"The problem is that the word "privacy" is dialuted[sic] and mean different things to different people. Instead of "privacy" we really should be talking about "control"."
It's arguable that without control there can be no "privacy and security", including relief from data collection, surveillance and ads. The so-called "tech" companies that profit from data collection, surveillance and ad services are going to protect their own interests first, and if the the ad target (computer user) delegates "control" to these people, then he will also sacrifice some "privacy and security" as a result. When there is a conflict between the company's interest in profiting from data collection, surveillance and ad services and his interest in "privacy", his interests will be subjugated to theirs. He has sacrificed control
Personally I'm not really interested in "convenience" at the cost of control. For example, delegating control to a third party. I want control
Like "privacy", "control" could mean different things to different people
To me, it means control over a computer (via software)
For example, let's say a student at Harvard in the 1970's later becomes a hacker at MIT's AI lab in the 80's and dislikes not having the ability to study and modify the software he is forced to use
He writes a compiler and attempts to create an operating system
Arguably one could say he wanted "control"
Or let's say a student at University of Helsinki in the early 90s is using an operating system installed on the university's computers and wants to run the same type of system (UNIX) on his i386 PC at home
He writes an operating system kernel
Arguably, one could say he too wanted "control"
Let's say a www user in 2025 dislikes using software that automatically downloads, installs and runs code on his computer without his input or consent and automatically sends DNS, HTTP and other requests to allow so-called "tech" companies to perform data collection, surveillance and ad services^1
Arguably, one could say he also wants "control"
He compiles his own operating system from source and writes some simple programs to prevent the remote access installs and intercept the attempted automatic remote requests
1. Thanks to the work of the folks in the first two examples and others like them, source code for UNIX-like OS is readily available including a free compiler to produce software for it
Perhaps "control" in this context must involve some element of "DIY". The folks in the first two examples did not wait for or plead with third parties, e.g., so-called "tech" companies, to give them "control"
If one accepts that there can be no "privacy and security" without "control", then it stands to reason that delegating control to so-called "tech" companies is not going to produce "privacy and security"; it will always be compromised by the companies' own interests which include profiting from data collection, surveillance and ads services at the expense of "privacy and security"
177
110