is online security really a thing?

I had a conversation with my dad a few days back and we both talked about internet security, he told me that the best way to be secure is to shut off the computer and never open it again and he has a point. no matter what there will always be someone who will be able to get our data no matter how hard we try, every system has at least 1 person that can breach it. so whats the point of trying really?

I don't think this is a reasonable perspective. You're right, in that no matter how secure you make your online prescence, you're at risk from at least one entity (be it a rando or some state-owned hacker). But “at risk” doesn't necessarily mean you _will_ be owned, it just means it's a statistical possibility. It doesn't even mean that it's inevitable. And any action toward increasing your opsec brings down that likelyhood significantly. If you give up, let's say you risk factor is 80%. Do you really think that 10% is the same as 80%? 5%? If it's a stastical possiblity that you'll be mugged, or get in a car accident, should you give up and never leave home?

>>21227 >so what's the point? it isn't just that someone 'can' - its that someone wants to or is incentivized too. This is like saying there is no point in locking your door because professional locksmiths can open it. Or there is no point in learning self defense skills because there is always someone who can shoot and fight better than you. This defeatist attitude is stupid. The lock-maker and lock picker have been a cat and mouse game since the beginning of security. We attempt to cut out the low hanging fruit to reduce the pool of 'willing' and 'able'. It's hard to make people less 'willing' so we make it harder to be 'able'.

>>21227 you can prevent the hacker your ex hired from getting your data but you probably will never be easily able to stop the interior ministry or its equivalent in your country from making your software developer give you up. Your opsec filters different people at different profile levels. In the end what you can do to stop it is not make noise in whatever you do. Journalists and politicians get hacked more, why?

>>21227 the best way to live without pain is to never been born

I think >>21228 and >>21232 pretty much covered it, but I'll still agree sometimes it's worth not doing something so you don't have to worry about securing it. on the flip side, some of my accounts do have a weaker, reused password. These are accounts with no payment info or confidential information, and with no incentive for a hacker to obtain it. you can't become invulnerable but you have a lot of control of your vulnerabilities.

>>21227 Based dad But in all seriousness, all technology is vulnerable. All software is imperfect. But I don't think that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it and take care of ourselves while using it.

>>21227 >Is online security really a thing? It is. How much it should matter to you really depends on your threat model, which is based on what you're trying to do and who is trying to stop you from doing it. Buying drugs on the darknet and messaging your friends aren't equivalent. While buying drugs may have a whole police department or even country coming down on you, aside from dedicated stalkers most people could care less about you talking to your friends. >So whats the point of trying really? Again, while you can never reach 100% security, there is benefit to upping your online privacy. Data leaks happen all the time, but even with basic Wired security you can avoid a lot of this. Like the Lain >>21230 said, just because a 3 letter agency isn't kicking down your door doesn't mean you should neglect online security. Your father is unfathomably based, there is no safe zone with a computer online. But like a road, it's preferable to be on the sidewalk than out in the center. If someone tries to run you over, at least you tried. right?

>>21260 >While buying drugs may have a whole police department or even country coming down on you pretty sure there is no whole police department coming after your 5 grams of weed king they dont even go after thieves and rapists these days in the west

>>21261 There are millions of packages and letters that go through the mail system every day, they won't give much of a soykaf if you order a few tabs of acid or some coke. Feds go after darknet markets because they're the ones with all the money, and the pigs want their cut of the profits. >>21260 You put it well anon :)

>>21261 Apologies, that was an exaggeration when making my point. Still though, different threat models for different threats. Selling drugs would probably be a better example to show the gap between the level of reasonable OpSec. >they dont even go after thieves and rapists these days in the west Offtopic but yeah, dodging arrest is stupid easy in some places now. Guy in my town actually got off on human trafficiking or something like that, crazy soykaf.

>>21227 Well, sure. But if you shut down your computer, you won't be able to do anything with it. So you have to trade off between security and freedom. Try thinking about it as an operational problem. It's not called OPSEC for no reason. Given the operation you want to perform, how can you make it more secure, given your resources, the resources of your adversaries, and your instrumental goals? Then, do what you can do and don't do what you can't.