Assange believes too late for any pervasive privacy

[Steve Kinney]

-----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
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=Xy3C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----