I have lots of old friends who I only maintained sparse contact with. When I let my personal email address die (the address they would all have records of), I did not bother to update them with a new address.
They are all on the platform of some surveillance capitalist (e.g. Google or Microsoft). Google & Microsoft both refuse connections from self-hosted residential servers. And even if they didn’t, I am not willing to feed those surveillance advertisers who obviously don’t limit their surveillance to their users but also inherently everyone who makes contract with their users. I cannot support that or partake in pawning myself to subsidize someone else’s service.
I just wonder if anyone else has taken this step.
Whilst reading this post, I could actually hear your tinfoil hat crinkling
Then you’ve misunderstood. It’s not a security move. It’s a boycott. I will not financially support fossil fuel partners with profitable data.
Google is partnered with Total Energy and uses AI to help them find where to drill. Likewise, Microsoft is partnered with Chevron and Exxon, again using AI to help them drill for oil. Microsoft also has many other matters of ethical wrongdoing. Not a good company to support. Not to mention the lack of ethics of targeted advertising in general.
So it’s privacy for the sake of ethics, not privacy for the sake of security. These are the top reasons not to feed Google or MS, though it’d be poor judgement to also suggest there is no security problem with personal disclosure to such a centralized corporate PRISM venues outside of a GDPR region in a country with no notable privacy safeguards.
It’s also notable that Chevron is an #ALEC member, thus supports US republicans. #ExxonMobil is also an abhorrent company to support (#ExxonKnew).
Fossil fuel partners
How are you able to even post this if youre against fossil fuel partners? How do you think your device was made?
How do you think your device was made?
I have not bought a PC for the past 15 years. Every upgrade has been from pulling fully functional PCs out of dumpsters, LCDs included. Permacomputing is a good movement to follow.
Those parts were still made with fossil fuels? Doesn’t matter how you got them. Still using “fossil fuel partners”
Doesn’t matter how you got them.
No, it matters absolutely. You can get the goods by financially contributing to their bottom line, or you can get them without contributing financially. Surely you must understand that companies exist to profit.
Of course. But you’re still using something produced by a fossil fuel partner. So your holier-than-thou attitude is just hypocrisy
You don’t get how boycotts work. Using their products without compensating them doesn’t contradict opposition to feeding them. You don’t know what hypocrisy means. You could more easily argue that it’d be a hypocrisy to leave the PCs in a dumpster and allow e-waste to go to a landfill and pollute ground water against my beliefs. Even in regions where they dispose of PCs properly, I oppose destruction and recycling whenever reuse is an option.
You are definitely wearing some tin foil, OP. But I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, more people should put on a shiny hat and learn to be a little more cautious with the very public world of the Internet.
You are definitely wearing some tin foil, OP.
You have definitely failed to understand how capitalism works and how money flows in relation to data, and the ethical history of corporations involved.
Or I understand perfectly well how capitalism works and you didn’t read the rest of my comment properly.
I’m merely trying to point out that there is a healthy middle ground between the extremes of internet usage where people can interact with each other in a meaningful way while also being aware of the inherent risks and realities of using the internet today.
I’m merely trying to point out that there is a healthy middle ground between the extremes of internet usage where people can interact with each other in a meaningful way while also being aware of the inherent risks and realities of using the internet today.
You’re mistaken where compromise is needed and where it is not. There are ways to communicate without putting Google or MS in the loop and you’re at the unethical extreme if you have opted to support GAFAM by feeding those platforms.
Ways that are beyond either the capabilities or desires of the average user. I’m not saying Google or Microsoft is good or necessary, but we also don’t need to burn the world down around us just to prove a point.
Ways that are beyond either the capabilities or desires of the average user.
You vastly underestimate the average user w.r.t to “capabilities”. You can scrap capability from your statement because the avg user can just as well use protonmail/tuta, or disroot.org, for example.
That leaves “desires”. Two people agree on how to correspond. The desire of someone to use one of the most unethical controversial corporations possible and in an insecure manner that exposes the data to a profitable extent in a privacy-lacking part of the world, and the other party has a higher privacy bar (and/or high moral bar), the party who must adapt is the one with the lower standards. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to lower their privacy standards or to lower their moral standards. If someone’s desire to support Google or MS trumps their desire to stay in touch, then the conversation isn’t worth it to them.
There is a rule of least privilege principle that seems to have escaped you. In the information security discipline, we do not need to justify security measures by default. It’s lack of security that calls for justification. If there were truly a capability problem, that would be reasonable rationale for reduced security. But it’s a phantom excuse. And “desire” is not an acceptable rationale for reduced security.
Your doubling down on the tinfoil claim was a failure simply because the security matter is least important of everything I’ve already said on this. But even if security were purely my sole rationale (as it is for some people), you are still calling the practice of basic well-established infosec principles tinfoil hattery. Pushing this culture of branding sound security practices as paranoia is a socially harmful move that you are partaking in.
At a certain point you need to ask yourself if denying Google the ability to show you ads that are more relevant to your interests than generic ads is worth losing friends over.
This. Life is too short to deny myself human contact.
99% of my messages with friends is a variation on “hey, do you want to get together on Thursday, how about 6 at my place”.
This. Life is too short to deny myself human contact.
This is scrapping a long list of old contacts who might at most every 5—20 years briefly exchange life updates from another part of the world. It’s not denying human contact. When I meet someone new, they either need to reach me a way that’s agreeable to both of us or they need to proxy msgs through a mutual friend.
You’ve both demonstrated to easily back the gatekeepers as you’ve both needlessly chosen to create fedi accounts that are centralized on Cloudflare (lemmy world and shit just works both). You can’t speak with any credibility on the privacy front under those circumstances because you compromise digital freedom even when it yields no meaningful gain.
That’s not the trade-off. Google has no opportunity to show me ads anyway. If
alice@privacyrequired.comemailsbob@gmail.comabout a Taylor Swift concert, Google profits from information about both people. Even if Alice does not use Google services, Google’s file on bob shows he knows Alice and Alice is a TS fan. Then when bob searches for gifts, Google shows him TS t-shirts and profits from that. Conversations are two-ways, so when Bob responds to Alice Google learns directly about Bob, such as whether he’s a Swift fan. Alice’s msg therefore generated profitable data about Bob for Google, which potentially works against Alice’s boycott against Google.That’s just the tip of the iceberg—
human rights
Human rights are important. Embodied therein (among other principles) the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Article 8 states:
- Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
- Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
- Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.
As you can see from reading this thread, most people irrationally believe these human rights constitute paranoia and tinfoil hattery. My opposition to mass surveillance is not borne out of fear that my data will be used against me personally, but rather an objection to arbitrary systemic collection that comes at the detriment of some people (e.g. abortion seekers) and ultimately disempowers people.
privacy is about control
To have privacy is to have control over information about you. Security from harmful disclosure is only a small component of the utility of privacy. There is a tendency for normies to fixate on that and think that is the sum total purpose of privacy. Having control is also about choosing who gets to profit from your data. It’s about having a right to boycott harmful entities.
digital exclusion and diminished open standards
Google and Microsoft sabotaged the email infrastructure by imposing rules outside of RFC 5321. Up until the 2000s you could send an email to anyone so long as you comply with the open standards expressed in RFCs. The monopolistic tech giants saw an opportunity to take more market share and reduce their costs by introducing restrictions on email that exclude people who are self-serving. They leveraged spam fatigue to coerce people to conform to non-RFC proprietary reqs in addition to already already having a dominant market share (corp greed has no limits).
I reject Google and Microsoft dictating terms that breaks the purpose of open standards (interoperability). Every time you send an email to or from Google or MS servers, you give your support for corporate dictatorship.
So when you say this is about “the ability to show you ads that are more relevant to your interests”, you and at least 5 others have wholly misunderstood the problem.
Very cool blog
deleted by creator
It’s not enough. You have to follow the money (if you are an ethical consumer).
A boycott no longer simply means to not buy products or service from. When you supply profitable data to a harmful entity, it’s as good as giving them cash.
deleted by creator
Or you could say that by neglecting to boycott and participate in activism you are neglecting to participate in society.
“Activism is my rent for living on this planet” –Alice Walker
Activism is our duty.
Sometimes you have to stay connected to have any chance of saving the others. It gets a lot easy to take advantage of everyone if those that can see through it just leave.
Sometimes you have to stay connected to have any chance of saving the others.
This is not that. In this particular situation remaining connected to the surveillance advertisers only reinforces through codependency the idea that people can centralize themselves on those platforms to count on being reachable by everyone. That’s not the right msg.
Being the one hold out is a strong position. There was an academic group of people on FB that I had to corresponded with. When I refused to appear on that platform, everyone was forced to step outside of FB to reach me thus making them consciously aware of the problem. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Taking the pushover stance only proves to them that it works to choose the side of the monopolistic oppressor.
Indeed it makes sense for a privacy advocacy org to have a Facebook acct to reach those people. But most of them get it wrong and needlessly advertise FB on their public website. Which means they’re not just using it for outreach.
deleted by creator
