Uh, did you read the whole article? The author's point was you can't opt out and not seem like a criminal. This was because if you wanted to stay anonymous online and actually buy things, you need to purchase gift cards with cash. The place she went (or her husband did) to purchase multiple gift cards had a sign that said something like they're watching people that buy a lot of gift cards.
You're response sounds more like a marketing brochure to me. While I love tech and am in the tech world, the fact is, mine and everyone's private info is out there for anyone to buy and many companies to sell. Sure, we can make tools (some day) to put the equation in our favor, but this is not that day. Simply saying we can use Tor/private browsing/avoid social media is only part of it. Actually buying things not in cash leaves a trail and that info is sold to whomever pays.
Regardless if you could easily find out in the 1700's if someone was pregnant, the article was not a commentary on the past. It was about opting out in the present, which is pretty much impossible if you use any kind of connected technology in your daily life. Be it your atm/credit card, phone, internet connection - they all leave trails.
Sure, in the 1700's a butcher would see your face and maybe remember it. Maybe retain enough info to track you down if need be. But now, it's more than absolute. The more everything becomes digitized, the less anyone can be anonymous. You'd have to really be into the spy mindset to cover your tracks and do the things that would need to be done to get false ids, etc. And I don't know how much that would even help as machine learning and face recognition (coupled with ccd's everywhere) get better and could probably link up those fake ids.
Honestly, I don't care much because I'm not a very important or interesting person. So in a sense that way, I have some anonymity. And I love tech (still). Interesting experiment from the author, but we've already crossed the privacy line and there's no going back or opting out.
> The author's point was you can't opt out and not seem like a criminal.
But why is that? Let's face it, if you care very deeply about INFOSEC then you're probably someone who actually has something to hide from people (criminals, military, etc.), or someone who cares about the principle of the matter.
If you're the latter then you'll correlate yourself with the former whether you like it or not, and while we all agree that correlation is not causation, it is something that might get you examined at the very least.
Remember, police can't psychically predict who among the population has actually committed a crime or not when it happens, so they have to do "good old fashioned police work" (as I've seen it described in NSA threads) to investigate suspicious activity and verify it's innocuous, to determine who in a possible set of people actually committed a given crime, etc.
By behaving in almost the same fashion as actual criminals you make it that much harder to be discriminated out of the "possibly criminal" set early in the course of an investigation.
In this case the only thing she mentioned that seemed criminal was converting cash to gift cards to shop anonymously on Amazon — exactly the kind of thing a criminal would actually need to do to procure materials for a crime, if they wished.
Is this unfortunate? Absolutely! But so are many other tradeoffs society makes, even down to waiting at a red light even when the intersection is actually clear. If it were easy to separate criminal activity from other activity we would hardly need police or forensics.
I just realized that the same argument could be made regarding gun control.
> But why is that? Let's face it, if you care very deeply about GUNS then you're probably someone who actually has to protect from people (criminals, military, etc.), or someone who cares about the principle of the matter.
I think it all boils down to the amount of trust we put in our governments. Both guns and privacy are a protective measures against corrupt governments. In todays world privacy is probably a magnitude more important and also associated with lesser drawbacks than guns, as it would be impossible to organize resistance while being under todays surveillance.
Yeah, there are a lot of parallels. But for every person who is genuinely concerned with government overreach and that alone, I see 50 more Bundys who use government as rhetoric to play up anti-social/selfish ends.
You're response sounds more like a marketing brochure to me. While I love tech and am in the tech world, the fact is, mine and everyone's private info is out there for anyone to buy and many companies to sell. Sure, we can make tools (some day) to put the equation in our favor, but this is not that day. Simply saying we can use Tor/private browsing/avoid social media is only part of it. Actually buying things not in cash leaves a trail and that info is sold to whomever pays.
Regardless if you could easily find out in the 1700's if someone was pregnant, the article was not a commentary on the past. It was about opting out in the present, which is pretty much impossible if you use any kind of connected technology in your daily life. Be it your atm/credit card, phone, internet connection - they all leave trails.
Sure, in the 1700's a butcher would see your face and maybe remember it. Maybe retain enough info to track you down if need be. But now, it's more than absolute. The more everything becomes digitized, the less anyone can be anonymous. You'd have to really be into the spy mindset to cover your tracks and do the things that would need to be done to get false ids, etc. And I don't know how much that would even help as machine learning and face recognition (coupled with ccd's everywhere) get better and could probably link up those fake ids.
Honestly, I don't care much because I'm not a very important or interesting person. So in a sense that way, I have some anonymity. And I love tech (still). Interesting experiment from the author, but we've already crossed the privacy line and there's no going back or opting out.