Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#71

Post by pdkl95 »

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #48
pdkl95 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much real value is actually generated from web bugs. A lot of interesting stuff can be generated from server logs; much more if you use analyzers. I just wonder how much of the set of "analytics" that requires involving 3rd parties (web bugs and other referrer tricks) is actually useful and a value. The set that is a value "that everybody benefits from" is going to be even smaller. I'm sure most people w…

I spend a lot of time analyzing my own logs. I get a lot of value from it. I am completely cool with someone analyzing their own logs if I visit their site. What I'm not cool with, is them finding out what _other_ sites I visit. I regard the current focus on analytics as unduly obsessive. How much do you need to know about your customer to flog your products? Just because you can measure something, it doesn't mean th…

To clarify my previous post, I'm totally fine with server-logs. As the 2nd-party to the conversation, the server has to know who the request is from, and can log it. These logs can certainly provide a lot of value.

As you mention, I'm more concerned with tracking as a 3rd-party[1]. There is, obviously, at least some real benefit in these cases that would not be possible when only using server logs. It's probably a lot less than most people think. A lot of that data (or similar-enough data when measured in e.g. how much it benefits sales or makes marketing cheaper) can probably be found elsewhere.

If we knew what the core benefits (needs, not wants), we might (in an ideal world) even be able to have some sort of social negotiation where the data can be provided in some form (or an alternative, or by making sure the real social cost is covered properly).

[1] While the law currently doesn't work this way, involving a 3rd-party unauthorized should really be considered some new type of (criminal) wiretapping in states that require 2-party consent.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#72

Post by TsiCClawOfLight »

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #49
ycitm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you see the "Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes" adverts? Pretty scary: http://imgur.com/oR4iFYs

The artistic style of that image looks just like Soviet propaganda.

Or Sci-fi propaganda in a typical tyrannical setting.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#73

Post by DanBC »

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #2

Well that clinches my decision. I've been getting around on public transit for quite a long time, but have been thinking of getting a car. Now I've decided not to. I'm a generally law-abiding citizen, but I simply do not wish to be tracked. How would you feel were someone to follow you around everywhere you went? Even if they kept their distance, never spoke to you our overtly harmed you in any way, it would be very…

Your tickets are linked to your identity (unless you pay cash and don't get season tickets) and bus companies have an interest in collecting data about where you travel. Bus tickets need a lot of information for auditing.

Also, In England we have CCTV on the buses. I'll take a photo next time I get a bus but there are about 5 cameras on the top deck.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#74

Post by lozf »

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #45
lozf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends where you are but UK cities are right up there with surveillance on public transport too, both trains and buses[0]. Transport for London have a system that detects if you're still on a platform after a train to each destination has departed, and alerts a human - ostensibly in case you're contemplating suicide or otherwise need help. It stands to reason that implementing the likes of facial recognit…

Fuck. I'm never leaving my house ever again.

That's just what they want - at least you won't be out spreading nefarious ideas that they can't monitor, and starting the revolution.

Now sit down here like a good little citizen and watch this lovely entertaining "programming" we have for you - and don't forget to buy some of the products we show you too - you know you need them really. ;)

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#75

Post by dfc »

hrjet wrote: post #51
dfc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always loved requestpolicy but for some reason something about RPContinued makes me nervous. Policeman would be a great alternative if Sync worked[^1]. I cant use policeman if it means I have to jump through the same hoops on every firefox installation in order to get things set up. [^1]: https://github.com/futpib/policeman/issues/28 Plus issues 92 and 95.

Thanks to @JetSpiegel I just became aware of Policeman. And I am not sure why you are nervous about RPContinued. So, I went ahead and created a wiki for this: https://github.com/UprootLabs/gngr/wiki/List-of-request-bloc... If there are any known issues with RPContinued or there are other extensions that are not listed, please feel free to add them. Thanks.

What is the mysterious "switchboard" column?

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#76

Post by asuffield »

pdkl95 wrote: post #71
MichaelCrawford wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spend a lot of time analyzing my own logs. I get a lot of value from it. I am completely cool with someone analyzing their own logs if I visit their site. What I'm not cool with, is them finding out what _other_ sites I visit. I regard the current focus on analytics as unduly obsessive. How much do you need to know about your customer to flog your products? Just because you can measure something, it doesn't mean th…

To clarify my previous post, I'm totally fine with server-logs. As the 2nd-party to the conversation, the server has to know who the request is from, and can log it. These logs can certainly provide a lot of value. As you mention, I'm more concerned with tracking as a 3rd-party[1]. There is, obviously, at least some real benefit in these cases that would not be possible when only using server logs. It's probably a lo…

> A lot of that data (or similar-enough data when measured in e.g. how much it benefits sales or makes marketing cheaper) can probably be found elsewhere.

If you can find equivalent data somewhere else, you should go build a company around this. People built their products this way because it works. If you have a better idea then you should make it happen.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#77

Post by carapace »

krapp wrote: post #68
carapace wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, think about Star Trek --let me finish!-- the computer on the Enterprise always knew where everybody was and it didn't concern anybody unduly. As ubiquitous surveillance becomes pervasive we are confronted with the task of growing into a humane and healthy world polity.

It's also worth remembering, no one on board the Enterprise was a member of the public, per se. The Federation is a quasi-military organization, and I don't think anyone wouldn't expect the military, or even a defense contractor or high-tech lab, to at least make sure they know where personnel are at all times ... and in that light, the surveillance on the Enterprise seemed almost lax. In one episode, crew and office…

You're right, of course, but as you say a lot of what we see in the show is for the sake of the drama. I think there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to our technology enabling ubiquitous surveillance: How can you be sure that everyone is obeying policy (around how to use the collected info) unless you have a surveillance system to watch them in the first place?

It doesn't matter what we think the policy is if we can't control the "root" of the system, and we can't be sure we control the "root" without being able to check on people (ourselves) to make sure they haven't somehow wrested control from us.

"Trusting trust" gets even more crucial once nanotech starts to hit.

I don't like it but as far as my analysis has proceeded I can only imagine a humane-but-totalistic system being workable, and the best most widely-known image of such is (I think) Star Trek. ;-)

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#78

Post by krapp »

carapace wrote: post #77
krapp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth remembering, no one on board the Enterprise was a member of the public, per se. The Federation is a quasi-military organization, and I don't think anyone wouldn't expect the military, or even a defense contractor or high-tech lab, to at least make sure they know where personnel are at all times ... and in that light, the surveillance on the Enterprise seemed almost lax. In one episode, crew and office…

You're right, of course, but as you say a lot of what we see in the show is for the sake of the drama. I think there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to our technology enabling ubiquitous surveillance: How can you be sure that everyone is obeying policy (around how to use the collected info) unless you have a surveillance system to watch them in the first place? It doesn't matter what we thi…

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the premise that ubiquitous surveillance is unavoidable and unstoppable. To me, that attitude seems half like a cynical cop-out and half cyberpunk wish-fulfillment. No infrastructure which requires as much complexity and cost and effort as that does, is immune to political, economic or societal forces.

Already, you can begin to see pushback from other (many themselves) government and some companies like Apple, who both may be genuinely bothered by government intrusion and see "privacy" as a near-long-term necessity for selling products domestically but more importantly globally. It's true that Facebook is creepy, but it's also true that people have known that Facebook is creepy for years now and young people are leaving in droves.

Of course, nearly ubiquitous surveillance would be much more likely. Probably not all of our worst nightmares, but more than enough.

I personally believe (I even wrote a terrible paper about it that will never see the light of day) that the biggest and most pervasive threat to freedom in regards to privacy will lie in the intersection of (not strong but good enough) AI, social media, and the internet of things. Essentially, we're coming to a point at which our devices will be designed to interact with us emotionally, as well as socially, and as a result people will be trained to form deep emotional relationships with products as well as people. Imagine having a deep intellectual conversation with someone online, only that someone is a refrigerator, or a car. Imagine most of the friends you've grown up with are products, because most of your interaction is online.

Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't, but almost certainly it won't happen the way we currently predict. The future right after the moon landings isn't the one anyone would have predicted. We were supposed to be drinking Coca-Colas on Mars by now.

Although if it did happen, then i'm still not entirely certain the 'humane-but-totalistic' model necessarily works. In theory, yes, but in practice, if everyone knew everything about everyone else, this wouldn't necessarily balance power between the weak and the strong (and imbalance which exists in the real work, but not Star Trek) but would enable the strong to more easily dominate the weak. Because such systems can't be perfect, there must always be ways to exploit information asymmetry. Governments, corporations and criminals will always be more able to rig the system than will the common person.

I like Star Trek, but because it presents a Utopian ideal, i'm skeptical of using it as a springboard for describing actual potential future societies, because humans just don't work that way. Every other species on in the franchise was more human than the humans (purposely, because they were there to be mirrors on the 'unevolved' aspects of human nature.)

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#79

Post by MichaelCrawford »

dfc wrote: post #75
hrjet wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to @JetSpiegel I just became aware of Policeman. And I am not sure why you are nervous about RPContinued. So, I went ahead and created a wiki for this: https://github.com/UprootLabs/gngr/wiki/List-of-request-bloc... If there are any known issues with RPContinued or there are other extensions that are not listed, please feel free to add them. Thanks.

What is the mysterious "switchboard" column?

That's used by the phone company to patch you into the NSA.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#80

Post by hrjet »

dfc wrote: post #75
hrjet wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to @JetSpiegel I just became aware of Policeman. And I am not sure why you are nervous about RPContinued. So, I went ahead and created a wiki for this: https://github.com/UprootLabs/gngr/wiki/List-of-request-bloc... If there are any known issues with RPContinued or there are other extensions that are not listed, please feel free to add them. Thanks.

What is the mysterious "switchboard" column?

The name for the concept comes from the name of the HTTP-SwitchBoard extension (predecessor to uMatrix). It's skeuomorphic.

The extensions which have a switchboard like interface enable the user to block requests based on the request's domain name, the primary frame's domain-name, and also the type of request.

In contrast, extensions like NoScript have a global switch. If I allow scripts from DontBeEvil.com, they are enabled on all domains. They don't prevent XSS attacks, for example.

If there's a better name for this concept, please do suggest one.

Post reply on HN