I'm still puzzled that people's default assumption isn't that somebody is reading all of their internet communications. Ever since the Snowden revelations of 2013 I've more or less assumed that everything I type into a computer is stored in a government database somewhere. Not that I actually believe it is 100% of the time; there's a spectrum of trust, so I'm more confident that local apps on my Linux desktop are secure, somewhat confident in the end-to-end encryption of certain apps on my iPhone, but all bets are off for non-E2E encrypted data going across the internet.

▲

autoexec 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm more confident that local apps on my Linux desktop are secure

Why should you be? Linux gives us software we can reasonably say we own, but not hardware. Everything you type into your local linux apps can be being monitored by your processor and whatever is sitting in the CSME/PSP subsystem which you don't have permission to access, but which is always running even when your computer is off. We need fully open, documented, auditable hardware if allowing any third party access to our devices means our private documents will make us all into criminal suspects.

▲

fn-mote 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People don’t want to believe the Stasi is monitoring them. They want to believe the world is a nice place just like where they grew up.

Also, unlike the bad old days when 1 in 3 was an informant, now ordinary people aren’t in “informant loop” of providing information on others, so they aren’t thinking about being informed on either.

▲

Dylan16807 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If we completely give up on assuming privacy, we lose even more privacy, because so much is based on the expectations of a "reasonable person".

	▲	autoexec 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Our devices, even Anthropic in this case, set an expectation that doesn't match reality. The software and devices we use are marketed and sold to us to be used for our private documents, photos, and conversations. I can't blame people for using them for their intended purpose. They shouldn't assume that someone is carefully watching everything they do and judging their every word and action looking for evidence of crimes. If we want people to think of the devices and services they bought and use as belonging to someone else and without any expectation for privacy we should really start with forcing companies to change how they market their products and services to reflect that reality.

▲

ToucanLoucan 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For technical people, this is incredibly old news.

For non-technical people, it isn't really news, because they already forgot about it after reading it. Maybe they'll be a little more monitored in their own typing for like... a day or two.

One of the hardest lessons to internalize, and keep internalized, as someone who works on and writes software, is the vast, vast, vast majority of the Public doesn't understand even the most basic shit about software. It just does stuff. Hopefully the stuff is good. That's it, beginning, middle, and end.

"Why would you think x would y" is a poor framing. They didn't think about x or y because they don't care. The phone works, that's the beginning and end of their interest in the subject.

▲

layer8 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It isn’t that black and white. I have relatives that are highly non-technical but still care a lot about privacy and data protection in their computer use. They hate having to deal with technical things and have very little technical understanding, but still ask me whether using X software in Y way might pose privacy issues or not.

▲

fasterik 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're completely right. I've internalized this on the technical side, but I still find it puzzling politically. Surveillance has been a salient issue in U.S. politics for almost 100 years now, since the invention of the telephone. I would like to think that most people are at least vaguely aware of Watergate, the Patriot Act, and Snowden. Then again, I should probably stop assuming that people know basic history, given the current state of education.

	▲	ToucanLoucan 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Honestly the older I get and the more I learn about criminals, of all stripes really be they petty thieves all the way up to state actors behind the most atrocious crimes against humanity we know of, they are all a bit on the dumb side. The ones that get caught are, anyway. Like so very often the perpetrator of a given crime just did one incredibly bone-headed thing that brought the cops directly to their door. I think in part it's selection bias? Like if you're smart enough to get by honestly, you're probably also smart enough to realize getting by honestly is just a way more comfortable way to live. The only reason you'd probably cross that line is because your principals, whatever they may be, conflict with those laws, or your life circumstances are so bad that you have no choice BUT to turn to crime. And that cuts the other way too: if you're dumb enough to think you'd NEVER get caught for a burglary, for example, you'd probably be way more down to plan and execute one, failing to consider that most thieves aren't caught when they steal the shit, they're caught when they try and sell it later.