[bad_user]

I'm an European, but I don't mind.

First of all when making such a choice, you have to identify who the enemy is.

If you're talking about global enemies, like the NSA, then IMO without end-to-end encryption you're screwed. And if you're targeted directly, you're screwed regardless, given they have the capability to use whatever vulnerabilities they can find in your router, your phone, your OS, your browser, etc. If it's connected to the Internet, especially if you're being targeted, you're screwed.

Also many European countries have signed on joint cooperation agreements with US intelligence agencies. If for example you're using servers in the UK, it's in no way safer, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

So back to who is the enemy?

For me it's not the NSA or our local intelligence agencies. If I'm being wronged, I've got legal ways to fight back and I don't really care about the NSA.

What I care about is being _profiled_ by unscrupulous companies that may end up selling that data to other actors that may harm my well being. For example insurance companies could deny insurance if they discovered you smoked cigarettes 10 years ago. Or banks changing your credit score based on who your friends are. Or supermarket chains discovering that your daughter is pregnant before everybody else does. This shit is already happening!

I think the general discourse doesn't go in the direction that it should go. Organizations like EFF have been historically anti-government, but very pro corporate and private companies. Which is why I don't trust them fully.

Identify that enemy. If you're an European for example, that enemy is probably not the NSA.

I do prefer non-US alternatives btw, whenever I get that choice. I do so out of a desire to encourage competition and to reward EU companies that do well, as a "voting with your wallet" thing.

But choosing to reject non-US companies for the reason that some of their servers are located in the US, that's frankly childish. Servers located in the US are cost effective. Either provide better alternatives, or otherwise these services will not be able to compete on the global market from a price or latency perspective.

[ryukafalz]

>Organizations like EFF have been historically anti-government, but very pro corporate and private companies.

I don't think I'd call EFF either anti-government or pro-corporate. Rather, they have a set of positions around surveillance, the public domain, etc. and side with or against governments or private companies based on those positions.

I donate to them, and in my experience they've been pretty consistent on their positions, but if you've noticed otherwise I'd be curious to know how.

[bad_user]

I don't want to attack EFF, I think they are on the right side, but it's just a general feeling I've got.

For example when the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal broke loose, that was the perfect opportunity for them to go out against private surveillance, guns blazing. Their reaction was late and with an article like "here's how to protect against Facebook tracking", advising people to opt out in their Settings and to install Privacy Badger, this happening when everybody else was freaking out and doing #DeleteFacebook pieces.

I donated to EFF modest amounts in the past and probably will do so again, because the fights they are fighting are good for us. Maybe they pick their battles, I don't know. But I'm seeing a general pattern in their attacks, which is that they go very light on companies, compared with how they deal with governments.

Maybe it has to do, as always, with their source of funding. I can imagine that they received significant donations from the philanthropists of Silicon Valley. I don't care much though. My general point being that there's too much emphasis lately on government surveillance and control from privacy organizations and less on Google/Facebook surveillance.

I'm glad that there's now mindfulness about it in this community though.

[cosinetau]

> guns blazing

Yeah, but what good would it have done? The privacy battle they're fighting with Facebook and social was lost a long time ago.

[splintercell]

> For example when the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal broke loose, that was the perfect opportunity for them to go out against private surveillance, guns blazing.

This is a very American thing which I can imagine our European counterparts not like, that is govt (USG) is treated as an enemy because it is the most powerful entity in the world. For Europeans, it would Govt AND these mega corporations (because the European govts do not have as much power as the US govt).

This is why in the US, corporations are ignored because they are insignificant on the US soil. And this isn't even a new thing, this opposition of the govt is as old as the founding of the nation.

This is why ACLU will not speak out against censorship of right wing media on Facebook and other companies. Keep in mind ACLU would not have any problem defending the latter against the govt, so it isn't about what the latter represents. It's simply, ACLU is a first amendment right based organization and their focus is preventing govt encroaching on our civil liberties (which is defined by what govt can't do, and not what a person is allowed to do in any circumstances).

Similarly NRA wouldn't care if you got kicked out of a movie theater for being concealed carry, but if a local city tries to ban guns in movie theaters, then NRA would step in.

[eswoo]

> Similarly NRA wouldn't care if you got kicked out of a movie theater for being concealed carry, but if a local city tries to ban guns in movie theaters, then NRA would step in.

Well, this isn't entirely accurate. They definitely do chafe at even private restrictions on anything gun. While I don't have time to research this right now, a quick search of "concealed carry in businesses" certainly returns some people complaining that businesses shouldn't be allowed to restrict that. And, if you dug a little deeper, I imagine the NRA would be weighing in there somewhere.

[splintercell]

Are you just guessing or do you know for sure? I know it for sure because we want NRA to speak up, but they don't.

[aidenn0]

They do see government surveillance as a greater threat than private surveillance, particularly if the private surveillance is disclosed. This makes sense as it is much harder to opt-out of your government than a contract with a private company.

[patrec]

I'd be surprised if it weren't easier for you personally to relocate to a different country than to opt out of any interaction with google.

[topbanana]

I would like to go on record to say that the NSA aren't my enemy either. Definitely not. Especially the analyst reading this - great suit!

[simfoo]

Thanks for you comment.

I agree that the NSA is not _my_ enemy and I am probably not being targeted. However, as more people start thinking like that, those that _are_ targeted (journalists, lawyers, activists etc.) will have less options to hide among users of more privacy-aware service providers.

In a way, by using these providers you shield those who need their services the most

[infogulch]

This strikes me as a kind of herd-immunity argument but for privacy.

[vezycash]

People won't speak the truth or do the right thing if the environment makes it hard, or risky to do so.

>I am probably not being targeted. However, as more people start thinking like that, those that _are_ targeted (journalists, lawyers, activists etc.) will have less options to hide among users of more privacy-aware service providers.

If only child porn / drug peddlers, journalists, lawyers... use tor and other privacy tools at minimum, 3 things WILL happen.

1. Tor, fastmail, ipfs, pgp, full disk encryption... WILL become illegal

2. Anyone using encryption / privacy tools will be raided. Arrest first, find crime later

3. Authorities imprisoning lawyers, journalists... who reveal wrong doings will be too easy. "He used privacy tools" would be enough to pacify the public after-all, "Only criminals have something to hide."

Consequently:

We'll lose the right to keep pins/passwords. Because refusal - privacy = admission of guilt.

I'm a teacher and I know how difficult it is for a kid to speak the truth when the entire class is lying. Adults are not much different.

If people have to choose between their freedom, means of livelihood and doing the right thing, telling the truth or exposing wrong things by the government most wont.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr.

[flyGuyOnTheSly]

>If I'm being wronged, I've got legal ways to fight back and I don't really care about the NSA.

I believe a National Security Letter would prevent you from ever doing such a thing. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Conte...

[bogomipz]

>"Organizations like EFF have been historically anti-government ..."

Can you provide a citation or examples of this? Being pro-civil liberties does not imply anti-government. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

In the US civil liberties are basic freedoms identified in the Bill or Rights and the Constitution. And the Constitution is what established the government in the first place. How is it possible to be pro-civil liberties and anti-government?

[bad_user]

> Being pro-civil liberties does not imply anti-government.

You're right, that's bad phrasing on my part.

I explained what I meant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18058240

[drngdds]

The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on what the government can do. Of course you can support it and be anti-government.

[bogomipz]

The Bill Rights are amendments "to" the Constitution, the very document that establishes the legitimacy of the government in the first place. How can you accept the legitimacy of the government and be anti-government at the same time?

Even the Anti-Federalists, the group that advocated for the establishment of a Bill of Rights were not anti-government.

[gknoy]

I take "anti-government" to mean that one is opposed to the actions that the government takes, in some situations, rather than being against the idea of the government. One can believe that a government is legitimate, while also believing that the government's power should be limited. One might argue that this idea is one of the core ideas of American government.

[bogomipz]

>"I take "anti-government" to mean that one is opposed to the actions that the government takes, in some situations, rather than being against the idea of the government."

That's silly, by that definition everyone would be anti-government then. Nobody agrees with the actions the government takes in all situations, not even within the same political party.

[frockington]

What are the non-US alternatives you prefer? As a US citizen its always interesting to see what is popular an ocean away and check it out

[Timmah]

I'm not your enemy. I don't even know you. So please send me your passwords to your online accounts. And I'd like to take a look at your home computer. So please install VNC and open your ports on the router so we don't waste too much time setting it up.

[mscasts]

Good user.