> Surveillance Is Not Safety Maybe not, but as long as the average person thinks it is, it may as well be.
isn't more as long as the average billionair thinks it is.
It's not like it's the average person pushing it.
Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
11–20 of 357 posts
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#12Yes, but this is preaching to the choir. The counter must be as visceral is the claim. They make an emotional pitch:your children are in danger, surveillance is the solution. The counter must show the dangers in visceral, emotionally relevant way. This surveillance is actually a risk to parents and children as well - that by the accusation of an opaque, unaccountable system, you will be labelled a pedophile, and your…
>>> That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.
I 100% agree on the need to counter emotional fire with emotional fire. And this is the right way to combat this sort of overreach
However, I do think that “the choir” need to rethink what is and is not privacy - a huge amount of the benefits of having our every waking moment monitored by the virtual world (which is going to happen) can be lost if we don’t allow epidemiology to follow our digital selves.
Detecting one’s word use is slipping might signal a trip to the doctors or a thousand other digital tells that will help us improve our lives. If we have to fight against ads and digital searches for terrorism, at least let’s get the benefits too.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#13Won't somebody think of the children appears to be the world's most effective method of bringing in restrictive and privacy destroying laws, yet they just don't work.
We'll see. I can't be the only voter fed up with how Labour are handling this.
I find they way that Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have dismissed privacy concerns about online surveillance particularly condescending.
Come the next general election they are going to be paid back for this.
(Oh, and I appreciate Signal speaking up and have just donated to them again for doing so).
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#14Signal should come out swinging. Here's a pitch.
The Government is going to put a snitch on every phone, tape every bedroom, and listen in every evening on every home. Every doctor's visit. Every therapy session. Every pub. Every street. Every store.
When the snitches phone home, what you type to your lover may get the cops sent to your home.
Artificial stasi in every desktop, laptop, tablet, camera, and phone. Around every corner. In every living room. No one will be exempt from their gaze.
Are you ready for your vacuum cleaner to phone home?
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#15Signal is on the right side here. I think it's time for us techies to fight back by developing the future. I'm trying to do my part - https://mediaden.ca
Also looking to get involved with the meshtastic project.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#16Praise
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#17> Surveillance Is Not Safety Maybe not, but as long as the average person thinks it is, it may as well be.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#18I 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 extract their 30% app store fee while enforcing rules through app review (and demonstrating censorship of sites like Tumblr) that politicians wouldn't want that same rule-setting, censoring power?
Did they think their employers were going to prevent that transfer, that the trillion-dollar companies would become some sort of Che Guevara style insurgents, running a guerrilla campaign to overthrow the very system that made them trillion-dollar companies?
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#19Won't somebody think of the children appears to be the world's most effective method of bringing in restrictive and privacy destroying laws, yet they just don't work.
We'll see. I can't be the only voter fed up with how Labour are handling this. I find they way that Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have dismissed privacy concerns about online surveillance particularly condescending. Come the next general election they are going to be paid back for this. (Oh, and I appreciate Signal speaking up and have just donated to them again for doing so).
The idea is that people who have politics like yours can be “visited” by the police and asked to “voluntarily” come down to the station for an interview about “hateful rhetoric” on social media. Doesn’t matter how you vote if actual political opposition is outlawed, which is where the UK is heading rapidly aided by digital surveillance.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#20Kudos to signal for coming out on side with this, and quickly. I only hope that this stance is quickly picked up as a counterpoint to the ever-so-strong narrative that more hastily concocted sledge-hammer legislation is the best step forward.
This step forward is instead of building understanding of, and solutions for, the erosion of communities, trust and empathy for others. I feel these things might (MIGHT!) be overlooked symptoms of poor investment, policies and governance for healthy society. Crikey, perhaps I shouldn't try and call that into account, it sounds like I might be cynical about politics. Oh dear...