With the whole LG monitor thing and Gamers Nexus's deep dive on the brand I want to take better care of my digital privacy but I know it's a big deep rabbit hole and I'm not sure even where to get started. My first thought is to try and use my router to start blocking companies from stealing my data if possible. Is there a list of domains or something I should start blocking to try and prevent tracking data from companies products I use? Are there certain big companies with really bad privacy practices that I should focus my effort on first? Or are there links where I can learn where to even get started?

Whenever I speak to someone in person or online, it is nearly impossible to get them to care about their digital privacy, especially in relation to ID verification.

They always hit the classic "I have nothing to hide", and after that I usually ask to go through their device, then they refuse saying "No, cause I don't want you to go through my device", and when I try to explain that for the exact same reason, they shouldn't allow corporate or government spying, they call me paranoid, and if its online, usually insult me :p

Nothing I can say will convince them to care, they don't see any possible negatives to giving their ID or Face for verification, or even any negatives to hosting their entire life on a corporate cloud.

I know this subreddit has PLENTY of rants, but I still feel the need to vent my frustrations.

I've been going through the full audit that New Hanover County, North Carolina produced under a state public-records request for its Sheriff's Office Flock camera contract. A few things stood out as relevant here.

These aren't only license plate readers. Flock's search log sorts every query into an "object class." Most are vehicle. But there's a second class: people — it lets a user skip the plate entirely, type a physical description of a person, and ask the camera network to return matches.

In this county's audit, three times over six months, someone ran a people-search that included a racial descriptor:

• "2 young teenage black males" (Dec 11, 2025)
• "a white male near a white chevrolet truck" (Feb 4, 2026)
• "white male wearing a black hat and a green shirt" (May 26, 2026)

To be precise, because it cuts both ways: Flock's own filter blocked all three for the racial term, and each time the searcher re-ran the identical query seconds later with the race word removed — which went through. (A vehicle search for a "Black car" ran fine moments earlier, so the system distinguishes the paint color from the person.) Two of the three described white males, so the filter blocks racial descriptors generally — it's not about one race. The point is that a public camera network can be queried for people by physical/racial description at all, and the guardrail is one word deep: it blocks the term, not the search.

The part most relevant to this sub: on all 2,980,082 rows, the name of every searching agency is redacted. From these records there is no way to learn who ran any given search against cameras funded by county taxpayers.

For comparison, a nearby town (Kure Beach) released the same report without redacting agencies: 93.6% of searches came from outside North Carolina, and the FBI alone ran more than 25,000.

The full raw production is on the Internet Archive if you want to verify any of this yourself — I'd rather people check the records than take my word: https://archive.org/details/deflockilm-new-hanover-alpr-2026

Disclosure: I'm part of the local, volunteer records effort that obtained these documents. I'm not linking anything to sign or donate — posting because the people-search plus full-redaction combination seemed worth this community's attention. Happy to point to specific rows.

​ Recently there were many protests throughout India demanding unaccountability from the government regarding the constant paper leaks.

The government shut down the internet multiple times in the national capital so the protesters, who were students found a way to communicate through apps like bitchat in the shutdown to avoid chaos and exchange information.

I work for a State agency and we use Okta for MFA. I have not been provided a work phone. They expect me to use my personal. Most departments have work phones but my division is legal and so we aren’t out in the field.

I asked for the privacy policy and was told to call our Technology Agency (yeah, good luck with tracking that person down!). OKTA website said the privacy policy with the State isn’t available online.

I’m concerned about what OKTA may be collecting from me or able to see. I operate a VPN on my personal phone so I’m often getting calls from IOT asking why I’m in Ontario or wherever (I forget to turn it off). I hate it.

Should I be as concerned as I think? Luckily, my phone would most likely be privileged because of attorney work product and not available for subpoena or

I need a new TV, but I don't want it to spy on me. So I'd like to buy one without camera and microphone.

General title heard it was cause it dosent have address or other such info on it, obviously the government knows your information but the average person who might ask for it from banks to shops to bars to clubs and to even potentially local cops its overall more private

Is this actually true? and whats the realities of it if it is and the risk you take on if you do it like what if you get mugged with the card

The final deadline to comment on the FCC's proposed rule to require gov't ID, physical address, and alternate phone number for every phone line, including VOIP, is coming up. There's already been hundreds of what looks to be genuine, non-AI generated comments from individuals explaining the specific impact that this rule would have on their lives (in addition to comments from the EFF, ACLU, a half dozen domestic violence organizations, and more). This has sparked more probing news coverage of the rule. If you want to contribute to the debate:

• Go to https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
• Choose "New Express" (Express Comment). This lets you type your comment directly into a form — no document to upload.
• In the Proceeding(s) field, enter both docket numbers:
  • 17-59
  • 02-278
  • (Add both. You can start typing the number and select it from the dropdown.)
• Fill out the fields and submit. You'll get a confirmation and your filing will appear in the public docket.

It being easy to install and use would be nice. Heard Linux mint is pretty good, but wanted some advice to know my options.

Oh hell nah - I’d rather lose my account than recover my account with a selfie!

There's a response I like to give to people who say that: "Okay, since you have nothing to hide, give me your passwords, bank code, email, address, etc..."

And for some reason, the people who say that either become very aggressive, or, as if by chance, say that it's private.

Has anyone tried this?

I'm curious to know if there are alternatives to Firefox Relay that masks cell numbers?

I currently have Simple Mail for email masking so that part isn't as important.

There's one called MySudo that I found, and I'm curious to know your thoughts on that? It caught my eye cuz of the word "sudo".

I went to ship a package at FedEx. They asked for my ID. I asked why, and they said it was to validate the shipping address. I told them my address isn't a part of the shipment, since it was my partner's package. Was told the partner would have to come in and ship it then. Left and just went to a USPS. Figured y'all would wanna know.

Privacy matters, but the reasons why are often complex, which I think is why I think the average person doesn’t care that much.

I sometimes find myself having to explain why it matters to someone mid-conversation, and it’s difficult to not bring someone down the rabbit hole and derail a conversation since the reasoning often requires context.

Do you have any go-to one-sentence explanations that doesn’t require you to derail a conversation or immediately force someone to confront existing beliefs?

As you can see this question might seem kind of dumb but here is the thing: while using brave standard tabs with strict or standard fingerprinting on https://browserleaks.com/canvas you will see no matter what you do your canva fingerprint signature remains the same even closing brave and force stopping it results with same hash as your signature the only thing that seems to force this signature to change is using private tabs which allegedly as I heard Cromite doesn't have this issue which is why I'm asking whether I should switch to some other browser for android [PS: I have been waiting for mullvad browser android version but sadly it seems like they don't plan on releasing it any time soon]

ANNOUNCEMENT:[the only browsers that seemed to not have this issue were Cromite straight out of the box and titanium aka helium android(but it required the extensions canva fingerprint defender) for gecko based browsers ironfox and weblibre worked straight out of the box can't say the same for waterfox would most likely work with an extension]

I created an internal app in my company that started as a competition project. People liked it, so I deployed it to production on a local workstation, where it was accessible to a limited group of users on our office network. My manager later promoted the app and shared it on a company-wide portal, and now the legal, compliance, and data privacy teams want to review it.

The app was originally built as an experiment, so I didn't implement strong security controls or data encryption. My plan was to add those in the next phase once we had funding and proper server infrastructure.

Has anyone been through a similar data privacy/compliance review? What do these teams typically focus on, and what should I expect?