Do you think people's data would be more secure at the border if
- You kernal-hacked iOS so that it booted into a vanilla account upon entry of a certain passcode, and encouraged people to install your hack from GitHub, potentially borking their phones
- People couldn't be compelled (or face being denied entry) to allow search of their electronic devices
?
What about trying to do everything via a VPN and spoofed UA strings vs. PII being banned from sale, heavily taxed, or a meaningful opt-out existing? Or even just DNT having a legal basis?
For HN readers. And probably in general.
As for your questions, I would definitely like to first use software which doesn't compromise my privacy and security and only as a very distant second have some bureaucrat who would maybe in the best case scenario fine a company which leaks my data.
The vote I cast by running a Tor relay is much more meaningful and valuable defence of privacy than a vote in the general elections. By orders of magnitude.
> The vote I cast by running a Tor relay is much more meaningful and valuable defence of privacy than a vote in the general elections.
I kind of agree, but, not if the new leader outlaws using Tor tomorrow, as they have in China and Iran, and are attempting to do in Russia and France.
> bureaucrat who would maybe in the best case scenario fine a company which leaks my data
You may be selling the power of legislation short. It has the power to entirely transform the default business model of the Internet away from surveillance capitalism, for example. In terms of privacy, this would eliminate entire classes of "threat".
We frequently under-estimate our power as technologists to influence these things; we have very much more than a single vote. The narrative of 'technology' in the media is almost entirely that of billionaires and spies, and the media are gradually starting to realize that they're being led along. Getting the voice of technologists to explain the societal impacts of technology policy is a problem that we need to identify with as group.
Ultimate Encryption Method has just been trivially bypassed.
Hence, the good crypto is really only the most basic first step. Full privacy should be the second and a very important step. Fine, I might have an account in <insert-trendy-social-network-here>. Fine, my real name is known there.
OK.
But there are plethora of cases where having a user profile and personally identifiable information is simply not necessary -- like web search. Even e-commerce like Amazon can be mostly anonymized: you can pay with an e-gold kind of currency (Bitcoin, Ethereum) and Amazon can only ask politely another API if the goods are deliverable to your address (while Amazon won't have an idea about your physical address). Then, even if that mystical-another-API has your physical address, at least it's not in the hands of Amazon -- fragmentation of personal info gives us a small degree of protection, even if Amazon can eventually procure the info under the table. Hey, every little bit helps. Make surveillance expensive and many will drop it (not everybody of course, I recognize that). Again, every little bit helps.
Of course, due to a mountain of vested interests, nobody is talking about such technical solutions. "They" want your info all over the net. It's easier for them, so why change anything? The current status quo is sadly very logical.
Back to your example, thugs will just be angrily gnawing at their nails if they have no idea who you are and where you live.
Better software and newer generations that know how to use them will, however, come before anyone can make a government that respects his population.
However, what we can do is make decentralized tech absolutely idiot-proof and put it in the hands of non-technical users. If it's convenient, fast and reliable, it will at least have an equal footing against the centralized services. Let's get to that point and fight the other battle you mentioned then.
