Privacy? No such thing.

[fisicx]

You can use a secure browser, go incognito, have tracking blockers, refuse all cookies and keep away from social media but it's all for nowt.

They can still follow everything you do. Have read of this:

Online tracking is alive and well in link decoration

The pending death of third-party cookies won't do much for other privacy intrusions

www.theregister.com

And if you use Chrome it's even worse. Google is going to track you anyway because of a thing called Topics:

EFF urges Chrome users to get out of the Privacy Sandbox

Google says Topics warning is anti-innovative fearmongering

www.theregister.com

Use Brave. It gives a fighting chance of some privacy.

 

[Kerwin]

Use Tails, Tor and GnuPG and you'll be pretty safe compared to the options you linked.

 

[WaveJumper]

Very interesting articles thanks for posting @fisicx

 

[fisicx]

Use Tails, Tor and GnuPG and you'll be pretty safe compared to the options you linked.

Agree. But your average punter won’t even know about these. Getting them off of Chrome is already hard enough.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

You what is it you lot are trying to hide exactly?

 

[Nico Albrecht]

They can still follow everything you do. Have read of this:

Use Brave. It gives a fighting chance of some privacy.

Agree. But your average punter won’t even know about these. Getting them off of Chrome is already hard enough.

Blocking at the highest level, like a browser, in the name of privacy seems counterintuitive. This article appears to lack credibility, and Brave's security features may not be as robust as claimed. Their caching approach opens up a potential vulnerability for tracking purposes. Given your allegiance to the Mac ecosystem, it might be more concerning to consider the API calls made by Apple in iOS and macOS, which send encrypted user interaction data back to their servers. They ask for trust, but provide little information about how they handle the data they collect. In my opinion, privacy safeguards should begin several layers down, starting at the ISP and operating system level, rather than at the final stage.


for the rest " NSA warrantless surveillance in 2000 onwards comes to my mind. Whats the point when all the big cloud , social media and tech companies are plastered with seats of former CIA generals on their boards.

 

[LPB 123]

You can use a secure browser, go incognito, have tracking blockers, refuse all cookies and keep away from social media but it's all for nowt.

They can still follow everything you do.

Why do people care about being tracked though by Google etc? Is there actually any legimate reason people care so much?

You what is it you lot are trying to hide exactly?

THIS

 

[eteb3]

Why do people care about being tracked though by Google etc? Is there actually any legimate reason people care so much?

Do you close your curtains at night? Or are you happy to have people watch you 24/7? The need for privacy is basic human psychology. One reason why prison is a punishment.

People do increasingly seem to be happy to be watched - witness floor-to-ceiling plate glass walls in the "best" apartments. But it seems even the buyers of those apartments have limits.

Tate Modern: Flat owners win viewing platform privacy case

Residents took legal action saying visitors were looking into their homes from the viewing platform.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[fisicx]

It’s not Google tracking you, it’s everyone tracking you and then selling your data to everyone else.

It’s you investigating a medical condition which combined with your location and social profile means a company in the USA can now start bombarding you with marketing junk.

Even if your elderly parents don’t have a Facebook account, Meta knows all about them because of your online actions.

 

[eteb3]

It’s you investigating a medical condition which combined with your location and social profile means a company in the USA can now start bombarding you with marketing junk.

... and another company in the USA can refuse you medical insurance (despite laws to the contrary).

 

[Kerwin]

It’s not Google tracking you, it’s everyone tracking you and then selling your data to everyone else.

It’s you investigating a medical condition which combined with your location and social profile means a company in the USA can now start bombarding you with marketing junk.

I think the point about medication and medical conditions is one of the most important ones. Do you want random companies all over the world to know your medical status?

 

[fisicx]

... and another company in the USA can refuse you medical insurance (despite laws to the contrary).

Which is why privacy is important.

As has been said many times, if something is free it’s because you are the product. Every time you follow someone on social media, that data is being collected by someone and sold to someone else. And you have no idea who.

 

[eteb3]

Let's not even think about what happens when an AI crawls over the data, including data its handlers have no idea that it's found. The Chinese model of governance is going to be replicable pretty quickly.

 

[fisicx]

Install ghostery on your browser and see just how many people are tracking everything you do.

 

[Kerwin]

Let's not even think about what happens when an AI crawls over the data, including data its handlers have no idea that it's found. The Chinese model of governance is going to be replicable pretty quickly.

I've been using AI tools quite a bit recently. ChatGPT, DALL-E 3 and Github Copilot and have to say they are amazing. Well worth the £34 a month they cost.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

Facebook account, Meta knows all about them because of your online actions.

Of course it does those those things. Facebook is a cia project derived from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog?wprov=sfla1

 

[DontAsk]

It’s not Google tracking you, it’s everyone tracking you and then selling your data to everyone else.

US politicians went apeshit over Tiktok and how all their data is being sent to the Chinese. On the other hand they steadfastly refuse to enact any meaningful privacy laws. Any data the Chinese want, they can buy on the open market, as do the US government, from myriad data brokers.

 

[LPB 123]

Do you close your curtains at night? Or are you happy to have people watch you 24/7? The need for privacy is basic human psychology. One reason why prison is a punishment.

People do increasingly seem to be happy to be watched - witness floor-to-ceiling plate glass walls in the "best" apartments. But it seems even the buyers of those apartments have limits.

Tate Modern: Flat owners win viewing platform privacy case

Residents took legal action saying visitors were looking into their homes from the viewing platform.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not the same thing though is it?

It’s you investigating a medical condition which combined with your location and social profile means a company in the USA can now start bombarding you with marketing junk.

So is the biggest concern is being bombarded with marketing junk?

 

[eteb3]

Not the same thing though is it?

How is it not?

One reason we value privacy (maybe the only reason) is that we need it for our autonomy.

A business maximises its freedom to negotiate by minimising the information it gives to its counter-parties. A police state reduces the freedom of its citizens by collecting as much private information about them as it can possibly get. Companies with data about us reduce our freedom to navigate online by showing us only what they want us to see.

Strangers who can see when you row with your wife, when you replace your 100" TV with a 20" one, etc, know better how to take advantage of you. It looks like exactly the same thing to me.

 

[Ian J]

Strangers who can see when you row with your wife, when you replace your 100" TV with a 20" one, etc, know better how to take advantage of you. It looks like exactly the same thing to me.

What an odd analogy. I close my curtains so that burglars wandering past casing up houses can't see what I have worth stealing and working out how best to do it

 

[eteb3]

I close my curtains so that burglars wandering past casing up houses can't see what I have worth stealing

I don't like other people seeing what I get up to with my wife. But that's maybe another story.

 

[fisicx]

So is the biggest concern is being bombarded with marketing junk?

No it’s a lot more insidious than that. It’s about the control of of your life by commercial organisations. As already suggested, one effect is insurance companies refusing cover because they have access to medical information collated by tracking your online actions.

 

[LPB 123]

How is it not?

Because companies knowing what I get up to online and being able target me with ads based on that information is in no way to same as strangers having a physical view inside my house? They seem very different to me.

No it’s a lot more insidious than that. It’s about the control of of your life by commercial organisations. As already suggested, one effect is insurance companies refusing cover because they have access to medical information collated by tracking your online actions.

The majority of the population won't be using American Insurance companies for their health care as suggested, so shouldn't be an issue?

Surely there's got to be more of a threat than this for people to be as concerned as they are?

 

[eteb3]

Surely there's got to be more of a threat than this for people to be as concerned as they are?

There's the completely real threat that governments will use (are using) the data to predict and control the actions of people who've done nothing to give any government a right to do that.

But never mind that. Imagine you go shopping in an arcade. The owners have formed a cooperative to spy on you. They know you're flying to New York in 12 hours' time, that you recently inherited a tidy sum, that you have relationship troubles, and that your girlfriend likes designer handbags. As you approach the luggage shop the assistants quickly hide all their cheaper models. You ask for something more basic (you just read a news article on American crime levels). While one goes out the back "to have a look", their colleague takes a call "from a friend" and loudly whispers that they're leaving their boyfriend because he's so stingy. Surprise, surprise, they don't have any cheaper bags. But as luck would have it, they have "just started offering" travel insurance. For an extra premium it will even cover New York! We're closing early today, sir, didn't we mention? We'll have to hurry you. Credit card? Thank you.

You think you chose freely, but it was all set up just for you. Market failure through information asymmetry.

You don't mind that?

 

[fisicx]

The majority of the population won't be using American Insurance companies for their health care as suggested, so shouldn't be an issue?

Same with UK insurance.

Surely there's got to be more of a threat than this for people to be as concerned as they are?

It's a much bigger threat than this. Political targeting for example. Where they use SM to influence you based on your online activities.

Or how about facial recognition where you would be prevented from entering a building because you have been targeted - often incorrectly.

Or you get a visit from a social worker to remove your children because they are monitoring what you do and say online.

There are many academical studies on how your data is being used without your consent.

 

[LPB 123]

Same with UK insurance.

It's a much bigger threat than this. Political targeting for example. Where they use SM to influence you based on your online activities.

Or how about facial recognition where you would be prevented from entering a building because you have been targeted - often incorrectly.

Or you get a visit from a social worker to remove your children because they are monitoring what you do and say online.

There are many academical studies on how your data is being used without your consent.

I take your point about political targeting. Doesn't affect me personally as don't use SM but can see how this is a clear downside.

I am fully happy with facial recognition. Yes there may be cases of mistaken identity but overall I think it would reduce crime greatly so I'm all for it. I know my wife would feel immensely safer if every street had cameras and facial recognition on it.

Again with social services, surely this would solve more crime and potential crimes than removing children unnecessarily?

 

[eteb3]

I am fully happy with facial recognition. Yes there may be cases of mistaken identity but overall I think it would reduce crime greatly so I'm all for it. I know my wife would feel immensely safer if every street had cameras and facial recognition on it.

I lived in a police state in the Middle East for a while. As far as I could tell there was next to no crime anywhere, because multiple intelligence services knew everything that was going on.

Instead there was pandemic corruption and unspeakably vicious abuse of power. That's because informational power allows a government to
(1) prevent crime (yay!)
(2) prevent anything else they choose to dislike (such as expressions of less than undying love for the president, even in private conversation) and
(3) charge wealthier citizens for not acting on the information they've acquired.

Put not our trust in princes.

EDIT: so it's the non-mistaken identity you really want to worry about.

 

[ctrlbrk]

The majority of the population won't be using American Insurance companies for their health care as suggested, so shouldn't be an issue?

?

Some of the naivety expressed on here sometimes is hilarious.

A mate of mine works in London for a well-known insurer. He works in security and is quite senior.

He told me that the insurer in question regularly checks people's FB profile as a matter of practice to come up with accurate quotes.

 

[LPB 123]

I lived in a police state in the Middle East for a while. As far as I could tell there was next to no crime anywhere, because multiple intelligence services knew everything that was going on.

Instead there was pandemic corruption and unspeakably vicious abuse of power. That's because informational power allows a government to
(1) prevent crime (yay!)
(2) prevent anything else they choose to dislike (such as expressions of less than undying love for the president, even in private conversation) and
(3) charge wealthier citizens for not acting on the information they've acquired.

Put not our trust in princes.

EDIT: so it's the non-mistaken identity you really want to worry about.

In my opinion that's an argument for how more surveillance can be abused and clearly there would need to be laws around what can and cant be done etc.

It's not an argument to not have it all. You have put across your points well though and will think about them

 

[LPB 123]

?

Some of the naivety expressed on here sometimes is hilarious.

A mate of mine works in London for a well-known insurer. He works in security and is quite senior.

He told me that the insurer in question regularly checks people's FB profile as a matter of practice to come up with accurate quotes.

As advised, I don't use SM.

 

[ctrlbrk]

EDIT: so it's the non-mistaken identity you really want to worry about.

This conclusion sounds like you would legitimise increased scrutiny, because "it's all for the common good but mostly to catch the bad guys" (the typical politician's refrain).

The Tories keep going on about breaking encryption algos and they have been at it for years.

You always need to balance public order and citizens' right to privacy.

As advised, I don't use SM.

Thinking that this is somebody else's problem is a slippery slope.

 

[Ian J]

A mate of mine works in London for a well-known insurer. He works in security and is quite senior.

He told me that the insurer in question regularly checks people's FB profile as a matter of practice to come up with accurate quotes.

How does that work then as it took me ages to find the FB profile of my ex wife and I had the advantage of knowing what she looks like

 

[fisicx]

As advised, I don't use SM.

Maybe, but SM knows all about you and is selling all the data they are collecting. They are called ghost profiles and are being used for all sorts of things. None of which you will ever know about.

 

[ctrlbrk]

@fisicx is right, unfortunately.

@LPB 123 even if you don't use social media, FB, LinkedIn and the like know who you are.

How?

You have a phone number. Any friend of yours who has

1) your name
2) your phone number
3) granted access for FB, LinkedIn and the like to be given access to their list of contacts

will have uploaded your details, along with all their other friends' details, onto one of these social networks.

 

[eteb3]

> eteb3: EDIT: so it's the non-mistaken identity you really want to worry about.

This conclusion sounds like you would legitimise increased scrutiny, because "it's all for the common good but mostly to catch the bad guys" (the typical politician's refrain).

I obviously wasn't clear (double negatives don't help).

I mean the opposite. If it's mistaken identity, there's a chance you can get out of dodge. It's when they accurately detect you because you were their target that you have to worry. eg, leader of a campaign against police brutality passes camera #1469204769 on their way to a demo. Squad car picks them up for phoney suspected offence.

that's an argument for how more surveillance can be abused and clearly there would need to be laws around what can and cant be done etc.

I see that point, and I do think laws can help. But, in the same way jury trials are a citizen's check on the Crown, I prefer that the police have to persuade my fellow citizens to turn over any evidence against me (and they might not, if they smell a rat), instead of the police having it all on their own servers.

 

[fisicx]

And then they tag you in a photo so Facebook knows what you look like. Then on a local news site a picture of you at some event appears so Facebook bows knows what you did at the weekend. But you also brought a new dress so Facebook knows the type of clothes you like.

All without you being aware.

 

[ctrlbrk]

I obviously wasn't clear (double negatives don't help).

My bad, I read that eariler quote wrong, sorry.

 

[LPB 123]

And then they tag you in a photo so Facebook knows what you look like. Then on a local news site a picture of you at some event appears so Facebook bows knows what you did at the weekend. But you also brought a new dress so Facebook knows the type of clothes you like.

All without you being aware.

I guess we'll see what happens then. Nothing bad has happened to me.. yet. Despite all of my data and activities being so available and sold freely without my knowledge.

I will be sure to update this thread if I get

1) refused medical treatment
2) refused insurance
3) get bombarded with junk emails
4) I get jailed for mistaken identity from a facial recognition camera I thought was there to protect me.

Feel free to add to the list

Some of the naivety expressed on here sometimes is hilarious.

Ignorance is bliss ?

 

[fisicx]

And there’s more:

Apple AirTag tracking suit has 36 new plaintiffs behind it

38 people now accusing Apple of negligence over stalking, assaults and murders enabled by Bluetooth trackers

www.theregister.com

 

[LPB 123]

I guess from your NoLikey @fisicx that my tongue in cheek post was lost on you?