this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
102 points (93.2% liked)

Privacy

31951 readers
399 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
102
The Greatest Enemy of Privacy (blog.thenewoil.org)
submitted 8 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There are many enemies of privacy. There are politicians claiming the (at best) misguided pretense of “protecting the children,” intellig...

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 32 points 8 months ago (3 children)

From TFA:

The Brave-haters are almost certainly foaming at the mouth reading that paragraph. They’ll cite concerns like Brave’s affiliate link scandal, the collection of funds ostensibly on behalf of creators without telling them, the installation of programs without user consent

You don't have to hate Brave to distrust Brave.

If any of your friends in real life did something fishy to you once, you'd immediately stop talking to him. Possibly, maybe, if your former friend apologized and swore he'd never do it again, and he was convincing enough, and he treated you right for quite some time, maybe you'd take him back as a friend. But even if you did, if he did something fishy to you again, surely you'd dump him for good this time - and probably punch him in the face too.

The Brave company did this THREE TIMES and there are still people who trust them?

Me, I don't hate them. I just don't trust them. I wouldn't trust them to run a calculator utility on my computer, let alone something as critical to my digital life as a browser. They lost my trust not once, not twice, but three times.

In addition, their cryptocurrency thing doesn't help build trust either. I classify anybody who dabbles in crypto as instantly sketchy by default, and they'd have to work extra-hard to earn my trust. Brave has done the exact opposite: they're a crypto-scheme-running bunch who made a supposedly privacy-friendly browser, and I could kind of believe they needed the crypto scheme to make a living. Kind of, but I chose to believe it for a while. Unti Brave did their first fishy thing, and then I instantly uninstalled their browser, never to install it again.

Brave is NOT trustworthy. In my opinion, if you trust them. you're gullible, or you actively want to believe them too much. It's not hatred, it's just plain common sense.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Haha, fool me once....

Fool me thrice and dabble in crypto...

(...And I'll use LibreWolf instead)

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

I have no problem with crypto, provided the people making the service aren't the same as the people making the cryptocurrency, yet that's what Brave did.

Here's how it should've worked:

  1. Brave includes an ad-blocker but default
  2. Brave talks to websites about a profit sharing option for sites - Brave would serve the ads using only local browsing history, the website gets most of the revenue (alternative is no revenue due to the ad blocker)
  3. Brave creates an option for users to pay in lieu of seeing ads

Step 3 is where crypto comes in. Users could choose to pay in crypto, credit card, etc, and they'd fund a pool of money to be used for that (always for this site, ask every time, never for this site). Likewise, if websites prefer crypto, Brave could support that.

The whole problem though is trying to pay users with crypto, which tells me this currency was always going to be problematic since Brave benefits from it reducing in value (reduces their payout).

So I don't use Brave for personal stuff, I only use it as a Chrome alternative for web testing because it has an ad blocker.

[–] authed@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Privacy is a thing of the past with modern cars, phones, cameras everywhere/facial recognition, NSA, evidence laundering, credit cards, TPMS censors, etc... we need new laws to restore privacy.

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

This defeatist attitude, as well as "all-or-nothing" one, is one of the major privacy enemies by itself.

modern cars

You can not own a car at all, have an older one (which, granted, is not quite a universal longterm option), or from what I've seen in discussions - depending on the model, a lot of them can have the telematics units disconnected.

phones

Not using a smartphone, leaving it at home or using a Faraday cage (same goes for a dumbphone), using Lineage/Graphene/whatever on it.

credit cards

Cash. Even in a lot of online stores (the smaller ones, not large universal Amazon-like) I've shopped at you can order delivery to the store's office (which is usually at no extra cost) and pay with cash.

Yes, there are a lot of areas where you have lost. But that doesn't mean you should give up on everything at once then. Privacy is not binary, it is a spectrum.

[–] tfowinder@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago

People in USA take pride in using cashless modes.

I don't understand the flex. You are literally paying commission to a private company for every transaction as well as a permanent record of the purchase in company database linked with so many personally identifiable details.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'd argue it's not a defeatist attitude, since they included the proper solution. To "need new laws". And that's how we generally do it. We disallow companies ripping off people, despite that maybe providing a better profit margin. We force water parks to implement some minimum standards to prevent accidents, despite not caring about safety would cost them less. I'd argue it's the same here. Just blaming it on the user isn't the proper thing to do. It just doesn't work for the general audience. Yes, you could do the water park inspection yourself, everyone could do some research which one is safe... And following that analogy everyone could get educated and use cash and GrapheneOS. But it's not the correct approach to the issue as a whole. And it doesn't really work.

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I was referring to him saying "privacy is a thing of the past". And yes, while laws would be the best course of action, they're unlikely (and in case of facial recognition - kind of impossible because at least here, the main facial recognition system is operated by the government). My point was that with what he mentioned, there is far from nothing a regular person can do for themselves and their loved ones.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

That is correct. And I think the same dynamics are at play with some of the other currently discussed topics. For example things like recycling and the switch to renewable energies. You as an individual can do something about it. And it'll make a difference for you and your life. And that's also enough for me to do it. But it doesn't really change anything in the broader picture. The rules foster egoistical behaviour. You'll often suffer and have a competetive disadvantage against the people who think about themselves first. That's why companies won't participate in making the world a better place, because they have to stay competetive. And also 90% of people are somewhat uneducated and just think about themselves.

I think regulation is the only way to tackle these issue. Yes, you can pay attention to privacy and do recycling. But it won't really do anything of substance for the environment or what companies try to do with your data. And it won't change the situation.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] DeadNinja@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Privacy is not binary, it is a spectrum.

You have no fucking idea what a beautiful thing you just wrote.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

As someone in the market for a car, I'm appalled at how much BS they all have. Neither of my current cars have any wireless functionality aside from the AM/FM radio and TPMS, yet even base model newer cars have wireless crap everywhere.

Likewise for TVs, I have a smart TV because we use the apps, and it's old enough that it doesn't have a microphone, so data collection is limited (I guess they can see the Netflix and Disney+ stuff we watch). I'm hoping to buy a newer TV, and pretty much everything is a privacy nightmare. I just want an option to stream video from my NAS, and that's about as much as I need.

phones

This is honestly one of the better times for phones. Linux phones are almost daily driveable, GrapheneOS on Pixels is pretty much ideal, and even stock Android gives way more options to reduce app access than just 10 years ago.

credit cards

This is one area that I'm not going to budge on. Credit cards are just way too convenient, so I use virtual card numbers for online stuff and just deal with the privacy leaks elsewhere.

It's still totally possible to go without a credit card, and I'll hopeful that cryptocurrencies or digital payments will improve in a privacy-respecting way (I'm told in India, you can pay using a QR code, so hopefully that means virtual cards could be used at the POS).

But yeah, like you said, it's a spectrum. Don't compromise on what's most important to you, and compromise a little on the others where convenience wins out.

[–] tfowinder@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand, if so many people care about privacy how come no one in the phone/car etc market are able to make good product which cater to these needs?

[–] Tempo@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's no money in privacy.

Harvesting and selling personal information is practically a continual source of funds with little to no cost. Why spend time and money developing a product with all the data harvesting elements stripped out to appeals to maybe 5-10% of the market?

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’m really confused. The article points out why Brave is a bad choice right after saying it’s a good choice, says that logical fallacies are a problem, moves immediately into why false equivalence is something to look out for in general, and ends. Why is does this mean Brave isn’t going to steal our info? Because Mozilla might too? How does that address any of the valid privacy concerns with Brave (eg forced affiliate links, a privacy violation) rather than social ones (eg Brandon Eich being a piece of shit)? Empathy is a tool to have a conversation with others who might have different values, not a lens to evaluate privacy or user experience.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

It kind of ties into their argument that it's more complex than that. And I'd agree. People always want simple answers to complex truths. Could very well be the case that you can't say if Brave is "the best" without analyzing the threat scenario. Or even after doing that you end up with a list of both pros and cons.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

Yup, I use Brave, but not as my primary browser. I use it for work stuff so I don't have to see ads and because some sites I need for work don't work properly on Firefox browsers.

I think it has a place, but there are certainly caveats.