Mission impossible: Family privacy
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I live in a family with teenagers. They know that privacy is an issue, but they have no concerns about it, and so far my explanations and concerns are of no use to them. They rather find my 'preaching' annoying. They don't really see a problem.
What are the good arguments and examples, what is the powerful story that can wake up even youngsters to see and accept that privacy is a concern they should take serious?
I also have a young child (4y) whom the older ones naturally find very cute. They are not too bad, but every now and them they take pictures and videos of their cute little sibling. They say they do not post those pictures on e.g. the book of faeces, instant cramp or the like. While this _might_ be true, I find it hard to believe that they don't occasionally send or post some of these pictures.
On top of this, there is the problem of quite a number of always-on mobile devices from absolutely not privacy-friendly companies.
Any suggestions on how to handle situations of this sort?
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern age.
http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html
(lots of other sites online more updated on the same matter)
Be careful with the ones behind the declaration of human rights
Historically, the ultra-powerful secret families (Illuminatis) control everything. Of course, that can change, but as Stallman said (and this is also historical), freedom requires sacrifices, some of which people is not willing to.
P.S: The photo appeared in my History book. So I searched it as "declaracion de los derechos humanos le barbier"
Historically?
You mean bavarian illuminati? Because "The society's goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power. "The order of the day," they wrote in their general statutes, "is to put an end to the machinations of the purveyors of injustice, to control them without dominating them"."
WHAT KIND OF MONSTERS ARE THEY?!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
Oh, and if you mean so-called modern illuminati, besides being complete BS, their goal would be to bring a "new world order", a totalitarian order (the opposite of the bavarian ones, btw).
Which is funny because it's part of "right-wing populist conspiracy theories". And because the only rational answer to a totalitarian order would be "the rise to power of authoritarian ultranationalist demagogues".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)
What was your point again?
The point is that, as you said, they want to create the New World Order and we have seen that they are achieving that. They have been present since centuries ago, and they participated on the declaration of human rights to make us think they are "good" like if they protected us. False, they are worst than Monsantos and Microsoft, they also damage us and our rights, they also lie to us, and the worst of all, it that they want to control all the world. They have plans after that, for example removing 2/3 of humans, and they are already starting, with imposed vaccines in schools which have mercury, with wars in middle east, etc.
The NWO is not a conspiracy theory it's an American military doctrine
The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html
But please this is not the place to discuss about such real evil people
Protip: using the word "historically" doesn't grant your conspiracy theories legitimacy. If you want to say that something has "historically" happened, you need to be prepared to back up that claim with some examples.
> imposed vaccines in schools which have mercury
Vaccines intended for young children do not have thimerosal anymore. Even when they did (2 decades ago), it was such a tiny dosage that it couldn't have even the slightest effect on any human's health. The kids who got thimerosal from their vaccines were probably damaged much more by naturally occurring asbestos dust, or lead which naturally occurs in the dirt. It's certainly nothing compared to the amount of mercury metal encountered in a single serving of fish.
Also, it's not reasonable to equate thimerosal to mercury metal. They are not the same things. It's like equating oxygen (O2) to ozone (O3). Oxygen is essential for human life, but ozone is quite toxic. You can't just add the effects of individual elements together to find out what a substance will do to the human body.
> with wars in middle east
Funny enough, yeah, the wars in the middle east are a result of powerful people trying to take over the world. But those powerful people are those running the established United States empire, just as all empires throughout history have tried to do. There's no need to invoke an "Illuminati" or "New World Order" to explain it.
Protip: using the word "historically" doesn't grant your conspiracy theories legitimacy.
How old are Masons?
Vaccines intended for young children do not have thimerosal anymore.
Ah, so then you know that mercury in vaccines can cause autism in children? (When they are applyed in women of course) AFAIK autism has increased in the last time, and mistically vaccines include it.
There's no need to invoke an "Illuminati" or "New World Order" to explain it.
OK, so from now on I'm not going to "invoke", as you say, the NSA, the CIA or any other agency when talking about global surveillance (is that possible?)
> Ah, so then you know that mercury in vaccines can cause autism in children?
No. This would be clear if you had read the sentence immediately following it.
That claim comes from a man, Andrew Wakefield, who was guilty of blatant ethics violations and manipulation of data. His paper was and is a lie, which is why it was retracted. Wakefield is an actual conspirator; he and some others were conspiring to give the MMR vaccine a bad rap so that they could make money from frivolous lawsuits, and so he could exploit a patent he had for an alternative MMR vaccine.
The claim is false. In fact, when thimerosal was removed from the MMR vaccine, that happened to (coincidentally) correspond with an increase in autism diagnosis, not a decrease as would be expected if the claim about a link between vaccines and autism were true.
In fact, the evidence is so clear that vaccines are safe and effective at preventing these deadly diseases, I would say that if you continue to spread this lie -- convincing more parents to put their children and other children in danger of contracting preventable, deadly diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and anything else vaccines protect against -- you will be guilty of mass manslaughter of children. That's all there is to it.
I'm not going to argue the point. But if anyone else who is reading this wants to see the issue discussed simply, here are a few videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXtANMp3wok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ZZTjChW4o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o65l1YAVaYc
That's absolutely not what I said...
"They", if it's those bavarian dudes (including Goethe, awesome fellow), planned to do rather positive things (the OPPOSITE of NWO).
Frome there, "they", to you, are some supposedly real life people who planned to trick us with human rights while being assholes at the same time: Monsanto, Microsoft, damage our rights...
Wait, first they provide rights, including the right to bring wrong things into light, then they damage those rights?
If some sick people planned to do so, they're doing it the wrong way.
Then you say "They" lie to us, and "they" want to control all the world.
This is very generic, and you provide no proof. Many politician leaders lie? Yes. They want more control? Yes, most likely. But this could fit any random human being (lying, wanting more control. Well, maybe not the world, at least for for everybody).
Then : Removing 2/3 of humans with vaccines in schools and wars in middle easts?
First, we live longer than our ancestors, vaccines or not.
Second, even if having current wars going on is wrong, it's far from enough to remove 2/3 of humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts
Even if what you said made sense, how being against human rights help?
Even if it's a trick, it's good stuff. As far as I know, being pro-human rights doesn't make people be pro Monsanto, pro-war and pro Microsoft (well the latter is more an ignorance or convenience thing).
Too much misunderstand here. Why do you ask for proofs if there are plenty of them? Old and new ones
https://www.rt.com/usa/nro-satellite-octopus-emblem-854/
And when I say "Them" it's because if I knew who are those people exactly I'd say their names, but "they" are hidden (not that much, "they" are the head of the global surveillance, do you know those people?)
The NWO is as "theoretical" as the global surveillance, if you don't want to believe it, then it's not my problem.
Surveillance agencies trying to get as much power as they can is documented. Most likely, they're still competing one against another. There's no unique entity (yet, if ever).
But I don't see how that proves the BS you write about (removing 2/3 of humanity, Human Rights being a problem, vaccines...).
You don't make sense. There's no cause and effect relationship.
I am a translator!
>what is the powerful story that can wake up even youngsters to see and accept that privacy is a concern they should take serious?
Show them this photo >
Don't fabricate your own prison !
Don't feed the beast !
I am a translator!
fjukken zuccamerd!
dadada
You can say "If the Facebook's creator was cracked, I don't want to imagine a normal used"
then make them read "Brave New World" and "1984"
People don't become concerned about issues because someone else told them to. They become concerned because of their own decisions to learn about them. You can't control this.
So I don't recommend trying to change people's mind by bringing up the topic with them. That doesn't mean keeping it to yourself, but unless there's a very good reason to talk about it (e.g. because they asked about it, or because they need to know about it to understand something), don't talk about it. Counter-intuitive, I know, but I think this is a far better strategy in the long-run.
I don't know how old they are but if they are still young.
Buy the books Fahrenheit 451 and 1984.
Read them (if not already).
Then propose the 50$ or 100$ to read them and make you a small resume of it.
These kind books should be mandatory in high school.
They are classics but there's more than just these ones.
For example:
Propaganda, by Edward Bernays.
War is a Racket, by Smedley D. Butler.
Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
Animal Farm, by George Orwell.
I suggest for anyone who wants to have a better way of communication with people to read
Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, by Marshall B. Rosenberg
I don't know about the cash reward. Also the web is full of resume ;)
Thanks for some of those reading suggestions.
I am a translator!
> Then propose the 50$ or 100$ to read them and make you a small resume of it.
Just when I thought I heard all the most terrible advices..
The books you linked though are excellent. +1
> These kind books should be mandatory in high school.
Well, I'm Sophomore and I have to read Fahrenheit 451 by June 20th. We can say that some of these books are mandatory ;)
Sorry if I'm wrong, I had problems for understanding your answer because I'm not a native speaker (I'm Chilean :P):
With my post I don't tried to address your problem (or Heater Jr. one). I only said that the kind of books that mangeur posted are mandatory.
Now, if you ask my opinion, I don't believe that a little child (<10 years old) can understand human rights easily (I studied them when I was 12). So, isn't a good idea to explain him a deep philosophy like the free software one. Instead, you could show the funny things of free software. It can wake up his interest.
Sorry if I can't write anything better, but I never was a very normal child, I have problems to understand how they think. But I hope that I was helpful (a little at least).
On 2017-05-27 10:07, name at domain wrote:
>
Let's try this again from email:
http://beachhigh.education/
early and started college at fifteen).
As jules_verne pointed out downthread:
< But did it work properly? Did they really learned about the message
you was trying to give?
Yea, I'm embarrassed, but truth is going to help GNUbahn better than
pretty words and theories.
John is a die-hard windoze user. I'm guessing it is because of gaming
and his career and school responsibilities and just the way he is wired.
Griselda-Beatriz is wannabe open sores. She dual boots windoze and
Ubuntu or else talks about how much she wants to use Ubuntu and how
unfair it is that she "can't". She received a very nice scholarship to a
great grad school this year, but since the school didn't offer a degree
in her preferred major, she did some exploring and unschooly John Holt
inspired stuff that included taking IT classes and ultimately led her
somewhere else.
She suggested that I read Jaron Lanier and pretty much ignored my
suggestion that she read rms.
Both of them have settled for free tech support from mommy when they
couldn't afford paid professional customer service. They were fairly
convincing while they were inwardly rolling their eyes and wishing I
would shut up so they could turn on the TV and pick the lint out of
their belly buttons.
So were my parents. After all the work I put into their computers and
their education, I recently received and email from my dad suggesting
that I write my own encryption program because data mining for
advertising purposes is such big business that he "wouldn't trust any
encryption program unless it's offered on Ubuntu or some other Linux
(sic) platform."
Family dynamics come into play, of course. My late sister was "the smart
one" and I was the cute little Shirley Temple lookalike with the lovely
blonde curls that turned brown when I was eight and grey when I was 38
but the script had already been written by then and I could only play
the part in which I had been cast.
Parenthood is hard, GNUbahn. I commend you for doing the best you can
and for having the courage to put this out there and ask for help. I put
a lot of weight on what the teens and young adults have said on this
thread because they are the real experts.
A wise person once asked if it is harder to be the parent of a child or
the child of a parent. Both have been challenging for my illustrious
self. I gain wisdom from the teens and young adults in both aspects of
my personal life.
Preaching for ears that don't wish to hear is pointless. My girlfriend is well aware about the worries and the rots of Microsoft and yet she doesn't care. She used Ubuntu for sometime (I believed it would be easier for her to get used). She really liked it. Found it very easier to install the printer with gnu/linux, worked way better with Libreoffice and was very pleased with VLC, and all the torrenting thing (this all were new for her). She couldn't stay with that because the people she works with uses only Windows, and she was tired of fixing compatibilities problems and etc.
So she asked me to install Win 7 again, for my tears. It have been like this for about four years.
I imagine this problem is a little more complicated with children. With all the fancy things that young ones will be exposed to in the feature, their little brains will not develop in the way of the free software, unless the kids are interested on digital freedom from themselves. Wouldn't it help if they watched the Snowden film? I doubt they would like to read thousands of words about the whole case. Another idea is to present em the onion web. Kids these days are all brainwashed by this "propaganda" about deepweb and how bad it is. Why don't show them that deepweb is far from being the bad thing people make up.
I'm not very good about education, but here you can clearly see the problem generated by the lack of free software teaching in the schools. If this were a main concern, such things wouldn't happen.
I agree entirely that preaching for ears that don't wish to hear is
pointless. You must wait for the right moment. However, it doesn't hurt
to sometimes give then a quick description of what you do if they ask
you to, or if there is a news or debate about something related
(directly or indirectly) to our work --- for example, when there is news
of self-driving cars, electronic voting systems, tax income declaration
using computers, heart pacemakers, farm vehicles controled by computers,
spying, censorship, cybernetic crimes or attacks, or anything related to
technology or culture.
Also, I bring to you as a reference Eben Moglen's talk during
LibrePlanet 2017
([[https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-free-software-movement-in-the-age-of-trump/]]),
and from it I take the understanding that we must separate the
non-activists of free/libre software in two groups:
- Younger people (mostly children) often seek to explore and understand
how things work. For this we must explain the essential freedoms and
how they interfere with daily lives *first*, before showing "cools
stuff".
- Older people (mostly adults) want things that can help them do their
things now, so we perhaps have to show the "cool stuff" first and then
explain the essential freedoms and how they interfere with daily
lives. Making sure that the "cool stuff" isn't regarded as priority,
but as a consequence. Also, make sure to indeed raise the importance
of the essential freedoms.
--
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
/software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.
As a teenager, I feel that my opinion may be helpful here- on the other hand, with the closest "typical" teenagers I have being peers and a sibling, it may be no more insightful than a parent's.
Firstly, OnPon4's point is worth keeping in mind- once a person enters adolescence, the influence of the caregiver is greatly diminished. I can give you some suggestions as to what might help with your concerns, but nothing you can do will convert them. The best you can do is to address what *your* concerns are through rules, and then make the case for your argument where relevant current affairs come up. However, never make an 'I told you so' point (that just infuriates them) and only make a given point once (unless they're interested, doing it twice will only sound preachy).
Your best hope, I would suspect, is to combine strict-but-fair boundaries on technology usage with emotional appeals (in the form of scare tactics and making it 'cool'). On the emotional appeals side, fear might best be projected with a story of how much a third party can find out from your social media history- see, for example, https://labs.rs/en/browsing-histories/. 'Coolness' can be, for example, shown in everything from (if you don't feel it'll encourage bad behaviors) the deep web to the sometimes underrated no-cost stuff. These things, combined with the (maybe it's just me?) euphoria of booting a feature-packed OS from a 100MB USB, were what brought me to the dark side.
In regards to rules, these are obviously going to be your choice and depend on what you and your children think is fair. However, with phones for example, rules on where and when they can be used might be helpful- the choice of locations would depend on what is required to reduce the worst risks (e.g. taking inappropriate pictures of your younger one or having sensitive conversations recorded) without 'destroying their lives'. I'm not sure how practical such rules are- I don't feel the need to have a phone or standard social media services anyway, so I would follow them easily- but that's my two cents.
I think The Matrix is also a good movie about this.
You know, the fake steak vs the disgusting (but real and nutrious) stuff they eat when out of the Matrix.
History is also a good source : the Stasi, the book burnings, the lists...
Most likely what they're interested in (books, comics, movies, games) involve some foe that might stick just right with the message you try to communicate (although very Manichean probably). Also, if you're not into what they're interested in, it might sound cheesy.
Also yes, plain parental authority (I'm not saying it works): don't allow anyone to send pictures of themselves. They can wait and show them when facing the person.
whether they'll obey or not, a message is sent
The harder part is facing social pressure: others do it, so not doing it might ostracize them. There's also something about being an individual, not blindly following trends/masses. Not getting tricked by that.
I don't think not mentioning it at all is a good thing, but don't push it too much/too often either.
Yeah, most people my age generally do not care about their privacy. You can't force someone to be concerned about privacy.
Yeah, as someone else mentioned it's like health. Most kids gorge on potato chips and McDonalds and other terrible food without a second thought -- it's only when they get older and something bad happens that they realize they were wrong all along.
For many people, it's when they get hacked or stalked by a random stranger. Hopefully those things never happen to anyone, but at the same time, if it teaches someone the importance of privacy, I can see the value of those things happening.
Privacy is like good health. You don't know you had it until you lost it. Just ask them whether they should fear if they have something to hide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
I am a member!
Sniff all their packets and read anything in cleartext aloud for everyone to hear. They might start using encryption then.
Kinda harsh to me. Also, it's quite ironic to preach for privacy if you spy on them (even if it's to teach them a lesson).
Hey, why Griselda-Beatriz has such a crazy funky name when John is plain John?
Such a missed opportunity. I suggest "Johnny-Johannes-DaBoss the 3rd". Yeah, no.
Still too tame :P
I am a translator!
I think I'll name my next dog Griselda-Beatriz..
Griselda-Beatriz was awesome.
That's is such an terrifying way to teach about privacy. But did it work properly? Did they really learned about the message you was trying to give?
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
I perfectly understand you, I think most of us do, sometimes you might feel you'll explote....
But you have to be cold: I have a little cousin, he's like 3 years old, and all his family uses anti-privacy technology (except me, I'm the black sheep), there are hundreds of photos and videos of him in Facebook's database, like many other little kids, and they have no idea of the risk, and surely they'll difficulty know about, they just care about playing -like any child does-, and they'll grow up living with this kind of society of the "I don't care", "I've nothing to hide".
So that's why my suggestion is to be non-emotive about this topics, if not, you'll likely feel bad. I'm not being pessimist, I'm being realistic, but well, this is just my opinion
> I perfectly understand you, I think most of us do, sometimes you might feel you'll explote....
X2
On 2017-05-26 03:05, seimirchaplin at openmailbox dot org wrote:
>> I perfectly understand you, I think most of us do, sometimes you might
>> feel you'll explote....
>
> X2
Heather from the Trisquel boards says:
I thought you were talking to me instead of Megver83 for a second
because that is exactly how I feel about this whole thread.
I don't have the technical expertise to be 100% sure why my posts are
appearing as blank space on the publicly accessible web page of the
Trisquel forums today and coming through fine as emails, but the
paranoid conspiracy theorist in me thinks that somebody has my back and
has semi-banned me for my own good.
I wish I could thank them.
I found out that if I write a message using the "less than" or "greater
than" signs, then the content after the first mentioned sign, or before
the second mentioned sign, gets hidden in the forums, but appears fine
in the mailing lists.
Also, the content appears fine in the mailing list archives
([[https://listas.trisquel.info/pipermail/trisquel-users/]]).
This seems to be a bug in the Mailing list to forum conversion, where
the converter fails to escape the mentioned signs.
--
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
/software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.
If it's of interest, you can get around the bug by using < for < and > for >.
You're welcome. :)
Hi all.
I haven't had time to write this week, but I have followed your comments all along the way. Firstly I am glad to see that so many has a say on this matter. Though these issues relate to most user here (I suppose), some of your comments are direct answers to my questions and frustrations. Thanks a lot.
There are a number of references to sites, books, video etc that are all relevant. I don't have time to check them all out but I will remember them and return to them later.
Your comments and advices have given me inspiration to tackle the issue though I am sure there is no easy solution. For now I consider these approaches:
- Convincing my wife, that we must have clear and strict rules about the use of mobiles, tablets and computers. (This should preferably include not sending or posting pictures, but I that is such a big part of there social life so I don't believe it has much chance).
- coincidentally watch these movies when the big kids are around: Citizen4, 1984, The story of Aaron Schwartz, Matrix (the others suggested here I don't know yet)
Besides, I would like to make a make - or better yet find - a collection of examples of people being affected to privacy issues including being hacked. For instance, there is a Danish story a you guy who was recorded from his own laptop when playing with himself (https://www.version2.dk/artikel/dansk-journalist-paa-fodboldtur-jeg-blev-hacket-paa-fodboldtur-udsat-afpresning-1070079). Sorry for the language (Danish)
The above is aiming at the big kids. For the younger one, I will try to let her grow up with GNU and Replicant devices. Since I don't have the skills to show here the technical potential of libre software, my best shot will probably be to get her used to i.e. Trisquel and Replicant.
Aaaarrrghhh I need more time: I would like to make a wiki about these issues and possible approaches. Do you have suggestions for libre games for young kids?
Heather, thanks for all your comments and advices to me. I am sorry I haven't had time to answer to them specifically, but please know that they are much appreciated.
Would it work if you treat them as adults, and:
- give them the information necessary to decide for themselves (informed consent)
- put limits to avoid them destroying the lives and privacy of other people.
When doing such choices, most adults are, formally(trough an EULA) or informally(when buying a device) giving consent, but are not informed of what it really means.
Merely having the information to decide is also not enough, as the person needs to understand that information.
And the technical aspect is not the most relevant here, in understanding the information, since organizations like the FSF have certifications for hardware (RYF) and free software distributions(FSDG), so a random person just has to trust such organization and does not necessarily need to dive deep into the technical details. They can also decide to trust other people or organization as they wish.
However the difficult part is to understand what the lack of privacy really means, and here, someone cannot do it for them.
This kind of work usually done by people, artists, journalists, etc, that try to explain the issues more concretely.
For instance what does the following really means:
- 10 Billion Euros/Dollars
- +5 degrees in global warming
By itself it means precisely nothing, for the last example the weather will be 5 degrees hotter, okay, whatever....
So merely knowing that it will be 5 degrees hotter is not enough to fully understand the issue.
To better understand it:
- Artists make movies where people live in such world.
- Art installation make you live in such world.
- Writers describe the problem.
So it might be a good idea to either take advantage of the works that have been made to explain the issue, or to use the same techniques to explain it.
Once the issue starts being understood, you probably need to limit privacy damages trough harm reductions techniques:
For instance if you think that smartphones are evil (for instance because they results in people's positions being recorded in real time), stopping using one might not be an option, and instead you would try to limit the privacy damages being done by it, for instance by making sure that it runs only free software and that it cannot record your conversations while not calling someone.
It is also important not to see software freedom only as restrictions, seeing advantages and enjoying privacy is also required.
You would then need to think creatively to fulfill that.
For instance if they are not on Facebook, but instead use some privacy friendly social networks with their friends, you, the school, other parents, will not be able to see what they are doing, which might interest them a lot.
Since you would not be able to watch them, the same education methodology described here can be used to mitigate the risks of harming them or others[1]. And in this example, privacy is really important as it helps them create their personalities.
Another way would be to have playful relationship with privacy, freedom, and so on:
It could be seen as a game to evade surveillance, bypass censorship(Schools might have some), encrypt communication, encrypt the hard drive, etc...
They would for instance have technology that even the most powerful government cannot break.
They would then be able to show off with such skills among their friends, and so on, and then to explain how to do it.
And here, unlike propaganda action movies, they are doing it for real[2].
Jokes:
------
[1]This is recursive (sic).
[2]So instead of watching Mission impossible (also the topic's name), they will be in the movie "Enemy of the state", and make government's mission to watch them impossible...
Denis.
telling your kids not to use social networking like the book of faeces or instant cramp, might be hard for them socially. if you can make them avoid those kinds of sites, though, and perhaps teach them more privacy-respecting ways of social communication online, you could set up a VPN router in your house, with a good provider, one that puts you on a random IP every time you connect (if they have IPv6, great). and encourage your kids to use tor
libreCMC has a setting in it for VPN, i believe. you could connect libreCMC router to your ISP (e.g. using PPPoE) and set up a VPN client in libreCMC, so that your entire home network is routed through the VPN provider as an endpoint, with your physical ISP simply providing the connection.
so it would basically be a 2nd ISP, on top of the 1st (assuming your main ISP doesn't respect privacy. if you live in USA, then it doesn't)
the VPN provider doesn't have to be located in your own country. see:
https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-services-anonymous-review-2017-170304/
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires