Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

Post by trumpdong » Tue, Jun 09, 2026, 2:04 AM UTC

try_the_bass wrote: post #91

yason wrote: post #38

Earlier 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…

> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. 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". What? I don't understand how this is a "two kinds of people" generalization, when the two categories aren't even mutually-exclusive? One can think a law is bad and should change, while simultaneously recognizing the rule of law a…

Post by autoexec » Tue, Jun 09, 2026, 2:05 AM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #129

michaelt wrote: post #18

I 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…

People forget how we got here. Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster. Scams, stealing credentials, stealing money, botnets, viruses, losses of data, ransomware, etc etc etc. What is better for most people is a locked down device like an iPad where each app has to be approved and they…

Post by trumpdong » Tue, Jun 09, 2026, 2:07 AM UTC

vasco wrote: post #37

uniqueuid wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was nicely put. I think you can learn about it most by reading clever, capable people from big tech corporations. Their framing often involves tradeoffs against a slow but inevitable societal pressure that is helped by compromising on freedom. So I don't believe they are ignorant of all your points; it's rather that they don't see a realistic way how tech, corporations, and perhaps even ordinary people can go fo…

A lot of harm would be prevented if people didn't do bad shit under the assumption the next guy will do it if they don't. You're the next guy.

Post by trumpdong » Tue, Jun 09, 2026, 2:08 AM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #71

michaelt wrote: post #18

I 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…

> 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? Makes me think of the most sobering line I ever saw in a museum (Berlin): The biggest atrocities were committed by people with a spreadsheet and a performance goal.

Post by trumpdong » Tue, Jun 09, 2026, 2:09 AM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #147

michaelt wrote: post #18

I 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…

> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means... Your argument is flawed here. The truth is that measures such as secure boot do have real security benefits. They can be misused, like any technology can be, but that is not an inherent feature of the tech, but rather how it is implemented. And as the developers of such measures are not a monolith, it is unfair to…