Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often also wonders if ideological zealots ever thinks of this passage while pushing their agenda for control: ...and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the…
I don’t think 1st century Rome had much in the way of digital surveillance. Or even surveillance, for that matter. Plenty of hubris, mind.
Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
211–220 of 357 posts
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#212Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#213I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…
Why does that matter? If it's bad for politicians to usurp that power, it's already bad for corporates to have it in the first place.
I'd rather politicians use power in a way that includes democratic oversight than, say, Peter Thiel doing whatever the hell he likes.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody implemented DRM with a gun pointed at their heads, and anyone capable of implementing harmful technology has the skills to work on something else for lots of money implementing other things. It was always a choice.
That you could work someplace else doesn't mean someplace else is hiring someone with your skills, or that you could afford a pay cut if necessary.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#215I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…
The problem with that is it generally requires a central point of trust.
Sure you can allow multiple points of trust, but for the unskilled user, that means that the little lock symbol becomes unreliable (or whatever)
Without commenting on the UK governments stuff (It is probably full of shit, but then thats what lobbying does) We as technologists need to engage with wider society and understand on their terms, the worries they have.
For this particular "proposal" it strikes at the core worry of today's kids. They are sadder, more insular, more dependent on mobile comms and exposed to much nastier stuff than millennials were at the same age.
AT my school in the very late 90s, a group of 14 year old girls went to the beach and took a disposable camera. Standard photos apart from one, which was a group of them topless. One of them brought them back from the developers into school. Somehow the topless photo was stolen and passed around various classes.
It ruined her month, even though she got the photo back. I suspect it left scars longer than that.
Now imagine not being able to get that photo back. Thats the problem for todays kids. One moment of stupidity and a lifetime of consequences. (under a certain age, if they took photos or videos of other kids, that makes them liable to be on a list, for life.)
You could say "oh education" but did you listen at that age?
Whats worse now is that there are no gates on what photos can be developed by the normal person. If you took any photo that was explicit, it almost certainly wouldn't be printed (hence why there were very little dick pics from that era).
Is what the UK government proposing workable? well looking at the OSA, almost certainly not.
However unless we, as a tech community engage with society, with useable answers that are understandable to the normal person, then we are going to be crushed by the weight of "something must be done". Absolutism is not our friend here. We need to engage and choose compromises, or lose wider freedom for ever.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is." This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This i…
> The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it". Indeed. I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed? I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every c…
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#217What the UK is trying to do here is evil and authoritarian. Its the sort of thing people brushed off as conspiracy theories not long ago. It is completely and utterly unacceptable.
I recently talked to a brit who expressed their fear of... knives. It blew my mind. The UK has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, 5 times less than the US, but they're so incredibly afraid. They are just plain embracing a culture of paranoia, cowardice and extreme surveillance. I wouldn't care because I don't live there except the dystopian tech and business models they're developing ends up crossing the se…
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is." This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This i…
> My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is." I like to call those people "ventablackpilled". Being blackpilled is all about glo…
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do. The tenders don't write themselves. The scale of corruption is unprecedented, yet nothing - as it seems - is being reported or even questioned by civil service.
I can tell you they don't. They do question it when they don't agree with it. Which is to say they do agree with a lot of things being done. And that is as far as I can say.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government. I can't believe people are really okay with a system where you have to show your real face to access websites. Cameras on phones went from a novelty to a government mandate so you can be observed. There are various other potential methods to verify one's age,…
> The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement. Then let's talk about THAT!! why is that not the discussion instead of "nah, we'll find a solution some other day, for now, let's not solve anything"?? > Even among the few permitted verification methods, These laws are still being debated, what's permitted has not been decided…
Bare in mind we aren't banning the internet, just kids on social media.
> Take that and multiply that by like a billion and that might come close to painting a fair picture of the internet
A billion people have died from.... the internet? Youve GOT to explain this one lol how exactly?