6 ms·

The perceived "if you're keeping quiet, you must have something to hide" aspect of anonymity fascinates me. Does anybody know if you might actually be safer fr

The perceived "if you're keeping quiet, you must have something to hide" aspect of anonymity fascinates me. Does anybody know if you might actually be safer from, say, a theoretical surveillance program by "blending in" as a typical Internet user vs. using Tor, where just one mistake might trigger a red flag? I guess this technique wouldn't applicable if you do have something to hide, though... Hmm!

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> by "blending in" as a typical Internet user How do you blend in? By not visiting any "subversive" websites and by not mentioning any "subversive" keywords. At that point you are a typical internet user. But how do you know what is considered subversive? Animal rights/environmental activists with no actual proof that they've done anything or planned anything are under house arrest right now in France just because the government wanted to free up resources to track Islamic extremist terrorists. > using Tor. where just one mistake might trigger a red flag? Btw as a point of interest your username just triggered a red flag and got put on a slightly elevated watch level by the US surveillance program. Why? You mentioned the word "Tor" (Snowden files for details). > wouldn't applicable if you do have something to hide, though... Hmm! Do you have genitals? Do you like keeping tabs on who gets to see them? Congratulations you have something to hide. Would you like your boss to see what porn you watch? Congratulations you have something to hide.
- JumpCrisscross 11y ago
  > Animal rights/environmental activists with no actual proof that they've done anything or planned anything are under house arrest right now in France just because the government wanted to free up resources to track Islamic extremist terrorists. Source? All I could find were warrants issued for actual protests during a state of emergency.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    The Guardian and the Independent reported it. As far as the reports stated the State of Emergency is ongoing.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-of-emergency-declared-for-three-months-allowing-authorities-to-shut-down-websites-and-a6740886.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state-of-emergency-could-be-extended-indefinitely-a6758686.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state...
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Two people don't like reality so they try to downvote it out of the way.
  - pc86 11y ago
    You're being downvoted because you're saying things you can't cite (people without warrants under house arrest). Unless you can provide a source, something like that is perceived not to be true.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      We live in the internet age. People can click on the top link on google (search term: "State of Emergency France Independent") themselves. But here let me google that for you instead. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-of-emergency-declared-for-three-months-allowing-authorities-to-shut-down-websites-and-a6740886.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state-of-emergency-could-be-extended-indefinitely-a6758686.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state...
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        We live in the internet age, and as you say, it's trivial to locate sources. It's therefore considered at best discourteous and at worst peddling misinformation when you don't provide them yourself. Burden of proof and all that. But thanks for coming through.
belorn 11y ago
Trying to stay safe by "blending in" has a name, and its called security by obscurity. It works until it doesn't, and then it all tend to fall apart like a house made from cards. Everyone has something to hide, and everyone need the security that the right to privacy provides. If I am the victim of a crime, I do not wish that the lawyer of the criminal has every single detail of my life to dig through and find something to paint doubt in a judge/jury mind. I also do not wish that the criminal has total information about the judge and jury, which they could then use to figure out how to manipulate them to a different decision then the truth. As such, I do not only wish privacy for me, but privacy for every person who could end up as jury, judge, lawyer, victim or accused. Our justice system depend on privacy to protect the human beings involved from being manipulated.
lmm 11y ago
I have very little knowledge of surveillance but I used to work in the ad industry. There are a lot of signals, all of them noisy in isolation, but taken together they paint a very clear picture of who you are. Even a "normal" browsing history is probably enough to identify most of your demographic characteristics - age, sex, sexuality, .... I'm not sure what exactly you might want to hide, but it's hard to imagine it wouldn't show up.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

> by "blending in" as a typical Internet user How do you blend in? By not visiting any "subversive" websites and by not mentioning any "subversive" keywords. At that point you are a typical internet user. But how do you know what is considered subversive? Animal rights/environmental activists with no actual proof that they've done anything or planned anything are under house arrest right now in France just because the government wanted to free up resources to track Islamic extremist terrorists. > using Tor. where just one mistake might trigger a red flag? Btw as a point of interest your username just triggered a red flag and got put on a slightly elevated watch level by the US surveillance program. Why? You mentioned the word "Tor" (Snowden files for details). > wouldn't applicable if you do have something to hide, though... Hmm! Do you have genitals? Do you like keeping tabs on who gets to see them? Congratulations you have something to hide. Would you like your boss to see what porn you watch? Congratulations you have something to hide.

JumpCrisscross 11y ago
> Animal rights/environmental activists with no actual proof that they've done anything or planned anything are under house arrest right now in France just because the government wanted to free up resources to track Islamic extremist terrorists. Source? All I could find were warrants issued for actual protests during a state of emergency.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  The Guardian and the Independent reported it. As far as the reports stated the State of Emergency is ongoing.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-of-emergency-declared-for-three-months-allowing-authorities-to-shut-down-websites-and-a6740886.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state-of-emergency-could-be-extended-indefinitely-a6758686.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state...
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Two people don't like reality so they try to downvote it out of the way.
- pc86 11y ago
  You're being downvoted because you're saying things you can't cite (people without warrants under house arrest). Unless you can provide a source, something like that is perceived not to be true.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    We live in the internet age. People can click on the top link on google (search term: "State of Emergency France Independent") themselves. But here let me google that for you instead. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-of-emergency-declared-for-three-months-allowing-authorities-to-shut-down-websites-and-a6740886.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-state-... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state-of-emergency-could-be-extended-indefinitely-a6758686.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frances-state...
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      We live in the internet age, and as you say, it's trivial to locate sources. It's therefore considered at best discourteous and at worst peddling misinformation when you don't provide them yourself. Burden of proof and all that. But thanks for coming through.

belorn 11y ago

Trying to stay safe by "blending in" has a name, and its called security by obscurity. It works until it doesn't, and then it all tend to fall apart like a house made from cards. Everyone has something to hide, and everyone need the security that the right to privacy provides. If I am the victim of a crime, I do not wish that the lawyer of the criminal has every single detail of my life to dig through and find something to paint doubt in a judge/jury mind. I also do not wish that the criminal has total information about the judge and jury, which they could then use to figure out how to manipulate them to a different decision then the truth. As such, I do not only wish privacy for me, but privacy for every person who could end up as jury, judge, lawyer, victim or accused. Our justice system depend on privacy to protect the human beings involved from being manipulated.

lmm 11y ago

I have very little knowledge of surveillance but I used to work in the ad industry. There are a lot of signals, all of them noisy in isolation, but taken together they paint a very clear picture of who you are. Even a "normal" browsing history is probably enough to identify most of your demographic characteristics - age, sex, sexuality, .... I'm not sure what exactly you might want to hide, but it's hard to imagine it wouldn't show up.