[MiddleMan5]

How do we fix it?

How do you offer proprietary stateful services or applications without limiting the storage and management of personal data to a single machine?

I love being able to pick up my phone with the same browser tabs I was just looking at on my computer. I love being able to order lunch with the credit card I added to my virtual wallet on my cell phone. I also understand that developing features requires real-world input data.

This is a genuine question; what might the data structures, storage systems, and user experience look like in a modern company that lets users own their own data?

[Larrikin]

It's not a perfect solution, but I believe poisoning of the data whenever possible is a short term solution. Aggressive blocking in the browser and using ad guard/pi hole helps. But constantly feeding garbage whenever possible into your profile helps obfuscates when you inevitably slip up.

I've read people on here argue against using such extensions. There's the initial argument that it doesn't work, but the Google team banned it from the chrome store so it must have had some effect.

Then there is the argument that it helps fingerprint your browser into a unique user, which actually is only possible any more in Chrome, specifically not Firefox. If you're using Chrome already, it seems like a safe bet that every single website you go to is already being sent to Google anyway, so what does it matter.

[MiddleMan5]

I think that's absolutely a valid short term option, but I think ultimately that's legitimizing this cat and mouse game of companies mining citizens for personal information. We shouldn't have to feel cornered and preyed upon

[candiodari]

I use this to sync a lot of things, even to my cell phone. And while it can be improved (I want my Logseq directory on my cell phone, but my source code folders are in the "same" folder and thus get synced along). I'd love a filtering feature on cell phone and generally a better cell phone interface.

https://syncthing.net/

[libraryatnight]

That sounds like incredibly minor convenience at the expense of a lot of privacy. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your vote for the future but the shitville you're down with for the sake of not having to reopen a tab is sad.

I don't believe you want to fix it which is why youll always fixate on why it's hard and you like how easy shit is

[MiddleMan5]

That seems awfully harsh, and I'm not sure why you're being so cynical. I am interested in working towards a better future, but no matter how dumb you believe I am, comments like yours definitely won't lead there either. In an effort to continue the conversation constructively:

I understand the power of connected systems because I've worked with distributed computing systems for the better part of a decade. The more servers the better in my field, and the more situations they can compute in (my pocket, a volcano,space, etc.) the better. I like my computers connected, but I also like them under my control.

There's a reality to swallow; my grandmother doesn't want to configure a server, or understand what a certificate or even a yubikey is. A truly universal privacy and security management system has to do better to make privacy accessible.

Context is important; my health clinic knowing my cholesterol level: important. My credit card company knowing my cholesterol level? Unnecessary. It's going to be important to categorize personal information and provide controls on access.

What if my government adds a new type of issued ID? How does a company efficiently request access to my "swolshon_id" and provide rationale for it's use?

Is a company allowed to reject services if I choose not to provide a portion of my user data? Alternatively could some requirement be to require companies provide services that operate with limited access?

[AJ007]

#1 Post-Snowden the general public has demonstrated they don't really care about privacy. As long as that is true, both companies and governments can demand a lot and get it, even though they don't need it.

Strictly from a computing standpoint (I can't address healthcare providers etc.), the root of many of these problems are at the consumer OS level and the incentives for the companies which build them.

We have three big problems: Google, Apple, and Microsoft. The incentives for these three are misaligned from having secure multi-device computing.

Amazon is as bad or worse, just look at the issues they've had with employees accessing Alexa audio recordings along with their security camera stuff. Fortunately their phone flopped.

Out of the big three, Google has been the worst offender here for the last 10 or so years. Apple has been pretty good, especially with actually security the hardware and stomping out 0days, but watch out: advertising is their growth business. Microsoft has a long history that isn't trustworthy.

Post-GPT3.5+, privacy matters a whole lot. The difference between people who will get completely p0wned and those that don't will be how much public and accessible data is out there. This will have a perverse feedback loop of companies demanding even more personal data and proprietary verification hardware.