9 ms·

> I have to wonder whether there is ever a point that can be reached where people in general realise that any stuff one does online is at risk. Anything you do

> I have to wonder whether there is ever a point that can be reached where people in general realise that any stuff one does online is at risk. Anything you do offline is at risk too. > Private info, finance, cash, sharing of personal information, health info, etc is all better done the old fashioned way - in person. Finance is better done the old fashioned way? You think trading stocks where you send a check and then your broker sends you back a stock certificate is better? You think communication by smoke signal is better? > Anyway, I really think 'real life' needs a revival, but this isn't in corporate interests. What does it matter to 'corporate interests' when 'real life' is dominated by corporate interests as well? You must think we should go back to batch programming with punch cards? Lets get rid of hospitals and go back to blood letting. Old fashioned medicine. It seems like you are saying something but you really are saying nothing.

verisimi 3y ago
> Anything you do offline is at risk too. Of course! But it wasn't the case that thousands maybe millions of people could be compromised (or spied on by governments) in one go. The trend towards online everything, is equivalent to putting all your eggs in one (huge) basket. Which is fine if that is your choice, for efficiency or whatever, but if it is the case that there are no alternative viable options but to accept a compromised state of privacy - ie that you have to take on a risk that you didn't take before as it is now not there - that seems a harsh step to force on people! I absolutely get why governments and corporations are fine with eroding personal privacy for their benefit. I'm just surprised that people in general don't push back a little bit more. I only hope that ai erodes trust in these monoliths so much, that there is eventually some consideration given to privacy and its loss.
- simpletone 3y ago
  > But it wasn't the case that thousands maybe millions of people could be compromised (or spied on by governments) in one go. And? Besides you being hysterical. What happens? > The trend towards online everything, is equivalent to putting all your eggs in one (huge) basket. And? What happens if the internet disappears today? Life goes on. > but if it is the case that there are no alternative viable options but to accept a compromised state of privacy For most of humanity, people lived without any right to privacy. You want old-fashioned right? > I absolutely get why governments and corporations are fine with eroding personal privacy for their benefit. Governments and corporations are run by people too. > that there is eventually some consideration given to privacy and its loss. There is more consideration for privacy today, especially in the online world, than in the real old-fashoined world. How about you set the example and go offline for a bit? Get some air.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > > But it wasn't the case that thousands maybe millions of people could be compromised (or spied on by governments) in one go. > And? Besides you being hysterical. What happens? from the article: > Among the apparent targets of tools provided by the impacted company, I-Soon: ethnicities and dissidents in parts of China that have seen significant anti-government protests, such as Hong Kong or the heavily Muslim region of Xinjiang in China’s far west. > The documents show apparent I-Soon hacking of networks across Central and Southeast Asia, as well as Hong Kong and the self-ruled island of Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory. I think millions could be impacted. Perhaps nothing comes of it. Not hysterical though. > There is more consideration for privacy today, especially in the online world, than in the real old-fashoined world. Yes.. but its consideration about how to erode it, not how to respect it! The level of intrusion is off the scale, in comparison to the past - and, in general, we have only a blinkered idea of the fine grained details that are available to corporations and government agencies. > How about you set the example and go offline for a bit? Get some air. Childish, ok. No, you.

verisimi 3y ago

> Anything you do offline is at risk too. Of course! But it wasn't the case that thousands maybe millions of people could be compromised (or spied on by governments) in one go. The trend towards online everything, is equivalent to putting all your eggs in one (huge) basket. Which is fine if that is your choice, for efficiency or whatever, but if it is the case that there are no alternative viable options but to accept a compromised state of privacy - ie that you have to take on a risk that you didn't take before as it is now not there - that seems a harsh step to force on people! I absolutely get why governments and corporations are fine with eroding personal privacy for their benefit. I'm just surprised that people in general don't push back a little bit more. I only hope that ai erodes trust in these monoliths so much, that there is eventually some consideration given to privacy and its loss.

simpletone 3y ago
> But it wasn't the case that thousands maybe millions of people could be compromised (or spied on by governments) in one go. And? Besides you being hysterical. What happens? > The trend towards online everything, is equivalent to putting all your eggs in one (huge) basket. And? What happens if the internet disappears today? Life goes on. > but if it is the case that there are no alternative viable options but to accept a compromised state of privacy For most of humanity, people lived without any right to privacy. You want old-fashioned right? > I absolutely get why governments and corporations are fine with eroding personal privacy for their benefit. Governments and corporations are run by people too. > that there is eventually some consideration given to privacy and its loss. There is more consideration for privacy today, especially in the online world, than in the real old-fashoined world. How about you set the example and go offline for a bit? Get some air.
- verisimi 3y ago
  > > But it wasn't the case that thousands maybe millions of people could be compromised (or spied on by governments) in one go. > And? Besides you being hysterical. What happens? from the article: > Among the apparent targets of tools provided by the impacted company, I-Soon: ethnicities and dissidents in parts of China that have seen significant anti-government protests, such as Hong Kong or the heavily Muslim region of Xinjiang in China’s far west. > The documents show apparent I-Soon hacking of networks across Central and Southeast Asia, as well as Hong Kong and the self-ruled island of Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory. I think millions could be impacted. Perhaps nothing comes of it. Not hysterical though. > There is more consideration for privacy today, especially in the online world, than in the real old-fashoined world. Yes.. but its consideration about how to erode it, not how to respect it! The level of intrusion is off the scale, in comparison to the past - and, in general, we have only a blinkered idea of the fine grained details that are available to corporations and government agencies. > How about you set the example and go offline for a bit? Get some air. Childish, ok. No, you.