Live data from Hacker News

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

signal.org

51–60 of 357 posts

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

#51

Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed on their fingerprinted tracking device and 2fa with their phone number, and have no idea what 'sensors off' does. Palpable irony present when a chat provider whom requires personally identifiable information to use their service complains about privacy...

Personally, I only have authenticator apps because my job requires them. I don't see any contradiction in being opposed to things you're forced into.

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

#52
post #24

So, in this order: 1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content 2. It applies to social media too 3. It applies to your operating system too 4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable…

This isn’t just your photos. This is all content displayed on the device, all content captured by the camera - everything. Full take. GCHQ must be wetting themselves.

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

#53

[flagged]

Beyond the fact that this isn't true, it's even less credible coming from a new, anonymous account. If privacy is really so dangerous and has no value, you should have no issue making comments like these under a publicly identifiable account.

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

#54
post #8

> Surveillance Is Not Safety Maybe not, but as long as the average person thinks it is, it may as well be.

Does the average person think this? Perception of what other people think doesn't always line up with what they actually think.

The average person does not think anything much. They receive the meme, they transmit the meme. No processing occurs.

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

#55

[flagged]

This assumes surveillance prevents crime, or even that crime is worth preventing if surveillance is the cost. In terms of everyday threats to my life, billionaires are a bigger one than criminals.

People are less likely to commit crimes if they know the state has the tools to identify and prosecute them. Surveillance provides that capability, and reducing it makes solving and deterring crime much harder.

The cost is manageable as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure. The benefits of deterring violence outweigh those risks.

Billionaires may be a bigger threat but criminals are a threat nonetheless.

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

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks proprietary. Need fully open source to guarantee that right long term.

I used to agree with this, but now I don't actually think I do. Apple's app privacy report can be used to guarantee network access for any iOS app - https://support.apple.com/en-us/102188

That only shows the domain eg facebook.com, not facebook.com/tracking-script. There's no reason that they can't put all the bad stuff on the same essential, first-party domain needed for the app which makes DNS blocking and viewing not effective.

That's why you can't block youtube ads with DNS, only with a browser-level adblocker because the browser adblocker is able to block the specific paths.

You can view the full encrypted traffic with something like mitmproxy, but there's ways apps can detect or prevent it.

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

#57

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…

The phrase 'banality of evil' comes to mind.

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

#58

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?

Corporations are already hostile enough that it doesn't really matter:

The report says that between 30 and 40 Rockstar employees working in multiple offices in the UK and Canada were fired on October 30, all of them part of a private trade union chat group on Discord. - https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/rockstar-accused-of-...

Leaked Amazon Whole Foods Docs: Workforce Diversity Helps Prevent Unions - https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403 (summarizing https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat...)

Microsoft Are Fixated on “Hate Speech” With Lopsided XBOX Live Enforcement Strike System - https://www.techopse.com/microsoft-are-fixated-on-hate-speec...

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

#59
post #36

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.

The implementation might change, but the pattern of absolute control is old as time.

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

#60
post #24

So, in this order: 1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content 2. It applies to social media too 3. It applies to your operating system too 4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable…

This isn’t just your photos. This is all content displayed on the device, all content captured by the camera - everything. Full take. GCHQ must be wetting themselves.

We all know this is the first political position. They'll walk back half of it, and what remains will appear to be a compromise, but was what was intended all along.
Post reply on HN