I'm very pessimistic about all this. It seems to me that the horse has already bolted: we are all under constant surveilance and there is not much we can do about it at all. Many of us don't even think it's a problem and even many who do think it is don't want to lose the benefits that are attached to the constant automated surveilance. As citizens of democratic countries we have uttely failed to protect our rights a…
>As citizens of democratic countries we have uttely failed to protect our rights against private and public intrusions. We have failed to vote against politicians who introduce legislation to legalise pervasive automated surveilance. In the UK, Theresa May, who brought the Snooper Charter into law became Prime Minister instead of being kicked out of her political career in disgrace.* A majority of citizens of Western…
The Fantasy of Opting Out
171–180 of 205 posts
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#172But online, there's still a chance. As in Vinge's True Names. You hide your uplink using nested VPN chains and Tor. And then do whatever you want. Using as many unlinked personas as you like.
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a famous analogy, I forgot the source (maybe Cory Doctorow?): why do you have a door at your toilet? everybody knows what you are doing there. So I don't need any of your private data. I voluntarily post my own, as concerns my passions. But let me choose what I make public and what I don't. That's the point. (I don't use Amazon. All my work is public, I use only free software, even at home.)
The article is not talking about recording people on the toilet. It's talking about the surveillance cameras that are placed outside, in public. There is no conceivable way for your actions outdoors, in public, to be private because they are taking place in public. The article also seems to presume that there is some single source where the data from all these disparate systems is tied together, but no such thing exi…
There are multiple billion-dollar companies whose entire business is tying together data from all these disparate systems, e.g. Palantir. There are leaked multiple government programs whose entire purpose is the same, e.g. XKeyscore. Or look at something more general purpose like Splunk, where it is trivial to filter 1TB of logs from different sources and map identifiers.
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#174This is one of the better articles on the subject, not written in inside-tech-bubble terms. I think they also describe something we may call "obfuscation of power": formally you can opt out, in practice you cannot, and people who have power over you are lost in a soup of legal entities. So first, you are alienated to face surveillance alone as an individual, taking all blame for losing your freedom because you "chose…
I'm reminded of Foucault's work, Surveiller et punir. He discusses this obfuscation of power, specifically that we are being conditioned by unseen entities in our daily lives in ways which are entirely unnatural. He contrasts the more modern (and arguably unnatural) levels of discipline imposed by surveillance (specifically with respect to panopticism) to those imposed by the fear of bodily harm that existed in the d…
You're explanation is fairly academic and I think we can be a little more concrete. Focault's point is really that discussions of power in the West tend to revolve around law and right, jurisprudence, when in fact the exercise of power qua something that alters your behavior is in almost every relationship we enter into with other human beings, no matter how anonymous: when we go to school (which is modeled on factories), when we go to work at the factory (where they wanna know how long you take having a piss) or (as many of us here are familiar with) the office, when we pack onto the train for the commute (which to me is a place where our behavior definitely meets up with the practical definition of panopticism, e.g. we act as if everyone is watching everyone else), when we "come out the closet" (despite being a 'practicing homosexual', for lack of a better term, Foucault was not comfortable being labeled gay, and its speculated that the conditions around his death by HIV were exacerbated by this; as well, I find sexuality to be strongly policed on all sides in America).
None of this is new in history, but modernity ramped up the scale and intensity to previously unseen levels (much like everything else)
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#175I'm very pessimistic about all this. It seems to me that the horse has already bolted: we are all under constant surveilance and there is not much we can do about it at all. Many of us don't even think it's a problem and even many who do think it is don't want to lose the benefits that are attached to the constant automated surveilance. As citizens of democratic countries we have uttely failed to protect our rights a…
Companies can do this. Corporations can do this. If someone steals trade secrets, there are repercussions. Why isn't my personal info, which is valuable to me, and can harm me if used by the wrong people, not protected in the same way that information about a company would be?
AND
If that doesn't work, how do we get Trade Secrets for human beings? Why do companies and corporations have rights to protect information that human persons don't?
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Such logging isn't technically necessary to serve web pages, and ideally shouldn't be done without consent. It's needed as soon as you want to do: non-trivial spam protection, context connection for errors/exceptions, dos mitigation, correlation of issues across browsers, and a few other things. For most of those you could theoretically hash the IP because you're interested in matches not actual values (although ma…
You can do all of those things without logging that information. It’s a cheaper solution to the problem, but that does not mean it’s required. Which devolves your argument into collecting this information is significantly more profitable. Which I think is generally accepted as true, but not nessisarily enough to make it acceptable.
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re right but the problem is that this time it’s different: maybe the rights will arise, but for many people it’ll be too late. Assume there is a privacy law enacted, all the data that was previously collected is still around. So essentially people around prior to that law are still somewhat screwed. It’s good for those coming afterwards, so eventually it washes out, but it won’t be like the FDA or slavery…
>> The Magna Carta was written in response to an awful king, the FDA was established as a response to widespread problems with people getting poisoned, slavery wasn't abolished until millenia after it was invented, and labor organization (leading to such modern niceties as the 40 hour week) did not arise until well after the industrial revolution. Give it time. > I think you’re right but the problem is that this time…
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will have to be time, but also immense harm and death before something will be done. It wont just take decades of the discomfort of wondering what they're doing with the data. It will take some sort of massive act against the people done with the data before the outcry will happen, as with any technology. People didn't invent and require seatbelts becasue "you could die" people did die. The question is what wil…
I think that one of the pervasive problems of these kinds of technology is that each individual violation can be individually tailored to the person in question. In my opinion, it's not going to be some blanket thing that is immediately obvious, but rather a collection of individual actions taken against individual people in exactly the way that is the least suspicious for that person specifically. Plus with the leve…
I hate to look at specific outcomes, but perhaps a useful question would be... is there a way to both pay your tolls with a RFID thing on your car or license plate reader and also not give the DOT a complete record of exactly when you go through each toll plaza? What would the counterargument to this be?
I have the feeling the counterargument is going to be something inane but emotionally based like "So that police can find your car if it is stolen" (which I strongly suspect is nonsense and that it is totally possible to do make this impossible without you actually giving them some secret code to do so) rather than "so that when we get hacked the mob knows when you're home".
Maybe what we need then is a regulatory system where you must assume that you have been hacked by the worst possible opponent and that they have administrator access on your servers. Then have a checklist for what things absolutely must not occur -- like that if Facebook can tell when you're not at home because of your phone's GPS under absolutely no circumstances should this information ever be linked to your home address via any identifier. But as noted, the line is currently comically fuzzy, and where that line should be needs to be a lot clearer.
Do I really mind Amazon knowing my purchasing habits on their website, even if they use algorithms to make recommendations or modify prices for me? Personally, not especially as long as it's anonymized in their model well enough to not leak my PII if someone hacks the computer with their datasets.
Do I mind if them getting hacked will let someone figure out my shipping address and when packages are getting mailed? Or get my order history? Yes. So I'd say an Amazon employee should be totally unable to access that information and would need to have my explicit permission to access my account information. I don't think that's currently the case, and I think it should be enforced by regulation that doesn't allow them to collect it if they can't or won't do that. Of course, currently I have no power to make that the state of the world, but that's ideally the point of elected officials, to speak for the people.
Maybe the appeal to "do you want the mob to know where you work, when you're home, and how many kids you have" is sufficiently concrete to make this more obvious to people? But I kind of agree it's a lost cause after Obama betrayed his pledge to get rid of the Patriot Act.
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#179This is one of the better articles on the subject, not written in inside-tech-bubble terms. I think they also describe something we may call "obfuscation of power": formally you can opt out, in practice you cannot, and people who have power over you are lost in a soup of legal entities. So first, you are alienated to face surveillance alone as an individual, taking all blame for losing your freedom because you "chose…
>The sooner it will be commonly framed as a question of freedom (i.e. absence of arbitrary power of other people above you [1]), and as a question in the interest of society as a whole, the better I agree but I don't think I'd use the word "soon" There's a reason this is an opinion piece by a person who specifically cares about these issues and not an article. Things are going to have to get worse before they get bet…
It used to be easy to deal with medical things. You could ask about your spouse or parent or sibling, and you would get an answer. Now a family gets treated like random strangers who lack any sort of relationship with each other.
It used to be that grades were publicly posted. This was a powerful incentive to do as well as possible.
Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out
#180If I consent to something, fully believing it is in my best interest, it can still be said my consent is not legitimate in certain circumstances. For example, if an abuse victim is gaslit into beliving their abuser is the only person who could ever love them. The applications to the digital world, I hope, are apparent.
For more information, I highly reccomend Serene J. Khader's "Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment."