-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/12/2015 08:22 AM, rysiek wrote:
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all previous ones in history combined...
Why exactly is that not compatible with privacy? I am doing quite well without Facebook accout. "Networked anything" does not have to mean "...and no control over your data".
Collection of metadata sufficient to reconstruct all of the above activities in detail is not compatible with privacy. Neither is full take collection triggered by rule sets defining "interesting" behavior, i.e. the use of 'privacy enhancing' technologies, reading about Linux, etc. (per published USG docs that are "generally accepted" as real). You don't have to act like an idiot to lose your "privacy," and relative to State actors it already happened.
You're basically doing both a straw-man (i.e. making it seem as if privacy supporters want to live in a world without the Internet), and a false dichotomy (i.e. making it seem as if you can't have privacy and Internet). Not cool.
And, more importantly, not true.
You can have some semblance of privacy on the Internet, for instance reducing the take of commercial surveillance operations by selectively blocking ad servers and whitelising a limited number of sites to run Javascript in your browser. You can have more by using technologies that are "too hard" or "too inconvenient" for non-specialists to put up with, i.e. TOR, i2p, GPG, etc. Privacy supporters who understand network security, understand that any activity they want to conceal from all surveillance actors must either be conducted off the network, or via "anonymizing technology" that degrades network access to a lesser or greater extent (100% in instances involving two way communication with people who do not know or care about these matters), while being observed and recorded by actors hostile to privacy. If CPunks subscribers don't know that, what chance of 'privacy' does the greater unwashed publick stand? :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWbF7WAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LP10QANHkwHKERUcsW0+FcRXraz8k 3h/jomiidZJstHmp6iYvB50k8/qs+FDuzUlvkvkSjx80Y9jRz5olRlYuJPdRWuzq c/Fpl9Ak5y4dSAs1ySrI8MnZwgXuK7kxF5vfVb/E8qFyvtAEXvWWFBXZOIJeA9/a iyUIaXO3adc+cUbuGFUixZbsYUZS1dagqU01BIBH1Um2KVziLR3ntel5xC0B6FRi nxXohUh/orTMPsV2rOBiCIJre77f+8x5LGGiycFULip4WM4pv5zisDXq4NloPtWj ZZXdK+FLBYmTQUrx7fODeUD1NdvRNasOQ/lxZ6VumWt+2MEPDv5aH06YgaSDT7rN CtThTMoe0ANw8igGge5w3UvgsvLMN2tEoYwLZb4dnRkSqy8iXNBVtWOh74sE62cc wODsajIbdmTg+u4m5hCQU+bMgeU17bhDys9ZRhFar2FrmYANZnrElFaSCQ/2rxyl cmNzK/lxWLrKEFv6spiO119ffD/mOtUqPqRXZJqb/RxW/EskCx3vwSx57P6o1wXe xskbaC1n0H/st5iZijFRsz2GJS9/ZZ+MSX99MyXi9XGFPtTS6RSJ7f5MmhVoMbPp j6HHcqovVVSF1KyOLQkHVMbppJbEkzfgrCBAKvp9ODKuqiHIJ1/rFknxMoYq37k7 4iVSG+S5XEwKBXaRooRd =Xy3C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----