> Privacy has long since been dead, but at least for myself opsec for personal work is too.

Hacker News in 2026.

I mean eventually, some adversarial entity will use this complete lack of defenses to hurt even the most privileged people in some way, so.

Unless of course they too turn to apathy and stop caring about being adversarial, but given the massive differences in quality of life between the west and the rest of the world, I'm not so sure about this.

That is of course a purely probabilistic thing and with that hard to grasp on an emotional level. It also might not happen during ones own lifetime, but that's where children would usually come in. Though, yeah, yeah, it's HN. I know I know.

> Privacy has long since been dead, but at least for myself opsec for personal work is too.

This is such an incredibly loser attitude and is why we can't have nice things.

HN is now where I get my daily does[1] of apathetic indifference/go with the flow attitude.

[1] * dose

> The convenience outweighs the negative. Yesterday I told an agent, "here's my api key and my root password - do it for me".

Does the security team at your company know you're doing this?

Security as a whole is inconvenient. That doesn't mean we should ignore it.

That’s just sad.

Obviously. Those who chose otherwise have all died out long ago, starving to death in their own apartments, afraid that someone might see them if they ever went outside.

> When choosing between convenience and privacy, most people seem to choose convenience

But they wish it would have been convenient to choose privacy.

For many, it may be rational to give away privacy for convenience. But many recognize the current decision space as suboptimal.

Remember smoke-infused restaurants? Opting out meant not going in at all. It was an experience that came home with you. And lingered. It took a tipping point to "flip" the default. [1]

[1]: The Public Demand for Smoking Bans https://econpapers.repec.org/article/kappubcho/v_3a88_3ay_3a... "Because smoking bans shift ownership of scarce resources, they are also hypothesized to transfer income from one party (smokers) to another party (nonsmokers)."

Claude code has a YOLO mode, and from what I've seen a lot of heavy users, use it.

Fundamentally any security mechanism which relies on users to read and intelligently respond to approval prompts is doomed to fail over time, even if the prompts are well designed. Approval fatigue will kick in and people will just start either clicking through without reading, or prefer systems that let them disable the warnings (just as YOLO mode is a thing in Claude code)

No, of course not. Well.. apart from their API. That is a useful thing.

But you're missing the point. It is doing all this stuff with user consent, yes. It's just that the user fundamentally cannot provide informed consent as they seem to be out of their minds.

So yeah, technically, all those compliance checkboxes are ticked. That's just entirely irrelevant to the point I am making.

I send my bank statements to Gemini to analyze. It's not like bank statements contain anything too sensitive.

WTF. I have a separate computer solely for personal finance, domain registration, DNS management, and the associated email account. If I didn't use multiple computers this way, I'd go back to using Qubes OS.