privacy Privacy should never be sacrificed for the sake of free

[Reefa]

Quote

 

Yesterday was not a very good day for privacy. First was the revelation that Evernote’s new privacy policy will basically allow its engineers to take a peek at any of your notes. Then there’s Google’s lawsuit settlement, which involves still scanning your (and non-Gmail users’) e-mails. And to top it all off, Yahoo has admitted that an even more massive breach happened in 2013, affecting no less than 1 billion accounts. All this should send chills down your spine, and yet most people will probably react to the news with a shrug. Have we become accustomed, even numb, to intrusions of privacy in exchange for service? Common sense tells us we shouldn’t, and yet that might not be the case

Privacy in the 21st century

Until recently, and, to some extent, even up to today, we have taken digital privacy for granted. Almost everyone would agree that privacy, or at least some amount of it, is a basic human right. Charters and laws have been drawn up to protect privacy. And yet, when it comes to computers, smartphones, and the Internet, we seem to be almost too quick to brush it off.

 

Part of that is because privacy in the digital age isn’t as easy to monitor or as clear cut as in the physical world. In the real world, we can build walls or seclude ourselves physically to protect our privacy. Intrusions into physical privacy involve someone actually being there or, at the very least, some physical or mechanical presence, like a camera.

 

Software, however, has no such physical restrictions. Any limitation on it have to be imposed by convention or laws. And while those definitely do exist, many of us have actually signed them away, all for the sake of convenience.

The price of free

To say that people, especially computer users, today are spoiled, from the instant gratification of social media to the irresistible allure of free content and services. But, as they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and those free offers always have a hidden cost.

 

The most egregious of those will be ads, whether in apps or on websites. Unlike print or TV ads, web and app ads are, most often than not, targeted and personalized. That is, their content varies from instance to instance, depending on who’s viewing them. To make that possible, marketers need to keep track of some little bits of data coming from the user, like pages viewed, frequency of visit, etc.

 

 

Ad tracking has been one of the most publicized invasions of privacy on the Web, to the point that even web browsers make it a selling point to have features that protect users from such methods. Fortunately, that has gotten a lot easier these days, though users still have to explicitly opt into no tracking modes or features. The default remains “track everything I do so that I can get more relevant ads, whether I like to or not.”

Service fee

There are even greater threats to privacy, whether or not you pay to have things like ads removed. Every Internet service you use today has one form of privacy policy or another, and many of them ask you to waive some of your privacy for the sake improving the service. And usually that’s true whether you’re using it for free, like Gmail or Yahoo! Mail, or paying a monthly fee, like Evernote.

 

This is where the legal area becomes a bit murky. Or at least that’s how companies like to play it. It’s a place where many hairs get split between what constitutes an invasion of privacy and what doesn’t. Usually, the spiel is that services extract just the minimal amount of information required for the service provider to, for example, know their demographics, study usage patterns, and so on and so forth. There is usually a promise not to sell data to third-parties, but sometimes there’s an open acknowledge of “sharing” non-identifiable information with partners.

 

Things get even more complicated when you start adding phrases like “spam filtering”, “personalized recommendations”, or even “machine learning”. You can even throw in “target ads” as well, in the case of Gmail. These usually involves scanning the user’s content. Usually it’s done by machine but there might also be a chance of human intervention, as Evernote’s case demonstrates.

 

 

In these cases, you do agree to those terms and conditions when using the service, but very few people really read the intentionally obscure legalese that comes with those. It is, however, not a blanket permission for companies to start snooping in on your content and activities. And it’s even more critical users who didn’t agree to those terms of services, like people sending e-mails from another service to Gmail users, as the latest lawsuit against Google points out.

Vigilance is the price of liberty … and privacy

This isn’t an exhortation to ditch all these services to protect our privacy. It’s far too late to close that Pandora’s box. Our modern society has become so beholden to these services and software that a boycott isn’t even just unfeasible. It’s near impossible. Perhaps that fact is also what gives companies the gall to try and get away with whatever they can. As long as no one notices.

 

No, the solution isn’t to go cold turkey. You can always try to find less invasive options, but those would still involve the only real solution we can adopt at the moment: being aware. We will probably never going to fully understand the walls of text of legal terms, but, more often than not, someone more knowledgeable already has the Cliff Notes version of it. Simply knowing what you’re really signing up for goes a long way in knowing what you should or shouldn’t do with a service. Some privacy advocates, for example, would be terribly insulted if you communicated with them using Gmail.

 

 

Users also need to take more active steps in securing their digital identities and transactions. Some services do sometimes offers ways out of some tracking. When Windows 10 came out, for example, it default to many options that tracked users. Being aware of such features and options will help minimize what companies can harvest off you, though they’re unlikely to fully stop them from squeezing out as much as they can.

Final Thoughts

The Snowden incident sparked both a national and an international cry for security and privacy awareness but, three years later, we seem to be back to square one. Or maybe it never really rocked as many people as it should have. Majority of people today remain complacent in protecting themselves not just against government or criminal snooping but even against companies. Companies who earlier portrayed themselves as champions of user privacy.

 

Like the situation with fake news, an attitude adjustment is in order. Users can no longer remain unwitting bystanders to their own digital lives. If taking action, like disabling tracking or features, is already too much, simply being aware of the importance of privacy, especially in today’s borderless digital and Internet age, should at least be a start. We do pay something for the sake of convenience and comfort, but privacy should never be one of them.

https://www.slashgear.com/privacy-should-never-be-sacrificed-for-the-sake-of-free-15467615/

 

 

[OrbingStorm]

Unfortunately I can only see this getting worst as companies greed only gets worst. Humans as a commodity is todays gold mine. Its already starting to be laws made and opinions expressed that it should be illegal to hide your online activities.

I can see advertising already becoming a monster that invades everyone's home as soon as it gets a chance.

Check this out for a glimpse of the possible future..

 

[mclaren85]

It is known that google scans emails in order to catch c.p. which is favorable . In this digital age, nothing should be hidden from the government eye. If some terrorist groups are planning to attack on somewhere we can't talk about privacy isn't it?

[straycat19]

I love to hear people talk about privacy when they have twitter, facebook, instagram, pinterest, linkedin, and god knows what other accounts.  You don't have privacy once you enter one of those sites and create an account.  I'll be honest, when facebook first started I had 1000 accounts, it was a contest to see who could get 1000 first (it wasn't me) but none of them were valid and I don't have a real facebook account nor any of the other social networking accounts.  I use vpns and proxyies on everything.  I don't say anything in an email I wouldn't stand in front of a police station and holler out with a megaphone, and I don't do anything that I wouldn't gladly provide the police with a copy of my harddrive.  In other words I have nothing to hide and your privacy means nothing to me if your effort to protect it puts my loved ones at risk from a terrorist attack or anything else that would threaten their freedom.  I am a firm believer that only the people that have something to hide encrypt their data and that alone is enough to make them suspect and subject to a warrant/subpoena.  And like I always tell my friends, your right to free speech ends where my gun barrel begins.

[steven36]

8 hours ago, mclaren85 said:

It is known that google scans emails in order to catch c.p. which is favorable . In this digital age, nothing should be hidden from the government eye. If some terrorist groups are planning to attack on somewhere we can't talk about privacy isn't it?

But  there's no proof terrorist use gmail at all  , The government use it to spy on there on people

Quote

 

This is the most powerful lie, the one we heard after Paris and again after San Bernardino. If only we could have found out where the terrorists were talking and listened in, the whole tragedy could have been averted. What if digging up a few crucial iMessages could have saved dozens of lives?

The problem is, there’s no evidence that that’s true. Hindsight investigations have found lots of tragically dropped leads in the run-up to recent attacks, but they’ve mostly been either available information that was ignored or pre-existing flags within the intelligence system. Both the Paris and San Bernardino plots seem to have been hatched in person, leaving as little online footprint as possible.

There’s little evidence of ISIS planning attacks from US-owned tech platforms

Even beyond specific attacks, there’s little evidence of ISIS and other terror groups planning attacks from US-owned tech platforms. The one private chat tool we know ISIS affiliates are using, Telegram, is based in Germany. Cracking open those channels would be significantly more complicated than passing a US law.

That doesn’t mean that putting a backdoor in iMessage wouldn’t help catch criminals — but they wouldn’t be terrorists. Based on the cases we’ve already seen, they’re most likely to be drug dealers, trade-secret thieves, or generals cheating on their wives. In short, people who don’t expect anyone to come looking for them. Maybe you think it’s worth mandating server access to solve those cases. It’s a worthwhile conversation to have. But instead, we’re talking about terrorism and then proposing systems that would be used on run-of-the-mill domestic felonies.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/12/10749806/encryption-debate-fbi-terrorism-going-dark

You're talking about the USA government were the Bush's started  wars and killed many people and didn't find what they was looking for even . Saddam Hussein was good at killing terrorists and Bush had him killed and caused all these uprisings. Saddam  would of never allowed that to happen in IRAQ !

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-says-saddam-hussein-was-very-good-at-killing-terrorists-a6931576.html

The Fake News will tell you terrorist use Gmail  and other stuff from the USA  but i dont really think there this stupid  as the fake news tires to make it look like . People who are concerned over privacy is not this stupid  i  go to a  privacy site were they talk about stuff like this and everyone  will tell you not too use Gmail.   So why would  you think  terrorist would be that dumb? Lesson 1:Paranoid people dont do as the masses do .

 

Most who try to hide from the Government shy away from USA tech they use stuff the USA  Government has no control over and  that's reality.  Back before 9-11  they was dumb enough  to use the open internet s to pilot things but most of them ended up in Guantanamo Bay detention camp  and they know that if they use US Tech  they will be caught in 2016 almost 2017      It's normal  everyday people  that sold there privacy for free things they are this dumb. and have been a very long time.  .

 

The  fake news  try hide stuff  like this Generation Like: The Kids Sell Out (But Don't Know What That Means)

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/generation-like-the-kids-sell-out-but-dont-know-what-1524517417

Think goodness they are some journalist left who have not sold out to corporate greed and  still report the truth like in the OP.

[OrbingStorm]

When the govt tells u to look this way ..look the other way.Then u will see the truth most likely.Goes for sold out journalists too.

Good call steven36

 

[pc71520]

9 hours ago, straycat19 said:

I love to hear people talk about privacy when they have

twitter, facebook, instagram, pinterest, linkedin, and god knows what other accounts.

You don't have privacy once you enter one of those sites and create an account.

Spot on!

[Cobaltius]

On 12/16/2016 at 3:43 PM, mclaren85 said:

It is known that google scans emails in order to catch c.p. which is favorable . In this digital age, nothing should be hidden from the government eye. If some terrorist groups are planning to attack on somewhere we can't talk about privacy isn't it?

 

Nothing should be hidden from the government by an individual provided they have a warrant for that particular individual's information. However blanket warrants and wholesale harvesting of peoples private information without probable cause or consent needs to be stopped.

[jbleck]

This positive attitude regarding the government and their right to watch isn't healthy... many will fall for puny reasons just to serve the needs of those in power.

 

The "look but don't touch" that many think will be the outcome... What if they will touch and rape u after they look, just cause u look pretty to some eyes?

[Stanners]

Its very dangerous to grant any government rights to violate privacy just because they want to go after "terrorists" remember this guys - one mans terrorist is another mans "freedom fighter" remember the resistance in WW2? I'm sure the Nazi called them terrorists!

 

The danger we face in granting any government rights to violate privacy is scary - Germany in 1920 laughed at the Nazi but they eventually became the legal government of the day and look what happened after that!

 

Don't make the mistake of granting any government extra rights they already have enough and this years stable "good" government may become next years nightmare!

 

Yes using the Nazi as an example is extreme but remember those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it! 

 

[pc71520]

Great privacy violations have constantly come from

governments which have all been against Nazism.

 

Pretty hypocritical, isn't it?