Totally no offense, it‘s really just a question, but I just don‘t understand why so much people who are also so privacy conscious and privacy promoting still post publicly a picture of themselves and often even with their whole name (@kissu, Jonah Aragon, Nathan Bartram and Kevin Pham just to name very few).
Privacy is not the same as anonymity or pseudonymity, and posting your opinions under your real name is not posting your personal details.
There could be drawbacks to doing so of course, but I imagine these people weighed the decision to do so in a threat model and concluded it was something they are ok with doing.
13 Likes
I’ve said this a few times before but privacy is all about having control over what data goes where, not preventing all data from going anywhere. The data they put out is stuff they intentionally want to make public. I use a pseudonym because I’m not comfortable putting my real name out there but that’s my choice.
Privacy issues happen when your data is made available to people you never wanted to have it, like ordering DoorDash and your name and address ends up on a data broker site for example.
16 Likes
Nate is not using his real name here, FYI.
2 Likes
I cannot speak on behalf of others, but I can definitely explain my circumstances. I do not have a public picture of myself, at least not an authorized one from me, because I am still deciding on a hairstyle I can connect and identify with. I chose to distribute my full name in order to participate in VanLUG as a board member and to become a Qubes OS “paid” support provider, among other public functions:
I utilize my experience to maintain a compartmentalized and finely scoped public identity while broadly promoting the Linux ecosystem as a whole.
3 Likes
Privacy is about keeping control over what information you want to share about yourself, or not. Everyone has different needs and threat models regarding what they feel comfortable sharing.
Maybe someone shares their face and name, but never shares their home address. Maybe another person is okay with sharing their location, but will never share their face online.
This all come to personal choices. The important part is that people have all the information they need to make informed decisions, and have options to be able to only share what they wish to share.
14 Likes
To build on what others have said, I highly recommend reading PG’s knowledge base articles for Threat Modeling and Common Threats.
You are confusing privacy & anonymity. Understanding the difference is a fundamental prerequisite if you are working to build effective mitigations & strategies for YOUR threat model. Luckily, PG has already documented everything you need to know 
6 Likes
Also in other words, privacy is about consent.
6 Likes
Yes! 
2 Likes
Many years ago I saw a phrase describing it like this - privacy is knowing who they are, but not what they do. Anonymity is not knowing who they are but what they do. If they are private and anonymous you won’t know what they do or who they are.
3 Likes
Privacy Guides defines „Privacy“ as „The assurance that your data is only seen by the parties you intend to view it“.
I guess everyone has to choose for themselves what parties are intended to see ones data, but I was just heavily under the assumption that no one really intends everyone to see your face online (which was the key flaw for this question) because it can be so drastically abused, especially when it comes to promoting privacy which is something most people don‘t care about.
My concerns came specifically from this vid. I am aware that the situation isn‘t the same, but still it shows that your face online can be so drastically abused that I thought especially for privacy advocates (which tend to act a little bit or sometimes even much more than a little bit over their threat model) it isn‘t worth the risk.
1 Like
Sure, that is understandable, but an individual’s mission may benefit from public exposure despite the various risks involved with following through with it. For example, the people involved with the Tor Project exercise privacy of their public identity to various degrees:
In addition, what can be drastically abused in theory does not necessarily equate to actively being drastically abused in practice.
3 Likes
Privacy is about consent, and hence about choosing what you want to share.
It’s also easier to connect when you are more open with people. It’s very hard to connect with anyone if you don’t share some details about yourself. Statistically, YouTubers who show their face get more engagement than those who only share their voice. Showing your face makes you more relatable.
I strongly recommend you read Carissa Véliz’ The Ethics of Privacy and Surveillance.
In it, she talks about these issues.
As someone who doesn’t share much personal stuff about themselves online, I can tell you right now it’s very hard emotionally. It’s extremely isolating. If I am in New Zealand, and a problem I am trying to solve is specific to that country, I won’t make a post online specifying it because I don’t want other users or even the platform to associate me with New Zealand. It makes it so much harder to solve a problem.
I don’t think any of the people you mentioned are doing anything wrong from a privacy standpoint.
NOT USING PRIVATE PLATFORMS IS A BIGGER PROBLEM
I take more issue with prominent privacy companies, organizations, and public figures not using private platforms. To be clear, I don’t have a problem with Proton being active on Twitter. I think it’s important for them to be there. But I have a problem with Proton barely being active on BlueSky and completely inactive on Mastodon.
I should be able to ask Proton for support on Mastodon. But if I try, I will never get a response. Whereas on Twitter you’ll get a response within the day.
There are a good deal of privacy voices who recommend Proton Mail over Gmail. That’s great. Those same voices are aware of Mastodon, and yet either they don’t have a presence there, or they do, but don’t use their accounts.
I have so much respect for the privacy voices who are equally active on private and non-private platforms, like the EFF and Cory Doctorow. But so many of them fall short in this area.
8 Likes
My personal reason for not using anything Fediverse-related is mostly due to my aversion to social media platforms. I prefer to avoid engaging in heated and unproductive arguments with people on the Internet, instead using my limited resources for achieving persistent results elsewhere. For clarification purposes, I do not consider Discourse to be a social media platform, even though there appears to be an ActivityPub plugin enabled in the General > News category.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t say this citation is Privacy Guides’ definition of privacy, rather an explanation of privacy in contrast to security and anonymity in the context of the digital world (link to citation). Privacy is about more than data protection but also information in a general sense, and also encompasses non-interference for instance seclusion and bodily integrity.
Consent and security are fundamental to maintaining privacy. In that sense, no matter how many times people say “that’s privacy, not security” (or vice-versa), or “privacy vs. security” (this needs clarification: security for who?), privacy and security are inseparable while being distinct.
I think this Wikipedia definition works well enough so I’ll post it here.
Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.
As others have posted, what information someone shall reveal about themselves depends on a range of factors including goals, threats, vulnerabilities, capabilities etc. Privacy is about choice, not secrecy for the sake of it, and it’s a very individual choice. The privacy advocates who show their face and real name perhaps believe they will achieve more by doing so and are less concerned about their face and name being used against them. Other people may expose themselves to unacceptable risks just by showing their face and name.
OP @SYST3M_D3STR0YER may be shocked at the amount of data people post about themselves compared to 20 years ago. I wonder how this has evolved over time from the early 2000s to now. When I first used the internet there was awareness of being careful about posting personal information and interacting with other people online that I feel exists far less today.
2 Likes
The Wayback Machine is a useful tool to validate those questions with answers:
I feel a stronger sense of connection to people being vulnerable with my meatspace identity.
My main concern with privacy is educating vulnerable populations like abuse victims, immigrants, minorities, minors, and journalists. Staying plugged into and supporting these communities helps people far more vulnerable than me when they need support is a big part of being in the community but also being accessible.
Otherwise I just hate surveillance capitalism and when my information is used beyond my consent through the social media channels, cookies, and big tech devices. The fear of not knowing how info will be used mixed with my background in big data tech knowing how it could be used en masse is what makes it on my mental threat model. Of course anything I say here or on LinkedIn I say full knowing that it’s associated with meatspace me, and I (ever so slightly) hold back what I’m willing to discuss in public for that reason. I really want spaces to speak privately and freely to friends and loved ones without fear of Eve Dropping.
But folks knowing who I am personally feels the same as being a part of any group or community IRL. There’s always that risk someone could decide to harm me for whatever reason, and I choose to accept that risk in my current context. Threat or no threat, if you don’t feel psychologically safe sharing your meatspace self, don’t feel silly because some people like me feel safe doing so. We’re all here to support different threat models.
4 Likes
With regards to Jonah, he essentially is putting his name and reputation on the line as a means to establish trust for his ideas. Sure, it’s entirely possible to run this site under a psuedonym, but Jonah ensures his ideals align with how represents himself and not just his digital persona.
He has given up facets of his privacy in order to be a trust point for others to anchor a source of truth. If Jonah lies, there’s quite a paper trail following him, and will largely tarnish his reputation as a privacy advocate should he do something bad. Not to call it a Sword of Damocles, but rather it is quite clear and in his best interest to continue to be a privacy spokesperson. This gives us reason to have some level of trust in Jonah (and team), and not assume he is a spook.
—
For the lay person, if we normalize advocating for privacy rights through non-anonymous means, this boosts the ground for everyone. Not everyone has this privilege . However, if you have it, then this is where philosophical becomes political, and we drive our ideals forward, unashamed of beliefs and stick by them unafraid.
And finally to be blunt, the world needs more people to tell their friends, neighbors, and representatives that taking privacy away from people and allowing corps to profit of us it is BS. Worlds not gonna change if people don’t take action. And anonymous conversation might be a means to organize and learn, but at some point your meatspace identity is gonna have to back that up for change.
4 Likes
Yes, that interpretation of Jonah also resonates with my public activity in the physical and digital domains, except that I usually provide tailored suggestions to improve individuals’ practices, tools, and workflows instead.
And I take no issue with that. I would assume that, like me, you’re just a regular person.
My issue is with influential privacy voices with a medium to large audience not being on Mastodon while they are on Twitter. They do not follow what they preach.
Discourse? Do you mean Discord?
If you did, it is a social media platform. Just like every blog which allows comments, and every forum like PG’s.
2 Likes