
Limiting Your Digital Footprints in a Surveillance State - metaphysics
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/technology/personaltech/digital-footprint-surveillance.html
======
hilbert42
I don't limit my digital footprint in what I say on the internet — for proof
see some of my hyperbolic posts on HN, ;-) — because I reckon what I say is
pretty harmless, albeit opinionated. Similarly, I've no hidden thoughts to
harm people.

That said, I consider it a different matter when it comes to the Googles and
Facebooks of this world pinching my data without paying for it, it's why I
rile against invasive technologies such as JavaScript which provides the power
to these large multinational megaliths (and many others) to do so. (Privacy is
a war that end-users are losing and have effectively lost as they've
essentially no tools or other recourse to fight back).

I also self-censor when it comes to searches or when following links from
innocuous sites that may eventually lead, chain-like through others, to ones
that may be deemed undesirable. For an inquisitive techie like me this is a
damn pain.

As I see it, in the current political climate, it'd be stupid to do otherwise.
My you, 20 years ago nothing would have been further from my mind (or I'd
imagine on the minds of most other internet users for that matter).

Unfortunately, both corporate and state surveillance is fact of life and a
sign of the times and we just have to get used to it. If that limits the full
extent of access and the liberties that the internet actually provides one
then so be it. Sadly, we've little other choice.

~~~
rhn_mk1
> That said, I consider it a different matter when it comes to the Googles and
> Facebooks of this world pinching my data without paying for it

What makes you think they are not scraping your public activity from other
sites?

~~~
Aromasin
From what I've read they can still gather your public data, but to a lesser
degree than they can from the direct use of their services. The second-hand
scraping is a lot less specific - "he visits X website, at X time, X times a
day" as opposed to "he works at X, is featured in X type of photo, shares X
type of content, has close relations with X people, is likely to click X type
of advert". They can extrapolate a lot more accurate assumptions about someone
from the latter set of data.

I'm sure they're much better at data scraping then they were when I read that
last though. Thankfully people much more intelligent than myself are making it
easier to obfuscate this activity. I've had a lot of luck using the advice
below:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20181107150700/https://iotdarwin...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181107150700/https://iotdarwinaward.com/post/improve-
your-privacy-in-age-of-mass-surveillance/)

~~~
rhn_mk1
> "he works at X, is featured in X type of photo, shares X type of content,
> has close relations with X people [...]

There's nothing preventing anyone to scrape that kind of info from public
sources either. Some of this may be available here on HN (shares that kind of
content, works at X), others on competitor's social networks (Twitter,
Mastodon, Reddit, GitHub, forums). In fact, this is part of Google's core
business model, and you can most likely see this in their database already:
"google" yourself.

Admittedly, no one will be able to scrape click rates, but that's relatively
insignificant compared to the amount of info we already publicly share.

~~~
hilbert42
> There's nothing preventing anyone to scrape that kind of info from public
> sources either.

Absolutely correct, if you read my posts then you'll see that I expose both
myself and my ideas to quite some considerable degree. I'm under no illusion
that all my attempts at blocking Google's spying will not work here.

I've never had the need to hide myself on the web, rather it's that I've been
forced to, or at least to try to hide parts of my private data—none of which
I'm ashamed about.

It's the underhanded and egregious way Google, Facebook, et all have gone
about it that hurts and which I find so objectionable.

------
a_imho
What about increasing digital footprint to decrease signal to noise ratio?

~~~
blaze33
I once tried a website (or browser extension maybe?) constantly opening random
links on weird topics to mess up your browser history.

~~~
Rumperuu
Sounds like TrackMeNot[0], which constantly searches for random things on
various search engines, or AdNauseum[1], which clicks every ad it sees.

[0] [https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/](https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/)

[1] [https://adnauseam.io/](https://adnauseam.io/)

------
blakesterz
"Other than that, I figure that if the Chinese authorities want to intercept
my Bluetooth keyboard signal, they’ll just get an appreciation of how little
work my editors have to do to my sterling copy."

Kind of an interesting, but short interview. That quote cracked me up.

------
Cypher
Atleast facebook, google and reddit protect our data from our government...

~~~
hilbert42
Are you sure, how can you be sure? I reckon not (and they couldn't anyway).
And I've no illusions that all the protections that I've evoked/implemented
myself against Google et al would add any meaningful protection either.

Methinks, the only way to bypass governments would be to delete one's ISP
account and throw away one's PCs and smartphones.

------
SEJeff
Obligatory link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Surveillance Self
Defense guide:

[https://ssd.eff.org](https://ssd.eff.org)

------
vcavallo
Helpful relative to this:
[https://www.privacytools.io/](https://www.privacytools.io/)

------
FerosMorgen
It might be nice if the US became the privacy state in contrast to the
proliferation of the surveillance states. It is a naïve speculation but, by
coining a phrase, maybe we can get a few politicians to try to nudge the
government toward a greater respect of personal freedoms and a sense of
protected privacies with respect to this particular issue.

~~~
hilbert42
It would be nice but I'd reckon the US will be the last to do so. The US,
being the center of Capitalism and home of Big Tech, the lobbying pressure on
politicians will be far too great for them to resist. Even Europe, despite the
GDPR, is pretty wishy-washy about this kind of privacy regulation.

For the time being, I reckon this is strictly a DIY exercise.

------
Wyndtroy2012
In China, there appears to be a public understanding that personal privacy is
not protected while in the U.S. most citizens are not concerned about their
own protections. How else could Facebook exist and prosper so mightily? As for
me, I don't book Face and neither should anyone else.

