Why is that the Normies had shifted from "I have nothing to hide" to "Privacy is not real"???
Why is that the Normies had shifted from "I have nothing to hide" to "Privacy is not real"???
120 comments
-
The mindset about privacy is just all wrong. It's not an all or nothing game. Any privacy gain is a net positive to no privacy at all.
To many people conflate privacy with anonymity or try "accomplish" privacy without understanding what they want to be private from and why.
-
Exactly. Now to click the “copy text” button and keep your fine words handy for my next convo with a friend who thinks life with Facebook and Google is grand.
-
Many people don't even distinguish
- Privacy
- Anonymity
- Security
So you know... For example Signal is private but not anonymous as it is tied to you in some way (username, phone number). Security is just not exposing yourself when you haven't allowed someone to have this information / access.
-
-
but it was trash at loading html websites
as opposed to websites written in excel 2003 format or what
-
my guess is its just another flavour of cope.
imo likely because recent history has began to undermine the delusions which were propping up the former flavour.
-
i had the same thought since i sometimes wonder "why bother" when i know that things like prism gave them everything they wanted 15 years ago.
-
Haha holy shit id forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
-
-
-
There’s worse.
They already know everything about me anyways. If I can exchange my data for some free and easy to use service, I’m more than happy to give.
I hate defeatism.
-
Its not even defeatism, its willingly sacrificing themselves to the machine in hopes it will be merciful!
-
True.
And they’ll follow that up with a somewhat snarky comment that “You’ll be eliminated by the machines first.”
-
-
I don't, in general make this same bargain, and I'm not more than happy to give my data, and thus sacrifice my privacy. However, I have had to reckon, and I think many of those who value privacy must too, with the fact that it isn't inherently valued by everyone, that simply adequately communicating this in a way that's better understood won't translate to people suddenly realising what they're giving up. We aren't always simply one great analogy away from changing every person's world view and likely many have come to their view from a place at least as well informed as those of us who jealously guard our privacy. I also have to reckon with the fact that to some extent, my own desire to protect my privacy is at least not fully explainable by logic and rationalism, especially in light of how difficult it is to protect and how easy it is to have unwittingly ceded it. You might call that defeatism, and to simply conclude "well I lost some privacy, so I might as well give it up completely" is accepting defeat, again not something I'm yet prepared to do, but it is also perhaps important to acknowledge and factor present realities in to one's thinking. It might sound defeatist to point out an enemy's big guns pointed toward you from all sides, but it's insane to ignore them. That quote that you've produced, while antithetical to my thinking, really isn't irrational or illogical, and only defeatist if you were onboard with fighting to begin with. If you do not value your privacy and you get something useful in exchange for its sacrifice then it would seem obvious to part with it gladly and it's difficult to offer a rational reason why someone shouldn't. My strongest motivation for protecting it is more idealistic than personal and has more to do with a kind of slippery slope argument and a concern for hypothetical power grabbing and eroding of our rights and autonomy. I like to think that's reason enough, but at least right now, for almost everyone, none of those concerns represent clear nor present dangers and I can't prove it definitely will become such in future though I certainly feel like it has accelerated trends firmly in the direction of my fears.
-
On the last point you talked about, “prove it definitely will become such a future”. You simply cannot prove that without going there. What we’re seeing is not a natural course of actions, so we cannot simply derive the consequences like we would be able in science. Even in science, often times, the best we can do is probabilistic. The best we can do is show that such a future is possible, and that given the evidences, we may be able to conclude that the chances of realizing such a future is so and so, with caveats to known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
-
I’ll admit that chalking it up to defeatism is a stretch, but it’s not too far in my opinion. It’s the admission that the “machines” (though it’s really just big tech companies with a vested interest in as much data as possible so that they can sell it one way or another for profit) have already won and there’s not only no point in struggling against it, you get something out of it. I don’t necessarily agree with the gun analogy as I find it difficult to distinguish that from a threat of your life, but I see where you’re coming from: the easy path towards what most people current perceive as a modern life of tech is built in a way that pushes people into line as products, by enticing them with a “service” and taking advantage of their FOMO, and all other ways are either too much work or too technical for the common person.
When these services that people have come to rely on gets enshittified, these people would then just shrug and say “well what can you do,” maybe send some angry message somewhere into the aether and continue with the service, continuing to be a milk cow.
For myself, I see privacy as a tool towards encouraging a healthier variety in the ecosystem. It is a way to attain at least some healthy level of anonymity, as you would walking down streets in different parts of the world, so that I do not have to constantly maintain a single, outward personality everywhere I go. Supporting privacy is my way of saying I don’t like how many big tech business works, by essentially exploiting human nature and stepping all over it. That IS ideological; I simply believe that we can do good business without resorting to dirty tactics and opportunism; that humans should not be milk cows to business or capitalism.
That said, I have some vested interest in having more options: my interest and hobbies are niche and none of these services can or will sufficiently provide for what I seek. By the milk cow analogy, I do not sufficiently benefit from the blanket offers of these businesses. I also do not like the consequences of which they bring to humans and their relationships, and not fixing those consequences is out of a conflict of interest where they are motivated to exploit human nature and relationships to profiteer off us all, as is the many examples that we’re all starting to see and realize from capitalism.
-
-
-
html websites
These aren't normies. They're children.
-
This honestly reads like a bad commercial you'd hear on the radio.
-
-
When they realized they DO actually have something to hide, they moved the goalposts to now say nothing is private online anyway.
-
I mean, that is pretty close to the truth. Especially for people whose skill level is at "Firefox sucks at loading HTML sites".
-
That’s such a weird statement. People who don’t like Firefox at that level don’t know what html is.
-
-
-
The claim to have "nothing to hide" was not just born our of ignorance, but also out of comfort - to not having to do anything about it.
Now that even the last one accepted that they do indeed have something to hide, but in order to justify their own inaction, it's labeled as inevitable: privacy is not real.
They are lying to themselves, because doing otherwise would mean they have to admit being wrong.
-
The 'nothing to hide' argument seems a lot like that 'first they came for socialists and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist...' quote. Sure you have nothing to hide right now, but what happens when something you weren't hiding becomes a target.
-
i think its a propganda to destroy privacy like the one "police are public protector" only the high ups and they know what police means but the general public dont .
-
It's true that they say both things out of comfort.
Though to be completely honest, both statements are not contradictory. They are not necessarily accepting that they do have something worth hiding, but just stating that hiding is too difficult these days anyway. That does not mean (sadly) that they would start doing it were it easier, just that they have even less of a motive to care about it now that hiding is so much harder (to the point of almost being "a myth").
I'm not saying they are right, I'm saying that lack of consistency is not the problem with that attitude. It's not a "shift", just a consistent continuation of a lazy attitude towards comfort.
-
-
A lot of people have just accepted surviellance for convienience.
People close to me get TSA precheck even though it requires fingerprinting, because "the government already has your fingerprints"
But if they did, why would they need to ask your for them?
-
Depending on what people do, the government already has their fingerprints.
Personally, I work around schools so I had to get a background check and fingerprinted for that. I also am licensed to handle explosives, both federally and at the state level. I been fingerprinted for that. I've gone through TSA for hazmat endorsement on a commercial driver's license. That needed fingerprints and a background check.
Getting fingerprinted to get through airport security is the least of my privacy concerns.
But my threat model isn't the TSA. They aren't a concern of mine, although I do opt out of their facial recognition.
I am concerned with internet surveillance, corporate surveillance, and communication surveillance.
-
When I got fingerprinted for my classified security clearance I told them that due to my psoriasis my fingerprints were blank due to the thickened skin. They said it didn't matter so I have a set of blank prints in the fed files.
-
-
Sorry for devil's advocate here because I agree with you but hypothetically the answer would be verification. ie., Google already has your password, so why would they need to ask you for it when you log in?
-
Technically they only have your password hash
-
Clear Blue is like this, but they use your iris scan. You have to scan every time to skip the line. But the TSA precheck just fingerprints you once when you sign up IIRC
-
-
If you’ve gone to jail they totally have your prints already. Fingerprints are identifying information for such a thing. How else would they do that?
-
Not everyone has gone to jail, but if the govt has your fingerprints it's easier to get convicted regardless of your innocence.
-
-
TSA sounds nightmarish to me
-
-
Is it me or do those comments feel very shill-like?
-
Yes some subreddit is piviting hard captalism recently, giving up their dignity to defend corporations with their life.
-
Yea this has really big astroturfing vibes.
-
-
"If people say edge is bad they should consider thinking about your windows 11 os lol"
-
“My simple brain can only think in ‘binary’ and doesn’t understand that development of a successful threat model doesn’t (and often can’t) be perfect, but any incremental change to my behavior and online practices in a way to prevent sensitive information from being shared and potentially utilized by malicious actors is a plus.
Instead of thinking about all of that, I’m going to reduce the whole subject to a nice and neat logical fallacy of ‘online privacy is terrible nowadays, thus it doesn’t matter what I do’ “
-
"No, they would never track us. But if they were, it would be a good thing."
-
Wouldn’t it be better to at least put a modicum of effort in to have some privacy, than to put zero effort in and have none at all?
-
If everyone started using encrypted messaging software, using devices that are resilient to all but the highest levels of forensics, and stuck to social spaces which prevent bots and alt accounts, hosted on servers in countries their own nation's law enforcement doesn't have access to, it would massively increase the costs of surveillance. Every layer of that increases the price.
When you let surveilling you become profitable and easy, expect it to get worse. More obtrusive. After all, you've displayed compliance up to that point.
-
Yes, that’s it. As I’ve told friends on several occasions, you know why I encrypt my online life and guard my privacy as if, you know, freedom depended on privacy? Because fuck them, that’s why.
It takes my time and effort, but I just can’t let the bastards win just that little bit more easily. All cops and corps are bastards (ACAB).
-
-
-
"hello i am u/NotBillGates and I agree with this message"
-
trash at loading html
-
"i don't have anything to hide" mfs when their passwords get leaked:
-
A similar argument I hear is "If they want me, they will find and arrest me no matter my precautions".
Kinda yes... But why are you talking about threat models that include someone deliberately hunting you down? We are not high-ranking dissidents or criminals that they would put effort and money into finding. Our concern is passive surveillance - maybe the collected info doing us a disservice (like being leaked for scammers or sold to an evil ex), maybe even something mundane getting flagged and us being arrested just to serve as an example.
-
e.g. Period tracking apps being used as evidence when prosecuting people who seek abortions
-
-
Gen Alpha doesn't care about privacy online. They need to be guided by their parents to care, e.g. when they buy a laptop, they install some Linux distribution on it before they give it to the child.
-
They've been primed not to. They've grown up surrounded by social media where oversharing with your legal name attached is incentived, both by the companies and the lonely, drama-hungry users. I wish we'd pushed harder against this back in the early days of Facebook, but I doubt most of us saw this coming.
-
we're doomed then
-
they most likely want to game on their laptop as well. Linux is capable, but usually requires good configuration and troubleshooting, that a gen alpha kid can't do, and parents are busy. This is why it is not a widely practiced thing
-
-
"chrome was hogging up my ram" is the dumbest part of all of this lmao, this person's decisionmaking is completely driven by placebo and it's hilarious
-
If it wasnt beaten by this, it comes a very close 2nd: "Firefox is trash at loading HTML websites".
You can tell that fucker spends their time gibbering techno waffle bollcoks to old people!
-
It’s something they saw in a meme once and now they take it for fact.
-
-
The one saying they use copilot for math problems is the worst part. It demonstrates their complete lack of critical thinking.
-
Why? It's because they never arrived at their current behavior by a systematic progression of logical steps. Most of the behaviors we exhibit aren't that way. We just offer a post-hoc explanation/justification. They use edge, so they defend their action with any argument assertion they can think of.
It's also (sort of) because they want to tip the proverbial scale towards their current use. Change takes effort and can be irritating. They have their list of positives about edge (faster, easier, etc.), and they downplay the negatives such as privacy.
-
"Normies"? We don't need more tribalism.
-
Do you remember when it was commonly advised to use fake names and birthdays on online forms, and when "spyware" was a term?
-
Copium
-
Microsoft Edge, based on Google's Copium engine-
-
Copium indeed
-
-
The op in that post is 14 years old at most. Just look at how that shot is tailored.
-
Never say privacy. Always say libre software. That's why.
-
chromium is still 'libre' though, so I don't think that's enough
-
A two word attack can only hit so many targets and you don't have a better attack.
-
-
-
Firefox can’t load HTML pages? Huh?
-
Reddit be like.
-
Yeah a very reddit moment
-
-
They genuinely do not care anymore. We lost, just like the cypherpunks lost.
-
Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
Edward Snowden
-
I don’t think I’ve had an issue on Firefox other than some sites saying “unsupported browser,” which is really the site’s fault.
-
I found Firefox to be much slower than Chrome... 10 years ago. Now, not only is it just as fast, it's a much better experience all around.
-
-
I mean, yeah, privacy isn't really a thing in our digital surveillance age. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna make it as hard as possible for them. Make em work for it.
-
Hey you have nothing to hide? Please give me: Your address, bank account info, card numbers, social security, and the information of your family and friends. All passwords. Hand over your wallet too. Give me photos of your fingerprints, genitals, and a 360 view of your head. Why does it matter what I could do with such info? You have nothing to hide, right?
-
Ultimately, the sentiment isn't completely wrong. Using a different browser isn't going to save you from being tracked. Using one or multiple browser extensions isn't going to save you from being tracked. Using a VPN isn't even going to save you from being tracked.
Accounts are pretty much required to use most sites, and many also require connecting a phone number or other personal details. Privacy is actively discouraged, and attempting to pursue it leaves you with many hardships -- by design I would argue. You buy a product on one site, with no prior search history about it, and suddenly you start getting emails from unrelated sites about similar products. In capitalism, any information about your habits and interests also becomes a commodity. Why shouldn't people dismiss privacy in favor of convenience, in such a system? It seems futile to even try.
And if your government is determined to figure out who you are online, then it will. Don't make the mistake of thinking they don't know what you've been up to, here or otherwise.
-
It isn't completely right either. Browsers, extensions and, only in some cases, VPNs can save you from being tracked by some. You are describing first party tracking but the point is mostly to prevent third party tracking. An adblocker and an email relay goes a long way.
I agree with the rest though. Regulation is the only way.
-
a step in privacy is better than zero. Always. discussion terminated
-
-
An excuse to still be right.
-
Normiesbots-
What's the difference anymore?
-
-
Privacy also doesn't exist when you have the entire website being indexed
I'm also a firm believer in you don't need to freely give up your data
-
I did not realize "spezit" was "spez" and "reddit" until I reread your commnt lol. I thought was some reddit privacy frontend with the German pronunciation of "z".
-
-
Off-topic, but I do agree in general that Edge is a solid browser. I use it when I'm at work and really love the vertical tabs and tab groups. I use firefox for personal use and am patiently waiting for the vertical tabs on the stable release (and not just in about:config).
-
Damn, how did you get three complete troglodytes in one place?
-
Reddit
-
-
My "progressive" friends are this way - "everyone already has everything, whatever who cares"
-
tell them to post their buttholes online then 😂 i cant with folks like this.
-
I do fall into that way of thinking sometimes and in discussions and such, but even then, i still take steps to maintain a level of privacy. It's for stupid reasons, I'm admittedly not knowledgeable whatsoever on data privacy. (As in, why is it necessary since we already carry a lot of data collection devices with us as we go around that I know most people dont even think about.) But it makes me just feel better, I guess.
Most of my friends have actually moved away from Firefox to more tailored browsers like opera, which i think is much worse in terms of data protection. (again, uninformed. It's just something I've seen thrown around, feel free to correct me if that's wrong.) At times, it really is quite easy to start thinking like the people highlighted in the post. I'm 22, and have a degree in computer science. There was a module on data security, but it was mostly focussed on data leaks and encryption methods rather than the 'philosophy' on why data protection is important. Even in the final year of uni, people were being quite flippant with it.
It's probably just a cultural shift, as more and more companies collect mass amounts of user data, people gradually get more comfortable with the idea I guess. Especially with gen alpha, who are born into a world where it's just a fact that all companies are actively farming your data. To them, it's not something to be concerned about whatsoever. There was never a time in which they had privacy, especially since they are introduced to technology before they can even speak, write, or remember.
What I've put above is mostly just waffle honestly, but I hope it provides something to someone LMAO.
Edit to add stuff: I guess to make the point more obvious, for younger generations it's because privacy just isn't real for them.
-
Hopefully the Trump presidency is a wake up call in the importance of privacy. As we slowly move towards fascism, privacy becomes more important than ever.
-
-
laughs with my GraphineOS pixel and librewolf and Alpine on my librebooted Thinkpad
(Obviously you don't need to start where I'm at but everyone's goal should be to eventually become as secure as reasonably possible)
-
Trust in privacy, fight against GAMAM!
-
Don't post screenshots of text
120 comments