Interesting timing for this post, given the lecture Snowden gave at McGill earlier this week.
Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
21–30 of 56 posts
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#22Interesting timing for this post, given the lecture Snowden gave at McGill earlier this week. https://youtu.be/4x8ZI0IaInE
Yeah it was a great talk! Thousands of students waited for hours on the McGill campus to attend Snowden's talk -it's an important issue that a lot of people care about.
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#23You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.
I'd extend it to: you'd be a fool to trust anyone with your data and privacy. At least law enforcement is working under the premise of the good of society (albeit, implemented poorly), compared to Google and Facebook which is working to monetize you.
They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society.
Of course we're all familiar with the ways consumers can gamed and all the ways adtech makes the Internet suck, but the argument about good intentions works at least as well as it does for law enforcement.
(Maybe better because it's not about coercion.)
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd extend it to: you'd be a fool to trust anyone with your data and privacy. At least law enforcement is working under the premise of the good of society (albeit, implemented poorly), compared to Google and Facebook which is working to monetize you.
They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society. Of course we're all familiar with the ways consumers can gamed and all the ways adtech makes the Internet suck, but the argument about good intentions works at least as well as it does for law enforcement. (Maybe better because i…
Yes, good point. Google and Facebook aren't going to throw me in jail.
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#25You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.
Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.
How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to:
"Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians."?
To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert more trustworthy than a politician?
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#26You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.
Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians." ? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert m…
Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours.
This isn't to say that every technology expert can be trusted. The hope is that many eyes looking at the problem helps move the needle.
Politics might as well be the science of deception. My pithy opinion is that nearly everyone is more trustworthy than a politician.
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians." ? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert m…
Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This isn't to say that every technology expert can be trusted. The hope is that many eyes looking at the problem helps move the needle. Politics might as well be the science of deception. My pithy opinion is that nearly everyone is more trustworthy than a politician.
Technology experts will be more often working against your interests than politicians, because politicians will usually have some public interest motive and voter accountability, technology experts often work for "ad tech" and spooks.
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society. Of course we're all familiar with the ways consumers can gamed and all the ways adtech makes the Internet suck, but the argument about good intentions works at least as well as it does for law enforcement. (Maybe better because i…
Yes, good point. Google and Facebook aren't going to throw me in jail.
But they could cause your car insurance rates to go up (just not this time) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/facebook-scuppers...
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I take a law, and secretly reinterpet it beyond reason, then do my best to prevent anyone from finding out my reinterpretation... then it's all good, no criminal charges for me
As long as you can convince the prosecutor or jury you're not guilty, you can shoot someone on the street in plain sight with video evidence and get off free or without charges. It's up to the prosecutor whether he'll be persuaded by your elaborate scheme. I'm sure he's heard worse.
> As long as you can convince the prosecutor or jury you're not guilty, you can shoot someone on the street in plain sight with video evidence and get off free or without charges.
For those who don't know, this is called jury nullification.
Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This isn't to say that every technology expert can be trusted. The hope is that many eyes looking at the problem helps move the needle. Politics might as well be the science of deception. My pithy opinion is that nearly everyone is more trustworthy than a politician.
Technology experts will be more often working against your interests than politicians, because politicians will usually have some public interest motive and voter accountability, technology experts often work for "ad tech" and spooks.
I'm not sure why this was downvoted, but it's right on. Government didn't give us Facebook's or Google's pervasive data collection Facebook/Google's "technology experts" did.