>normiecucks are willing to exchange privacy with convenience

There are some terrorists that are able to evade the most advance intelligence agencies in the world. If a goatfucker can remain anonymous, so can you.

you don't have to be 100% private 100% of the time.

>my screen is recorded 24/7

whatever, just give me free goods

>>57082371
it's like, humans are herd animals under constant surveillance, fed regularly, taken advantage of.

feels so creepy if you look from the wider perspective.

>>57082415
>Pets are depend on the owner
What part of it is creepy? They need very minimal privacy tho.

>>57082341
No, there aren't. USA just chooses to kill them when it's their own interest to do so.

>>57082451
Pets have no concept of privacy.

>>57082457
Why hasn't Snowden been caught? Why did it take so long to kill Bin Laden? Why were the FBI unable to decrypt an iPhone?

Nation states are powerful but they're not perfect. Having said that, they can't really afford to be wasting resources spying on every single citizen. They'll only spy on you if you raise suspicion (and that's your own fault if you raise suspicion on yourself).

>>57082457
>pets have no concept of privacy
>yet when i see my dog shitting it gets embarassed and stops

kill yourself.

Persecutory delusions, the thread.

Honestly it's going to be real fun when google starts advertising for politicians

>>57083051
It does it already.

>>57082324
For fuck's sake, OP. Please stop mixing free software with privacy issues. Stallman has some pretty strong opinions about privacy (quite extreme if you ask me, but who am I to judge that paranoid delusional), but except for the potential for malicious and/or harmful code in proprietary software, they are separate issues.

Free software = software that grants the user her 4 freedoms

Privacy issues = software that doesn't spy on you and infringe on your right to anonymity, privacy and freedom of choice

FOSS will never die out because of people's reliance on FOSS software. Almost everything computer related has started as FOSS software, because originally people wanted to share as much code as they could in order to develop computer software, back in its early stages. The whole idea of closing your own source code didn't really start becoming prevalent until big corporations started monetising software.

Even closed source software uses open source code in one way or another. A shining example of this would be mobile phones, for one, both iOS and Android are based on open source kernels.

>>57082350
yes, yes you do. it's your right.

File: All-we-need-is-the-right-major-crisis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-New-World-Order.-David-Rockefeller.jpg (91KB, 443x278px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 443x278px

>>57082324
FOSS is not going to die.

All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the GNU World Order.

>>57084254
I cannot believe you can't see the entanglement between those 2 terms.

You know, most of the time it's the non-free software that tracks the users. Not having freedom mostly affects the privacy.

When software has the control over you, mostly you lose your privacy.

>>57082553
Your first 2 points are valid, but the iPhone thing is completely wrong.
The FBI could very easily have decrypted the iPhone, which they did end up doing. The reason they wanted apple to unlock it was because it would have set a legal precedent that companies MUST decrypt devices if the government asks.
Once they saw that apple wasn't budging, they just said fuck it and decrypted it themselves.