not_zxc

8 ms·

1.
by not_zxc 5y ago
Worse: the "nothing to hide" argument is mistaking who has the power with who would like to have the power. You're the boss of you; no one else has a right to info about you. (sure, barring legal circumstances -- which should
2.
by not_zxc 5y ago
Ask them to give you 100 bucks from their wallet. Then keep it. Cheapest privacy lesson they'll ever get. (The point: privacy about who is allowed to acquire the valuables. The owner is in control, not someone else. Once they decide
3.
by not_zxc 5y ago
> I don't think you'll ever convince someone who doesn't believe in privacy of the value in privacy until they're hurt. But that fundamentally doesn't matter in the least. I don't care what they do; but th
4.
by not_zxc 5y ago
No, no, no. The reason the "nothing to hide" argument is wrong is because its starting point is wrong. The surveillor has to justify themselves, not the surveillee. Put another way: I do not have to argue why someone else should n
5.
by not_zxc 6y ago
Not the OP, but I was wondering the same thing. I also don't know which devices I'm talking about. The thing is: to sell me stuff, you don't need to know my name. You don't need to keep tabs on me. You may offer it, but
6.
MIT's tinyImages dataset withdrawn due to prejudicial concerns(groups.csail.mit.edu)
3 points by not_zxc 6y ago|0 comments
7.
by not_zxc 6y ago
Admirable sentiment, but watching ads does not support Youtubers. It supports Youtube - which you hope translates into Youtube giving money to the Youtuber's whose videos you watched. As far as I know, most people who make money from