πΏ 
>paranoid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/snowden--the-nsa-planted-backdoors-in-cisco-products.html
At this point in the world it's not paranoia but being prudent.
Worldview is shaped on knowledge and experience, if users don't know and/or don't understand these then they can't have a realistic view of the computer world, and some still won't have one because their experience of having their wanted finality with a software is stronger than objective information on the subject.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
Being cautious β being paranoid. Dwelling on it is. Doing it on a scale that seriously degrades your quality of life is being paranoid βΒ it's a mental disorder.
Picking the best tool you can for the job is the right thing, picking what to do to match the tool that you think is best is weird. It makes you the tool. It's wrong. If you don't trust technology at all, just destroy your computer βΒ that's it, done. Get a cabin in the woods.
Paranoid: Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.
Where's the irrational fear or irrational distrust ?
>Doing it on a scale that seriously degrades your quality of life is being paranoid
Yeah you see the issue with such argument is that it doesn't scale up when your opponents are actually tyrannical.
Not agreeing with some negative methodology and being directly or indirectly persecuted/excluded for not doing so it isn't paranoia. Thus why I referred to the definition of it.
>Picking the best tool you can for the job is the right thing
Picking the right tool to remove a teeth and passing by the rectum to reach the mouth isn't what I call a positive way of doing things.
Don't mistake software tools and path to a finality, your software tools will shape how you go to that finality.
>If you don't trust technology
I don't trust proprietary technology. Trust isn't innate, it builds itself, and there isn't a week where proprietary tech doesn't show it's negative influence.
>Get a cabin in the woods.
I wish I could.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
Taking the fact that you might be watched into consideration is not irrational, living your life like you are always watched is.
> Where's the irrational fear or irrational distrust ?
There is nothing wrong with avoiding privacy intrusive things and choosing privacy respecting alternatives. Not doing something you want to do, in this case playing a game with a friend, only because you don't like DRM and there is no easy way to avoid it is somewhat over the top.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
I mean if you are wanted in seven states it's probably rational not to install a game with DRM, otherwise it's pretty rational to assume no one gives a flying fsck about you and go with it.
That is what I was talking about: taking into consideration β ππΏ, dwelling on it and taking whatever it takes to avoid it β ππΏ.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network I see.
That's a bit different IMO. Data mining on a global scale is a major issue, but there is no way to fix it on a personal scale. And it is wrong to even try. Because even if you do you best to prevent collection of your data, they do it indirectly. The only way to fix it completely is to avoid contacting other people, that's paranoid.
Such activities should be hindered by law, what Facebook and Google do shouldn't be a viable bussiness model.
>but there is no way to fix it on a personal scale
-Stop using proprietary software, simple as.
-Stop using proprietary hardware, not simple as.
>And it is wrong to even try.
>The only way to fix it
Is to not use proprietary centralized software/services.
>Because even if you do you best to prevent collection of your data, they do it indirectly.
What are metadata.jpg
They are already doing it, regardless of choice, we can only mitigate to certain levels or stop using everything.
>that's paranoid.
Yeah because obviously continuing using proprietary software to not look paranoid worked so well on the population
>should be hindered by law
It's already the case in some countries but:
-proprietary software conceals functions of the software
-laws are often lobbied and aren't effective or less effective
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
> Yeah because obviously continuing using proprietary software to not look paranoid worked so well on the population
Guess what? Not using it didn't work either! You know what actually made a difference? Making better alternatives available and informing people. "Not using" doesn't change anything at all, it only excludes you and diverts your attention from bigger picture to micromanaging your life without these things.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
> It's already the case in some countries but:
That is right. It wasn't "Not using" that made MS remove IE in EU edition of Windows. And we have these nice "Reject all" buttons on nearly every website not because we were "not using". Firefox didn't appear out of thin air of "not using". Of course a lot more has to be done, but not having fun playing some game because it has some fscked up "anti-cheat" measures is not it.
>And we have these nice "Reject all" buttons
Legal protection isn't direct protection.
You can't prove it works because you aren't the administrator of the server, and you don't/can't read the code that is injected in your web browser.
I agree that it's necessary to insure possible cohesion in groups yes, but they don't provide real direct protection, it's just a"just trust me, lol" move in the case of proprietary software.
And like I said earlier before laws are lobbied, if you have read the EU GDPR you must have seen that these rulings aren't effective as people think they are because there's a lot of loopholes in the said text, and besides loopholes most of the time when people reject their data usage it's for targeting commercial/marketing usage, not for AI analysis and the likes, which is also specified in the GDPR but not mandatory.
> because it has some fscked up "anti-cheat" measures is not it.
These anti cheat are actual backdoors to your computer, they filter and monitor want you can and can't do, how do you think they work ? That's what a DRM his.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
> they don't provide real direct protection
That's true! So both are important. My point was that not using proprietary solutions on its own is ineffective. You've got to have some alternative that's actually usable. And of course you've got to keep "tech" companies in line. Why do they even call them tech companies? Apple and MS at least sell tech, Google βΒ to some extent. Facebook doesn't sell any tech, it sells your data, it's a surveillance company.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
> these rulings aren't effective as people think they are because there's a lot of loopholes in the said text
That is also true! Like I said, there is a lot more to be done. There are things to improve and it is important to prevent some government surveillance stuff from passing at the same time.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
> how do you think they work ?
I think this one just checks if it's run on real hardware, not some virtual environment and makes sure you use unmodified signed binary. It is possible of course, but I'm pretty sure there is no KGB Gulag shit there π
>So both are important.
I agree. But you have to be pragmatic about it, one side you are sure that you are protected the other side is just a promise.
>that not using proprietary solutions on its own is ineffective
I disagree.
>You've got to have some alternative that's actually usable
And we have them.
>Apple and MS at least sell tech
They don't sell anything, when you read their EULA you will learn that they give you a temporary revocable authorization of usage of their Services as a software.
>to some extent. Facebook doesn't sell any tech
They provide a service free of charge in exchange of your private data.
>it's a surveillance company.
Same as Microsoft and Apple, like all proprietary software entities.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
> they give you a temporary revocable authorization of usage of their Services
Oh, I think they are different because they sell hardware π
Apple does, so does MS: Xbox and Surface things. For Google this part of their bussiness is near negligent, but they still have it. There were some talks of "Facebook-phone", but I believe it didn't come to fruition βΒ so pure surveillance there.
>Apple does, so does MS: Xbox and Surface things
It's the "intellectual property" of these entities as stated in the EULA you aren't allowed to go outside the box.
That doesn't mean people don't do it, but legally speaking you don't own it, you paid a for a physical object on which you legally have no rights beside a temporary revocable permit of usage.
@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
Yep, legally it's a mess, but at least, unlike Facebook, it can be classified as "tech".
Companies are usually classified by their main sources of income. Even for MS and Google it's a stretch, but calling Facebook a tech company is just delusional IMO π€·
@mangeurdenuage
> one side you are sure that you are protected the other side is just a promise
Oh, worth noting that both sides are a promise. Unless you do all the source code audit and build all the hardware yourself. You tend to trust free software maintainers more than EU MPs and courts, but that's irrelevant, it's still a matter of trust at its core.
@Suiseiseki @iska@mstdn.starnix.network
Yes, I sometimes reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddd the souuuuurrrrrrceeeee.
>build all the hardware yourself
My future plans, but sadly not currently really possible.
>it's still a matter of trust at its core.
Sure, but that trust is hard earned and lost almost immediately if you do something not worthy of trust.
>otherwise it's pretty rational to assume no one gives a flying fsck about you and go with it.
Wrong https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8414-corporate_surveillance_digital_tracking_big_data_privacy
They do not care of what they mine about you they'll find a way to exploit it at some point.
https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/1529/144_7_gerwith.webm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUm9hV9KPy0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Dd5aVXLCc