>/g/ is paranoid about botnets, muh privacy
>uses Android
Seriously im starting to doubt all this anti-botnet stuff. Im starting to think the privacy stuff is blown out of proportion. If you use google or Android google knows a lot about you so MS doing the same thing in Windows doesn't bother me. I fell for the linux meme for privacy but its only really useful for shitposting, ricing, and servers.
this is the worst thread on /g/ right now
>>54333639
Just explain why the paranoia on privacy, its unnecessary unless you have something to hide. And i know thats a meme /g/ likes to make fun of but like i said im starting to doubt anti privacy. The freetard way of living is not viable.
>>54333639
I swear there are school holidays somewhere.
/g/ post quality has degraded by at least 50% over the last few days.
>>54333769
Saying privacy is unnecessary because you have nothing to hide is like saying free speech is unnecessary because you have nothing to say.
>>54333769
Well, piracy is something to hide and basically everyone does it
>>54333807
school is almost out for the summer in the eastern US
>>54333807
Not answering my question. And I'm not trolling. The circlejerking here is worse than reddit
>>54333825
why does every pro-"privacy for privacy's sake" argument take the form of an analogy?
>>54333825
le standard snowden quote :^)
So go use Windows 10. Nobody cares.
>>54333831
>implying you use reddit
>>54333524
>>uses Android
Android can be de-botnetted to a certain degree with custom ROM's.Please,don't play stupid.
>>54333875
I do use reddit sometimes. But its turning into cancer of the interner just like tumblr sometimes
>>54334022
>implying everyone here "de-botnets" their phone
And then lose google play services :^)
>>54333524
>implying there aren't debotneted Android ROMs
>implying I even have a phone
>>54333838
Because that's the easiest way to get mongrels to understand.
>>54334144
>lose google play services
There's ways around this.
>>54333524
Hi there FBI. Nice try but next time, put more work into it. Some better memes would do wonders too.
>what are custom roms
did someone throw a brick at you head while you left school today?
Muh root
>>54333847
nice ad hominem + boogeyman combo anon.
>>54333524
basically i don't want google recommending me THE HACKER GROUP KNOWN AS ANONYMOUS videos for reading /g/ jokes about nvidia housefires.
I also don't like how nothing is off limits. Even porn sites are recommending customized porn videos for me. I'd be okay with it if the technology wasn't super uncanny.
Like foir example, if I but a vacuum on Amazon. For months, I will be recommended various brands of vacuums and vacuum accessories whenever I go to amazon.
Clearly I don't fucking want to buy another vacuum, but the algorithms are still in a terrible state for practical use of personal information.
>>54335168
>ad hominem
that's not an ad hominem...
>>54333524
Why don't you post your name, address and social security number, if you have nothing to hide OP? Also tell us your bank details so we can have a look at your account.
You have nothing to hide, after all. :^)
>>54333847
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>54334144
>>54335548
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>54333825
But I really don't have anything to say, and neither do any of you, at least nothing that matters.
Unless you mean "free speech" as in the ability to speak, which is just stupid.
>>54335548
I love how these two situations are comparable in /g/'s bottomless pit of hypocrisy and logical fallacies:
>give a varying degree of personal info to companies and otherwise official entities that are acting within regulations and ethical guidelines / that are under scrutiny for every tiny fuck-up they make / that you can sue anytime there's a problem / that are using said info within a business model for a profit.
>give the most sensitive info to a raging, anynomous and lunatic individual who's gonna fuck up your life just for fun or to prove an autistic point.
Not everything is black and white freetards, it can be acceptable to trust an accountable entity to some degree, it's generally not when it's anyone who's potentially bent on messing with you.
What mind fucking blowing concept.
Give me your name, photo, SSN, phone number, address, and facebook. You have nothing to hide, right?
I used to be really interested in privacy but then it occurred to me that I was crazy and delusional. Nobody cares about my life.
Because this place is full of pedos and pirates with stuff to hide.
>>54337869
ditto
>>54337073
There's a difference between a big trusted company having those details and a random person on the internet, anonichi
Privacy is the new currency
>>54333807
yup, in orthodox countries people have a (i think) 2 day holyday for easter
>>54336243
Hey there new friend :^)
>>54340116
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>54333524
>/g/ is just one person
>>54333807
Bank holiday for one day in united kinfdom. All kuds shitposting today.
>>54333524
i agree, privacy for the sake of privacy has very little concrete arguments.
anyone who uses a smartphone and still shitposts about privacy should deactivate.
>>54342196
Privacy is the bedrock that all our other rights rest on. The problem with large corporations collecting is much information is that they share that information with the government. Alot of times they collect that information without explicitly informing the consumer.
There is a part of us that is very social and wants to share our lives with others, but there is another part of us that wants and needs to be private. People should have control over which information of theirs goes into each realm.
>>54333524
>implying I own a smart phone
You do realize that only like, 1% of /g/ makes these types of posts right?
>>54343930
Simply by using a phone your privacy is at risk.
>>54344303
I understand that, but it's still worlds better than a smart phone. I do make sure to remove the battery when I'm travelling/not expecting a call, and pissing off my friends with my inability to group message is grate. It's also incapable of rendering those shitty emojis.
>>54333807
Just got out of my uni, where most of them are know it all faggots when it comes to tech.
/g/ is full of tinfoil hatters, who think their usage statistics matter
>some random guy manage to get on the servers of your company
>this "big trusted company" stored your name, age, birth date, credit card (a lot of them do that, sometimes non encrypted), address...
>You're doomed.
>big trusted company collect all the date they can about you
>what politic side you are, what are you interests etc.
>they use those data for the next election
>big company collect data about politicians
>since the company CEO is "friend" with a politician, he get a lot of informations about his competitors.
>use them to get elected
>a journalist is working on a paper about the government being corrupted by a company A
>they manage to found out
>journalist mysteriously receive the visit of policeman at home
>all his devices are seized
>they also manage to find who's the whistle blower
There's dozen of ways your privacy matters. Not only for you, but also for the democracy, the freedom of speech.
Of course we do not care about the last anime you watch, A company does because they will sell it to other companies and will provide personalized ads. But there is worse than that, and people that care about freedom fight for that.
>>54333825
No, it's different. When I say I don't have anything to hide, I mean I don't have anything *illegal* on my PC. I don't mean I don't want any privacy at all. But since my data is not used for anyone's personal purpose, it's just statistical aggregate bullshit that gets used by companies just like opinion polls.
Nobody gives a shit if you have straight porn on your PC, for example. So, they're not really interested in your private shit. But if you are breaking the law... you probably want to make sure 100% nobody can even peek into what you're hiding there. Which is clearly the case with most paranoid freetards.
>>54345514
Every person thinks the same as you and corporations are happy. I don't think like you, so go fuck a car.
>>54333769
>its unnecessary unless you have something to hide
Privacy isn't so much about hiding shit more so as it's about control over my information. I may be completely fine with giving out my information willingly but I want the consent and option to do so.
>>54346152
You don't understand the meaning.
When people says "I got nothing to hide", it's often linked to a government doing mass surveillance, so it doesn't target them specifically, but everyone.
Maybe you don't have something to hide, maybe you don't have a huge value of your privacy but some people do, and some people actually have something to hide (and all of them aren't criminals or terrorists. They can be judge, lawyers, journalists, banks, hospitals, etc.)
And it's the same for freedom of speech.
Maybe you got nothing to say, maybe you don't really care of it, but some people actually need it and care of it.
You are not alone.
>>54346214
You probably also solely use gentoo because
>muh BITNET
Idiot
>>54346264
Mass surveillance is acceptable as long as it's done for security purposes and withing certain limits (according to the law).
Given the choice to let the government spy on the internet and let some terrorists escape because nobody can snoop on their communications, the latter choice seems the best.
The government is not one big family that is out there to get you, it's just a bunch of clerks trying to do their job. If you think otherwise, go join a public institution and work a few years for them and see if they're all part of a big plan to subjugate all the people or just regular folks doing a job.
>>54346357
>Mass surveillance is acceptable as long as it's done for security purposes
>>54346381
You never really lose your rights, you can always just sue the state, there's plenty of folks who won lawsuits against the state, if you think their surveillance if unjustified.
Heck, in Europe you can sue your own country at the European Court of Human Rights. Plenty of people won against their own country and got lots of cash for it. Not sure if this is possible in Americuh or you guys are just major cucks.
>>54346152
It's a poor way to frame an argument because it suggests that the only reason to care about privacy is if you are doing something immoral or illegal.
Would you submit yourself to a real life The Truman show? You've got nothing to hide, right?
Privacy is a fundamental right we have, and before you get all Google and Microsoft on me that is exactly why they have a privacy policy that you agree to when using their services that outlines what information about you they consider to be "private" and what they will do to keep that data securely.
The thing is that you can have an Android device without Google but Microsoft is trying really hard to make it so you can't turn off their telemetry stuff, they even try to hide the way to make an local account when installing Windows.
>>54346357
>Mass surveillance is acceptable as long as it's done for security purposes and withing certain limits (according to the law).
but you can't trust a government.
And anyone that know shit about the matter, including the people that are in charge of those mass surveillance program knows that mass surveillance is not a good thing, and not effective at all. They need to monitor possible target.
The more people they have to look at, easier it will be to miss an actual information about a terrorist.
You should really read, watch more about surveillance. I'm talking about documentaries and interviews of people that knows about the subject, not your fucking TV where some clueless people won't be able to argue why it's good or not.
>>54346651
>The more people they have to look at, easier it will be to miss an actual information about a terrorist.
Yeah, I know about this. But on the other hand, if the government/secret service/intelligence has no way to intercept communications of people doing illegal stuff, they might as well pack their stuff and go home and it's up to everyone to defend themselves, including against other states.
You can't ask a government to be weak and ineffective, just because you're afraid they might see what kind of porn you have on your PC. Unless you're, ofc, doing something illegal. In the end, secret services are not really interested in your private life at all, but their job is to catch spies and terrorists and asking them to do that by forbidding them to spy on their communications is just dumb and ineffective.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/155059/20160501/google-strikes-deal-with-nhs-that-gives-ai-unit-access-to-1-6-million-patient-records.htm
GOOGLE JUST MADE A DEAL WITH THE NHS WOW
>>54346913
>has no way to intercept communications of people doing illegal stuff, they might as well pack their stuff and go home and it's up to everyone to defend themselves, including against other states.
but they already have ways for all that. The thing is that surveillance should be about a single target, someone specific, that is known to be a threat.
>You can't ask a government to be weak and ineffective,
no one is asking for that
>just because you're afraid they might see what kind of porn you have on your PC
read >>54346264
It's not only about me. It's about everyone.
Wen never said to drop surveillance. We said to drop mass surveillance and to not weaken encryption because it's harmful to the country.
>>54346913
Actually, there is a highly sophisticated and technologically advanced way of monitoring suspected terrorists. You might have heard of it before, in fact.
It's called going to court and getting a warrant to monitor the phone conversations/internet traffic/order Facebook to turn over data/etc.
In that warrant, they have to give probable cause, what they are looking for, and what they will search.
Mass surveillance does not respect any of these requirements involved in a traditional warrant. Their ability to collect information on suspected criminals will not be limited at all. Wiretaps will still exist, and your internet traffic can still be logged by ordering the ISP to save it all.
>>54346913
Also, encryption should not be weakened in the name of surveillance, either. If encryption can be broken by the government, it's only a matter of time until criminals figure it out. And if they know it has been weakened, they will try to find a way in.
Before you use the argument that criminals might not decrypt valuable information and we're shit out of luck, keep in mind that hiding evidence/obstructing justice can often carry a longer sentence than the original crime.
>>54347175
I should stop you right here. Who give a fuck about criminals at this point ?
Other governments are a bigger threat.
>USA gov weaken encryptions
>China and Russia still use good encryption algorithm
>USA can hardly spy on Russia and China
>All the country spy on USA and their companies.
That would be an economic disaster. and a real threat to the security of the country.
>>54347644
>>USA can hardly spy on Russia and China
Bullshit.
>>54347644
Corporate espionage is already a problem. Weakening encryption would only make it worse; it would be much easier for American based companies to get hacked as a result since they have to abide by US law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-great-brain-robbery-china-cyber-espionage/
