from Ninjazzon@infosec.pub to security@lemmy.ml on 03 Mar 2024 07:49
https://infosec.pub/post/9179178
Today, almost everything about our lives is digitally recorded and stored somewhere. Each credit card purchase, personal medical diagnosis, and preference about music and books is recorded and then used to predict what we like and dislike, and—ultimately—who we are.
This often happens without our knowledge or consent. Personal information that corporations collect from our online behaviors sells for astonishing profits and incentivizes online actors to collect as much as possible. Every mouse click and screen swipe can be tracked and then sold to ad-tech companies and the data brokers that service them.
In an attempt to justify this pervasive surveillance ecosystem, corporations often claim to de-identify our data. This supposedly removes all personal information (such as a person’s name) from the data point (such as the fact that an unnamed person bought a particular medicine at a particular time and place). Personal data can also be aggregated, whereby data about multiple people is combined with the intention of removing personal identifying information and thereby protecting user privacy.
Sometimes companies say our personal data is “anonymized,” implying a one-way ratchet where it can never be dis-aggregated and re-identified. But this is not possible—anonymous data rarely stays this way. As Professor Matt Blaze, an expert in the field of cryptography and data privacy, succinctly summarized: “something that seems anonymous, more often than not, is not anonymous, even if it’s designed with the best intentions.”
#security
threaded - newest
Maybe, maybe not. But not giving them freehanded and making it the hardest possible for those greeder MF to take from me what they do not own is good enough ^^.
Giving they fake or obfuscated data or randomized headers is an okayish way to say “fuck you” !
And if every sane person in this world would do the same, alot of things would be different.
Your comment is so difficult to read I do not understand what you are trying to say. It seems like it has nothing to do with the post at all.
They’re obfuscating the data on their post.
Obfuscating has nothing to do with anonymizing so turns out I was correct in saying their comment had nothing to do with the post.