Author: Privacy Galaxy

How is 2fa better than a good long password

I’m not about to sign up for 2fa authentication. (mainly because they just don’t need my cell number). But I also can’t see the benefit over a good long password. is there any real benefit?

Found here

The extent and methods of information gatherin…

I have some questions about the extent of and methods by which social media sites gather information about consumers for targeted advertising. Before I ask my questions, I’d like to give a little background on two circumstances that occurred recently that were alarming to me.

  1. My parents came into town recently to celebrate Father’s day with me. We made reservations at a fancy winery nearby (I don’t typically go to fancy places like this as I’m a recent college grad and don’t have money for stuff like this) and we enjoyed ourselves. The winery is pretty far away from any towns so I didn’t have cell phone service. The next day, while I was browsing Instagram, I noticed a targeted ad for a different winery nearby. I hadn’t touched my phone the entire time we were there, no Snapchats of the winery or pictures on my phone, so no location tags as far as I know. However, Instagram seemed to know (somehow) that the previous day, I had gone to a winery (it was my first time at one). Peculiar, I thought, but did not think any more of it until the second circumstance happened.

  2. Yesterday, some friends and I went to a nearby swimming hole with a natural rock slide and waterfall and such. It was a beautiful day and my friend brought a hammock, which I helped her set up. The entire day, my phone was nestled away in my backpack in a corner very far away from where we set up the hammock, and again, there was no service there anyways. I napped in the hammock and we enjoyed the rest of our day. Side note: I don’t own a hammock, nor have I ever considered buying one or searched online for one. Only five minutes before writing this post, i was browsing Instagram and saw a targeted ad for a hammock. It freaked me out, considering the fact that there isn’t any information on my social media profiles which would associate me with an interest in hammocks. However, I did see that one of my friends took a Snapchat of himself in the same hammock I napped in.

Therefore, my questions are as follows: 1. In reference to the winery: Is there a chance that my phone tracks my location even when it doesn’t have service and that info is used for targeted ads? If so, isn’t that breach of privacy? The fact that even though I didnt “check into” the location or post anything about it, they used my location to target certain ads to me?

  1. In reference to the hammock: is there a possibility that my friend’s picture had a geotag that saved his location, that our phones registered that we were together using location tracking, and that those pieces of information were synthesized and that’s why the hammock ad popped up? Are there any other explanations for this?

Maybe I’m overthinking this but I’ve had a few other similar occurrences happen over the last few years. None thay really made me question targeted ad methods to this extent but these two really made me curious. Any insight into this is much appreciated!

Found here

I encrypt my sensitive pdfs through preview ap…

I encrypt my sensitive pdfs through preview app, how strong is its encryption ?:

I encrypt my sensitive pdfs through preview app, how strong is its encryption ?

From here

Briar App Founder Michael Rodgers Interview – …

Briar App Founder Michael Rodgers Interview – OnlinePrivacyTips:

Briar App Founder Michael Rodgers Interview – OnlinePrivacyTips

From here

We need the UK government to stop the NHS shar…

We need the UK government to stop the NHS sharing data with advertisers:

We need the UK government to stop the NHS sharing data with advertisers

From here

Data Transparency in an Un-Private Internet!

Data Transparency in an Un-Private Internet!:

Data Transparency in an Un-Private Internet!

From here

Corruption at the Assembly Committee Gutted Ca…

Corruption at the Assembly Committee Gutted California’s Net Neutrality:

Corruption at the Assembly Committee Gutted California’s Net Neutrality

From here

The California Attorney General’s Office Says …

The California Attorney General’s Office Says It’s Finally Taking Database Abuse Seriously—But Time Will Tell:

The California Attorney General’s Office Says It’s Finally Taking Database Abuse Seriously—But Time Will Tell

From here

Eben Moglen – Privacy and the Problem of Indiv…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRs8ZPbHtos

Transcript:

I would ask you also—in thinking analytically about this substance “privacy” whose continuation I am asserting is essential to democracy’s survival—I would urge you also to consider that privacy is an ecological rather than a transactional substance. This is a crucial distinction from what you are taught to believe by the people whose job it is to earn off you.

Those who wish to earn off you want to define privacy as a thing you transact about with them, just the two of you. They offer you free email service, in response to which you let them read all the mail, and that’s that. It’s just a transaction between two parties. They offer you free web hosting for your social communications, in return for watching everybody look at everything. They assert that’s a transaction in which only the parties themselves are engaged.

This is a convenient fraudulence. Another misdirection, misleading, and plain lying proposition. Because—as I suggested in the analytic definition of the components of privacy—privacy is always a relation among people. It is not transactional, an agreement between a listener or a spy or a peephole keeper and the person being spied on.

If you accept this supposedly bilateral offer, to provide email service for you for free as long as it can all be read, then everybody who corresponds with you has been subjected to the bargain, which was supposedly bilateral in nature.

If your family contains somebody who receives mail at Gmail, then Google gets a copy of all correspondence in your family. If another member of your family receives mail at Yahoo, then Yahoo receives a copy of all the correspondence in your family as well.

The idea that this is limited to the automated mining of the mail, to provide advertisements which you may want to click on while you read your family’s correspondence, may or may not seem already louche beyond acceptability to you, but please to keep in mind what Mr. Snowden has pointed out to you: Will they, nil they, they are sharing all that mail with power. And so they are helping all your family’s correspondence to be shared with power, once, twice, or a third time.

The same will be true if you decide to live your social in a place where the creep who runs it monitors every social interaction, and not only keeps a copy of everything said, but also watches everybody watch everybody else. The result will not only be, of course, that you yourself will be subjected to the constant creepy inspection, but also that everybody you choose to socialize with there will be too. If you attract others to the place, you’re attracting them to the creepy supervisory inspection, forcing them to undergo it with you, if they want to be your “friend.”

The reason that we have to think about privacy the way we think about the other ecological crises created by industrial overreaching is that it is one. It’s that we can’t avoid thinking about it that way, no matter how much other people may try to categorize it wrongly for us.

This is a particular problem for the lawyers. Because the lawyers are attracted by the shininess of transactional behavior. It gives them benefits and causes them—if they are professors—to lunch, and—if they are practitioners—to dine in elegance. So they are always delighted to discover a transaction that can be facilitated for a reduction of friction monetized as legal fees. Therefore lawyers are among those around the world most likely to be inclined to imagine that this nonsense about the transactionality of privacy is true. The important element in this is that what is transactional can be consented to, and so we get a lot of law about consent. Which, if correctly understood, is totally irrelevant and indeed fundamentally inappropriate.

We do not, with respect to clean air and clean water, derive the dirtiness of the air and water from the degree of consent. You can’t consent to expose your children to unclean or unsafe drinking water in the United States, no matter how much anybody pays you. Because the drinking water must be provided at a socially established standard of cleanliness, which everybody has to meet.

Environmental law is not law about consent. It’s law about the adoption of rules of liability reflecting socially determined outcomes: levels of safety, security, and welfare.

When you take a subject which has previously been subject to environmental regulation and you reduce it to transactionality—even for the purpose of trying to use market mechanisms to reduce the amount of pollution going on—you run into people who are deeply concerned about the loss of the idea of a socially established limit. You must show that those caps are not going readily to be lifted in the exhilarating process, the game, of trading.

But with respect to privacy we have been allowed to fool ourselves—or rather, we have allowed our lawyers to fool themselves and them to fool everybody else—into the conclusion that what is actually a subject of environmental regulation is a mere matter of bilateral bargaining. A moment’s consideration of the facts will show that this is completely not true.

Of course we acquired this theory not by accident. We acquired this theory because tens of billions of dollars in wealth had been put in the pockets of people who wanted us to believe it.

http://snowdenandthefuture.info/PartIII.html

All the lectures are worth reading/watching, but I thought this part made a particularly important point with how privacy is often treated conceptually and legally.

Found here

How to setup DNS-OVER-TLS in my linux machine

Hi, i want to setup DNS-Over-TLS to avoid my ISP snooping my DNS requests. I have heard it can be done, but am unable to find a guide about howto do it in my linux machine. Is there a simple way to do it?

P.S. : i don’t have a router; i use my mobile internet to browse by creating a hotspot.

Found here