Slashdot Mirror
The Problem With How We Think Of Surveillance
blastboy writes "Here's a great essay on Snowden, technology and the problem with how we think of surveillance. From the article: 'Why do we give them our data? For the same reason that prompted the protesters to pull out their phones amid a swirl of tear gas: digital channels are one of the easiest ways we have to talk to one another, and sometimes the only way. There are few things more powerful and rewarding than communicating with another person. It’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment short of the death penalty in modern states is solitary confinement. Humans are social animals; social interaction is at our core. Yet the more we connect to each other online, the more our actions become visible to governments and corporations. It feels like a loss of independence. But as I stood in Gezi Park, I saw how digital communication had become a form of organization. I saw it enable dissent, discord, and protest.'"
"Why do we give them our data?"
Wrong question, because it incorrectly assumes that something is willingly "given." More properly, "Why do they take our privacy?"
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'm sure a fair percentage of Slashdot readers would like nothing more than a nice quite room, limted exercise and regular meals. The only thing missing is a laptop, and good wifi github access. ... and please firewall off Facebook and Twitter - pretty please.
Why do we virtually sign EULA's and don't read them? Don't people know that they are the law of the land and basically you give concent to them to use YOUR data in a manner that is outlined within said document. Obviously it's written in legaleese and not ment to be read by anybody except lawyers. If you don't want them to have your data, don't give it to them. The service is FREE for a reason, and YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THEY ARE SELLING.
The problem with Medium is that they are a buncha pompous jackholes.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
In order to be private no item may be mentioned or made visible to any other human being. When we communicate or do business with others we throw away privacy in hope of some sort of gain or comfort. People just don't understand that notion. It is like the girl at the beach in a string bikini who gets angry because the wrong guy sees her body. She obviously gave everyone the right to look at her by simply being in public in a bikini. A convict is punished by simply being in prison. That is to say that he is away from normal, free, society. No judge or law has implied that any additional sorrow be heaped upon the convict. Things like isolation, sensory deprivation, and denial of access to media or forced labor are not part of his punishments. those additional miseries are heaped upon convicts under the excuse of budgets or security. Depraved notions by jailers that include such logic as denial of books or newspapers to convicts under the excuse that set afire the paper becomes a weapon are absurd. Just like strip searching a man held in total isolation every thirty minutes around the clock is nothing more than brutal torture by keepers who are more depraved than the convicts they guard. Then after instilling the worst rage and anger they possibly can in the convict they let him out of prison to wreck mayhem and havoc on the innocents. We live in a psychotic society.
I saw it enable dissent, discord, and protest.
And now you know why the powers that are want to have a communication kill-switch without oversight.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Somehow I fear we passed that point a few miles ago. Most people didn't even wake up from the bump.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You can do whatever you want. You may only get to try once, but you can.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes.
IMHO, it's better said, "Why do we **let them** take our privacy"
Here in America, we still have a democracy. It can function theoretically. We need to ***elect better leaders***.
The people who wrote the Digital Millenium Copyright Act could barely check their own email....think about that.
Thank you Dave Raggett
IMHO, you're giving facebook.com and others a pass.
They have the **factors of production**...facebook wasn't ONLY some kids in a dorm room. They were from rich families who could support them for years before they made any profit directly. They had family connections to high level attorneys. They had the protection of our laws paid by all of our taxes.
You can't be consistent and just cross your arms and say, "Hey, its their system, you agreed to it...if you dont like it dont use it"....that's only half an argument. It's a complaint masked as an argument. Anyone who says this is thinking like a slave.
It's inconsistent because its not a free market. Any facebook.com competitor faces ***SEVERE*** barriers to entry that are by facebook.com's design.
There is an artificial scarcity of competition with facebook.com.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I have to differ for several reasons.
First, the 'data' is 1's and 0's stored on any number of servers. It completely technically possible to isolate where exactly your digital data is stored.
2nd, it's easy to define and protect a person's personal information by law. It's called 'unreasonable search and seizure' of 'personal papers, etc' in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that people make false distinctions between digital & non-digital information!!!
Third, If I do something in public, do I own everyone else's knowledge of what I did? Is it a violation of my privacy if someone sees me in the street and tells a friend about it?
facebook.com is not public space!!! it is a private company with privately owned servers that hold your 1s & 0s that operates under the ***LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES***
private companies are subject to regulation
end of story
we can define & have the legal authority to limit how companies use our information
Thank you Dave Raggett
More information on you? More ways for greed within ranks of power to prey upon you. Simple as that...
wrong analogy by a mile
facebook.com is not publicly owned like the beach!!!!
facebook.com is a **private business** located on 1s & 0s on privately owned servers and they sure as hell can be regulated by law
your whole 'privacy myth' idea is a total cop out....you're thinking like a passive consumer in a dictatorship....fucking stop it!
**we** run this country...**we** elect its leaders...**we** can demand commerce be regulated how **we** see fit, including basic protections for how **private companies** use our data!
Thank you Dave Raggett
Mass surveillance allows the few who have access to the results to manipulate the public. Thsi was done regarding 9/11 and there was a lawsuit against the telcos for it but the ones that got them to do it also dismissed that case.
Such information is used in a feedback loop for manipulation. The other part of that loop is the main stream media which is controlled by a few as well.
A lot of people do not think very highly of FOX news but what I saw regarding 9/11 was news that was so out of it that I have to suspect it was their way of saying to the public, wake up. Instead a lot of people were glued to the tube with teh repetitive "go to war on iraq" drilled into their head. And today everyone know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
So there it is, intentional manipulation of the masses via a feedback loop that makes use of spying on the people.
NOW- read the Declaration of Independence for the Instructions the Founders of the United Sates left for the people - instructions are in fact there.
it’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment short of the death penalty in modern states is solitary confinement.
It should probably have said:
it’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment in modern states is solitary confinement.