Barry Margolin:
Security isn't binary, it's a continuum. No one is completely safe, but
if there's less information on your phone, the danger from the
government cracking it is lower. And if the phone has better encryption,
then you're more safe.

This conversation entirely misses the point. As I have pointed out, the
"threat" does not come from the US government, which is utterly
uninterested in what you do on-line.

Amazon, Facebook, Google, and myriad other commercial enterprises, on
the other hand, are very much interested in what you are doing on-line
and they have the means of tracking you. Got a medical condition and
using the Internet to learn more about it? Noted. Interested in buying
a car? Noted. Traveling? Location and dates noted.* In fact, anything
and everything that could conceivably enable a commercial enterprise
make a few pennies from your personal information is noted.

But it's not on a list under your name that someone prints out and has
fun reading; printer paper is not sold in 1000km rolls. The data is in
a virtually instantaneous computer-to-computer transaction in which an
intermediary enables targeted ads on your Internet-connected devices. A
few days ago I googled air fares to London. Within *seconds* web pages
that I visited were peppered with ads for airlines, rental cars, and
hotels.

*Travel: if you have an E-ZPass or equivalent the issuer knows every
time you go through a toll booth. For that matter, authorities know
when you go through a toll booth even if you choose to use a slow lane;
your license plate is read by a camera.

How it is that the paranoids ignore commercial trackers and worry about
a disinterested government, I do not know. But then, I'm not paranoid.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm