> there is a good chance your grandchildren will be able to see what you did with Bitcoin by just looking it up on a public website in half a century.
That's all of the internet, forget blockchains.
That's all of the internet, forget blockchains.
Even if you are talking about dragnet collection and you assume that for example NSA can store all traffic on the internet (which is basically impossible) in Utah (or wherever) for future decryption with post-quantum cryptography there is no reason to believe that they would make it public. And that is basically the worst case scenario.
Privacy fatalism helps no-one.
Reddit is not unique. People do this with Twitter too. I forget the name but there's an entire service for caching changes to your Twitter bio.
> No, it isn't, if a service is properly secured and does not sell it's data then there is no reason to think this
Citation needed. Reddit and Twitter aren't selling data to those people. It's an open API.
We may be talking about different things, but to me "all of the internet" means much more than public data and public forums.
I think privacy is something we should strive for, but I think that when something is said publically on a globally broadcasted medium people cannot reasonably have an expectation of privacy. The problem with privacy in my mind is when there can reasonably be an expectation of privacy but that isn't met.
If I tweet something it's clear that's public. If I DM someone that should be private.
Why is it reasonable to not expect that there would be someone saving public data?
Facebook had created puppet profiles from people's contact information and made them public, notoriously.
Like, at what point would you like to accept that GPs statement is not hyperbole? Would all information that was private need to go public? By then I'd say it is too late.
This is a rather silly argument where you try to draw some line in online services that has been willfully greyed by the people who create these platforms for their own benefit.
If you want to call GP a privacy fatalist, then I'll just call you a privacy denialist and leave it there.
Is it so absurd to say that if I post stuff publically I cannot expect it to be private and if I post stuff privately I should absolutely be able to depend on it to be private?
I think your example of parler is an example of a service that was not adequately secured to protect it's private communications and the facebook example is clearly unethical and just one of the reasons I don't use the service.
We can only speculate that data breaches will be used for such purposes eventually too.
The best you can get is E2EE communications. I find it ironic someone commenting on a text based public forum would argue this.
> The best you can get is E2EE communications.
There are quite a lot of steps between public data and E2EE.
> I find it ironic someone commenting on a text based public forum would argue this.
I don't have any expectation of privacy here and know what I'm saying is public. On other sites/services I have privacy and know that what I'm saying isn't public.
"Everything stays on the internet forever" is a good cautionary principle, but isn't a strict reality.