There are many enemies of privacy. There are politicians claiming the (at best) misguided pretense of “protecting the children,” intellig…
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t agree with everything in this post but he’s pretty much right. Great read, everybody should really read this piece and mull it over for a day or two.
Privacy is a thing of the past with modern cars, phones, cameras everywhere, NSA, evidence laundering, credit cards, facial recognition, TPMS censors, etc… we need new laws to restore privacy.
I don’t understand, if so many people care about privacy how come no one in the phone/car etc market are able to make good product which cater to these needs?
There’s no money in privacy.
Harvesting and selling personal information is practically a continual source of funds with little to no cost. Why spend time and money developing a product with all the data harvesting elements stripped out to appeals to maybe 5-10% of the market?
Just sounds to me like excuses made by a marketing department that doesn’t know how to do its job. People just don’t know they want more privacy, largely because they don’t realize the extent to which they currently have none and how easy it would be to claw some of it back.
Apple is flexing about privacy (rightly or wrongly) and has rolled out a lot of privacy/transparency features. Clearly they see value there. Firefox has seen growing adoption with the EU breaking apple’s walled garden. Clearly people care to some extent and with marketing/education more can care.
This defeatist attitude, as well as “all-or-nothing” one, is one of the major privacy enemies by itself.
modern cars
You can not own a car at all, have an older one (which, granted, is not quite a universal longterm option), or from wht I’ve seen in discussions - depending on the model, a lot of them can have the telematics units disconnected.
phones
Not using a smartphone, leaving it at home or using a Faraday cage (same goes for a dumbphone), using Lineage/Graphene/whatever on it.
credit cards
Cash. Even in a lot of online stores (the smaller ones, not large universal Amazon-like) I’ve shopped at you can order delivery to the store’s office (which is usually at no extra cost) and pay with cash.
Yes, there are a lot of areas where you have lost. But that doesn’t mean you should give up on everything at once then. Privacy is not binary, it is a spectrum.
I’d argue it’s not a defeatist attitude, since they included the proper solution. To “need new laws”. And that’s how we generally do it. We disallow companies ripping off people, despite that maybe providing a better profit margin. We force water parks to implement some minimum standards to prevent accidents, despite not caring about safety would cost them less. I’d argue it’s the same here. Just blaming it on the user isn’t the proper thing to do. It just doesn’t work.
I was referring to him saying “privacy is a thing of the past”. And yes, while laws would be the best course of action, they’re unlikely (and in case of facial recognition - kind of impossible because at least here, the main facial recognition system is operated by the government). My point was that with what he mentioned, there is far from nothing a regular person can do for themselves and their loved ones.
That is correct. And I think the same dynamics are at play with some of the other currently discussed topics. For example things like recycling and the switch to renewable energies. You as an individual can do something about it. And it’ll make a difference for you and your life. And that’s also enough for me to do it. But it doesn’t really change anything in the broader picture. The rules foster egoistical behaviour. You’ll often suffer and have a competetive disadvantage against the people who think about themselves first. That’s why companies won’t participate in making the world a better place, because they have to stay competetive. And also 90% of people are somewhat uneducated and just think about themselves.
I think regulation is the only way to tackle these issue. Yes, you can pay attention to privacy and do recycling. But it won’t really do anything of substance for the environment or what companies try to do with your data. And it won’t change the situation.
People in USA take pride in using cashless modes.
I don’t understand the flex. You are literally paying commission to a private company for every transaction as well as a permanent record of the purchase in company database linked with so many personally identifiable details.
Privacy is not binary, it is a spectrum.
You have no fucking idea what a beautiful thing you just wrote.
From TFA:
The Brave-haters are almost certainly foaming at the mouth reading that paragraph. They’ll cite concerns like Brave’s affiliate link scandal, the collection of funds ostensibly on behalf of creators without telling them, the installation of programs without user consent
You don’t have to hate Brave to distrust Brave.
If any of your friends in real life did something fishy to you once, you’d immediately stop talking to him. Possibly, maybe, if your former friend apologized and swore he’d never do it again, and he was convincing enough, and he treated you right for quite some time, maybe you’d take him back as a friend. But even if you did, if he did something fishy to you again, surely you’d dump him for good this time - and probably punch him in the face too.
The Brave company did this THREE TIMES and there are still people who trust them?
Me, I don’t hate them. I just don’t trust them. I wouldn’t trust them to run a calculator utility on my computer, let alone something as critical to my digital life as a browser. They lost my trust not once, not twice, but three times.
In addition, their cryptocurrency thing doesn’t help build trust either. I classify anybody who dabbles in crypto as instantly sketchy by default, and they’d have to work extra-hard to earn my trust. Brave has done the exact opposite: they’re a crypto-scheme-running bunch who made a supposedly privacy-friendly browser, and I could kind of believe they needed the crypto scheme to make a living. Kind of, but I chose to believe it for a while. Unti Brave did their first fishy thing, and then I instantly uninstalled their browser, never to install it again.
Brave is NOT trustworthy. In my opinion, if you trust them. you’re gullible, or you actively want to believe them too much. It’s not hatred, it’s just plain common sense.
I’m out of the loop. What were the three instances of fishy behaviour by the Brave company?
Haha, fool me once…
Fool me thrice and dabble in crypto…
(…And I’ll use LibreWolf instead)
I have no problem with crypto, provided the people making the service aren’t the same as the people making the cryptocurrency, yet that’s what Brave did.
Here’s how it should’ve worked:
- Brave includes an ad-blocker but default
- Brave talks to websites about a profit sharing option for sites - Brave would serve the ads using only local browsing history, the website gets most of the revenue (alternative is no revenue due to the ad blocker)
- Brave creates an option for users to pay in lieu of seeing ads
Step 3 is where crypto comes in. Users could choose to pay in crypto, credit card, etc, and they’d fund a pool of money to be used for that (always for this site, ask every time, never for this site). Likewise, if websites prefer crypto, Brave could support that.
The whole problem though is trying to pay users with crypto, which tells me this currency was always going to be problematic since Brave benefits from it reducing in value (reduces their payout).
So I don’t use Brave for personal stuff, I only use it as a Chrome alternative for web testing because it has an ad blocker.
I’m really confused. The article points out why Brave is a bad choice right after saying it’s a good choice, says that logical fallacies are a problem, moves immediately into why false equivalence is something to look out for in general, and ends. Why is does this mean Brave isn’t going to steal our info? Because Mozilla might too? How does that address any of the valid privacy concerns with Brave (eg forced affiliate links, a privacy violation) rather than social ones (eg Brandon Eich being a piece of shit)? Empathy is a tool to have a conversation with others who might have different values, not a lens to evaluate privacy or user experience.
It kind of ties into their argument that it’s more complex than that. And I’d agree. People always want simple answers to complex truths. Could very well be the case that you can’t say if Brave is “the best” without analyzing the threat scenario. Or even after doing that you end up with a list of both pros and cons.
