Why does /g/ care so much about their online privacy?

>>62144544
>le nuding to hide xDDDDDDDDDDDD

fuck off back to facebook/gmail/twitter

>>62144611
Good job dodging the question. You must be a pretty smart guy!

File: 78018953-2B87-480F-A3BB-8E067D62B374-3956-0000067991E2FA8E_tmp.jpg (156KB, 750x996px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 750x996px

The European Parliament could essentially criminalize certain opinions (expressing some non-violent, non-threatening opinions on social media can already land you in jail or at the very least with a fine in your hand in shitholes like Germany and Sweden) tomorrow and attempt to force that law upon member states. What would stop them from compelling every major tech company from providing them woth neat little lists of every person participating in wrongthink?

"This would never happen" you might say, but it isn't the point. The point is that it COULD happen, as it has in other countries.

I am not an American citizen, but don't pretend that tech giants and government agencies is not also one of the biggest threats in the land of the free; First Amendment or not.

If you don't care about protectijg your privacy and freedom of speech, it's only because you have nothing worth saying. Some people do.

>>62144544
Because being surveilled is creepy, knowledge of such results in altered behavior, and this data WILL be used against you in the future (NSA, GCHQ, etc).

>>62144544
Privacy is the default stance. Better question is, why do so many people not care?

>>62144861
providing them with*

don't pretend that tech giants and government agencies hoarding everyone's data is not*

>>62144544

another young and dumb retard who watches mainstream media

>HURR DURR WHO CARES ABOUT PRIVACY

next youre going to ask why we care about free speech

gtfo

>>62144544
I care about privacy in general. I don't want people snooping around my shit without my explicit permission or a court order.

building proper habit.

like imagine you end up being arrested in the future because of your political views.

or because you said shit to someone

privacy prevents that

you're all idiots if you don't think 10 years ahead where anyone in power is going to fuck your shit up if you don't do what they say.

>>62144903
Kek. Stop it with the lame rhetoric. You don't care about privacy. People who do - they fight against the laws IRL, attract attention towards issue, build secure software or tools for others to use, try and expose offenders. All you and 90% of other teenage autists care about is ""your"" privacy, i.e. concealing the very valuable info about their favorite porn genre and your track history of browsing 4chan 25 hours a day. Piss off.

Because I am not a libtard and my online profiles can be used to target and kill me.

>>62144544
i don't know, tell me why i shouldn't care about my basic human rights.

They don't. It's just /pol/ and /x/ leaking

>>62144544
Gimme your credit card info and I'll tell you.

>>62144544
>Over the last 16 months, as I've debated this issue around the world, every single time somebody has said to me, "I don't really worry about invasions of privacy because I don't have anything to hide." I always say the same thing to them. I get out a pen, I write down my email address. I say, "Here's my email address. What I want you to do when you get home is email me the passwords to all of your email accounts, not just the nice, respectable work one in your name, but all of them, because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you're doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting. After all, if you're not a bad person, if you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide." Not a single person has taken me up on that offer.
>Glenn Greenwald in Why privacy matters - TED Talk

>>62145010
melodramatic much?

>>62145045
hyperbole much?

>>62145076
hahahaha christ, what an asshole

>>62144948
loooool don't worry timmy I'm sure they won't come after you

>>62144903
you sound like the one who was infected by media meme panic over privacy, overreaching much?

>>62144868
>>62144862
You two would make a great couple

>>62144611
christ, overreacting much? Maybe a site like reddit would be more to your liking, you're clearly a bit immature

>>62144861
those people are irrelevant cowards

>>62145128
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from me having your CC info :^)

Any backdoor can be exploited by anyone. NSA can't even keep their own network secure, and you expect them to keep everyone's computers secure despite punching a hole in every single computer's security?

>>62145128
How does it affect you though? You're no worse off because some people look out for their own or other's privacy.

You come off as a shill or a troll, honestly. Got a better explanation?

>>62144544
We are fucked
https://medium.com/@amuse/how-the-nsa-caught-satoshi-nakamoto-868affcef595

>>62144544
If you need to ask that question you don't deserve a serious answer.

>>62145128
You're trying too hard to prove you have a non-existent brain.

>>62145204
ad-hominem, try harder next time troll

>>62144544
Because I do alot of seriously illegal stuff.

>>62144544

I've questioned this many times myself, OP. Thanks for having the open-mindedness to consider a position other than the zeitgeist. Now, onto playing the devil's advocate.


>>62144861

I tend to see this argument a lot in online arguments against surveillance. It is predicated on a hypothetical 1984-esque future in which the government wields the power to access people's very thoughts. It's flaw lies in the very fact that its proposed consequences are hypothetical, without actually considering the actual, reallife benefits surveillance and data tracking are offering us today: security. Terrorist attack detection, bomb or shooter threat response. These are things that you should wish to prevent regardless of your political orientation. Internet surveillance can offer this kind of preemptive protection, and thereby save lives, to a greater than ever before. I value my privacy as much as the next guy, but we need to seriously consider if we are willing to sacrifice lives for such idyllic notions of privacy.

>>62145076

This argument suffers from the same as the above: the misguided notion that surveillance is a boonless tradeoff. What if the information collected by Mr. Greenwald wasnt merely perused as a means of causing discomfort to heretics of the "meme privacy scare", as OP so aptly put it. What if, instead, Mr. Greenwald told his opponent that the collection of information was a necessary sacrifice to participate in a global system of threat detection that has actively saves lives? Would he be so reluctant to yield his information then, I wonder?

Now I'm not necessarily saying that the current benefits of security outweigh its potential risks. I'm just trying to point out that the matter is far more complicated than mindless followers of rms like

>>62145182

would have us believe.

File: 1462151736754.gif (1MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x197px

>>62144544
I don't like not knowing what other people know about me. I get anxious just peeing in my own damn lawn because google might be taking new satellite scans for street maps at that exact moment.
Privacy = Peace of mind

>>62144544
Do you like when people look into your stall when you're taking a shit?

>>62145342
>It's flaw lies in the very fact that its proposed consequences are hypothetical, without actually considering the actual, reallife benefits surveillance and data tracking are offering us today: security. Terrorist attack detection, bomb or shooter threat response. These are things that you should wish to prevent regardless of your political orientation

I very much agree that these things make mass-surveillance very appealing, but it is far less necessary in homogenous societies. Until very recently, until the migrant crisis that is, most European nations haven't needed to spy on their citizens for their own safety. I'm not sure about the privacy laws in places like Poland or Hungary, but you cannot argue that mass-surveillance is a necessity for those nations.

If like Japan we only spied on the most risky demographics, I would not object to it. The danger posed by African and ME migrants has compelled many EU nation states to actively spy on their citizens for the first time ever. Case in point, PET in Denmark has recently ruled that all outgoing traffic from that nation is to be collected and stored in direct response to the Islamic terror attacks across the continent. It is not right that native citizens should lose the right to their privacy because of a foreign threat.

File: 1496901977937.jpg (52KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1280x720px

>>62145128
No arguments. As expected.

>>62145445
This is mostly on point. Especially with the prior homogeneous societies, where countries like Sweden were at the top in growth for a very long time.

The problem with any argument against privacy is that it will ALWAYS creep up. In the US, surveillance has been pushed and will continue doing so. It's everywhere and beyond your comprehension.

It's already over. The question is how to obtain privacy back. It's almost impossible, unfortunately. The creep goes one way. It was never about safety with entities like the NSA and it's naive to think otherwise.

Orwell had it all on the dime, man was a true genius.

File: IMG_1163.jpg (2MB, 736x5874px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 736x5874px

>>62145923
>Orwell had it all on the dime, man was a true genius.
Definitely - him and Huxley both.

>>62146025
>you can't have any interests or else you're proving orwell right
What the fuck is this shit?

>>62146422
I assume you mean Huxley? Even then it's hardly the case that you can't have any interests without proving Huxley right.

Huxley just feared that we would become so saturated with pleasure that we'd be easily domesticated, so to speak. It's just the whole "bread and circuses" trope. Everything in moderation mate.

>>62145268
You can't call out anyone's ad hominem since all your argumants are solely ad hominem

>>62145268
Holy shit, you are retarded

That we still have people in this day and age thinking there's no problem with giving away their privacy is truly disheartening. You don't need to be bright to know why you would need privacy over the internet, to keep it away even from corporations that "just sell your data and do nothing else with it".

We're currently suffering the side effects of this already, to where someone can point something about you as an individual, even if you don't act or think like that anymore, and take your job and your livelihood away.

>>62146025
Well, I can't exactly disagree with either.

I'd rather if people didn't know I wanked to loli doujins online

>>62144544
Privacy is essential to free speech.

>>62144544
because fuck you

Its all that matters in the modern day as more and more things go online and the internet becomes more instrumental in everyone's daily life. We depend on it now and will depend on it more in the coming years. If its impossible to keep ourselves safe and secure while we still have to use it, we're fucked.

>>62144544
Do you not care about your privacy?

If you care, then so do we.

If you do not care, then please post your emails/accounts and passwords, along with your address and place of work. Thanks.

>>62144544
need to keep their loli hentai secured

Because I'm a cyberpunk larper.

File: IMG_4597.jpg (217KB, 900x968px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 900x968px

>>62145782
>>62146664
>>62147183
Pic related, it's you

>>62144544
I don't like the idea of people knowing what I do with my time on the computer and possibly using it against me at some point. On top of that it's a little creepy.
>But if you not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide

I hate people who use this argument. If that's the case then you should be ok with someone peering through your window because after all if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide, right?

>>62147742
How concerned should we be about script kitties, larper?

File: 1494185818153.png (90KB, 1868x496px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1868x496px

The government angle has been done to death, and anyone with an IQ over room temperature can see the fault in trusting blindly in governmental protections. As for the corporate argument...

>Companies want my info.
Why?
>To sell it or otherwise make money off of it.
Why should I give out my information with no return?
>?

If I use a service I pay for it. Either with fiscal means or with the information they hope to glean. Why should I give up my information to services I'm already paying for fiscally? Why do they get to double dip and dictate the terms of my patronage? I'm not opposed to using one over the other. However with everyone and their mother hoarding private information these days, it's plain to many of us that several of these companies are going too far. It should be the consumer's choice as to how they pay for the service, and that option is being taken away.