You're viewing a single thread.
Stupid question: What exactly are the dangers being implied here? I have accounts with all of these services although I don't use all of them. I know that they are using and selling my personal information, is there more? I have ways of doing things in private when I need and I'm aware that using these services has no expectations of absolute privacy.
Privacy = freedom. If you don't have privacy, or to the extent you don't have privacy, you are in proportion not free.
It seems to me this is the trade off we are all figuring out how to make. For example, I've considered not having a cell phone at all, but then I find it almost impossible to get a job, or operate in the economy. So I use a custom privacy ROM. I have no illusions that this is perfect, but at least a step in the right direction.
I think the most practical answer is to gain knowledge of the situation, and limit our attack surface. I don't think there's any silver bullets, unless you want to live like the Amish (which, doesn't sound like a bad idea, either. If that's what you want and you can do it, go for it.)
what do you mean by free? if total privacy means i can’t have a phone or talk to most people then does that really make me more free?
i agree that privacy is important, but i think this is fundamentally a legislative problem. there’s only so much that can be done at the individual level without making massive sacrifices and dedicating a serious amount of time to it. i have a vpn, i use content blockers, etc. but i think its too simplistic to say more privacy = more free.
one of the other commenters mentioned the thing about having someone looking in while you’re watching tv. but if the only solution is to go live in the woods, is it really worth it?
if total privacy means i can’t have a phone or talk to most people then does that really make me more free?
I have a phone; it runs GrapheneOS; I'm using it type this. I have attempted, in total, to get five of my friends and my own mother to talk to me on Signal. I have, so far, succeeded at getting four out of the five friends and my own mother to talk to me on Signal. That's five out of six; I would call that being able to talk to most people.
what do you mean by free?
If you're asking me personally, pretty much that. If you're asking someone way smarter than me, pretty much that.
People should be able to pick up the phone and call their family. People should be able to send a text message to their loved one. People should be able to buy a book online, they should be able to travel by train, they should be able to buy an airline ticket without wondering how these events are going to look.. To an agent of the government, possibly not even your government. Years in the future, how they're going to be misinterpreted and what they're going to think your intentions. We have a right to privacy.
—Edward Snowden
if total privacy means i can’t have a phone or talk to most people then does that really make me more free?
Yes, and it's totally based if you do this. Our gadgets don't really makes us more free. At least not with how they're currently used. Everyone is disconnected from nature, sunsets, each other, and more. When's the last time you saw a concert? Everyone is staring at their phones and not even enjoying the moment they're in. Many are depressed and drowning in meaninglessness. When we look at old pictures of beaches from the 90s (not even that old) everyone appears physically fit, bright, and happy. Did our gadgets really make us any more free, or happy?
but if the only solution is to go live in the woods, is it really worth it?
Yes.
it seems like you’re blaming all of societies problems on technology. surely there must be more to it than that, right? the lack of fitness for example may be due to increasing grocery costs, the rise of fast food, the cost of living crises, and/or many other economical/sociological factors.
i just really don’t understand your argument here. you’re conflating the concept of “privacy” (the original topic of the conversation) with “all of our gadgets” and the effects of those gadgets. i don’t see anything in your comment that’s related to privacy.
and do you honestly think you’ll find more meaning by living in the woods? if so, why haven’t you done it?
it seems like you’re blaming all of societies problems on technology.
We are talking about technology, and privacy. And I'm answering your questions. I'm no one special, and I don't have all the answers. Just because you and I are talking about this specific topic doesn't mean that's all I care about. Respectfully, what a silly thing to say.
and do you honestly think you’ll find more meaning by living in the woods? if so, why haven’t you done it?
Again, I'm no one special. But I that's exactly what I'm doing. Because I wouldn't offer any advice that I myself wouldn't be willing to follow. We sold our property in the city and purchased acreage on the countryside, are raising animals, and planting a garden this year. It's great. Humanity needs more experiences like this that are in harmony with nature and natural living, and less in the dull, gray brutalist, dehumanizing cityscapes we've created.
you’re conflating the concept of “privacy” (the original topic of the conversation) with “all of our gadgets” and the effects of those gadgets.
Right. Because there's nothing inherently wrong with gadgets. But our modern gadgets are purpose-built to be addictive, monopolize our attention and time, and invade our privacy. I believe these are all interrelated.
Everyone is disconnected from nature,
I live in a city. Me being "disconnected" from nature has nothing to do with my phone. It's a personal choice to live as mosquito-free a life as I can. (Also I just genuinely enjoy living in a city.)
sunsets
What are you even on about? There's one every day.
each other
Literally the opposite of truth. Modern technology allows me to stay in contact with people I'd be unable to stay in touch with otherwise.
And more. When's the last time you saw a concert?
January.
Everyone is staring at their phones and not even enjoying the moment they're in.
Yeah, because my fucking commute would be so much more enjoyable if I spent it staring into the distance and/or at the other people on the train.
Many are depressed and drowning in meaninglessness.
And you think that's somehow a new development? I mean, I guess you don't have time to think about life if you spend every waking minute just trying to survive as a hunter-gatherer but I wouldn't call that better.
When we look at old pictures of beaches from the 90s (not even that old) everyone appears physically fit, bright, and happy. Did our gadgets really make us any more free, or happy?
Because as a general rule people don't take pictures of unhappy moments. Especially not when taking pictures is actually expensive, film wasn't cheap and neither was getting it developed.
but if the only solution is to go live in the woods, is it really worth it?
Yes.
Fuck no. I don't enjoy literally everything that's associated with living alone (and a small group with limited-at-best contact with the outside world counts as "alone" as far as I'm concerned, I enjoy meeting people) in the wilderness.
You seem to think that because you'd enjoy life as a hermit in the woods everyone would. No. No, we would not.
I like to compare that to a stranger looking through your window while you sit on your couch watching TV.
There is no harm if the stranger knows how often you scratch your butt or what other information he gathers. But we still would put the afford in preventing that Espionage.
The thing about the collection of data online is you don't know what's happening to it.
Will radical groups buy information to categorize people into groups of enemies. Will it lead to false positives during a law enforcement investigation because they subpoena some cunk of information which contained yours.
This is of course an extravaganted worst case. But it won't get better during capitalism and enchitification.
Some are selling your data, some are using it internally. Beyond that who knows