How do you feel about online privacy?

[angie_nrs]

So today we get to hear Mark Zuckerburg lie his lips off in front of a Congressional hearing. He is likely going to state he didn't know a lot of this stuff was going on in his company or that the data wasn't supposed to be sold or.....who know's what. I think HE knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it! But he won't admit it.

So, if Zuck was pulling this crap at FB, it only makes sense that all major online entities are doing the same thing, which I doubt is much of a surprise to anyone. Amazon has a buying history of everything I have ever bought. I'm sure they also know how many things I have looked at, how long I stayed on each page, what my typical dollar amount purchases are, etc. Heck, they probably know more about my buying habits there than I do.

Then there's Google. They know every search that has ever been made from this computer. They might be confused by me though, b/c everyone in the family uses this computer. LOL! Still, I would know a LOT about a person if I knew all the searches ever conducted. Who do they share that information with???

I don't do social media besides a few forums such as this one, but I still have been a little uncomfortable posting anything online. At first, when I joined forums and started using a computer (which was much later than the norm) I thought....nobody is tracking me b/c I'm just not that interesting. Plus, that is just too much data for anyone to weed through and I don't think anyone's that smart. Now, I don't feel that way. There's a reason I don't have a smart phone and that I tend to gravitate towards mechanical type of products instead of digital or computerized products. It's also why, as stated in other posts, I use cash at physical stores. I still prefer snail mail and checks over email and digital pay. Yeah, I'm a relic.

I guess the older I get the more I appreciate and covet my privacy. However, it seems as though it would get pretty lonely/boring not even browsing the net or not having a phone. And even though I want to keep all of my information to myself, it's just not possible in the world we live in. You can't even buy insurance without that company knowing just about everything about you.

So how do you all feel about your online privacy and are you doing anything to try to ensure it?

 

[Sourdough]

This is just a very, very, very small part of something much more terrifying.

 

[Sonya_6]

I don't use social media and the like (and never use my real name unless I am purchasing something). Will also start using pre-paid debit cards for any random online stuff (such as contributing to websites like this one so my personal info is kept private, I learned that the hard way after sending a few bucks to the "large prepper site").

I do try to be a bit discrete, and keep meaning to dump Google for DuckDuckGo, but am a bit addicted to youtube since I use it for news/entertainment (instead of TV).

Though if I ever decide to do stuff that I *really* want to keep private I will be much more cautious and probably use a VPN etc... but even that isn't foolproof since the gov tracks all traffic anyway (though to date LE and most other alphabet agencies have NOT had access to that info and it has never been used in court to my knowledge).

 

[The Lazy L]

IMHO there is no such thing as "online privacy"!

 

[Sourdough]

IMHO there is no such thing as "PRIVACY"!

I fixed it for you........I know that accuracy is important to you.....

 

[hiwall]

"online privacy" is an oxymoron.

 

[havasu]

I swear we are not peaking, but please use more bleach when washing your underwear!

 

[bkt]

The longstanding rule has always been "never post to the internet anything you would not willingly put on a billboard."

That said, the metadata collected by browser companies, google, amazon, and social media and funneled to entities that index this data for targeted advertisements is unnerving. The profile you can build about a person over time is extremely detailed and goes far beyond ads. You can try using the Tor network to make yourself anonymous, but a lot of data can still be gathered.

Then there's the NSA which keeps track of everything.

 

[Sentry18]

Speaking only on behalf of myself, a 14 year old Asian hacker who masquerades as a LEO/Prepper while simultaneously cat-fishing older men and then blackmailing them into sending me Amazon gift cards, I am fully satisfied with the amount of online privacy my redundant VPN's and fictitious online personas afford me.

 

[havasu]

Asian hacker? Heck, all this time I thought you were an Asian hooker! I better get my eyes checked again.

 

[Sentry18]

Asian hacker? Heck, all this time I thought you were an Asian hooker! I better get my eyes checked again.

Yeah yeah, send the gift cards or I am telling your wife.

 

[dademoss]

If Google or Amazon can find me a better 2000 watt propane generator, more power to them. Whoever looks at Alexa will get really tired of hearing how well the dog catches the ball. Post it on the front page of every newspaper, and watch people die of boredom

 

[TMT Tactical]

I am much more of a privacy person than my wife, for example. I use 2 VPN's at the same time, 2 ad blockers and alias email accounts. Does that mean I am secure, Heck no. It just means the other side has to work a bit harder. If you don't want to see it on the front page, don't say it, print it, post it or don't go there. Secret technology is exactly that secret. By the time the general populations learns about the new tracking technology, it is already obsolete and the other side has moved onto the next "Secret" technology. Do what you can and continue living life. Leave the "Paranoia" to me.

 

[Sonya_6]

The longstanding rule has always been "never post to the internet anything you would not willingly put on a billboard."

The left would love that! People are already worried about saying the "wrong thing" and losing their job or starting boycotts against their company.

I will stick to using an alias and saying what I really think. Though I do share the same opinions in real life face to face, but not in any type of business setting for obvious reasons.

 

[Sentry18]

The left would love that! People are already worried about saying the "wrong thing" and losing their job or starting boycotts against their company.

I will stick to using an alias and saying what I really think. Though I do share the same opinions in real life face to face, but not in any type of business setting for obvious reasons.

All the internet is a people with an alias saying what they think or what they are paid to say. In fact there are so many paid online cheerleaders and trolls the internet is no longer a real source of actual opinions or information for anyone but the lowest common denominator who don't know any better. I have a disabled friend who makes a solid $40k+ a year just posting fake product reviews, trolling competing products, taking online polls repeatedly to sway results, etc., etc.

 

[Sonya_6]

All the internet is a people with an alias saying what they think or what they are paid to say. In fact there are so many paid online cheerleaders and trolls the internet is no longer a real source of actual opinions or information for anyone but the lowest common denominator who don't know any better. I have a disabled friend who makes a solid $40k+ a year just posting fake product reviews, trolling competing products, taking online polls repeatedly to sway results, etc., etc.

That is true, but it is also one of the last bastions of free speech.

The internet does have a large impact on culture and it is not nearly as easily manipulated as other forms of media/communication. If people think something they can and will say it and their opinion can be read by thousands or even millions, plus they can and will find others that share the same opinions. Sure some are trolls but plenty are NOT trolls.

Another HUGE element is independent media. These days regular people with nothing but a computer and a $5 microphone can start broadcasting their own opinions or sharing news stories/facts that 99.9% of the population is not aware of. They can attract HUGE followings that easily rival mainstream media networks which is really quite remarkable and truly a "first" from a historical perspective.

Look at the situation in Syria as an example. The mainstream media is ALL pushing the same story and agenda (and blatantly overlooking obvious facts) yet the independent individuals online can reach millions with the untold part of the story. That makes a big difference and we should all be very grateful because as bad as things are now with all of the lies and spin, it would be 100 times worse if the internet did not allow individuals to share information.

 

[Sentry18]

I appreciate your point, but where is the free speech address on the internet? I have never seen it. Unless you have a personal blog hosted on a server you own using a domain name you lease, everything else is controlled and limited. And even then it's still limited via government control. Forums, social media, free or low cost blogs, free web hosting sites, etc. are all privately owned have restriction on what you can post or display. And all of them can edit you, delete you, take over "you", etc. Seems like you have far more 'free speech' face to face on public property in person.

 

[Sonya_6]

I appreciate your point, but where is the free speech address on the internet? I have never seen it. Unless you have a personal blog hosted on a server you own using a domain name you lease, everything else is controlled and limited. And even then it's still limited via government control. Forums, social media, free or low cost blogs, free web hosting sites, etc. are all privately owned have restriction on what you can post or display. And all of them can edit you, delete you, take over "you", etc. Seems like you have far more 'free speech' face to face on public property in person.

It isn't perfect, and you are right most everything on the internet is privately owned which means there can be restrictions, but it is pretty darn good and it is constantly evolving.

For instance bitchute.com is a potential rival to youtube, and since it is torrent based (it looks and acts like youtube, no torrents to download just click and play) it prevents anyone from controlling/deleting content once it has been shared. That type of platform will likely become increasing popular simply because it is difficult to impossible to control/censure (just like the pirate bay mirror sites are).

Plus from a political free speech perspective there are some lawsuits ready to be launched that could have a HUGE impact. Google/Youtube/Twitter etc...are based in California and there has already been a legal precedent set in California that forbids the censure of political speech on private property that is open to the public. If the big Internet companies are forced by the courts to stop censuring political opinions that they don't like it could be a game changer, an since Google/Youtube are huge an control a vast amount of the info available on the web they could easily be held to a different standard than tiny private companies.

Here is one lawsuit that is being filed. I am familiar with this group (went to one of their conferences) and they are a sharp bunch. Jared Taylor, the spokesman, is a Harvard professor and he has a lot of equally intelligent associates. If they say they have a good chance of winning I believe them.

 

[The Lazy L]

I am much more of a privacy person than my wife, for example. I use 2 VPN's at the same time, 2 ad blockers and alias email accounts. Does that mean I am secure, Heck no. It just means the other side has to work a bit harder. If you don't want to see it on the front page, don't say it, print it, post it or don't go there. Secret technology is exactly that secret. By the time the general populations learns about the new tracking technology, it is already obsolete and the other side has moved onto the next "Secret" technology. Do what you can and continue living life. Leave the "Paranoia" to me.

And if I was "Them" all of your unusual precautions would draw my interest to you. What are you trying to hide?

There is a property I pass on the way to Town. House sets way off the property and only part of the roof can be seen from the road. 10 foot high brick and iron fence property line fence along the road and look like the fence extends all the way around the property too. Decorative and strong gate with auto opener and what looks like a card reader for entry. Located in the middle of plain old farm county, this property stands out like a sore thumb. Every time I drive pass I wonder what valuables they have that causes them to need that fence.

 

[Sentry18]

It isn't perfect, and you are right most everything on the internet is privately owned which means there can be restrictions, but it is pretty darn good and it is constantly evolving.

For instance bitchute.com is a potential rival to youtube, and since it is torrent based (it looks and acts like youtube, no torrents to download just click and play) it prevents anyone from controlling/deleting content once it has been shared. That type of platform will likely become increasing popular simply because it is difficult to impossible to control/censure (just like the pirate bay mirror sites are).

Plus from a political free speech perspective there are some lawsuits ready to be launched that could have a HUGE impact. Google/Youtube/Twitter etc...are based in California and there has already been a legal precedent set in California that forbids the censure of political speech on private property that is open to the public. If the big Internet companies are forced by the courts to stop censuring political opinions that they don't like it could be a game changer, an since Google/Youtube are huge an control a vast amount of the info available on the web they could easily be held to a different standard than tiny private companies.

Here is one lawsuit that is being filed. I am familiar with this group (went to one of their conferences) and they are a sharp bunch. Jared Taylor, the spokesman, is a Harvard professor and he has a lot of equally intelligent associates. If they say they have a good chance of winning I believe them.

There are dozens and dozens of alternative to YouTube, and more being created every day. Especially in the gun community. But very few of them gain enough traction to even come close to a fraction of the market share of YouTube and they usually end up just being sole topic sites where everyone pretty much always agrees with one another anyway. Unless of course it's a 9mm vs. 40 or AR15 vs AK47 debate. Bit Chute did look interesting, but it also seemed to be limited in its content to only political opinion and conspiracy. What makes YouTube the powerhouse that it is (even if I don't personally like it) is the huge variety of content. I would submit far more people go to YT to watch a music video, to view a how-to video or to see the trailer for an upcoming movie than find out what someone in North Carolina thinks the Deep State is up to.

What I don't understand is how one can believe you can bring forth a lawsuit against a privately owned business, with a user agreement or TOS where you voluntarily give up or allow the restriction of free speech, on an internet site where one has no 'right' to free speech in order to obtain free speech because they control lots of information? If the lawsuit is based on California state law or the state constitution, it would be more likely, but then all Twitter or whomever would have to do is move elsewhere. If the SCOTUS under Federal law and the US Constitution has allowed free speech to be limited on some publicly owned properties, I cannot imagine if and when it gets to that level that the SCOTUS will affirm that a public right now also a applies to private owned virtual property as well. Because of course the 1st Amendment applies only to government and not a privately owned businesses regardless of their size.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Sonya_6]

What I don't understand is how one can believe you can bring forth a lawsuit against a privately owned business, with a user agreement or TOS where you voluntarily give up or allow the restriction of free speech, on an internet site where one has no 'right' to free speech in order to obtain free speech because they control lots of information? If the lawsuit is based on California state law or the state constitution, it would be more likely, but then all Twitter or whomever would have to do is move elsewhere. If the SCOTUS under Federal law and the US Constitution has allowed free speech to be limited on some publicly owned properties, I cannot imagine if and when it gets to that level that the SCOTUS will affirm that a public right now also a applies to private owned virtual property as well. Because of course the 1st Amendment applies only to government and not a privately owned businesses regardless of their size.

Well the telecom and television industries are run by private companies. Because both industries are huge and the public is dependent on their services they are not allowed to refuse service based on political beliefs.

Laws forbid them from saying "we don't like that political party or candidate therefore they can't use our privately owned phone lines or buy ad time on our network to further their campaign".

Giant websites and search engines that are used by the majority of Americans, and control a massive amount of advertising/info that could make or break a political party or candidate could easily be held to the same standard since a refusal of service could seriously effect the outcome of elections.

They can still enforce community standards regarding a lot of other things (i.e. swearing, porn, anything they deem offensive) but censuring political opinions/beliefs falls into a different category.

 

[Sentry18]

Television is worse than social media at suppressing political views that do not align with their own. Entire networks and TV series are dedicated to suppressing political beliefs. They are only required to give equal "free air time" for publicly broadcasted debates should they choose to host such debates, but if one party or one side chooses to spend more money on commercial air time that is unrestricted. The NRA television network did not air a lot of Hillary Clinton commercials and I did not see any Trump for POTUS commercials on Al Jazeera, because both are private entities. I would also point out that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and others legally refused to air ads created by President Trump after his first 100 days in office. FOX also refused to air ads with a Trump Impersonator. So there is definitely a lot of political suppression on television. By the way the FCC censors some content, but most censorship is done in house by "network censors" employed by the television studio itself. The FCC only steps in when complaints are filed.

"Could easily be held to the same standard" does not make it a legal expectation or a constitutional right. I despise social media, social engineering and the suppression of free speech as much as every American should. But I would submit telling a private business that it must hold itself to a standard that exceeds US law and the US government isn't even 'fully' held to goes against the very concept this country was founded on. In the free market of the US people should be able to vote with their dollars. If they don't like CNN or Fox News, they can turn the channel. If they don't like what FB or Twitter is doing, they can delete their accounts. But with all political issues, only the 25% (or so) on one side and 25% (or so) on the other side really care at all, the 50% in the middle just ride the wave or they just don't care.

 

[Woody]

Our “Information”, Online and offline, has been available for a long time, everything is for sale.



Look at your ‘Credit History’ for one. Information about all your major purchases that have been financed are sold so others can make decisions on giving you more “Credit”. From my perspective, this is a horrible system as it only rewards those than spend way more than they can afford or really need to. Someone who is financially responsible and only purchases what they can truly afford, is penalized. I am getting OT, sorry… Just pointing out that this information has not been private for a long time.



Online, since it came around, has never been ‘private’, never. That information is stored somewhere and can be accessed by anyone with skills. Anyone who ever thought otherwise is disillusioned. This goes back to the 1990’s when ‘anonymous’ email addresses were all the rage, we have anonymity! Yeah, right.



I have always gone with the assumption that ANYTHING I put on a computer that is not isolated from electronic transfer of information, is accessible to anyone else on a different computer that has electronic transfer capabilities. ANYTHING I have on a ‘private’ computer that is not linked via electronic means, even password locked with triple secret passwords, is accessible by anyone who can physically access that device. And of course, ANYTHING I would ever post ANYWHERE using electronic means, is accessible by anyone else with electronic means. This includes them knowing who I am, where and when I put that information out, no matter what means I use to try and hide my identity.



To answer the OP question: No, I do not like that this is the way it is, but I have to accept it as the norm. If it was not my beloved Government doing it, it would be private industry or individuals. We can make all the ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ to prevent it, but it will not prevent it from happening. I would say the scope of it is too large to contain.



Posting this here is like printing a billion copies of it and dropping them from an airplane all around the world. Anyone who cares to, can pick up a copy and read it… My name and address are written in lemon juice and anyone with a candle can find them.

 

[Sonya_6]

In the free market of the US people should be able to vote with their dollars. If they don't like CNN or Fox News, they can turn the channel. If they don't like what FB or Twitter is doing, they can delete their accounts. But with all political issues, only the 25% (or so) on one side and 25% (or so) on the other side really care at all, the 50% in the middle just ride the wave or they just don't care.

Yes they should be able to but if companies hold a monopoly they can't. For instance there is only one landline/dsl provider in my area. What if they decided to refuse service based on political views? I couldn't go anywhere else, they could use their influence for FORCE people into doing what they want or literally silence them by removing their ability to communicate.

If companies hold a virtual monopoly, and they can refuse serve for political reasons then a democracy no longer works because they wield enough power to FORCE people into doing what they want or silencing those they don't like. That applies whether they are the power company, a giant railroad, a telephone company (Ma Bell before it was split up), or mega-internet based companies.

We all know the big corporations (and some foreign powers) call the shots in the US right now even with laws in place to limit the power of monopolies. Do you think we should remove all restrictions entirely and let phone companies, power companies, drug companies, etc... punish segments of the population (or states) as they see fit by refusing to sell products or services to them because they do not agree with their politics? Because if the laws are lifted and they are given that level of power they will use it and our democracy (or what passes for a democracy) won't have a prayer of working anymore.

 

[Sentry18]

Yes they should be able to but if companies hold a monopoly they can't. For instance there is only one landline/dsl provider in my area. What if they decided to refuse service based on political views? I couldn't go anywhere else, they could use their influence for FORCE people into doing what they want or literally silence them by removing their ability to communicate.

If companies hold a virtual monopoly, and they can refuse serve for political reasons then a democracy no longer works because they wield enough power to FORCE people into doing what they want or silencing those they don't like. That applies whether they are the power company, a giant railroad, a telephone company (Ma Bell before it was split up), or mega-internet based companies.

We all know the big corporations (and some foreign powers) call the shots in the US right now even with laws in place to limit the power of monopolies. Do you think we should remove all restrictions entirely and let phone companies, power companies, drug companies, etc... punish segments of the population (or states) as they see fit by refusing to sell products or services to them because they do not agree with their politics? Because if the laws are lifted and they are given that level of power they will use it and our democracy (or what passes for a democracy) won't have a prayer of working anymore.

But a monopoly requires "exclusive control" over something. How can one claim, for example, that YouTube has exclusive control when there are literally hundreds of video hosting sites? Vimeo is one large example and just posted another alternative site earlier. Just because the consumer prefers YouTube over the other options does not give them a monopoly. The same can be said about Facebook. There are multiple similar sites, including GAB which expressly states it is non-censoring. Does FB have a monopoly simply because many (perhaps most) social media consumers choose to have a FB account? Having only one land line or internet provider does not stop one from using other mediums of communication to send and/or receive information. Your example would be relevant if there were no cell or satellite options, no cable or satellite television, no US mail, newspapers, magazines, etc. It is either that one landline or you are otherwise completely incommunicado from the outside world and had evidence that the service provider was censoring their product to the exclusion of all other data. And even then, I would submit you (or they) are not restricted to that area by anything other than choice and perhaps financial circumstances, the latter of which is not covered under legal or constitutional protections.

And I don't live in a democracy, I live in a constitutional republic. In a democracy the people choose public policy directly, in a republic we elect leaders to make many of those choices for us. Choices that must, or are supposed to, conform to the constitution and constitutional amendments. I am pro reasonable restrictions on monopolies? Yes, within reason. Do I think that applies here? No, since no one has a monopoly. IMO when the founding fathers wrote "Congress shall make now law... abridging the freedom of speech..." they were specifically telling the "government" to NOT interfere with freedom of speech. Creating government regulations or laws that restricts the freedom of a private business owner his right to free speech, would seem to be a violation of that amendment. If I owned a blog called "Brown skinned people are awesome and whiteys all suck" should the government be able to come in and demand I open my blog to a white woman who wants to post her opposing view? No. She can create her own blog to post her POV. Absolutely. And if suddenly my blog becomes the most viewed blog on the internet and hers only gets 100 hits per day, should I be forced to open my blog to her then? Still no. IMO of course.

The issue as I see it is making people aware that sites like YouTube and Twitter are censoring people. Educate the consumer and let them make their own choices. But I do appreciate this debate. Both civil and intelligent. Lots of food for thought.

 

[Caribou]

23 minute video

 

[Magpie]

I presume anything is accessible now, and the day I bought a PC I said goodbye to privacy. It's odd how some people know their phone is listening to them, but don't think their computer or laptop is!

I have a professional social media account, which, once I get a little more established as a writer, will be deleted. I need it for funders at the minute, to see that I exist and am not a figment of my own imagination! I'm not on any forums other than this one, and rightly or wrongly, I see you as a sort of group of old-fashioned penpals. (Which I have two, writing this twenty years to each other and never met) So, while you don't know a lot about me, I'm happy enough to share what's in my larder
I think once you travel on a plane, they already know who/what/where and when. I also have a supermarket points card and an online library account, so the powers that be can already tell a lot about me.
As for hackers out to steal money; like a locked door- it only keeps honest people out - they will always overcome any privacy system. It does bother me that somewhere there is a photo of me I don't know about, stolen and being used.

 

[havasu]

We should all just hope if there are photos of us somewhere on social media, at least they would be fully clothed!

 

[Morgan101]

JMHO on-line privacy is an oxymoron. Once you get on-line no matter what the sight you are out there for the whole world to see. I have a couple of Social Media sites I was required to start/join for work. I get notifications but very rarely use them or post. I don't expect privacy, so I try to post accordingly.

There was an old rule we used to abide by earlier in my career: If you wouldn't want it printed on the front page of the newspaper, then don't do it.

 

[Bacpacker]

We should all just hope if there are photos of us somewhere on social media, at least they would be fully clothed!

Glad no one had cell phones when I was growing up.