Hacker News Reader

"she responded that there's nothing interesting in her mailbox and she doubts anyone is interested in doing so."

What is wrong with this response?

Email is the primary medium for lost password recovery. If someone else gets access to her email account, they have access to most of her other accounts as well. If she understood this, she would show more concern for two factor authentication.

Sorry, a bit off-topic, but is using https enough or is two factor preferable. I use two factor in LastPass but only https log on in gmail.

It depends on the attack vector you're trying to protect against. If you're on a machine you control (e.g., a personal laptop) and can vouch for its security -- that is, you're sure there's no kind of spyware installed -- https should be sufficient protection when connecting on public networks (especially open wireless connections).

Two-factor auth, on the other hand, protects you when you can't guarantee the security of the machine you're using -- someone able to capture the logon sequence won't be able to replay it at a later point in time.

Note that two-factor auth without https isn't clearly of huge benefit, as an attacker with access to your network may be able to capture the session token (e.g., through firesheep or similar tools).

Thank You, that clears it up for me. I don't think I am able to upvote you, or haven't figured it out. Maybe someone else will, for your kindness and time.

I wear pants. I have nothing to hide, particularly, but I don't want anyone but my wife and my doctor looking under them. Certainly not Eric Schmidt.

The problem is that consequences of transparent pants are easy to understand, but the consequences of unencrypted email are less so.

It seems like privacy law is the proper domain to control these things for the public. Your pants, while not transparent, do not pose much of a roadblock from a determined party looking inside them. That it's illegal for anyone to do so without your consent is the actual deterrent -- not any intrinsic property of your pants.

I concur, but the value of such a law will not be apparent to anyone who doesn't feel the same way about transparent pants and unencrypted email.

I should also add that I think it's evil to take advantage of the user ignorance of the issue to improve ad targeting.

nothing if she lacks a basic knowledge of how this information is _very_ interested to spammers, insurance companies, car sellers, cell phone carriers, everyone that has something to sell to her and treat her as a "lead".

"in most other areas the choice is either to use the prevalent centralized infrastructure or to not communicate with others"

That's the choice now. But it doesn't have to remain that way in the future.

The problem is that most people are relatively ignorant about technology and its potential for abuse (especially when they don't guard or value their privacy).

Not only is this ignorance not inevitable, but there's every sign that it's decreasing.

People are becoming more technologically savvy, and computer literacy is spreading. Along with this, and with the various media exposes on viruses, identity theft, etc.. people are slowly starting to become more security conscious, bit by bit.

The main thing that's lacking right now is a strong appreciation for privacy and anonymity. This is especially troubling and prevalent among the youth, who are growing up in a world where so many people's lives are on display on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc..

They don't really realize or appreciate how much of what they reveal can come back to haunt them and bite them in the ass in the future: from the potential for stalking, to various abuses of private information by employers, insurers, etc.

But, as more and more people get bitten by these sorts of abuses, I think it's inevitable that a greater appreciation for privacy and anonymity will emerge. It may take some time. But the process can be accelerated with deliberate education campaigns and efforts from people who do understand the value of privacy now.

"They don't really realize or appreciate how much of what they reveal can come back to haunt them and bite them in the ass in the future: from the potential for stalking, to various abuses of private information by employers, insurers, etc." Personally, I don't put much personal info on Facebook. I do post non-anonymously almost all the time though, and want to try to fix some of the problem.

I wonder if the public ever will become educated about the value of privacy.

a lot of people became aware that they could be tracked down for downloading movies and mp3s because of all the lawsuits.

perhaps it will take a few (more) lawsuits or criminal cases where prosecutors use data retrieved from google or facebook before people realize they are voluntarily putting a lot of data out there that could come back to bite them in the ass.