
The Internet is a surveillance state - lignuist
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/16/opinion/schneier-internet-surveillance/index.html?eref=edition
======
richardjordan
The elephant in the room that CNN doesn't want to talk about or admit to is
that much of the problem lies in Big Media (of which CNN is obviously a part).

US/Western media companies are more aligned with the government of China than
any notion of freedom when it comes to the interests they pour money into (as
opposed to platitudes they might espouse).

The push to lock down computers and make it hard/impossible to buy one that
doesn't clearly identify you - so that you cannot "steal" big media content -
is exactly what makes it hard/impossible to prevent yourself being tracked and
surveilled.

Can knowledgeable hackers beat the system...? Sure, somewhat, and increasingly
this is harder and harder to do. But society is lost in the middle not on the
fringes.

We live in the Panopticon [1] and this is a problem for many reasons. When a
small elite can strengthen its ability to pull the levers of power decision
making is concentrated in a smaller and smaller group. Small groups make worse
decisions than large scale collective "marketplaces" of ideas and thought.
This is what allowed the US and the West to flourish for so long. But it's
easily lost. We are moving to a world where elections lead to less and less
change, where major problems are going unresolved and punted to a future on
the assumption that exponentially growing challenges can be out-waited. The
only hope is in the increased connectivity of the Internet, access to
information, and ability to share dissenting views. As this is taken away, to
preserve Hollywood profits, and in the name of "security", we run further and
further off the cliff.

Even Wylie Coyote has to look down eventually and see that it's time to fall
to the canyon floor.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon>

~~~
skrebbel
I can't help but wonder about the top rated comment on HN being one that
kindly shifts attention away from our beloved ad-powered Silicon Valley firms,
to the Real Bad Guys all the way in LA and Washington.

~~~
goldfeld
Exactly. When every other startup relies on ad revenue, they're nothing but
furthering the goals of big corporations and big media.

~~~
pyre
While I do believe that all of the reliance on ad revenue contributes to the
"Internet surveillance state," I wouldn't exactly say that the newspaper
industry would agree that ad-supported blogs are 'furthering their goals.' I
think that many big newspapers would disagree with you there.

------
gnosis
Many if not most HN users create software and internet infrastructure.
Collectively, we have so much power.

Yet much of what we make (directly or indirectly) is what the surveillance
state is built on. It relies on us to build it, make it work, and keep it
running.

If we care at all about privacy, we should think carefully about the privacy
impact of what we make, and try to make a positive difference (or at least do
no harm).

~~~
MichaelGG
I highly doubt that's a stable or dominant strategy. As long as there's
pressure to build systems, they will find people to build them. Not to
mention, those sorts of jobs can be fun, intellectually challenging problems.

Like Narus - we probably agree it's not in the world's interest to have
companies or governments with such technologies. But offered money and a
chance to work on such a system, I'd work on it in a heartbeat.

It's unlikely that there will be a shortage of qualified people or that the
extra money required will make any impact. And you could always take such
jobs, and donate to the EFF.

This is such a common argument, I'm sure it has a name.

~~~
gnosis
_"offered money and a chance to work on such a system, I'd work on it in a
heartbeat"_

You would. But that doesn't mean that everyone would.

I am appealing to those of us who value privacy and ethics above making a
quick buck or getting to play with neat toys.

It's not like there's some huge shortage of interesting technology jobs in
this second internet/startup bubble. And not all of these jobs are for
companies that want to spy on their users. Many of us still have a choice.

Even if you are at a company which spies on its users, you could at least try
to make some positive change from within, or at least avoid advocating for
going down the road of ever more surveillance and spying.

Way too many developers, VCs, and founders either don't consider the privacy
implications of what they're doing, or are only too happy to collect and sell
data about their users to the highest bidder.

This mercenary mentality is not some unchangeable part of human nature, but is
a learned attitude that can be countered and rejected.

~~~
MichaelGG
My point is that it's not even remotely practical to convince enough of the
population to "value privacy" so much that these things won't be built or to
even remotely hinder them. The population of earth is just too large. "HN
readers" aren't some magic special bunch that cannot be replaced.

> This mercenary mentality is not some unchangeable part of human nature

No, it's just basic game theory. The more people that refuse to sign up for
these "unethical" things, the higher the reward for those that do. And those
rewards are very small compared to the pressures involved.

So even if you succeed in convincing a ton of hackers to join your cause,
you've done what? Raised the salary from $250K to $750K a year for the people
that do defect? That's nice, but the actual effect on privacy is zero.

~~~
fredBuddemeyer
inspiration produces better everything (software) than lucre but if you wanna
talk $ rewards its obvious theres a mass market for privacy developing.

~~~
pyre
Please expand.

------
joblessjunkie
Rendering Mr. Schneier on CNN's website caused my browser to send requests to:

\- cnn.com and turner.com

\- disqus.com

\- facebook.net, facebook.com, and fbcdn.net

\- imrworldwide.com

\- cleanprint.net

\- outbrain.com

\- twitter.com and twimg.com

\- chartbeat.com

\- linkedin.com

\- googlesyndication.com and google-analytics.com

\- scorecardresearch.com

\- doubleclick.net

...and yields an unending stream of pings to chartbeat.net just to let them
know my tab is still open.

~~~
Silhouette
I long ago installed a plug-in that blocks most or possibly all of the above.
There are several now that will do this for, say, Firefox.

In a related benefit, sites load way faster for me and consume substantially
less bandwidth, since I'm not constantly waiting and paying to download the
malware that so many sites now feel the need to embed.

~~~
snowwrestler
Which one do you like the best?

~~~
Silhouette
Ghostery takes care of most such things, including blocking the major spying
tricks by the likes of Google and Facebook.

A decent ad blocker like AdBlock Plus will go some way to helping as well,
though it's more of a side effect in that case.

There's also BetterPrivacy, which mostly deals with the non-cookie cookies
like Flash LSOs.

Unfortunately, for reasons I can't fathom, even generally privacy-friendly
browsers like Firefox still seem quite happy to send vast amounts of
fingerprint-friendly information that serves almost no legitimate purpose to
anyone who cares to listen. However, there are clearly people thinking about
this, e.g., see <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Fingerprinting>.

~~~
pi18n
I learned recently that Ghostery is owned by Evidon [1] and thus no longer
trust it.

My solution on Chrome is AdBlock, NoScript, turn off Flash, and turn off
third-party cookies.

I prefer Firefox, which I additionally use CookieSafe, BetterPrivacy, and
RefControl.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidon>

~~~
BUGHUNTER
Besides a certain feeling about the company, do you have any hard facts that
might give some suggestions about ghostery not beeing trustworthy?

If you do not agree to send them data (config wizard first checkbox I think),
is there still data sent to them?

Feelings are ok, but keep them for your friends and family. We need facts
here, so please deliver.

~~~
pi18n
I have absolutely no facts whatsoever that they are misusing information. The
only fact is that they have an obvious conflict of interest. I assume people
interested in privacy would like to be aware of it. I'm sorry that you don't
consider it relevant but I am certain others do.

~~~
BUGHUNTER
I consider it relevant, otherwise I would not haved asked.

------
lifeisstillgood
No, no, no, no, no.

We are always under surveillance - my neighbours know I stay up late watching
crap tv, the bookshop assistant knows I browse the comics section but don't
buy, and a hundred people each day see me do weird or normal things.

I am not oppressed when they do that. Embarrassed maybe, but not dragged of
for "re-education".

As long as no-one uses the surveillance to force political outcomes from me or
any individual, then this is pollution, not dictatorship.

Yes we need radical privacy laws - but not ones trying to put the genie back
in the lamp. There are amazing benefits from technology - the sharing of
knowledge seamlessly across 7bn people is going to ,produce wonders we cannot
guess.

But we must embrace this new world - a world without secrecy. For privacy is
not secrecy - it is politeness of our neighbours.

The problem is not my neighbours who know, it is companies across the world
who now know. Their knowledge and actions are kept secret from me - and that
must be prevented. Sunlight is the best disinfectant applies to targeted ads
as much as corrupt politics.

Firstly any organisation that holds informant that can be used to identify and
track people must publish the identifications they hold in real time. Expect a
cottage industry of telling me about everything about me. Oh and those cottage
industries must publish as well. So not a profitable cottage industry. Seen me
walk out the door of mcdonalds after paying with my Loyalty card - great mail
me the link so I can see.

Secondly a legal framework that makes commercial profit from my identity only
allowed if I consent and preferably if I get a cut. Want to sell me ads -
great pay me. Oh suddenly finding ads less profitable? Want to sell me a
coffee after that burger - you could use the freely published info mcdonalds
has to fling my phone a coupon - but that's my information. I charge a flat 2c
for every commercial use of my info - I get 2c even if I don't want coffee.

Thirdly, get used to the idea your wife instantly knows you are sleeping with
the secretary.

~~~
eurleif
The surveillance you describe is ephemeral. After you move, your neighbors
will forget you ever existed. The bookshop assistant probably forgets you the
moment you walk out the door.

Internet data is not that way. It potentially lasts forever. A fear I've heard
expressed is that in the future, totalitarianism will arrive, and past data
will be used against people.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Who will be running that totalitarian regieme and can we see their Facebook
pages from their early twenties?

In the end how the hell will you use data against people if you do not already
do all the dictator necessary things anyway - torture, secrecy,
disappearances. These are the things to fight, not the data storage but the
people torture.

March to stop privatisation of the army, to stop torture in our names, to stop
child labour. Fix those, then we have nothing to fear about our Facebook
shopping trends.

Edit: some might comment that eg their sexual preferences might be
discoverable on Facebook and that would be a breach of their rights to
privacy. Firstly we change privacy - it has always been politeness not to
mention what all your friends knew. The fact that anyone interested can now
piece it together does not change that.

Second - the use of that data "against" you only matters if it matters outside
of politeness. Alan Turing could not today be prosecuted for being gay, could
not be chemically castrated nor driven to suicide. Because the legal system
has been changed - so that the only thing that matters if people find out you
are gay is _politeness_. Live in a free society - have to learn to deal with
impoliteness. Don't live in a free society - deal with that not the Internet.
We know how to defeat dictators, and the iPhone won't fix it for free.

~~~
dwiel
This doesn't work if access to that information tempts those in power to do
things that they wouldn't have if the the information didn't exist.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I kind of understand but I believe the benefits will outweigh the costs in all
cases, and we can mitigate with sensible laws respecting the rights of
individuals.

Or in short, that argument could have been made about fire, bronze, iron,
steel, writing, printing cameras etc

------
ilaksh
I think that this is one of the big reasons that privacy-focused named-data
networking will become popular. Another reason is that that model fits better
with most internet usage today where data is disseminated from a source to a
number of users.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking>

Of course, surveillance can be built into those types of systems as well, but
I think that the right engineering approach building in features like
encryption and anonymity, especially combined if possible with mesh networks,
could be a big advantage for privacy.

Also see <http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan>

------
seiji
[After-post update: I've no idea why this got auto-dead'd. Ideas?]

What is the way out though? Nobody cares about privacy. Nobody.

Google used to be happy divining long clicks from access logs. Then, they said
"screw privacy!" and started explicitly tracking every outbound search click
(I'm ignoring all your email, calendars, contacts, and phone data they have).

Twitter used to be happy being just messages, then they click-nabb'ed every
link. At least the interaction model on twitter is mostly benign.

Facebook does mephistopheles-knows-what with everything they have. It can't be
good. They're in an unspoken competition with Google for who can get users to
voluntarily exploit themselves over the widest personality surface area.

Then there's the hundreds of spy-tracking JS, ad networks (Hi,
Google/DoubleClick!), ad markets (Hi, AppNexus!), mobile networks logging
every URL you visit (Hi, Verizon!) and everything else tracking almost your
every move across the Internet.

Why don't we just make it illegal to have a webpage without embedding
<https://js.gov/tracker.js> and give the information to everybody in realtime?

------
ftwinnovations
"If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've
got no hope."

I couldn't help but laugh when I read that.

~~~
Dn_Ab
Interestingly, I consider that a fair equilibrium. Not something to despair
over. I think it would be worse if the director of the CIA could keep privacy
but not random individual. That power does not affect ability to avoid lack of
privacy means things are becoming more balanced.

~~~
lostnet
Yes, I'd say privacy is actually much more of a problem for the elite. How
many investigations dig up infidelity, etc, in the normal population and then
carefully step around it instead of enlarging the investigation?

But I do think the power elite are driven by excessive compulsions, and I
worry if we eliminate the ones with relatively normal/outside compulsions we
will be left with the Machiavellian freaks running everything.

------
WhoIsSatoshi
There is a privacy ecosystem that is rising from it all. There are ways. the
TOR network allows you to anonymize your dealings from your ISP. Some sites
are now advertising the anonymity and encryption they are using for their
services (MEGA). Bitcoin has seen a stellar growth (and still poised to) due
to its uncontrollable nature, and can be tweaked to achieve pseudo anonimity
through enough shuffling of the coins. Assange puts it best by saying that
"The universe believes in Encryption - [it] is the ultimate form of direct
non-violent action." What WE can do, is help put the blocks in place...

------
boi_v2
Why not stop using facebook, google, apple and all these surveillance tools?

Have you ever asked yourself why you can't remove the batteries of your
Iphone? Ow Yes, design is everyting.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-
trac...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-
prompts-privacy-fears)

Demand privacy, respect privacy, develop privacy and pay for those that offer
it to you.

"If you are not paying for a service you are the product being sold" and no,
google and facebook were never your friends.

Time to wake up!

~~~
nwh
I highly doubt the battery not being removable is designed to aid in tracking.
It's a vital part of making the iPhone smaller. Open one up and look inside if
you don't believe me.

------
robomartin
Sorry, I can't resist. And, I'll preface this by saying OF COURSE I AM JOKING.
Here it goes:

I've clashed many times with folks here on HN who are super-pro-government
liberals. They take every opportunity to point out how government has built
everything of value to us and how government has wisely invested in
infrastructure and other projects that make our lives possible. The
implication, of course, is that we should be pro-government, pay more taxes
and be thankful we are allowed to flourish under such a system.

One of their favorite things to say is "government created the Internet".

Fantastic! Let's take the good with the bad. If government is going to be
credited with the good then we credit them with the bad as well. They created
such a shitty system that we are all under surveillance, like it or not.

Not so you say? Well, this kind of thing was nearly impossible before our
government created the Internet. They must have had ulterior motives and knew
it could be used for this.

Why didn't they protect us with regulations BEFORE the Facebook's and Google's
of the 'net were even up and running? They knew what they were creating.

Anyhow. I am not much of a comedian but there's a joke in there somewhere. The
point is that government is an ass. They fuck-up nearly everything they do.

This "internet == surveillance state" thing is very real and it is something
governments (PLURAL) are benefiting from immensely. Never before in the
history of humanity has it been possible to spy on individual human beings
with this degree of granularity. And it won't get any better for probably
another five to ten years, if ever.

~~~
noarchy
>I've clashed many times with folks here on HN who are super-pro-government
liberals.

Since we're talking about the surveillance state, we shouldn't be leaving the
super-pro-government _conservatives_ out of this. In the US (where these
lib/con terms seem to matter most), both major parties love the surveillance
state, and this is tied in heavily with the warfare state that both parties
love as well.

I'm not very optimistic that the situation is going to improve. Privacy is
increasingly something of yesterday, not today, and certainly not of the
future. Those who will enjoy some degree of privacy will be the ones who know
how to achieve it, and many aren't going to bother, just as they don't today
(people are lining up to give it away, in fact).

>The point is that government is an ass. They fuck-up nearly everything they
do.

No disagreement here, though I'd suggest that the only things at which
government seems to excel are areas where no one should _want_ to excel. I'm
thinking primarily of war, excessive policing, and weird, arbitrary laws.

~~~
robomartin
> we shouldn't be leaving the super-pro-government conservatives out of this.

You are absolutely correct.

> the only things at which government seems to excel are areas where no one
> should want to excel. I'm thinking primarily of war, excessive policing, and
> weird, arbitrary laws.

That is probably true as well. It's sad to think that we will all live to see
more wars.

------
logn
"Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data
about us."

My fiance receives tampon ads during the appropriate time of the month on
Facebook.

------
webwanderings
And the irony for Schneier would be, if you share this article on Facebook or
anywhere, or heck even leave a comment there at CNN, you'd be tracked.

~~~
niggler
For the record, using chrome:

\- disconnect blocked Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter

\- ghostery blocked more than 20 scripts from 10 different classes of trackers
(e.g. there are 5 different references to DoubleClick resources)

~~~
ohwp
And while using Disconnect and Ghostery you still got tracked by IP address,
your installed fonts, screen resolution, installed plugins, while your
internet activity was stored by your internet provider.

~~~
nawitus
Privacy is not a binary function, it's shades of gray.

------
rasur
"this is how liberty dies.. with thunderous applause"

------
rapind
Eventually there will be some good and accessible options that will enable you
to truly opt-out of the internet surveillance state.

Other than the occasional embarrassing thing (like googling a dance song) I
really can't think of anything I have to hide.

Even so, I would pay a subscription fee to keep all of my internet
communications completely private. I don't like being profiled, and it feels
like an infringement on my freedom. I would even pay enough of a fee that the
company I pay it too could in turn pay lobbyists to help protect their
interests or headquarter in another country etc.

And the worse it gets, the more I'm willing to pay.

I'm sure I'm a minority right now, but I think our numbers are growing.

------
peripetylabs
I used to think people actually wanted privacy. (I did, why wouldn't everyone
else?) But the data does not support that hypothesis -- in fact, I think the
exact opposite is true.

People's personal information is not being stolen from them, it is given away;
and not even for free -- more than 70% of the US population [1] pays an ISP a
monthly fee in order to connect to Facebook's servers and upload their data.
That is how the Internet works -- it is not Facebook sending the SYN packets.

In general society (outside of our tiny bubble), _not_ having a Facebook
account is considered strange. It is even seen as grounds for suspicion of
criminal activity. [2]

Everyone says they want to eat right, exercise and be healthy, but more than a
third of them are obese. [3] The surveillance state is not happening _despite_
us, it is precisely what the majority of people want, even as they deny it. If
you wish to change this unfortunate fact, change the culture.

[1] [http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook-
obsessi...](http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook-obsession/)
[2] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-
te...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-
abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/) [3]
<http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html>

------
rayj
From a linked article in TFA: "Monsegur was a Tor user, although he was caught
after logging on to IRC without going through Tor."

So he forgot to route IRC through Tor. Luckily there are a couple live distros
that do it automatically, like tails. There are also VPN that accept payment
in bitcoin, so anonymity is still preserved.

This doesn't matter in the scope of the article though, since obviously we are
talking about people who are not going to any precautions to hide their
privacy.

------
hugofirth
This comment probably won't go down well considering the audience ... but here
goes:

Yes the internet is a surveillance state ... and that is terrible ... except
... except ... is it?

My long held belief is that in an age where even the most tech-savvy cannot
possibly remain anonymous all the time our best hope for privacy is in the
simply overwhelming volume of data being collected. Unless I do something
worthy of government attention I have reason to believe no human is going to
closely examine my gmail - why on earth would they?

Therefore the only breach of privacy is by a parser collecting information for
an algorithm. So I get a few ads in gmail ... 90% of the time I ignore them
... the other 10% of the time I would MUCH rather they were targeted at my
interests than just meaningless drivel! Furthermore - if the ad revenue
collected by these companies allows them to continue to improve a free service
I love then power to them! People bitch about ads, without considering the
reality that without them most of the service we value which make up the
internet would not exist without them. You can't always have your cake and eat
it.

Lastly I would like to address the point of privacy invasion by a government
body. This is nothing new! It has just become easier. I live in the UK - a
tiny island with 4,000,000 CCTV cameras. There is probably an accumulation of
hundreds of hours of footage of me throughout my life... So What ?! I have
done nothing wrong, and if the existence of that footage allows the prevention
or solving of even one crime then I'm all for it.

If a government body wants your data - the chances are they are going to get
it. Through warrant or some other means. The acceleration of this process is
not necessarily a bad thing. They are, after all, the elected officials.

Anyway /rant (... runs and hides)

~~~
Uhhrrr
i agree with you about how nice it is to have targeted ads (although Google
still hasn't gotten good enough that I have ever clicked on anything).

The dangers for the government are when it uses its powers to stay elected
(Nixon), or spy on activists (Nixon, Bush), or pilfer the IP of other
countries (Airbus). And of course these dangers also apply to commercial
enterprises - if I were a MS competitor, I sure as heck wouldn't allow Skype
in the office.

------
xxchan
Hahaha, there's a hilarious typo in the article. ".. one of the leaders of the
LulzSac hacker movement.." It feels oddly appropriate.

------
jflatow
Great read, but I wish he hadn't glossed over the part about not being
something the free market can fix; and explained why only strong government
will can.

He admits that governments are partaking in the frenzy at least as much as are
companies, but doesn't explain why it would be easier to get a government to
change, than to change a company, or start a new one.

~~~
elwin
I think it's more accurate to say that the free market currently does not
think that Internet surveillance is a problem. Consumers in general have
decided that for Internet services and Internet access devices, factors such
as cheapness, ease of use, and trendiness are more important than privacy.

Governments are able to reach more definitive consensus than free markets - a
market would be not easily be able to make everyone use an anonymizing proxy,
for example, but a government could legislate that. Governments can also move
costs around, such as by funding a national proxy service with tax money.

But on one level, free markets and democratic governments are both just
methods that societies use to enforce their collective wills. There are limits
to how much their decisions can differ. There's a reason Schneier calls a
situation created by Internet _companies_ a surveillance _state_.

------
jiggy2011
The technology exists for the privacy conscious to greatly reduce their track-
ability.

However the problem is that the platform which are becoming more popular for
convenience reasons such as ChromeOS or iOS do not necessarily make this stuff
easy or even possible.

I would be much happier to recommend these systems to people if they did not
lose this control.

------
zenbowman
Its not like people are victims here, for the most part they've chosen the
"free" privacy violating services over the paid ones every time.

If people cared about their privacy, this wouldn't be the case, they'd be
willing to pay for useful services. There was a chance that a market could
have developed for services that protected privacy, but thats long gone.

At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world withoit secrets.
Its terrifying to people over 30, but it could lead to a better world, because
even those in power cannot escape the watchful eye of Big Brother.

~~~
betterunix
That would be a fine argument if the majority of computer users actually
understood what tracking is being performed and how it is performed. Most
computer users have no idea how they are tracked, nor do they understand how
they can be tracked.

People generally do not know how their computers work, and companies take
advantage of that ignorance when they track people. Most people do not
understand that they are trading privacy for access to websites and web apps.

"At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world [without]
secrets"

Nonsense. Kids just have a different idea about what should be kept secret.
There are still plenty of in-the-closet gay teenagers whose friends understand
that they are being trusted with a secret. Plenty of kids have odd habits they
do not want to tell their friends about. Teenagers still keep secrets from
their parents -- that is basically an invariant. There are many college
students who work hard to keep their Facebook profiles "clean" in an attempt
to present the best image possible to potential future employers.

What has changed is the meaning of keeping things secret. A 15 year old in-
the-closet gay teenager most likely has no idea that "deleting" a "private"
message sent over Facebook does not actually delete the message from
Facebook's servers. That same teenager probably has no idea that his public
"friends" list is sufficient to determine that he is gay with high
probability. _That_ is the problem society faces right now: people _want_ to
keep things secret, but it is very difficult to actually do so.

I think that eventually society will adapt and people will learn how to keep
secrets in an age of widespread surveillance. It is inevitable: eventually
there will be so many incidents of embarrassing secrets being revealed by
these various companies that people will start to use technologies to hamper
the tracking.

------
CurtMonash
Scheier is right that information will be collected, and that the government
will have access to it. That genie is out of the bottle. But there is still
hope for reasonable and even strong controls on the USES of information. This
is exactly the distinction I've been drawing for years, e.g. in
[http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy-
discussion...](http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy-discussion-
needs-to-head/)

------
dreamfactory
A lot of commenters focussing here on technical privacy solutions - but that
seems to be missing the current move towards behavioural tracking. And the
irony is that this is a lot of the really exciting stuff for many here - look
at truelens and storm for example. Given the adulation and reverence here for
highly politically engaged and extreme right-wing characters like Peter Thiel,
we shouldn't be at all surprised by this kind of outcome.

------
EEGuy
Coincidentally, the CISPA is up for debate again in the House.

However you feel about such surveillance, it legal scope and extent _is_ being
democratically debated now.

You can contact your Representative using this site:
<http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/>

Speak your mind to your Rep. It's how Representative Democracy works.

------
Create
[http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-
WhyFreedomOfThoughtReq...](http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-
WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia)

[https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-
archives/dc-18-archive....](https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-
archives/dc-18-archive.html#Marlinspike)

------
rasengan0
When the gold rush came, it was easy to see that prospecting was not where the
value was at. Smart entrepreneurs sold pans, shovels and dungarees. Likewise
in the age of surveillance, the Ciscos and Choicepoints rake in, handing off
infrastructure and data to the highest bidder. The gold ran out, but we still
have the Gap.

------
billhorvath
From my perspective, the problem is that these companies are effectively
acting as government agents. FWIW, I blogged about it here:
[https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-
gover...](https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/)

------
billhorvath
I put up a perspective on this not too long ago; see
[https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-
gover...](https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/)

------
richcollins
_This isn't something the free market can fix_

He assumes that people care and are willing to change technology but can't for
some reason. In my experience, people don't care.

------
webwanderings
> We can use an alias on Facebook

I'm not following. How does one use alias on Facebook?

~~~
JonnieCache
Just change your name to a fake name. There's no magic.

~~~
webwanderings
Well then Facebook doesn't really work or does it? Facebook works best if you
keep it confined to your friends and family, the people you know in-person.
Having a fake name would defeat that purpose.

~~~
niggler
Facebook works best when you don't use it :) I prefer in-person discussions.
If that's not possible, calling > texting > email > physical mail. every other
solution is irrelevant to me.

~~~
ams6110
I have this in my /etc/hosts:

    
    
      127.0.0.1  www.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1  facebook.com
      127.0.0.1  connect.facebook.net
      127.0.0.1  facebook.net
      127.0.0.1  ads.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1  ads.ak.facebook.com
    

Anyone know of any others?

~~~
tquai
Run your own resolver on 127.0.0.1, and your own authoritative nameserver on
127.0.53.1, and configure the resolver to ask the nameserver (returning
NXDOMAIN) for

    
    
      * facebook.com
      * doubleclick.net
      * google-analytics.com
      * su (abuse)
      * 2o7.net
      * any others you want; get ideas from the MVPS hosts file
    

Since facebook domains (fbcdn.net, facebook.net, etc.) are all serviced by
facebook.com nameservers, returning NXDOMAIN for *.facebook.com will thereby
sabotage all facebook related queries. This way you won't have to play whack-
a-mole with future facebook tracking hosts, so long as they use facebook.com
nameservers.

Or hell, just create a list of prefixes announced & owned by AS32934,
Facebook, and block all. Just to be sure.

------
nwzpaperman
People have control over their individual online use cases and should assume
more personal responsibility for managing their online profile. It is
voluntary to join the LE email spam network, FB/G privacy invasion operations,
disqus commenting, etc.

It's a shame that these social networks that were intended to enable friend
and family (biz in LE case) have devolved into open public access to your
personal interactions. As they further infringe on the original use cases more
people will leave them for alternative solutions.

~~~
nsmartt
unfortunately, the average user is convinced that one has no problem if one
has nothing to hide. i don't foresee the average user deciding to jump ship
without a strong push.

~~~
gnosis
I don't think the typical user thinks he's got nothing to hide.

More probably, he doesn't realize just how much he's spied on or by whom. Nor
does he realize how the information these spies gather on him could be or is
being used to his detriment.

He also probably doesn't know about any privacy-respecting alternatives, or if
he does, he finds them too much of a pain to use, or doesn't want to sacrifice
his Facebook friends or his nifty smartphone.

Fortunately, the masses are slowly becoming educated, more computer literate,
and more privacy/security aware overall. It is heartening to see stories about
online privacy on mainstream news sites like CNN. Being a victim of identity
theft, stalking, or harrassment can also be an unfortunate but powerful wake
up call to the need for privacy.

It's a slow process, but the more people become aware of their vulnerability
and victimization by the surveillance state, the more they will try to seek
alternatives and call for positive change. I just hope by then it won't be too
late.

~~~
nsmartt
I wish I could agree, but I recently explained to one of my most intelligent
friends just how much tracking is done, by whom, and how. She just argued that
she didn't have anything to hide. A few days later, she admitted that I might
have a point, but still wasn't interested in ditching Facebook.

I hope you're right. If something doesn't change for the masses, alternatives
will never really gain traction.

~~~
nwzpaperman
A lot of the tracking technology is developing from the advertising space, but
also to monetize clicks for affiliate commissions. It's the same technology
applied to an adjacent market.

<http://www.viglink.com/>

The throughput, latency, computing power and memory wasn't sufficient to do
what we can do today a short 5-10 years ago. The hardware has advanced so much
over the past decade that it is attainable at the consumer/non-sovereign level
now. Anyone with a thousand bucks free monthly cash flow and the coding chops
can get very far independently.

------
youngerdryas
Does anyone have more info on Apple tracking users, he didn't post a link. All
I can find is the log file debacle from two years ago.

~~~
zimbatm
I don't have any info on intentional tracking but Macs surely do leak a lot of
data. If you install Little Snitch you will have a better feeling of what is
being sent over the network. These are the rules that I have regarding apple:

* aosnotifyd: aosnotify.me.com * AppleIDAuthAgent: identity.apple.com * apsd: push.apple.com * assistand: apple.com * helpd: apple.com * imagent: apple.com * IMRemoteURLConnectionAgent.xpc: apple.com * ntpd: time.euro.apple.com * SoftwareUpdateAgent: sw _.apple.com_ storeagent: apple.com * SyncServer: configuration.apple.com * ubd: configuration.apple.com * XProtectUpdater: configuration.apple.com

The mac is able to change your timezone depending on your location. I don't
think it would be too hard for Apple to build a precise profile of my location
and movements if they wanted to.

