from Hacker News

Online privacy: to what extent should you try to go dark?

by nunorbatista on 6/17/22, 10:13 PM with 132 comments

  • by photochemsyn on 6/18/22, 2:31 AM

    The only real way to ensure your data isn't being collected and sold in the course of every single transaction you engage in (cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however), is to get data privacy laws passed that forbid this activity by retailers, data brokers, and related entities. The EU has the right idea on this.

    Ordinary individuals who attempt to use technology to 'go dark' will likely, if they're careful, be able to conceal their online identity from your average stalker type, malicious ex, or seedy credit card fraudster, but certainly not from the likes of Google, Apple, Verizon, or any number of government agencies with access to those outfit's data centers. This is called mass domestic warrantless surveillance and it is illegal under any reasonable interpretation of the US constitution, and certainly shouldn't be allowed by private parties either.

    As far as spies, every history of spies I've ever read has one thing in common: they all hide in plain sight, using cover identities of some sort, acting as much like a normal member of society or their organization as possible, and then running off to do their data transfer/nefarious activity in secret only rarely. Notably, mass domestic surveillance isn't a very useful tool for catching such people - it's more about authoritarian snooping on the population, engendering fear of the state as with STASI, as a means of control. That nonsense shouldn't be allowed, and those who promote it are nothing but authoritarian enemies of democratic rule and free expression.

  • by kornhole on 6/17/22, 11:54 PM

    Author does not mention the major reason I care which is that allowing others to know what we are doing, thinking, saying, where we are going.. either individually or collectively anonymously or not, gives them power over us in many ways to predict, manipulate, dispossess.. which leads to the imbalances we have today of the haves and have nots of data.

    The people who say big tech already has so much data on them so why care are missing the valence of time. What you did, thought, said.. last year is much less valuable and useful than what you are doing today.

  • by DoreenMichele on 6/18/22, 12:08 AM

    These articles frequently err on the side of assuming that online security is entirely about worrying about random internet strangers taking advantage of you. For many people, the primary concern is an abusive SO, ex or relative, getting fired from their current job et al.

    Some articles do address such things but they have something of a tendency to be addressed as a separate issue from "online privacy" rather than one element of the issue and a bigger issue for some individuals than others.

  • by amatecha on 6/18/22, 12:11 AM

    If you are interested in this subject you may like to check out EFF's "Surveillance Self-Defense" site, which has tons of guides and useful info: https://ssd.eff.org

    Another excellent site is Privacy Tools at https://www.privacytools.io/

  • by woojoo666 on 6/18/22, 1:47 AM

    Another big downside of surveillance that the article doesn't mention is the "social cooling" effect [1]. People are less likely to be honest if anything they say can impact their entire life

    [1]: https://www.socialcooling.com/

  • by superb-owl on 6/18/22, 12:04 AM

    I think it's mostly pointless to put more than a basic minimum amount of effort into protecting your own privacy (e.g. sensible social media settings). There are too many surreptitious means of getting your info.

    Instead we need to focus our efforts on political action. Privacy is not something that can be controlled at the individual level when you're up against billion dollar budgets.

  • by t_mann on 6/18/22, 11:43 AM

    Usually when a question is asked in a headline one would expect the article to at least attempt to answer it. This piece doesn't guide you on how to make trade-off decisions between privacy and usability, it doesn't even give concrete tips on how to improve privacy (apart from a single mention of password managers, where it doesn't even say whether they should be used or avoided). This is as useless for beginners as it is for experts, how did this make it to the front page of HN?

  • by snowmizuh-04 on 6/18/22, 11:21 AM

    There's another option, which few are able to implement. Sign off entirely. Stop using the digital Machine. Humans lived this way for all but the most recent wink of an eye. Many humans still do. Think of the monastics on Mt Athos.

    When I first saw the title, I thought the author was going to discuss truly taking the red pill. I was disappointed to read just another '10 things you can do to increase your privacy' piece.

    You're not going far enough.

  • by defrost on 6/18/22, 1:16 AM

    FWiW Greg Egan has had a good run - 40 years online, 10+ novels, many short stories, Hugo and Campbell awards (and others) . . . and yet:

    No verified images nor any evidence that is indeed his real name.

  • by echoradio on 6/18/22, 4:48 PM

    The most valuable course I took at university taught you how to request and analyze public records. This was at least 4-5 years before the government had records available online. So it required you to physically examine this information.

    While taking the class, I came to realize the paper trail you leave the moment you become an adult is immense and almost impossible — from a government perspective — to eliminate entirely. If you require a license or own property, you have no choice but to be in the system. You literally have to disconnect from society and live as a hermit in the woods (and even then I wouldn’t doubt the ability to be tracked.)

    The digital realm has only made this paper trail exponentially impossible to control, even if you’re consciously trying. I’ve adopted the practice of limiting my digital footprint as much as possible (within reason). I don’t have accounts or engage with the social media walled gardens. I am very conscious of the media I consume. For instance, I don’t follow my curiosity about topics an on platforms where an algorithm might force feed me — if I wanted to know about a conspiracy theory for giggles, I’d read on Wikipedia, not watch a video on YouTube.

    And, finally, ad and tracker blockers at every possible level. I figure if someone has me profiled, I can at least block the tailored message they’re sending.

  • by ghaff on 6/18/22, 1:17 AM

    It's a bit hard for me to understand what's being argued for here. For many people in publicly visible positions, it's not practical to avoid having an online identity under your real name. This is not even exclusively a white collar issue for someone who speaks at conferences etc., how about a contractor who needs an online presence to find clients?

    Certainly there are steps someone can take to be make themselves invisible online but it severely limits career and other options.

  • by rkagerer on 6/18/22, 1:13 AM

    People ask why should they care?

    Unfortunately the average person tends to be less concerned about invasions of privacy they cannot see. Like when you go through a scanner at the airport which let's someone in another room basically see through your clothes, vs. the way you feel if someone standing in front of you says to strip naked.

  • by night-rider on 6/18/22, 1:14 AM

    The extent can mean doing basic things like installing and AD blocker, using a password manager, surfing in isolated sessions (incognito mode) to stop cookie tracking and to leave no forensic artefact on your device, always posting with pseudonyms, using privacy-aware operating systems like Linux, etc

    Then you have the extreme options available like Tor, using Qubes, GrapheneOS on your phone, changing your legal name, using burner phones, Faraday sleeves, VPNs for public Wi-Fi, network segmentation for IOT devices, disabling Intel Management Engine. Having multiple operating systems for compartmentation purposes, etc

    There is a privacy rabbit-hole to get lost in. Luckily I’ve found a reasonable middle ground and am not one of those LARPer types who take it all too seriously.

  • by derevaunseraun on 6/18/22, 4:48 AM

    Also want to add that in the coming years they will start pushing biometric logins (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/11/techscape...) in the coming years. This will tie all accounts to the same biometric data and identity, which will make blanket data harvesting and profiling much easier and more economically feasible.

    > As early as 2010, Facebook’s marketing director argued that “online anonymity has to go away.”

    These companies have a financial incentive to destroy online anonymity to the detriment of the rest of society, and biometrics are the latest attack

  • by TylerE on 6/17/22, 11:51 PM

    I don't bother.

    Not worth the effort. I assume everything I do is (potentially) seen by someone, and the typical approaches are only going to make me look more suspicious.

  • by AlexanderTheGr8 on 6/18/22, 1:43 AM

    I have a different perspective and a question for HN. We always ask how to prevent corporations from surveilling us. How about letting them surveil BUT giving incorrect information? Intentionally do things (manually or automated) that gives them completely incorrect information about you.

    Avoiding surveillance is becoming very hard. But giving incorrect information is very easy.

  • by yubiox on 6/18/22, 12:37 AM

    Even just basic malware blocking disables a lot of websites. I can't use some air and hotel sites (aa.com, ihg.com for example) anymore, plus unsubscribing from somewhat normal spam is almost impossible because the unsub links have trackers or something.

  • by kkfx on 6/18/22, 4:10 AM

    IMVHO people should be more warred by their control on their data, in the sense of the ability to access and process them without depending on third parties services, than the already-lost privacy war...

  • by fragmede on 6/18/22, 10:40 AM

    Be dark enough that your impersonators fail due to take/insufficient info on you.

    Don't let this happen to you! https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-daniel-blackmon-romance...

  • by encryptluks2 on 6/18/22, 12:09 AM

    I guess it really depends on what country you live in. In America, history has taught me people with enough money and power can destroy your life with immunity and that you could be one election away from 1984 or Hunger Games.

  • by Twisell on 6/18/22, 4:49 AM

    TLDR;

    This subject is very important so OP took time to write a really long intro, please subscribe to his blog to get the answer next week.

    In the meantime feel free to read the discussion in HN because it's probably more interesting until the part 2 eventually comes out.

  • by logifail on 6/18/22, 8:17 PM

    > "Profiling - Your online behavior can be used to serve you specific content or ads. This was particularly important in the 2016 Donald Trump campaign"

    No references, I'm afraid I stopped reading there. Sorry.