If you’re wondering how some security/infosec folks could care so little about privacy & defend companies like Google & Facebook, listen up:
-
-
Google has excellent security. They employ the best security experts. And yet, when you use their services, you have absolutely no privacy.
-
Everything you do when you use Google’s services is tracked, stored, and analysed by Google, Inc.
-
All that information is kept very safe from anyone else because, like any other business, Google has an interest in keeping its assets safe.
-
How about privacy without security? Now that’s harder, but possible, through obscurity. (This is not something I recommend.) An example:
-
If you go out into the middle of nowhere and build a cabin, you will have privacy, even if you don’t have locks on the door (or even a door)
-
(But that only works until someone discovers your cabin.)
-
Pragmatically, then, we can say that lack of security can negatively impact your privacy but excellent security doesn’t imply privacy.
-
To bring it all back: so why don’t some security/infosec folks care about your privacy? It’s because they’re working in security.
-
And if they work for Google, Facebook, etc., what they’re tasked with securing isn’t your privacy; it’s the assets of these corporations.
-
(Which is what you and your data are.) End thread.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Actually untrue and this thinking is part of the problem. You cannot have security without privacy
-
So, bigger picture, yes: are you secure if you have no privacy from Google, Inc., etc.? No. But they conflate security w privacy…
-
Systems are not secure if customers do not have privacy (individual security). Means systems are heavily interdependant -> Fail
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.