Against privacy defeatism: why browsers can still stop fingerprinting

Re:Against privacy defeatism: why browsers can still stop fi... by kbenson on Friday June 29, 2018 @05:39PM (#17428045)

A "state actor" focusing on you should be considered at least as dangerous (and semi-impossible) to guard against as a dedicated adversary that wants to infiltrate you specifically. Just as with a dedicated adversary, it's no justification not to make it hard for the average or law-abiding citizen and what they can easily come up with.

We don't have locks on our front doors to make it impossible for unwanted people to get inside our houses, we do it to prevent the average person, deter the interested criminal, and hopefully give us warning when it is or has happened.

> Luckily, I guess, securing yourself against state level actors

To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Against privacy defeatism: why browsers can still stop fi... by mirimir on Friday June 29, 2018 @07:35PM (#17428674)

> To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure.

Yes. Your best bet is hiding. Once you're identified, it's basically over. It's just another facet of the state monopoly on force.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Against privacy defeatism: why browsers can still stop fi... by apk17 on Saturday June 30, 2018 @02:22AM (#17429738)

The force monopoly has little to do with it - few institutions would have the resources to win against the US govt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Against privacy defeatism: why browsers can still stop fi... by mirimir on Saturday June 30, 2018 @09:17PM (#17433555)

Resource monopoly is rather a subset of force monopoly, no?

I mean, consider guns. In the US, citizens can own guns. And armed private security is OK, too. But there's consistent push-back against private militias, armies, etc. Unless they work only outside the country, in acceptable contexts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Against privacy defeatism: why browsers can still stop fi... by Santosh83 on Saturday June 30, 2018 @07:43AM (#17430488)

> To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure.

You can, if you gain the support of an opposing, comparable state actor. That's what Snowden has employed. But 100% security is still a myth, not only against state actors... reality itself is just not like that. Unless you can hide inside a black hole.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Against privacy defeatism: why browsers can still stop fi... by apk17 on Saturday June 30, 2018 @02:43AM (#17429790)

Re state actor: I guess secure-or-known-to-have-failed is attainable on a personal scope. Securing a company, no matter what size, is futile.

[ Parent | on HN ]