91–100 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this data is available at all is such a fail.
Right, but raising a panic by saying the government has this data or China gets this data is a distraction from the real issue, that such a vast marketplace exists openly for anyone to shop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this gets down to a fundamental problem with tech that society is ignoring like a pink elephant in the room. Society fundamentally changed with the introduction of computers. Things have become possible that were never possible before. This is obvious if you consider the tech of 1900, 1950, and today. The elephant in the room is that the more complete the dataset the more dangerous it is. Its like gunpowder.…
Well, they're sometimes outright overt. Here's Spanish defense ministry trying to extort 100.000$ from an 18 year old kid because he made a tasteless joke in a message to his friend> https://www.businessinsider.com/passenger-faces-120k-fines-a...
> Security services saw the message and flagged it to Spanish authorities, who sent two F-18 jets to follow the airliner until it landed, per the BBC.
> He faces a public-disorder charge, which could result in him being ordered to pay over $120,000 if he's found guilty.
> About $103,000 of that is from the Spanish Defense Ministry for the cost of scrambling the fighter jets.
Definitely alarming than encrypted Snapchats are clearly not private, but the response as a whole still seems fairly reasonable, no? He did kinda threaten to blow up a commercial airliner.
I think the BBC article about his acquittal has a lot more points relevant to the discussion about privacy:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's the chilling effect, people not wanting to protest or organize against government overreach for fear of being put on a watch list. This allows the state to enact more draconian laws with less push back from the general public. It's like a vicious circle that feeds itself, the more surveillance the government permits, the less the public are able to complain or fight back against it. Thus leading to even worse…
You are talking about the panopticon, where, in the perfect jail, anyone can be looked at but they themselves have no awareness of that fact. This changes behaviour. The implementation of technology we have is the panopticon across the whole of society. This is not accidental, it is part of the governance control system.
Panopticon it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
Generally, there is plenty of reasons to be worried:
- Firmware-wise (e.g., Intel Management Engine, Coreboot, Libreboot, system on a chip)
- Hardware-wise (i.e., Von Neumann architecture - Code + Data)
- Operating System-wise
(e.g., 0-click exploits, remote code execution to manipulate the CPU's instruction pointer,
stack overflow, Pegasus)
- Facility-wise (e.g., electromagnetic waves, cell towers, Faraday cloth)
- You (making mistakes)
If you need some electronics go with analogue electronic devices. Or, make your own computer systems from scratch with transistors etc.:
jdh, I built my own computer. by hand., https://youtu.be/vaGZapAGvwM?si=lGQuskkFxZ7FHe1h
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, if we'd consider corporations part of the government (which we arguably should; many acts of regulation that would be impractical to implement directly through the government are farmed out as the responsibility of corporations as a pre-req of doing business), many surveillance capitalism patterns would become fraught by default. The "corporations aren't government entities" defies logic. As without gove…
> if we'd consider corporations part of the government (which we arguably should; I'm not sure that even the Chinese legal system does that. It makes a nonsense of "part of".
It doesn't make a nonsense of "part-of" at all; unless you don't want to inherit government centric probibitions to deal with in calculating your business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they're sometimes outright overt. Here's Spanish defense ministry trying to extort 100.000$ from an 18 year old kid because he made a tasteless joke in a message to his friend> https://www.businessinsider.com/passenger-faces-120k-fines-a...
> The BBC reported that before departing, he told a friend on Snapchat: "On my way to blow up the plane (I'm a member of the Taliban)." > Security services saw the message and flagged it to Spanish authorities, who sent two F-18 jets to follow the airliner until it landed, per the BBC. > He faces a public-disorder charge, which could result in him being ordered to pay over $120,000 if he's found guilty. > About $103,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are talking about the panopticon, where, in the perfect jail, anyone can be looked at but they themselves have no awareness of that fact. This changes behaviour. The implementation of technology we have is the panopticon across the whole of society. This is not accidental, it is part of the governance control system.
What a coincidence, I was thinking of the same concept pictorially reading the comment you replied to, but I did not remember its name. Panopticon it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon Generally, there is plenty of reasons to be worried: - Firmware-wise (e.g., Intel Management Engine, Coreboot, Libreboot, system on a chip) - Hardware-wise (i.e., Von Neumann architecture - Code + Data) - Operating System-wis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of their formal categorization, they're a subset of "cop", which means they're not held accountable for misbehavior.
Furthermore, their misbehaviour couldn’t even be tried in a normal courtroom, even if there was mass public and political support for such an action. They’d have to be tried in a secret FISA Court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of it this way: knives are available on the open market, that doesn't mean NSA can just go around stabbing people. The concept of a warrant is to have an authorization to do something that an entity would normally not be allowed to do. So if the NSA would normally not be allowed to have some bit of information, then it doesn't matter where that information is, how it is acquired or how 'available' it is. Of cou…
> Think of it this way: knives are available on the open market, that doesn't mean NSA can just go around stabbing people. but the nsa can go around and buy knifes
Many threat intelligence companies buy that data and then resell it as a service. I'm not very clear as to how accessing that data in the first place is legal...
I'm trying to think through this from a legal perspective. If I'm going from store-to-store around town, my understanding is that police are allowed to watch me and even go into the businesses and ask questions or pull security footage without a warrant. The information they gather is circumstantial and probably would not hold up in court, but they can use it as grounds to get a warrant. Let's imagine a different cas…
The bigger issue that people always miss is that NSA is not law enforcement so they do not need a warrant. The Census Bureau does not need a warrant to gather information on Americans either, but for some weird reason people find the NSA controversial but not the census.
Constitutional prohibitions generally apply to all governmental bodies, i.e. a school is limited in its ability to constrain your freedom of speech or religion.