borderline ranty, but he also tends to breakdown stuff like financial numbers on ai investment and why (or why not) you should break those down.
I think thatsa great description of Zitron. His editorial style initially turned me off but he is thorough and shows his sources for the factual sides of his arguments.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I read that only 3% of companies using "ai" saw a return on investment. Companies started re-hiring the humans because the "ai" turns out to be shit. We can't even produce the power to run these models at scale.
It's interesting working in the field as a non technical. We talk all day about data security but my homelab has more observability than half the enterprises I speak with. And they all know. And they never have the budget.
It's literally the first scene of fight club all day erryday in infosec. If the cost of the recall is less than the prevention, not worth it to them.
Yeah. no. "Normies" love AI everything. They definitely don't install apps from outside the Play store either.
Only thing that bugs them from this list is the deletion of accounts. Unfortunately they'll happily hand over ID and other things to get it back, or just create a new account on the same site.
Source: Experience.
Nice resource that goes over the main objections to people who don't value there own privacy:
https://blog.rebeltechalliance.org/common-objections-debunked/
I think people reject that it's as bad as they're told because that don't like to believe it's that bad, or that there's no way companies would do that to them. People don't accept being told "you're making a big mistake" and to feel dumb about it.
That's my take. I had somebody at work ask what I do regarding privacy and I realized I lit up with excitement to share and had to immediately dial it back to not freak them out. I started out small and simple and emailed them since basics after chatting. Said, if they wanted additional info let me know " so that it's up to them to continue the journey (down the rabbit hole lol).
But just glad to see others gaining the knowledge. My journey wasn't immediate, it's gradual, so I have to be mindful of their process too.
Yeah if I talk about how everything is routed through VPN people just assume I'm deep into porn or worse.
Well, there's a new War On VPNs starting (ugh). If the Forces of Enshittification prevail, we could see them banned in more countries. And not just the usual suspects either. The idea is being pushed in several US states, in the UK, and maybe(?) the Aussies? It's being fought in all those ofc. But I'm afraid the political momentum for bans will build and build.
My hope is, that Canada will be chill and not follow the rest of us off a cliff. Come on, Canada! You're our best hope!
I don't see how they ban it though. I could surely just buy a VPS somewhere where it is allowed and then route through a VPN from there?
Well they have ways to make it very hard. China, Russia, and some other countries already block VPNs. Sure it's not 100% ironclad. But it doesn't have to be. They want to block the big majority. If 1% finds a way around, it was still effective.
There are technical ways, like DPI based blocking of the protocols. There are ways to bypass that, sure, but you lost most ppl already.
Then there are social ways. Make the risk too high if you're caught. Ppl will be afraid to try.
I do not think the US, EU, Aus are close to that extreme yet. Not tryin to say this is right around the corner. But other countries already have done these things. It is possible we could see those measures in the future.
Sure, but the general populace has no idea that that's possible or how to set anything like that up.
The really creepy one is stuff like 23andme where your genealogy obsessed extended family all does it and now they can statistically estimate your genome from your known family history and it’s all in a database for sale and Trump’s DOJ is likely buying
Yeah absolutely. My friend asked if i wanted to go to a palestine protest... over sms. Told him I wont talk about politiical activity over insecure means. On his part he did agree at least... but then refused to download signal
On situations like this, redirect the people to recent incidents that prove the point. The last typhoon attacks on the USA make super clear on how brittle the network infrastructure can be, but also how insecure some legacy protocols are. EDIT: also the odido data leak on the Netherlands also proves a lot this point as well.
It's good to be conscious about these things, but it's also important to have a correct analysis of the threat level.
Do you have a good reason to believe authorities might be monitoring your phone specifically out of the hundreds of millions of people the could pick from? They don't have the capacity to monitor every single phone or conversation. They will have their own threat analysis and only put you under that type of surveillance if you are or if you have the potential to become an active threat to them.
If you just go about your life minding your business then you can be certain the feds aren't reading your sms.
It's true that better safe than sorry, but at the same time you can't let safety paralyse you and stop you from acting.
Yeah i see that.
im fine if the gov knowing i went to that protest. Im proud to attach my face to it. However comms over sms becomes an issue when we decide to go to an illegal protest, which will become more and more of an issue over the next decade, at least in my country.
So by establishing the general rule of secure communications for political activism, i hopefully avoid a friend making the blunder of sending a photo/talking about a protest that was explicitely said to be illegal and punishable by a fine or worse.
If you just go about your life minding your business then you can be certain the feds aren’t reading your sms.
Until you show up at (or even just walk by) a Palestine protest, and then you're on the list and your text messages are fair game.
That's true, I'm not saying that never happens. I'm just saying one should evaluate the likelihood of something happening, not just the risk itself, or you might end up depriving yourself of useful experiences and interactions, de facto letting the feds win without even actually doing anything.
Again even in that case I would ask myself, why would they pick me out of the other million people that were at the same march?
Unfortunately the line between safety and self-destroying paranoia, isn't that thick.
Remember that woman who was arrested because her phone indicated she was at a house that was burgled at exactly that time? Police just do a dragnet. Turns out she just drove by the house as it was happening.
In the above example, imagine someone did an anti Israel terror attack in the area. Everyone mentioning such things will be found via dragnet searches and who knows if you just happen to have been nearby when it happened while also making suspicios SMS messages.
Dragnets are profoundly likely to catch innocent people. Protect yourself from them however you can. That should be in everyone's threat model.
Do you have a good reason to believe authorities might be monitoring your phone specifically out of the hundreds of millions of people the could pick from?
they don't have to monitor any specific phone. that would be like, collecting the info but throwing away most of it. if they are doing something, they are monitoring at the provider level.
They don't have the capacity to monitor every single phone or conversation.
it does not take much processing power to search in SMS messages as they are sent. that's just very small plain text messages.
phone calls would be different, but unless it's volte, processing is easier than transmission, because of the very low bitrate.
If you just go about your life minding your business
"minding your business" means not protesting to leave a foreign country in peace. from a point of view, it's not our business.
"Capacity" doesn't merely regard hardware. Right now in the US, the number of active LE officers is outnumbered 400 to 1. Meaning each police officer/FBI agent would have to keep an eye on 400 people at a time to get to the kind of surveillance state that many think is already here (it's not). The situation is similar if not worse in the rest of the western world. The UK is seeing record low numbers of LE officers, so low that the government changed the law few years ago to allow people with face tatoos in the force lol.
They do monitor individual "Profiles" when they have justifiable reasons for it. Monitoring aprofile can include everything, phone monitoring, social media monitoring, physical monitoring. But again, you must have been cause of serious worry for them to start such investigations on you.
In most cases simply attending a protest, which is protected by the constitution, would not amount to that kind of surveillance, even for the simple fact of lack of officers to monitor every attendant to the protest.
Again I'm not saying this stuff doesn't happen. It does happen, sometimes officers can pick on you and make stuff up to justify it, the use of AI models for this type of operations is gonna makes things worse for sure, and the way trump is using ICE as his personal paramilitary group also doesnt help, but we are still very very far for that Orwell's 1984 type of surveillance, merely from a technology and capacity standpoint.
Right now the people that are monitoring every single of your actions are big tech, not police or governments. And what I'm arguing is simply that safety should not come at the cost of action. Because that's also how they get you, either by arresting you or by making you so afraid that you won't rise up against them. They win in both cases.
I speak for me personally now when I say that even though I'm a privacy advocate, my priority is to try make change even at the cost of putting myself in risky situations, that's actually why I am a privacy advocate. It's not a tool I use to hide from the system, it's a tool I use to keep myself safe as I go against the system.
Right now in the US, the number of active LE officers is outnumbered 400 to 1. Meaning each police officer/FBI agent would have to keep an eye on 400 people at a time to get to the kind of surveillance state
that's silly. nobody is watching your messages scroll by on a screen. its mostly automated.
They do monitor individual "Profiles" when they have justifiable reasons for it. Monitoring aprofile can include everything, phone monitoring, social media monitoring, physical monitoring. But again, you must have been cause of serious worry for them to start such investigations on you.
like being a "terrorist": a peaceful protester for peace in Palestine. they are detaining people for attending those protests.
but we are still very very far for that Orwell's 1984 type of surveillance, merely from a technology and capacity standpoint.
we already have the technological capacity.
Again. Reading a message is just a minuscule, and not even the most important part, of the process of surveillance. The infrastructure necessary to implement something like this is a lot larger than just the software and hardware necessary to automate data collection.
And no, that infrastructure MOST DEFINITELY DOES NOT have the capacity to monitor everyone or even everyone who attended a protest. This is just a fact. The courts themselves would not have enough capacity.
Why do they not arrest every single participant then? You think everyone that doesn't get arrested is because they use signal and all of those that got arrested used WhatsApp? That's just disingenuous.
The technology exists, infrastructure not yet.
It’s genuinely baffling. My spouse is not a very bright guy and sees zero issue with all of our online erosion of privacy, saying all the age verification stuff going on is completely irrelevant and you can just lie about your age so it will never be a problem in the future either… it drives me crazy how short sighted it is
I told my partner that when there is nowhere I can go online without an ID is the day the net gets turned off in our house. She agreed, though I think she doesn't think I'll go through with it
You are becoming one of these "privacy weirdos" as some think. Fighting for own privacy and using all means to keep it in tact is a lonely battle. Its tough to find someone irl who share the same values. It looks like everybody just got into the same train and go with the flow. For them you are disruption, something uncommon, strange.
It is worse than that. They often share your information directly, or initiate services that require your participation, and of course you must prove who you are to do so.
No the one that pisses me off are the people who understand that computers take effort and the only way to fix that is to have an organization that takes care of that effort for you.
For example to replace discord your only options are: Corporate shit Startups which are a few extra users away from IPO'ing into corporate shit Something open source selfhosted
I get why normal folk don't wann self host. What I can't stand is the complaints about using other peoples self hosted servers because you can't be fucked to remember more than two URLs/passwords as if your browser doesn't have bookmakers and you don't have a password manager.
Like fuck sure, its cool you don't want to do system administration. But the only way an extra site is inconvenient is if you're incapable of the computer equivalent of wiping your own ass.
These are young anticapitalist, chronically online queers I'm talking about too.
If they're not willing nobody is and its fucking soul crushing to know.
These are young anticapitalist, chronically online queers I’m talking about too.
Right! They already are familiar with being on the fringes of "normal" society, and have a lot more to gain than a "normie" from protecting their privacy, and yet they just can't be bothered because "Matrix is too clunky" or "I just really like playing Overwatch". My eyes can't roll hard enough.
Many Marxist groups literally use spyware like WhatsApp to organise. I just don't get it.
Why? They have their creature comforts and platform challenges. Dismissal is elitism, and closes off the movement.
I don't dismiss people for using malicious software products. I just struggle to understand how they can have their eyes so open about so many things but refuse to look at this particular issue.
Is it elitist to think bad UX is a smaller problem than core political ideology, especially for a group of people who're far more computationally literate/flexible than at leas 75% of the population.
Some of these people are tech workers for fuck sake. It would be elitism if these where people without much experience around computers. Its not elitism of people are just choosing not to put effort into shit they claim matters deeply to them.
For as much as your average American loves big government conspiracies, and harping about other people violating the sanctity of their property, they have absolutely no actual privacy and security sense
Agree. One thing that I've noticed is that if it's about social media I say I "had to delete it for mental health, that shit is so bad for you", and generally get a much more receptive response than when I explain it's primarily for privacy and that I don't trust them with my data.
Though Zuck and others are making it way easier to point out how creepy their platforms are, so that becomes a good entrypoint re: privacy also.
The one I'm thinking of specifically recently is the revelation by Indian subcontractors that META was lying about their Rayban smart glasses having private mode that would not recording in private areas you set like bathroom, shower, in bed etc.. And in fact it had sent tens of thousands of videos of people nude or fucking to the Indian subcontractors.
METAs response? Fire them, admit nothing. Lol. That's some grossss shit that even normies want nothing to do with.
METAs response? Fire them, admit nothing. Lol. That’s some grossss shit that even normies want nothing to do with.
but for as long as normies attention spans are directed here. firing them helps diminish the attention and usually works.
If you think you have nothing to hide, imagine pooping with the bathroom door open all of the time.
I thought you were going in a different direction (Even without a Facebook account, Meta has your contact info because they scanned your friend's phone) but both are true. I've had similar conversations about it and privacy is not a value most people think is worth standing for. The convenience always outweighs what, for them, is a non-issue.
Look, you might be saying it's the fault of people around you, but look at what you're doing here, you give out your real name without a second thought, Mr. Robot.
;)
Same issue with DNA tests. I tried to choose not to hand over my DNA so freely but my sister already did it. I didn’t get a choice in the matter.
Most of us have been trying to educate the boomers since the beginning of the internet. Curiously, some people have become more receptive to security since the rise of techno fascism and scam calls. I've convinced several to use a vpn.
I agree, there is government policies and social policies, both supports the use of big tech and forces it into your home.

top 98 comments