this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
356 points (94.7% liked)

Privacy

32109 readers
764 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

Firefox can’t load HTML pages? Huh?

[–] ngn@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

Edward Snowden

[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago

Do you remember when it was commonly advised to use fake names and birthdays on online forms, and when "spyware" was a term?

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

Hey you have nothing to hide? Please give me: Your address, bank account info, card numbers, social security, and the information of your family and friends. All passwords. Hand over your wallet too. Give me photos of your fingerprints, genitals, and a 360 view of your head. Why does it matter what I could do with such info? You have nothing to hide, right?

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 days ago

"Normies"? We don't need more tribalism.

[–] bruhsoulz@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

tell them to post their buttholes online then 😂 i cant with folks like this.

[–] Badland9085@lemm.ee 60 points 2 days ago (4 children)

There’s worse.

They already know everything about me anyways. If I can exchange my data for some free and easy to use service, I’m more than happy to give.

I hate defeatism.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Its not even defeatism, its willingly sacrificing themselves to the machine in hopes it will be merciful!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AAA@feddit.org 55 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The claim to have "nothing to hide" was not just born our of ignorance, but also out of comfort - to not having to do anything about it.

Now that even the last one accepted that they do indeed have something to hide, but in order to justify their own inaction, it's labeled as inevitable: privacy is not real.

They are lying to themselves, because doing otherwise would mean they have to admit being wrong.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's true that they say both things out of comfort.

Though to be completely honest, both statements are not contradictory. They are not necessarily accepting that they do have something worth hiding, but just stating that hiding is too difficult these days anyway. That does not mean (sadly) that they would start doing it were it easier, just that they have even less of a motive to care about it now that hiding is so much harder (to the point of almost being "a myth").

I'm not saying they are right, I'm saying that lack of consistency is not the problem with that attitude. It's not a "shift", just a consistent continuation of a lazy attitude towards comfort.

[–] Manalith@midwest.social 10 points 2 days ago

The 'nothing to hide' argument seems a lot like that 'first they came for socialists and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist...' quote. Sure you have nothing to hide right now, but what happens when something you weren't hiding becomes a target.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 84 points 2 days ago (8 children)

but it was trash at loading html websites

as opposed to websites written in excel 2003 format or what

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It was full of ActiveX controls and Silverlight.

shudders

[–] Alice@beehaw.org 25 points 2 days ago

Bro's from the timeline where Flash became the dominant species.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

“My prehistoric brain can only think in ‘binary’ and doesn’t understand that development of a successful threat model doesn’t (and often can’t) be perfect, but any incremental change to my behavior and online practices in a way to prevent sensitive information from being shared and potentially utilized by malicious actors is a plus.

Instead of thinking about all of that, I’m going to reduce the whole subject to a nice and neat logical fallacy of ‘online privacy is terrible nowadays, thus it doesn’t matter what I do’ “

[–] Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com 124 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

The mindset about privacy is just all wrong. It's not an all or nothing game. Any privacy gain is a net positive to no privacy at all.

To many people conflate privacy with anonymity or try "accomplish" privacy without understanding what they want to be private from and why.

[–] Psyhackological@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

Many people don't even distinguish

  • Privacy
  • Anonymity
  • Security

So you know... For example Signal is private but not anonymous as it is tied to you in some way (username, phone number). Security is just not exposing yourself when you haven't allowed someone to have this information / access.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wrekone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 2 days ago (1 children)

html websites

These aren't normies. They're children.

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago

This honestly reads like a bad commercial you'd hear on the radio.

[–] NaNin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 2 days ago (4 children)

A lot of people have just accepted surviellance for convienience.

People close to me get TSA precheck even though it requires fingerprinting, because "the government already has your fingerprints"

But if they did, why would they need to ask your for them?

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Depending on what people do, the government already has their fingerprints.

Personally, I work around schools so I had to get a background check and fingerprinted for that. I also am licensed to handle explosives, both federally and at the state level. I been fingerprinted for that. I've gone through TSA for hazmat endorsement on a commercial driver's license. That needed fingerprints and a background check.

Getting fingerprinted to get through airport security is the least of my privacy concerns.

But my threat model isn't the TSA. They aren't a concern of mine, although I do opt out of their facial recognition.

I am concerned with internet surveillance, corporate surveillance, and communication surveillance.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

When I got fingerprinted for my classified security clearance I told them that due to my psoriasis my fingerprints were blank due to the thickened skin. They said it didn't matter so I have a set of blank prints in the fed files.

[–] octochamp@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sorry for devil's advocate here because I agree with you but hypothetically the answer would be verification. ie., Google already has your password, so why would they need to ask you for it when you log in?

[–] NaNin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

Clear Blue is like this, but they use your iris scan. You have to scan every time to skip the line. But the TSA precheck just fingerprints you once when you sign up IIRC

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

Technically they only have your password hash

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] scytale@lemm.ee 58 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

When they realized they DO actually have something to hide, they moved the goalposts to now say nothing is private online anyway.

[–] KomfortablesKissen@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean, that is pretty close to the truth. Especially for people whose skill level is at "Firefox sucks at loading HTML sites".

[–] Oestradiolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 2 days ago

That’s such a weird statement. People who don’t like Firefox at that level don’t know what html is.

[–] stationary_melon@lemmy.ml 30 points 2 days ago

"If people say edge is bad they should consider thinking about your windows 11 os lol"

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"chrome was hogging up my ram" is the dumbest part of all of this lmao, this person's decisionmaking is completely driven by placebo and it's hilarious

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 days ago

If it wasnt beaten by this, it comes a very close 2nd: "Firefox is trash at loading HTML websites".

You can tell that fucker spends their time gibbering techno waffle bollcoks to old people!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LinyosT@sopuli.xyz 38 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Is it me or do those comments feel very shill-like?

[–] Ascend910@lemmy.ml 30 points 3 days ago

Yes some subreddit is piviting hard captalism recently, giving up their dignity to defend corporations with their life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 19 points 2 days ago

"i don't have anything to hide" mfs when their passwords get leaked:

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 47 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Elon Musk popularised this cope argument a few years ago. It sounds intelligent to people who are incapable of any level of critical thinking or nuance and believe everything in the world is either 100% A or 100% B with no in-between. Sadly, this is a large percentage of the population.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 61 points 3 days ago (3 children)

my guess is its just another flavour of cope.

imo likely because recent history has began to undermine the delusions which were propping up the former flavour.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Mojeek@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 days ago

"hello i am u/NotBillGates and I agree with this message"

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 10 points 2 days ago

They genuinely do not care anymore. We lost, just like the cypherpunks lost.

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A similar argument I hear is "If they want me, they will find and arrest me no matter my precautions".

Kinda yes... But why are you talking about threat models that include someone deliberately hunting you down? We are not high-ranking dissidents or criminals that they would put effort and money into finding. Our concern is passive surveillance - maybe the collected info doing us a disservice (like being leaked for scammers or sold to an evil ex), maybe even something mundane getting flagged and us being arrested just to serve as an example.

[–] NaNin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

e.g. Period tracking apps being used as evidence when prosecuting people who seek abortions

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Gen Alpha doesn't care about privacy online. They need to be guided by their parents to care, e.g. when they buy a laptop, they install some Linux distribution on it before they give it to the child.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

I mean, yeah, privacy isn't really a thing in our digital surveillance age. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna make it as hard as possible for them. Make em work for it.

[–] TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml 28 points 3 days ago

"No, they would never track us. But if they were, it would be a good thing."

load more comments
view more: next ›