I have lots of old friends who I only maintained sparse contact with. When I let my personal email address die (the address they would all have records of), I did not bother to update them with a new address.
They are all on the platform of some surveillance capitalist (e.g. Google or Microsoft). Google & Microsoft both refuse connections from self-hosted residential servers. And even if they didn’t, I am not willing to feed those surveillance advertisers who obviously don’t limit their surveillance to their users but also inherently everyone who makes contract with their users. I cannot support that or partake in pawning myself to subsidize someone else’s service.
I just wonder if anyone else has taken this step.
Then you’ve misunderstood. It’s not a security move. It’s a boycott. I will not financially support fossil fuel partners with profitable data.
Google is partnered with Total Energy and uses AI to help them find where to drill. Likewise, Microsoft is partnered with Chevron and Exxon, again using AI to help them drill for oil. Microsoft also has many other matters of ethical wrongdoing. Not a good company to support. Not to mention the lack of ethics of targeted advertising in general.
So it’s privacy for the sake of ethics, not privacy for the sake of security. These are the top reasons not to feed Google or MS, though it’d be poor judgement to also suggest there is no security problem with personal disclosure to such a centralized corporate PRISM venues outside of a GDPR region in a country with no notable privacy safeguards.
It’s also notable that Chevron is an #ALEC member, thus supports US republicans. #ExxonMobil is also an abhorrent company to support (#ExxonKnew).
How are you able to even post this if youre against fossil fuel partners? How do you think your device was made?
I have not bought a PC for the past 15 years. Every upgrade has been from pulling fully functional PCs out of dumpsters, LCDs included. Permacomputing is a good movement to follow.
Those parts were still made with fossil fuels? Doesn’t matter how you got them. Still using “fossil fuel partners”
No, it matters absolutely. You can get the goods by financially contributing to their bottom line, or you can get them without contributing financially. Surely you must understand that companies exist to profit.
Of course. But you’re still using something produced by a fossil fuel partner. So your holier-than-thou attitude is just hypocrisy
You don’t get how boycotts work. Using their products without compensating them doesn’t contradict opposition to feeding them. You don’t know what hypocrisy means. You could more easily argue that it’d be a hypocrisy to leave the PCs in a dumpster and allow e-waste to go to a landfill and pollute ground water against my beliefs. Even in regions where they dispose of PCs properly, I oppose destruction and recycling whenever reuse is an option.
You are definitely wearing some tin foil, OP. But I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, more people should put on a shiny hat and learn to be a little more cautious with the very public world of the Internet.
You have definitely failed to understand how capitalism works and how money flows in relation to data, and the ethical history of corporations involved.
Or I understand perfectly well how capitalism works and you didn’t read the rest of my comment properly.
I’m merely trying to point out that there is a healthy middle ground between the extremes of internet usage where people can interact with each other in a meaningful way while also being aware of the inherent risks and realities of using the internet today.
You’re mistaken where compromise is needed and where it is not. There are ways to communicate without putting Google or MS in the loop and you’re at the unethical extreme if you have opted to support GAFAM by feeding those platforms.
Ways that are beyond either the capabilities or desires of the average user. I’m not saying Google or Microsoft is good or necessary, but we also don’t need to burn the world down around us just to prove a point.
You vastly underestimate the average user w.r.t to “capabilities”. You can scrap capability from your statement because the avg user can just as well use protonmail/tuta, or disroot.org, for example.
That leaves “desires”. Two people agree on how to correspond. The desire of someone to use one of the most unethical controversial corporations possible and in an insecure manner that exposes the data to a profitable extent in a privacy-lacking part of the world, and the other party has a higher privacy bar (and/or high moral bar), the party who must adapt is the one with the lower standards. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to lower their privacy standards or to lower their moral standards. If someone’s desire to support Google or MS trumps their desire to stay in touch, then the conversation isn’t worth it to them.
There is a rule of least privilege principle that seems to have escaped you. In the information security discipline, we do not need to justify security measures by default. It’s lack of security that calls for justification. If there were truly a capability problem, that would be reasonable rationale for reduced security. But it’s a phantom excuse. And “desire” is not an acceptable rationale for reduced security.
Your doubling down on the tinfoil claim was a failure simply because the security matter is least important of everything I’ve already said on this. But even if security were purely my sole rationale (as it is for some people), you are still calling the practice of basic well-established infosec principles tinfoil hattery. Pushing this culture of branding sound security practices as paranoia is a socially harmful move that you are partaking in.
I think we might be on slightly different pages here. Nobody is disagreeing with you or saying your wrong, but maybe you should take a step back and look at what your saying. Your calling for a certain level of extremism, which, as I said before, there is nothing inherently wrong with and from your point of view is probably perfectly reasonable. However, it’s not really realistic to expect everyone to abandon the easy and useful tools that they’re comfortable with just to match your views, regardless of the ethics or logic involved.
At least 10 people here believe Google/MS avoidance is “tinfoil hat” paranoia. It’s a stark disagreement on infosec principles. All responders in this thread (apart from 3 exceptions) come from privacy-hostile #Cloudflare instances including yourself. This crowd has little hope of taking privacy seriously.
You’re probably not going to sell anyone on an idea that requires discarding ethics and logic. That’s actually the crux of the problem. The problem exists because people disregard ethics and logic in pursuit of pragmatism.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that Google and MS are inherently exclusive choices. That is, if I try to connect to
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com, the connection is refused, full stop. Google is blocking me before I send the first packet. So you’re implying that I must go through Google’s hoops in order to not be “extreme”. IMO, that’s an extreme position to take. To expect people to go beyond the norms of established open standards to cater for the extra requirements and special needs of a monopolistic corporation. I must either rent an IP address that’s to Google’s liking at my own expense, or I must establish a contract with another third-party who I must then trust with a centralized view on all my outbound traffic. I’m not supporting that abuse and loss of freedom.