Why Mark Zuckerberg wants no privacy

[eaLiTy]

According to a recent open letter on privacy, Mark Zuckerberg wants us to believehe can combine WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram platforms with “end-to-end” encryption to create the ultimate privacy-protecting platform.

thoughts? what does this mean for society?

He might be planning to combine everything and come up with a blockchain platform but for them to talk about privacy is just a joke when they were collecting user password and stored in plain text format, so that is how they go about user privacy and storing sensitive data. It means nothing for the society, people who are addicted to social media platforms, they will be using it even if it is insecure.

[Spendulus]

According to a recent open letter on privacy, Mark Zuckerberg wants us to believehe can combine WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram platforms with “end-to-end” encryption to create the ultimate privacy-protecting platform.

thoughts? what does this mean for society?

He might be planning to combine everything and come up with a blockchain platform but for them to talk about privacy is just a joke when they were collecting user password and stored in plain text format, so that is how they go about user privacy and storing sensitive data. It means nothing for the society, people who are addicted to social media platforms, they will be using it even if it is insecure.

Security and privacy is based on your ability to give out information on a need to know basis.

There is only one point of view in which Zuck has a need to know your info.

In his own mind.

[markstivn98]

https://medium.com/elixxir/why-mark-zuckerberg-wants-no-privacy-why-he-wrote-his-letter-and-why-it-wont-help-him-c020e434ce36

According to a recent open letter on privacy, Mark Zuckerberg wants us to believehe can combine WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram platforms with “end-to-end” encryption to create the ultimate privacy-protecting platform.

thoughts? what does this mean for society?

Does this mean that it's privacy is at risk?
Because he needs more money and Authority.

[r1a2y3m4]

According to a recent open letter on privacy, Mark Zuckerberg wants us to believehe can combine WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram platforms with “end-to-end” encryption to create the ultimate privacy-protecting platform.

thoughts? what does this mean for society?

Oh, he's lying. Do you know why Zuckerberg wanted all of those platforms to be combined? It is because he wanted to grab bigger profit in which he can steal more data from users. Your personal information is valuable but this Zuckerberg does not care of it. All he cares is his profits. He sell those personal info to gain money.

[Juggy777]

It is very difficult to comprehend when we realise the amount of our private information that has been put out there simply because we want to make use of popular social platforms outlets like Facebook and WhatsApp. There is more to be done to ensure users are fully protected from any form of abuse so far as their private life is concerned.

Hey you’re completely misled if you’re going to believe that combing those three platforms will be beneficial for us, it’s not going to be. In my personal opinion when he combines all three he gets to study how we type what products are we discussing, and we will be shown more targeted ads. I feel this shall completely violate our privacy, and I feel the only option is to delete those three apps and live happily.

[TECSHARE]

All of these little bits of data about every aspect of our lives can be combined to make a VERY accurate psychological and logistic profile of each of us. This information can then be fed into large scale simulations that can scale from the global down the the individual granular level. They can make small changes to this simulation to see statistically likely outcomes and tweak their methodology until they get the results they want. This is why they have been hoovering up every tiny little piece of info about everyone they can like mad. Every bit more they can add increases the predictive accuracy. This isn't sci-fi, this has been happening for some time. Also combined with AI, you can see how this leads us down a very dark path very quickly...

[Spendulus]

....we will be shown more targeted ads. I feel this shall completely violate our privacy, and I feel the only option is to delete those three apps and live happily.

This is not about targeted ads.

It's about world dominion.

[darylalban]

It's intessting to read that David Chaum reached out to Mark only to be turned down or ignored. Mark runs his own show

I was thinking that too!!! Did some resarch on https://nakamotoinstitute.org/literature/ and David Chaum is actually mentioned a few times in these papers

[ccryptopark]

this is a hot topic I keep seeing. social media and blockchain and what that means for the general public and our privacy. I don't think the big players are planning to shift to a decentralized system but rather just put our data on the blockchain

this article made a lot of sense to me in the why behind these actions


https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/why-are-social-network-juggernauts-facebook-and-twitter-moving-towards-blockchain-technology/

[vegasfozzie]

Encryption seems great for security and may if it's creates a peer-2-peer link, but given their disregard for privacy and data custody, we'll have to see. 

I think only once there is a truly large scale demand and adoption of privacy focused or rather data custody focused tech, will we see big tech really adapt. 

But privacy will be monetized. 

[jjbanks994]

Encryption seems great for security and may if it's creates a peer-2-peer link, but given their disregard for privacy and data custody, we'll have to see. 

I think only once there is a truly large scale demand and adoption of privacy focused or rather data custody focused tech, will we see big tech really adapt. 

But privacy will be monetized. 

We really need large scale privacy focused tech and there are definitely a few key players that are doing the work. All of these true cypherpunks are making huge strides in taking the internet back into our hands. Whether it be Satoshi or David Chaum mentioned in the article

[Spendulus]

Encryption seems great for security and may if it's creates a peer-2-peer link, but given their disregard for privacy and data custody, we'll have to see. 

I think only once there is a truly large scale demand and adoption of privacy focused or rather data custody focused tech, will we see big tech really adapt. 

But privacy will be monetized. 

We really need large scale privacy focused tech and there are definitely a few key players that are doing the work. All of these true cypherpunks are making huge strides in taking the internet back into our hands. Whether it be Satoshi or David Chaum mentioned in the article

Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless....

Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control.

AND...

Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed.

[TECSHARE]

Encryption seems great for security and may if it's creates a peer-2-peer link, but given their disregard for privacy and data custody, we'll have to see. 

I think only once there is a truly large scale demand and adoption of privacy focused or rather data custody focused tech, will we see big tech really adapt. 

But privacy will be monetized. 

We really need large scale privacy focused tech and there are definitely a few key players that are doing the work. All of these true cypherpunks are making huge strides in taking the internet back into our hands. Whether it be Satoshi or David Chaum mentioned in the article

Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless....

Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control.

AND...

Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed.

Our hardware is compromised, so encryption is meaningless, to some extent yes even on air-gapped systems. Also with Facefuck you never actually exit their system. The same goes for Googlag as well as others.

[Spendulus]

...
Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless....

Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control.

AND...

Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed.

Our hardware is compromised, so encryption is meaningless, to some extent yes even on air-gapped systems. Also with Facefuck you never actually exit their system. The same goes for Googlag as well as others.

Your first point, from the premise does not the conclusion follow. Who may have hardware access is one of many perps, and they do not share.

Your second and third may be true, but that only illustrates that my point is valid.

Yet for example if I create the circumstances, as a test...where Anon X attempts to enter FF, and exit, repeatedly...and FF rejects or blocks him...

[TECSHARE]

...
Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless....

Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control.

AND...

Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed.

Our hardware is compromised, so encryption is meaningless, to some extent yes even on air-gapped systems. Also with Facefuck you never actually exit their system. The same goes for Googlag as well as others.

Your first point, from the premise does not the conclusion follow. Who may have hardware access is one of many perps, and they do not share.

Your second and third may be true, but that only illustrates that my point is valid.

Yet for example if I create the circumstances, as a test...where Anon X attempts to enter FF, and exit, repeatedly...and FF rejects or blocks him...

Maybe I should clarify, encryption is not enough to stop access. It might raise the barrier of entry, but there is still a back door that is available for anyone to use if sufficiently informed, that is the problem with back doors "only for the good guys". As far as the point you are trying to make with your analogy, I do not follow.

[BitBustah]

Don't believe for a second that when you delete your Facebook account they also delete your stored information.  They keep all the information they can, doesn't make a difference if you delete your accounts.  I also suggest avoiding google entirely if possible, they are just as bad as facebook. 

[Spendulus]

....
Maybe I should clarify, encryption is not enough ....

Let's assume that those on this forum are quite knowledgable about encryption. That's fair. So this is a decent place to discuss the subject.

I'm willing to post a simple encrypted message, and to the first that breaks it, ....1 bitcoin.

Must pay 0.001 BTC in advance entry fee and notice they will try.

All out in the open and public.

[TECSHARE]

....
Maybe I should clarify, encryption is not enough ....

Let's assume that those on this forum are quite knowledgable about encryption. That's fair. So this is a decent place to discuss the subject.

I'm willing to post a simple encrypted message, and to the first that breaks it, ....1 bitcoin.

Must pay 0.001 BTC in advance entry fee and notice they will try.

All out in the open and public.

If you read here you will see why in the end the encryption won't stop surveillance.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126073.0

While I wouldn't go as far as to say it requires a state level actor to access, it certainly requires advanced technical skills. That said, a lot of individuals and groups are more than capable.

[Spendulus]

....
Maybe I should clarify, encryption is not enough ....

Let's assume that those on this forum are quite knowledgable about encryption. That's fair. So this is a decent place to discuss the subject.

I'm willing to post a simple encrypted message, and to the first that breaks it, ....1 bitcoin.

Must pay 0.001 BTC in advance entry fee and notice they will try.

All out in the open and public.

If you read here you will see why in the end the encryption won't stop surveillance.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126073.0

While I wouldn't go as far as to say it requires a state level actor to access, it certainly requires advanced technical skills. That said, a lot of individuals and groups are more than capable.

Frankly, my offer stops the argument that "encryption isn't enough."

I'll leave it open until 4-15-19.

[TECSHARE]

....
Maybe I should clarify, encryption is not enough ....

Let's assume that those on this forum are quite knowledgable about encryption. That's fair. So this is a decent place to discuss the subject.

I'm willing to post a simple encrypted message, and to the first that breaks it, ....1 bitcoin.

Must pay 0.001 BTC in advance entry fee and notice they will try.

All out in the open and public.

If you read here you will see why in the end the encryption won't stop surveillance.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126073.0

While I wouldn't go as far as to say it requires a state level actor to access, it certainly requires advanced technical skills. That said, a lot of individuals and groups are more than capable.

Frankly, my offer stops the argument that "encryption isn't enough."

I'll leave it open until 4-15-19.

No, it doesn't, but have fun with that.