[Syonyk]

The book from a year or two ago, "Means of Control," by Tau, goes into some pretty good detail on the data collection and sales from just the adtech firms - where the entire ecosystem seems to be, "You can't use our data for anything but advertising... wink wink", and everyone knows exactly who is bidding on ads, and never winning any, just to slurp up location data and sell it. Or the "companies that don't sell the government." Also, they don't vet any clients beyond "The credit card is good."

> And because giants like Meta, Google, and Apple must collect as much of your personal data as possible, there’s little they can do to protect your privacy.

I quite disagree with the "must" there. They choose to collect as much data as possible, because that's their business model.

And the good news is, it's fairly easy to opt out of quite a lot of that.

Turn location services off, turn your phone off when moving about, and pay cash without "personal tracking cards" associated with you. Just about everywhere has [local area code] 867-5309 registered, if you care.

[mnky9800n]

I was watching this old British show called connections where they try to connect random things in the world together and they talk about your online persona and how the world will change because of the internet and World Wide Web. What I found interesting is that they present it all as if there will be an online version of you that you should treat, essentially, as a separate entity. It is not you, it is your representative to the digital space. That you should think of it as some agent that does things for you in that space even though in reality it’s simply a collection of data about you. But I liked that idea because it helps create a delineation between you the person and your online presence. I think what people don’t realize these days is that it is rather difficult to be anonymous online in the same way it is rather difficult to be anonymous in a room full of people you know. This is because your online profile is essentially known to any online actor who wants to know as you and the article point out. But tbh I think most people, including myself, spend too much time engaging in doing things connected to online. You don’t need slack and zoom to talk to colleagues it is possible to have in person interactions. You don’t need strava to go for a run. You don’t need your phone to go to the coffee shop and read a book.

[ttyprintk]

I’m a big fan of the show. People who only use Facebook, I don’t expect them to dress their speech based on anonymity. People who actually fear a surveillance state, same deal. So how shall we depict the minority (on HN and IRC, etc) who expect anonymity as a feature?

[AtlasBarfed]

The basic rule of thumb is, if a company knows something about you, then the government does too.

Which means they know everything you have posted, everywhere you've gone, everywhere you've worked, what you think politically, and almost certainly have AI profilers trying to "precog" you.

To say nothing of camera surveillance, gait analysis, facial recognition, license plate tracking, cell phone signal interceptors.

All it takes is for one authoritarian to walk in and turn the key and POOF we have perfect.

Are we in danger of that? Oh right, no politics on HN. Don't worry, be happy folks.

[potato3732842]

A one-off or series of authoritarians should be the least of your concern. They tend to be controversial and have great difficulty amassing the political will to get their things truly done and set in stone. A constantly popular government should be what keeps you awake at night. Because people who are otherwise capable of "hold a job, support myself" levels of intelligent thought will tie themselves into knots to support otherwise unjustified screwing at the hands of a government they support.

[zitsarethecure]

Or an authoritarian propped up by popular and powerful monopolistic corporations to which otherwise capable people depend on for their jobs.

[potato3732842]

Isn't that basically what every modern government is regardless of dictatorship vs democracy?

Priority #1 seems to be defending state moneymaking interests and state adjacent/intertwined BigCos

Priority #2 seems to be expanding their own power

Priority #3 seems to be micromanaging in social issues at the behest of various special interests to distract from #1 and #2

Keeping us all from keeling over from heavy metal poisoning or whatever is way, way, way down the list unless it bleeds up to #3 for whatever reason.

[zeta0134]

For a couple of years now I've been using [my area code] - 555 - [a unique 4-digit pin] for dealing with otherwise "walk-in" business that look at you like you have three heads if you decline to say a phone number out loud. In the US at least, the 555 block is defacto "fictional" and typically isn't assigned out, so it lets me create a valid looking number that won't accidentally ring some random real person if they try to call it.

[forgetfreeman]

Minor quibble, 555 isn't fictional, it's typically reserved for teleco internal use, or at least that was the case 25 years ago, who knows what the deal is now. Used to be you could wardial 555-xxxx and end up with all kinds of weird AT&T field installations, back office numbers, switch remote command and control modem numbers, etc.

[function_seven]

The fictional block exists, but it's not the entire 555 prefix. It's 555-01xx.

It was the entire "Klondike-5" block, but got narrowed.

[smgit]

Its like expecting farm animals to keep track of how the farm works, as the farm gets more and more sophisticated in animal domestication and exploitation. The individual action argument was weak 10 years ago and its worthless today.

The is a Systemic problem. Doesn't matter what the individuals do.

[ty6853]

The trouble is people thinking it can be fixed with the system. I've been to a few dictatorships, none of them had the slightest clue what I was doing because the government was too poor and distracted with stuff like militias at their door to take much interest in what I was doing.

Safety comes from dysfunctional governance. Surveillance is a property of functional governance. Embrace disfunction.

[lazide]

Eh, that’s overly rosy.

Plenty of ineffective dictatorships will happily line you up against the wall with bogus surveillance. And shitty surveillance states will happily fake surveillance or data to look more effective.

The danger with these types of State organs is they are constantly trying to justify their existence and cover up their mistakes, and if you can be thrown in the gears, some places are happy to do that.

[potato3732842]

>Plenty of ineffective dictatorships will happily line you up against the wall with bogus surveillance. And shitty surveillance states will happily fake surveillance or data to look more effective.

Sure, but that's the exception. Governments have a pyramid of needs too. Governments don't throw a bunch of resources on things with poor returns, like shooting people who haven't done much wrong, when there's easier fruit to pick. Sure, you can go full jackboot on specific issues here and there but that's not sustainable on a "will I retire in peace of will I hang from the overpass" timeline. And even if you're the dictator's henchman and want to go down some rabbit hole of killing people you don't like the the fact that the dictator may have you shot for waste or as a sacrifice when that provokes unrest or dissatisfaction among the people generally keeps the government in line. And the government really doesn't want to be killing people because it needs people to do things and pay taxes.

Look at all the historically violent dictatorships that lasted a long time and for many leaders. They all provide for their people generally. They might not be competitive absolutely but they keep things generally moving in a positive direction decade over decade and keep the country doing at least as well as its peers. The ones that don't tend to fall apart after a couple bad leaders.

I really shouldn't need to be explaining this. This is how every European monarchy worked just with god and birthright as justification instead of backroom dealing and politics and false elections.

[ty6853]

Im sure when I fought for the YPG Assad might have liked that, unfortunately all the bogus surveillance in the world is no use when your army cannot enforce their borders or sovereignty. In any case I saw guys with AKs posting to Facebook, no bogus stuff needed, they were already publicly providing all the evidence needed for the death penalty without any worry of being prosecuted.

[lazide]

I don’t think we’re disagreeing. My point is that while those folks shooting AKs in the air are doing their thing, some other random putz that never did anything like that is probably getting nailed to the wall by the same system.

And unlike an effective/accurate surveillance system, you can’t be safe by just not being the AK weilding guys. In fact, sometimes you’re safer because you’re more dangerous, and they’d rather find someone easier to pick on.

Third world places aren’t what they are because of a lack of rules or systems (usually), but rather because the rules and systems aren’t fit for purpose and produce the wrong outcomes.

[ty6853]

Ah yes absolutely. Under no system is anyone safe if they're unable to bear arms to protect themselves/family, they will be systematically vulnerable or vulnerable to the next bandit. This just becomes more visible under disfunction.

[BobaFloutist]

I question your priorities.

[gilbetron]

> And the good news is, it's fairly easy to opt out of quite a lot of that.

The problem is that we really need something like herd immunity. If you opt out, but the rest of the people in your life do not, then it's possible to discover most of your data most of the time. You might have location services off, but your friends and family don't, so much of the time there's a good guess where you are at. Or you might not share your phone #, but it can be collected by those that you text or call and shared that way. Creating "shadow accounts" is very advanced these days.

Not to mention, "opt out" has to be actually true and not just a facade.

[seveneves7s]

Just don't bring your phone with you. With low power states and opaque software and hardware, you really can't risk it. You can never be sure it's truly off, unless it's in a Faraday bag. But is it worth it?

[fsflover]

My phone has hardware kill switches for modem, WiFi/BT and camera/mic. So I can be sure. The schematics is available, too.

[hashishen]

what phone?

[fsflover]

Librem 5.

[amelius]

The magnetic field passes through a Faraday cage, so even then there are no guarantees if the phone uses unconventional modes of communication. Ultrasonic audio is another one.

[monero-xmr]

It is impossible to avoid, and if you try to avoid it, you stick out. The correct maneuver is to appear normal, but selectively shutdown the system. Turn your phone on airplane and pay with cash with the moment is right. We live in a panopticon afterall.

In a country with the rule of law like the USA, the government can know you committed a crime, you know you committed a crime, society may suspect you of committing a crime, but criminal law requires a jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt. With a good lawyer this is a very tough bar, it's how organized crime gets away with so much (and despite the mafia being out of the news, they operate extremely well to this day).

So selectively you choose when to be anonymous. You pick your battles.

As a practical matter that may help the average HN normie, if you have a family you likely have life insurance. Never, ever, buy alcohol, marijuana, or cigarette / vapes / nicotine products with a credit card. Always pay cash. If you die the insurance company will go through everything to try and deny.

In the reverse case, the modern day can help you. If you drive, get a dashcam. You don't have to reveal video if you are at fault. But if not at fault, the video is gold. Put cameras around your house.

If you have rental property attached to your primary domicile, never have the internet under your own primary internet, lest you give reason for a wayward tenant to cause a search of your own home.

You aren't protecting yourself for the 99.99% time, you are prepared for the 0.01% case

[mistrial9]

ok but -- combined with innate hostility or rampant selfishness, this degenerates into the famous "low trust society" fairly quickly. Certainly there is room for work on fair courts and laws somehow? in the daylight?

[enahs-sf]

My personal favorite is 281-330-8004.

[vgeek]

Who?