> Same with privacy. If I say (like it's popular) "I have nothing to hide" am
actually saying "I don't care about you either. Anything you send to me can
end up in the wrong hands."
I see your point. And I was a bit exaggerating (or misrepresenting the
matter) when I said "not concerned enough to protect my privacy". More
precisely, I take some radical "root" precautions and leave it at that,
omitting minute details. I'll cover my reasons sometime in the other thread
in troll lounge.
My current precautions (which are relatively basic and easy to implement)
provide for reasonable privacy against commercial intrusion, while it's
nowhere near protecting me from institutional intelligence (local and global
governments). I believe it is somewhat futile to achieve that, anyway, as
root DNS servers are owned, the whole internet backbone is owned,
communication channels are owned, certificate providers are owned... we are
living in a glass chateau on internet.
Internet aside, I carry a mobile (dumb 2G) phone, bank cards, various other
cards registered to my name. If need be, my steps can be counted. :) With
this grand technological infrastructure (internet and non-internet) real
security and privacy can only be achieved through hiding and isolation,
neither of which I can afford. And mind the thumb rule of security: It's a
chain. A single broken link can be enough to nullify all the other security
measures you took.
While you may feel secure with your browser settings and internet usage
patterns, these are only effective against commercial intrusion. As for the
government intelligence, all your traffic is flowing through "glass pipes"
and I wouldn't rely much on https either.
So I know my limits and don't bother to achieve a security/privacy level
beyond commercial intrusion. That's what I have meant with "not concerned
enough to protect my privacy".
I believe it's not a defeatist approach, it's a sober one.
