> To me he's turning into a Richard Stallman of security/privacy.

Which means... that he's always right?

Richard Stallman is usually dismissed due to his eccentricity, but he's ALWAYS right. AL-WAYS.

I lost track on how many times I've seen the internet raging about something while I think "Richard Stallman told you so".

The majority have made a choice, but not a conscious choice. Not only do many people still chase the latest shiny thing or hand over their details willy-billy without thinking of the consequences, but it's quickly becoming the default to do so, making it even less of a choice, and more just what you do in everyday life!

There are plenty of things I've found worth trading my privacy for, but it's been a conscious choice every time.

Do you really have a choice?

Some things you really need to sign up for, like say signing up for an internet connection, but you have no choice about what happens to your data. You know almost all ISPs will roll over if any authority wants your data from them. You just have to accept it if you want the service, and often things are vital services. Its not much of a choice.

Funny you say that. A lot of retail chains in the UK, ask for your postcode as you make a purchase, and basically identify you. I'm never comfortable with that arrangement, but hand out the data anyway, basically because I don't want to make a scene in public.

I like the way you've phrased it: not a conscious choice. I wouldn't say that ignorance is an active part in choice making. But it certainly feels less complicated.

Make up a fake code, or memorize a couple of random postcodes which aren't yours? Grocery stores in the USA routinely ask for your phone number for their "rewards program", and I just punch in one of any number of commonly-known numbers, which other people have conveniently registered for me. This occasionally leads to hilarity - Safeway's database shows that (206)555-1212 belongs to one "Hardman Dick"...

This practice is relatively common in the US as well, and it's never turned into scene if I refused. I've also been asked for (and refused without making a scene) my phone number and email address. I just say I'd prefer not to give it out, and they go on with the process. Obviously can't vouch for the UK, but I'd say at least try it once.

You are right of course, I doubt there would be a scene, only me embarrassing myself by probably dragging out some kind of justification of not wanting to hand over my details. Perhaps it's down to being schooled in implicit compliance, and it feels a little weird!

It drags you down though. Every supermarket you go to asks for your loyalty card - which I refused to opt-in to for years, but you still are confronted with the question everytime - it gets tiresome.

I do my shopping by proxy, through a partners' loyalty card, and I've been pretty surprised at how sophisticated these systems have become.

There's a desperate battle between outlets now for custom. Loyalty cards now lead to offers (coupons) on items from the weekly shop, and our shopping basket is quite anormal I'd say. We are actually recouping some worthwhile savings, for once. Rather than being offered some promotional discount on something I have no interest in. I feel a little wrong about it, but I no longer can resist the enticement.

> "I doubt there would be a scene, only me embarrassing myself by probably dragging out some kind of justification of not wanting to hand over my details. Perhaps it's down to being schooled in implicit compliance, and it feels a little weird!"

I've been asked and politely declined probably hundreds of times by now. It's never led to any further interaction beyond my simply smiling and saying "no thank you".

The cashiers don't question it, or stare, or even miss a beat. (sometimes a 'new' person will hesitate for a second; thrown off their muscle memory pattern). But surely they hear it from more people than just me.

And I find making a shopping list beforehand, based on what I've actually used since the last trip, is more effective than coupons or loyalty cards. The coupons did start getting more properly-targeted, but they also entice purchases I hadn't previously had on my list. Which calls into question the notion of having 'saved' any money.

Similarly when I would be 'saving' money on things that are only useful when I purchase its non-special-/non-coupon-priced complements (e.g. a coupon for hotdogs leading to a purchase of regular priced buns; or a coupon for peanut butter leading to a purchase of regular-priced jelly).

Not to single you out specifically, but you guys sound like a bunch of pansies. Make up a few fake people with names and addresses and use those. It's more fun to do so on the spot.

Ted Billson. There...use that. His email address is [email protected] if you get asked. ;)

His email address should really be [email protected].

Another 'fuck you money' project: a set of domains with an open SMTP server that does nothing but flip the headers around and re-send the message back to the sender.

Be careful when doing this. Some systems require an email address and employees will make one up to get to the next screen. If that address is valid (or not bounced), someone can get control of your account with something as simple as a password reset.

Perhaps use "[email protected]"? (see rfc2606)

(Or alternatively "abuse@localhost"? "[email protected]"? "[email protected]"?)

I think you are overestimating the majority's ability to make an informed decision on these issues. Most people are still shocked by the idea of web servers keeping logs, let alone the privacy implications of their decision to use GMail or Facebook.

I think the issue is that people outside of our space often fail to fully understand how information can be collected on them and how much analysis is possible.

For example, people don't necessarily really understand basic stuff like client/server architecture and believe that their facebook profile just "is" without thinking that every time they do something on facebook a row is being added to a relational database on a computer that is somebody elses private property.

And that row will probably never be deleted regardless of how they toggle their privacy settings.

And we need people like Richard Stallman to provide a contrast. That said, I think the guy provided a fair article on how things might turn out based on how they are currently progressing.

I work in the IoT space and I try to temper my enthusiasm for it when I talk to non tech people. After giving some cool examples I tell people,

"Soon, Moore's Law will make it cheap enough to connect everything you own to the Internet - it is not a question of if, just when. All your things may or may not talk to you; but they will definitely be talking to each other about you."

Skepticism _is_ valuable when people otherwise blunder blindly forward. Although, I would like to see proposed solutions with his account of the problem.

I read the implication that there isn't a solution; his point seems to be that connected devices are becoming so pervasive that even if you want to avoid them you can't.

The implication, at least to me, is that the only way to avoid it would be to go mountain man (I'm aware that may be a bit non-sequitor). But even that would be a wasted effort should the government, for example, decides it wants to surveil you. I've recently finished reading The Triple Agent (http://www.amazon.com/Triple-Agent-al-Qaeda-Mole-Infiltrated...) and Manhunt (http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottab...). The capabilities held to detect and surveil are staggering and the abilities developed over the last decade to find and capture/kill are impressive and a bit scary.

You're saying, even though the near future will be as he describes, we shouldn't worry about it because most people prefer things that way?

At this point, I think this may be the only way in which Schneier can get any attention. Everything else he does is too bizarre to the rest of us to be relevant. Edit: I believe I was incorrect about the email thing.

He doesn't use email like us, therefore his argument is not valid. A slight case of Ad Hominem, don't you think?

Though I am curious as to what that might mean - how does he use email?

I've emailed him before. He replied to the email. I think this is how normal people use email. Just my experience.