Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI • Hacker News Board

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#71

Post by segfaultbuserr » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

binarymax wrote: post #11

I remember back in the 90's, when Intel was going to introduce a unique identifier in their processors that could be used for authentication purposes, it caused a huge uproar and Intel backed down. [0] Having a hardware embedded unique ID that can be (is) used for tracking a known persons location at all times is probably the most intrusive privacy violation we've ever had. That we willingly carry these things around…

Looking back, it was unbelievable to see how huge the storm caused by Intel's "processor serial number" in Pentium 3 was, that even forced Intel to withdrew it.

Meanwhile, nobody has ever said anything about the serial numbers of hard drives, GPUs, motherboards, RAM modules, Ethernet MAC address, etc, etc, etc. Nowadays, basically everything comes with one UUID.

Pretty illogical, isn't it?

> We've long lost the war on privacy.

Agree. I understand UUID is important in engineering for many purposes, but the fact that nobody is talking about it anymore (because they are nothing when compared to more severe issues like fingerprinting) indicates we've long lost the war on privacy.

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#72

Post by Mediterraneo10 » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

sbierwagen wrote: post #48

stcredzero wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the 'death by a thousand cuts'. We couldn't fight every battle. We lost. So does the future belong to those who can administer the "thousand cuts?" In 2019, that means those who own the Cloud server farms and control the organizations that hire hordes of programmers. Does that mean that privacy is dead by an inexorable process? Doesn't that imply that individual liberty is also, eventually, dead? How can we, th…

>Does that mean that privacy is dead by an inexorable process? Yes. >Doesn't that imply that individual liberty is also, eventually, dead? Yes. >How can we, the people, administer the thousand cuts? Stop carrying a cell phone. There was a brief period of time, from 1990 to 8:40 AM, September 11th, 2001, when you could do all sorts of stuff online, and the powers that be either didn't, or couldn't, monitor it. That's…

> There was a brief period of time, from 1990 to 8:40 AM, September 11th, 2001, when you could do all sorts of stuff online, and the powers that be either didn't, or couldn't, monitor it.

The belief that September 11 brought in the dark times overlooks the actual history of things. The European Parliament’s ECHELON report, which detailed American massive interception and storage of internet and other electronics communications, was released in 2000. John Young’s website Cryptome was discussing the same stuff pre-9/11 that you found from people like Bruce Schneier afterwards. The revelations may not have been as big in the news like Snowden later, but it was well known that the NSA had rolled out extensive surveillance already by the turn of the millennium.

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#73

Post by moftz » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #23

moftz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel ME already can spit out the UUID of the chip and has been able to do it for over a decade.

So can SGX (under certain circumstances). So can your hard disk, your NIC, and probably your firmware via DMI.

Right, but those components typically don't have unchecked access to the rest of the system via back doors.

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#74

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

sbierwagen wrote: post #48

stcredzero wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the 'death by a thousand cuts'. We couldn't fight every battle. We lost. So does the future belong to those who can administer the "thousand cuts?" In 2019, that means those who own the Cloud server farms and control the organizations that hire hordes of programmers. Does that mean that privacy is dead by an inexorable process? Doesn't that imply that individual liberty is also, eventually, dead? How can we, th…

>Does that mean that privacy is dead by an inexorable process? Yes. >Doesn't that imply that individual liberty is also, eventually, dead? Yes. >How can we, the people, administer the thousand cuts? Stop carrying a cell phone. There was a brief period of time, from 1990 to 8:40 AM, September 11th, 2001, when you could do all sorts of stuff online, and the powers that be either didn't, or couldn't, monitor it. That's…

Stop carrying a cell phone.

How about stop using the Internet, driving a car, and participating in the economy? I don't think that helps.

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#75

Post by kybernetikos » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

deogeo wrote: post #57

sbierwagen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does that mean that privacy is dead by an inexorable process? Yes. >Doesn't that imply that individual liberty is also, eventually, dead? Yes. >How can we, the people, administer the thousand cuts? Stop carrying a cell phone. There was a brief period of time, from 1990 to 8:40 AM, September 11th, 2001, when you could do all sorts of stuff online, and the powers that be either didn't, or couldn't, monitor it. That's…

> It would take real creativity for things to get that bad today. It is easily as bad or worse. Those 50-200 people knew and cared for each-other, and depended on each-other, and the surveillance was bidirectional. Whereas now you are monitored by actors almost entirely beyond your reach, that will feel no remorse in crushing you, should the command be given by whoever is in control.

> by whoever is in control.

Which may ultimately be a poorly tested, bias-ridden bit of AI code.

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#76

Post by ericd » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #53

nugget wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary reason we care about Saudi is oil. US policy makers seem to view them as a necessary evil until we transition to renewable energy. No real effort is made to influence reforms. In fact, the more culturally isolated Saudi is from Europe and other countries, the better it is for the US, in terms of dependency. At some point after “peak oil” SA seems likely to experience extreme social upheaval - perhaps even…

"The primary reason we care about Saudi is oil." This is true. "US policy makers seem to view them as a necessary evil until we transition to renewable energy." This is false. There is nothing at all necessary nor evil, relative to the United States. We use the middle east to establish a protection racket on oil flows to the rest of the world . The United States gets zero, or near zero, oil from Saudi Arabia. The sam…

I had always heard that it was because it enforces the denomination of oil trade in USD, and so enshrines the USD as global reserve currency.

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#77

Post by swebs » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #2

By supporting Saudi Arabia the West really shoots itself in the foot. You can't lecture other countries about freedom while supporting this regime.

If you had to chose between supporting Saudi Arabia and supporting fracking, which would you chose?

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#78

Post by jwr » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #18

maxxxxx wrote: post #2

By supporting Saudi Arabia the West really shoots itself in the foot. You can't lecture other countries about freedom while supporting this regime.

There is a delicate game being played. If you are friendly with SA you can put pressure on them to improve. If you declare them an evil enemy would the outcome be better? There is a path to walk and it is not easy to find the right one when you have to deal with reality not just idealism. The natural resources in the middle east are important to the world and it is not so simple as an 'us vs. them' because there are…

> would the outcome be better?

Yes. The world would be a better place if people did the right thing. It's not complicated, really. In this particular case: see a regime that dismembers journalists and hunts women who "run away"? Don't deal with that regime, or anything that is related to it.

To point out the obvious, invading other countries, bombing "terrorists" without due process, meddling in affairs of people across the globe, increasing oil production and doing nothing about the upcoming climate catastrophe should all be considered as "NOT the right thing to do".

Of course, with a statement like that, there will always be plenty of butsayers. "But..." [and here goes a list of various muddy reasons why everything is relative].

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#79

Post by Shivetya » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #2

By supporting Saudi Arabia the West really shoots itself in the foot. You can't lecture other countries about freedom while supporting this regime.

well the same should be said about China but we have many companies producing product there and I can guarantee most here have a phone, tablet, or computer, made there.

there are many undesirable countries to do business with, so what is the distinction to be made? To be honest businesses that work in either should be challenged both at investor meetings and online.

Re: Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

#80

Post by deogeo » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 8:47 PM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #75

deogeo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would take real creativity for things to get that bad today. It is easily as bad or worse. Those 50-200 people knew and cared for each-other, and depended on each-other, and the surveillance was bidirectional. Whereas now you are monitored by actors almost entirely beyond your reach, that will feel no remorse in crushing you, should the command be given by whoever is in control.

> by whoever is in control. Which may ultimately be a poorly tested, bias-ridden bit of AI code.

That is why 1984 is such a positive, optimistic work - all the nightmarish oppression worked so well and without bias!