@SignorCastello Yeah Kodachi and Quebec propably the same.
This isn't true. All data you can delete on your hard disk but everything exist on servers. Servers are hard disk with data files. Computer Desktop or laptop it is client on another side there exist a servers a corporations.
Do you think why now is everywhere a battle with data collection?
More people can sayed what they thinking.
@SignorCastello Yeah Kodachi and Quebec propably the same.
Unlike newer versions of windows, where every saved file locally gets uploaded to onedrive, on linux a thing I have in, for example, my desktop will forever stay there unless I move it into a server.
I cannot change titles for now, but I'd suggest to change the title to "Does Privacy Exist?" @Bourne
Well. I can gived you some movie what they talking about privacy.
The Great Hack. 2019
"I Love You, Now Die: The Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter" (2019)
(The Social Dilemma) (2020)
"The Cleaners" (2018)
"Nothing to Hide" (2017)
"The Circle" (2017)
"Black Mirror: Nosedive" (2016)
"Terms and Conditions: A Film About Facebook" (2015)
"Do Not Track" (2015)
"The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz" (2014)
Terms and Conditions May Apply (2013)
"TPB AFK: The Pirate Bay Away from Keyboard" (2013)
Man, they're movies. They do not tell the truth. Privacy exists.
I'll watch some of em, thank you!
The journalist about Facebook selling data. She get a reward pulitzer.
There is true - the most of them are documents.
Well you can believe what you want.
In the France now goverment have a full control to your all mobiles,tablets,laptops and pc.
Does conspiracy exist?
I think cospiracy is only an invention of a sick mind
(invention of a sick mind has been google-translated by me because I didn't know how to say it. Does it sound right?
In Italy too. But only if you're using Windows
Both of these exist.
It is all too human to assign far greater reach to things that they believe exist and to simplify things by using those things as an explanation or justification for much of what they see.
Privacy is as hard to come by as a functional conspiracy is.
Privacy as a concept is difficult to define. When does it apply and when does it not? Go back in time, before cell phones and computers. Your home could be considered private, but if you go out of the house, then your privacy begins to diminish. People will see what clothing you wear and what brands you prefer. Sitting at coffee shops and the like. However, in reality, in police investigations much of peoples private lives could be disseminated from interviewing the observations made by neighbors.
Including how a fellow treated his family, whether he drank, how he spent his free time, whether he watched television at night...
With the digital age, corporations were happy to move into these shades of gray.
To exploit that which is not clearly defined. If you agree to have a camera in your home, then you are complicit to their actions with that camera.
We never really had privacy. Now, it is easier to invade what little we had.
People carry their cell phones into public and private bathrooms, complete with cameras and recording apps - all the time, now.
Much of the issue is not that our privacy is being taken away. Few people truly have little concern about what is known about them. Rather, it is in that privacy being sold for profit.
A profitable market of privacy will encourage further invasions of privacy.
Just because an entity makes claims about supporting privacy does not mean that they do so in the way you expect. Much like the Jinn offering wishes, you may need to be careful what you wish for.
It is quite a marketing gimmick to profess support of privacy even while showing it little respect. e.g. Brave Browser. Sure, it won't sell your data to Microsoft. But it will sell it to someone you don't expect or use your data in other ways than you realize.
Such as "Brave Rewards" which is target market advertising essentially lifted directly off of Google, but reassigned to Braves Wallet.
So the point is if one side don't selling information, then always will be exist some "type" who want buying them.
I would define privacy as the right to choose what to reveal about yourself. If I had a bad haircut and didn't want people around me to know about it, for whatever reason, I should have the right to conceal my head somehow while I'm public without having to give any explanations to anyone.
Or if I'm asked to tell an intimate/sensitive detail about someone else, I would refrain from doing so since it's not my story to tell. For example if that person had an eye patch and people would like to know what happened.
None of these are state secrets, but personal details about someone who may not want to talk about them or have them made public, and indeed shouldn't have to. Attempts to gain knowledge about those personal details should not be dismissed as "playful", "innocent" or "legitimate" for the benefit of any personal or commercial entity.
In that sense, privacy today continues to exist in the same way it did 50 years ago. People's concerns have shifted, but I assure you they still have something to hide under their right to privacy.
The data-hungry corporations and states are the ones threatening this right and eroding it away slowly by taking away our ability to enforce it. And in the same way that it was deemed illegal to make it harder for people to cancel their accounts or unsubscribing from services, no less.
Not too long ago, you needed proof, or at least probable cause and a court order to have all your life put into surveillance. That was for criminals or people suspected of being one. Now, everyone is being treated like a potential criminal, under some pretext or another: "for your safety", "to protect the children", "to show you better ads"...
Well privacy propably most depends from us. If you don't want something what you want share then just don't put that inside on web.
Norway goverment taken a Zuckeberg META to paying 100 000 usd every day, because they broken rules privacy.
I disagree, Brave is open source and you can, as other have, examine what comes in and out of it. It's also one of the few programs that are opt-in; all that crypto currency stuff, for example, must be explicitly enabled by the user.
It's one thing to be wary and suspicious, but accusations should come with sounded arguments and evidence. One of the reasons I've used Brave more recently is because I'm yet to see a single shred of evidence that supports claims that Brave is doing anything that we're not aware of.
On a related note, the web is inherently public and what you do could be easily recorded and it may be even required by law to do so in some cases. Using a separate browser that you trust may be a valid and simple strategy to limit what other websites and online services learn about you. Creating this separation between what you deem acceptable to reveal about yourself in public, and other activities you engage in while browsing the web privately, is one way you have to protect your privacy.
I retract my rash comments.
Please, don't. It's great that we can have this discussions and learn from each other.
If you are online, Privacy does not exist, everything online is logged recorded monitored ect. There are things you can do increase your privacy and stay relativity anonymous fading into the ether of massive data, but entities can invade that privacy (especially governemnts) collations such as fiveEyes make things worse as these entities share their intercepted data. Things such as vpn protect only to a certain level usually only from local snooping, even companies that don't "log" data - log the data and have agreements with governments as demonstrated multiple times, most ISP work with these entities as well including giving your information over on request w/o warrants or charges. MS, Google, Meta at least ask for warrants. While 'nix based os's Linux, BSD, UNix ect provide a much greater control over privacy locally, especially with distos like Quebes and Tails - if you're online assume you have non. TOR been circumvented for years by governments with unencrypted exit node vulnerabilities and the ability to reroute tor traffic to their nodes. VPN''s are only as trust worthy as the systems running them and companies are at the mercy of governments to continue working- so they can not be trusted to protect against governments or their agencies (federal - local or abroad). Even if you run your own VPN service, its tied to your ISP account again only protecting you from local eyes at the coffee shop ect, or you're renting a server in a colo and that equipment belongs to someone else - there is no security / privacy if someone has physical access to your server / net traffic. Even anon crypto payment systems have been compromised and the transactions traced to an individual.
Again for the average person your data gets lost in the shuffle and is mined for bigger picture, however the data is monitored for activity keywords ect, and if you were to become interesting - very little to do except go dark (requiring the stealing of money, devices and other crimes to break digital links)
You can opt in or out of Brave Rewards Crypto, but you cannot remove Brave Rewards. It is superglued in.
The Brave Developers have addressed this in such a way as to say:
Too bad. Our Brave Rewards is there to stay. You can opt out - but cannot disable it.
Opting out only means you do not get the Rewards points for BAT - BAT continues to be present and to run.
This is No Different than how Google does it. It is no different from what is Open Source from Google. It is no different from opting out of Google but Google continuing to work its advertising.
Correct. Both Google and Brave are clear about what they are doing and this can be verified since it's open source (although Google in particular has been caught lying before).
Google has all of their telemetry features enabled by default. In Brave, it is the user who has to take action and explicitly enable the rewards. I consider this a very important distinction.
As far as user preferences go, if this is true and Brave indeed ignores whatever preferences are set by the user, then I'll agree that Brave is lying to their users. However, I have not yet seen any evidence of this.