People disclose more when they think they are safe. Your typical Windows user from year 2009 with their collection of porn banners and botnet nodes would have their private info safer than a new Linux user of the same time. Because the Linux guy would believe he’s free now.

I remember those manuals how to run Skype and every proprietary program from a separate user, while every client in X11 can capture the whole display and see all keystrokes. Or every schoolboy using “but I’ll be able to examine the code” in arguments. Or “but the sources are open” on the subject of OS security even by literate people, while how many people have looked at those sources? If just 3-4 times that amount of people look at Windows components’ disassembly with the same effort, they’ll probably have the same effect on security, one can conceal backdoors in source code well enough. There are so many things one can remember, but those were nice times.

Same with “security” in the Internet. We were using ICQ and everyone knew one can spy on those messages, we were using HTTP and POP and IMAP without encryption and everyone knew one can spy on these too, but we were fine - we adjusted our behavior for that knowledge and used the Web as it should be used.

And what’s the funniest, this “insecure” Internet was more secure, because people acted on the right premises and formed behaviors that made it secure. When you know something is unprotected and can’t be protected, you are not completely taken by surprise if it’s lost.

Now teenage girls use centralized services as they would use private diaries, where an unclearly defined group of people can see the content of those. Many of them think it’s safe because that’s called “private messages” and they “didn’t give access” on some webpage of that service, or even just because there’s a lock sign in the browser address line.

People think they have been given magic that obeys them, magic is different from tech in not requiring understanding to obey. There’s, obviously, no magic, only things fully understood obey their owners, and almost nobody fully understands even door locks.

So - I think the new important kind of social advertising is teaching people to not trust security. Security is like a war victory, it’s not guaranteed and never certain enough to rely upon it. No system based on implication of functional security must be used.

We must use only openly unreliable systems.

That also applies to home appliances (intended) and all kinds of complex devices. When those came with schematics and detailed maintenance manuals, people dreamed of something not requiring these, and as we can see, that something is not better and doesn’t take less effort when breaks.

Unreliability is freedom, and reliance is slavery. But at the same time unreliable systems are better than no systems. Unreliable systems are the compromise between luddism and degenerate civilization.