The Mission to Decentralize the Internet

Re:The Mission to Decentralize the Internet by the_watcher on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @11:46AM (#6922071)

Unfortunately, I've become sadly apathetic to online privacy concerns. There are always going to be people willing to pay those with the skills to spy. In the past, PI's are HUMINT were really the only ways to get "private" information. The internet makes it easier, and allows it to scale massively (the same characteristics that caused the internet to generate the massive economic gains of the last 20 years). I've just shifted to assume that anything that can be spied on is (semi) public. It's suboptimal, and sad, but I've made the choice of trading privacy for convenience, since I'll never stop using Google or Facebook or Twitter or Amazon. Or storing my credit cards and using online banking. Until someone designs a better option (which I expect will fight a constant battle against surveillance).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Mission to Decentralize the Internet by amirmc on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @12:08PM (#6922184)

I seem to come across this view more often and it saddens me. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. For example, if someone really wants to break into my house they probably will but that doesn't mean I'm not going to bother locking my doors and windows in the future.

I'm in favour of making it harder for the seemingly casual surveillance to take place using means that already exist, like encryption and decentralised systems. If more devs etc took that view and built things that were properly secure by default then maybe things would be different. However, such systems aren't really compatible with advertising-based business models and there's a real trade-off in terms of speed to build (that's why - sometimes - 'security' feels like it's slapped on at the end).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Mission to Decentralize the Internet by the_watcher on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @03:42PM (#6923801)

I think I agree with you. The locking the house doors and windows is a good analogy. I'd love for it to be more difficult for the surveillance state. It just seems like the safer way to proceed is to assume my digital life is public (especially since I don't have anything in particular to hide). Just as I lock my doors and windows despite the utopian society involving unlocked doors all the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Mission to Decentralize the Internet by amirmc on Tuesday December 17, 2013 @04:07PM (#6923978)

If I were getting started on FB and social media now, I would also default to 'public' and treat posts accordingly. However, I first got involved when it was private and I treated it very differently (this was before I became aware of what I was really giving access to).

I'd also question your comment about having nothing in particular to hide. Everyone has things they don't want to make public but perhaps you won't appreciate what they are until someone exposes them for you? You're using a pseudonym here but would you post the following information:

Who you are, where you live, how much you earn, whether you ever had any STIs, the last time you told a little white lie (to whom and and about what), whether you have kids (what school?).

If your reaction to the above is that it's none of my business, you'd be absolutely right but if you really have "nothing to hide" then why not post answers here for the world? Perhaps some of it is 'public' anyway and I could dig up and post it for you but if I did, how would you feel? My point here is that you do have many things you don't want broadcast to the world and I'm trying to provoke you into thinking about them. Privacy is a complex thing and you might find the following article interesting.

https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/12...

[ Parent | on HN ]