Slashdot Mirror
Snowden: 'The Central Problem of the Future' Is Control of User Data (techcrunch.com)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey interviewed Edward Snowden via Periscope about the wide world of technology. The NSA whistleblower "discussed the data that many online companies continue to collect about their users, creating a 'quantified world' -- and more opportunities for government surveillance," reports TechCrunch. Snowden said, "If you are being tracked, this is something you should agree to, this is something you should understand, this is something you should be aware of and can change at any time." TechCrunch reports: Snowden acknowledged that there's a distinction between collecting the content of your communication (i.e., what you said during a phone call) and the metadata (information like who you called and how long it lasted). For some, surveillance that just collects metadata might seem less alarming, but in Snowden's view, "That metadata is in many cases much more dangerous and much more intrusive, because it can be understood at scale." He added that we currently face unprecedented perils because of all the data that's now available -- in the past, there was no way for the government to get a list of all the magazines you'd read, or every book you'd checked out from the library. "[In the past,] your beliefs, your future, your hopes, your dreams belonged to you," Snowden said. "Increasingly, these things belong to companies, and these companies can share them however they want, without a lot of oversight." He wasn't arguing that companies shouldn't collect user data at all, but rather that "the people who need to be in control of that are the users." "This is the central problem of the future, is how do we return control of our identities to the people themselves?" Snowden said.
Technology has often caused people's minds to change and develop. For example, the popular novel, and the stories, may have been the big thing which increased people's empathy for others in that period in history. Knowledge (awareness) is often transformative (for the mind).
If you're referring to the willful ignorance that humans have developed for sharing their entire lives in exchange for a "free" price tag, then yes, I would say minds have changed. I wouldn't necessarily label that development, as most humans simply do not care about any warning or revelation from people like Snowden. That "free" price tag is somehow worth it. Information Security often fails because that do not care mentality bleeds over into corporations as well. Capitalism comes first and foremost.
So is this new world all about "companies controlling the info", or is it that there's so many organisations collecting information that, come 2050, everyone will wake up in the morning knowing what every politician had for breakfast that day and who they are meeting? Will we browse the supermarket aisles and, instead of seeing simple labels like "organic", we'll actually see the whole production chain history of that product?
We know what our celebrities had for breakfast today and who they slept with last night due to this concept of "paparazzi". As for the history of food, I highly doubt it. Corporations like Monsanto will probably ultimately demand legal protections to keep whatever the hell they do to "food" a secret, since we can't even get the letters "GMO" printed on the label. I doubt the concept of "organic" will survive in the long run.
And what will that kind of awareness do to the development of the human mind? We may look back at today's age and wonder in amazement at how simple-minded all our news and views about the world were. It may mean the end of ideologies and most religions. We're only just beginning.
I'll just refer to my previous point about "development". Ignorance is clearly bliss, which will probably be enhanced by mind-altering drugs. Religion might actually be one of those few things that automation and AI cannot destroy, so in the end it may be coveted more than ever in a surveillance world.
Many of these problems can't be solved where people are afraid to speak up and offer solutions that may differ from the norm.
The issue I see with meta data collection is it makes us fearful to look at these "dangerous" ideas. While most of these ideas may be stupid there are often a few points in them that often shows a point on where some people are struggling. But if we to research them we can get blacklisted and our Findings will not be listened to because we are flagged as a dangerous person.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I would say that the risk is not about Islam, Christianity or any other form of religion, but the radicalisation of any religion as a call to arms of the disenchanted for someone else's political agenda. Torture, execution, biological warfare and ethnic cleansing have been performed in the name of most religions in the world.
Politically in the current climate, it's easier to dissect the population based on skin colour or religion rather than behaviour.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Remind us what country you're living in right now Eddie? Perhaps ask your mate Putin about government data control, misinformation and spying.
I agree with Snowden, think he made a great attempt on warning everyone, which unfortunately wasn't effective enough... there, I said it.
Here's the thing: data collection and the erosion of privacy is only the beginning. Government and big corporations are still not leveraging their power much, but they are building it, and in time they'll use it. I imagine it now as something like pollution right around the industrial revolution. The general population will be mostly dismissive of it's consequences, mostly because they cannot understand how much it'll affect them in the future, and how many economies are currently being built around it.
The majority will say that it's a worthy tradeoff for all sorts of reasons, usually rooted in fear or convenience. Fear of terrorism, fear of criminals, fear of the future, because it makes my life easier, because I get services I could not get otherwise, because I can call for Uber with my voice alone, etc.
"I have nothing to hide" or "my life is boring" arguments must be something pretty close to people in the past thinking "but I live in farmland" or "the air is clean enough in my garden/city". It's because dangers like those requires a certain level of abstraction and/or statesmanship that most don't have or can't be bothered with.
People can easily let go of fundamental democratic rights as long as they don't perceive it as a threat. Problem is, much as we're only seeing large scale disasters and climate change overall only now (and some are still in denial of the challenges we'll be facing from now on), the consequences of privacy erosion and large scale data collection will only be felt, fully leveraged and weaponized, in a few decades. By then, it'll already be too late to do something... we'll at most be able to mitigate consequences if we survive the onslaught.
Democracy relies on a delicate balance of power between governments and the people. What data collection essencially does is handle too much power in the hands of a few. Eventually, the imbalance of power corrupts. We might get lucky for a while with politicians/businesses who either don't want to make use of that power, or politicians who don't know how to, but with it just sitting there waiting for someone to seize the opportunity, it'll eventually happen.
It doesn't have to be anything like over the top dystopic fiction too, at least not for quite a while. Much like Hitler didn't get to form the 3rd reich overnight, lots of predominant muslin countries were much less radicalized in the past, and North Korea didn't just expontaneously form out of nowhere, changes are gradual.
You really don't need to be a genius to understand the problem though. The devices you use in a daily basis are a huge part of you now.
For mass surveilance, the main problem is going through all that data and picking what's relevant to use. This problem will get solved with AI eventually.
And then, whatever agency decides to use this will be able to pull your dossier and decide from a miriad of choices how to control you.
They'll know where you are, what you are doing, who are your friends, who you have been in contact with, what are your interests, what devices you use to further extract more information, what is your position in relation to politicians and laws, what or who can be used to change your mindset, what your weak points are, what blind spots you have, etc etc.
And all that is only considering that the data remains on a government or private company's hand without leakage. They still have an interest to keep the country in general intact, since they depend on it to thrive. All that data falling into the hands of hackers and criminals living in other countries, then the scenario gets a whole lot grimmer.
Pandemics Civil and international war The ongoing islamisation of the population Pollution and the depletion of natural resources, including fossil fuels Science denial Donald Trump The collapse of the European Union America's sovereign debt
All of these things concern me more than control of my personal data. Yes, control of my personal data concerns me - particularly my genome and corporations' attempts to patent something that is inherintly part of me and which they didn't invent. But the above issues are bigger problems.
Well, keep in mind that the original interview was about technology topics, and giving this is Snowden we're talking about here, we're inevitably going to be talking privacy. When he said it's the central issue of the future, he probably meant within that context - as opposed to, for example, the government spying on its citizens. In his mind, there's generally some outrage and opposition to governments trying to enact spying laws - not enough, as the UK's Investigtory Powers bill demonstrates, but generally something. In contrast, most people think nothing of Google or Twitter's collection of knowledge on them, nor has anyone really made much noise about this in politics. Snowden has the ability to put a face on privacy decisions for the news, and in turn to normal people, and so I'm betting that'll be his next target.
The ongoing islamisation of the population
This isn't related to the above paragraph, but please don't say this, it hurts. Fundamentalists groups, such as evangelical, baptist, and mormons, are about as conservative as their islamic counterparts, such as ISIS or Assad's backers. If want an ISIS comparison, look at the KKK - and if you want a public execution match, well, lynching has been around for many hundreds of years before al-quaeda was even a figment in somebody's mind. Furthermore, on social issues, islam Americans are much more relaxed than their Christian counterparts are. Islamists are more likely to accept gay people, far less tolerant of violence, much more accepting of other cultures, and hilariously enough, waaaaaay more likely to see themselves as Americans first and Muslims second (there's a 10 point gap between these two). Note that Christians as a whole are more open then either of these two, but for all the people
Furthermore, there's a lot of free passes we give to hardcore evangelicals that we don't give to muslims - we let people oppose laws because of the bible, which is illegal under the First Amendment by the way, but if a guy says he opposes a law because of the Quran he's labelled a terrorist and gets death threats. If a muslim were to disprove of gay marriage, it's seen as backwards and unacceptable, but if evangelical Christians do, it's seen as acceptable, for no reason other then that they got here first. America isn't accepting of immigrants and never has been, despite the long tirade to the contrary, and if we ever want to live up to the founding father's ideals, then we're going to have to leave these backwards parts of our history behind - and that, my friend, starts with not being xenophobic of immigrants for no reason other then that they're different from you. Of course, Muslims as whole still have a long way to go - but the key point is that they're doing their best, and they're not trying to enshrine their views into law. In contrast, this minority of Christians has become increasingly militant, increasingly violent, and increasingly authoritarian - and given that the darkest eras in our country's history has come from when these wackos had influence, we should be far more scared of the likes of Mike Pence then we should be from the guy down the street who fled from being cooked alive on the street by bombs or from being executed for refusing to kill somebody else.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
These discussions completely miss the point to think about a future where not only companies track our data but everyone can track the own data. And we will also shop for algorithms to make sense of that data. Quantified self and similar movements are only the beginning.
I don't see much advantage here, but one big disadvantage: You can't do anything in secrecy anymore. You can't choose christmas presents, because companies will change the recommendations to your acquintances because of your choices. You can't develop the next big thing in your garage, because companies know what you are working on. There will be no way to discover something for yourself, because algorithms will prediscover everything for you. BYOD and similar concepts will cause the work sphere and the private sphere to merge, making the concept of privacy as a shield not only against the government but against any data processing entity meaningless. The puberty of the next generation will be hell, and they will not learn to take responsibilities, because companies will send parents warnings everywhere about their offspring's behaviour. Their behaviour will no longer be trained by the consequences of their doing, but by the inherent morality the algorithms have derived from other people's behaviours. The story of the young woman, whose father learned of her pregnancy due to a sudden surge in toddler equipment advertisements in the mail might have some anecdotical aspects, nevertheless this is the reality we have to deal with. We know that every mammal needs some place to hide for a moment, to regain strength, but we are actively destroying every hiding places for ourselves.
Why are we continually subjected to "Snowden Says"? It's not like he was some eminent security mind or data theorist. He's just some dork with a thumbdrive.
His past actions and success at a very high risk task give me confidence that privacy is an important issue for him, even more than personal liberty, from there I conclude he has given a lot of thought to these issues, so what he says is related to topic of user privacy is likely to be well thought through and not first random thought that popped in his mind. If he starts talking about random topics I might up vote your comment.
Why are we continually subjected to "Snowden Says"? It's not like he was some eminent security mind or data theorist. He's just some dork with a thumbdrive.
You come across as an authoritarian, believing who says something to be important, and not what is being said.
His statements seem to hold up to logic, and appear to be well thought out and valid. That's the value.
His fame only serves to get his thoughts spread; it doesn't lend any credence or to his words, nor do they invalidate them.
If Snowden (or Trump, for that matter) says something valuable, I'll check it out. If he utters twaddle, I'll discard it just as much as I'd discard balderdash from any other person.
I was going to say the same thing. Personal freedoms and privacy protection are important, but it is all meaningless if we destroy this world that is hosting us.
Not everyone would agree with that. Some would prefer to die free to live a slave.
People like to say that right up until they're actually faced with the choice.
Also, it depends on your definition of "slavery". If you mean, "be put in chains and whipped and forced to pick cotton", then the number of people who would rather die is not zero. If your definition of slavery is, "I have to pay taxes, the government knows my Social Security number and I have to sell cakes to anyone who comes into my store, even the gays" then anyone who tells you they'd rather die is bullshitting.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm sorry, but this is bullcrap. The greatest number of deaths through war have come from non-religious origins. Taking religion out of man has lead to the deaths of ten of millions if not hundreds of millions of people. Religion couldn't touch that scale if they wanted to. 31 Million people have died because of religion in recorded history. Stalin killed 50 Million people in his life.
You say Religions are scary. I say anti-Religion is even scarier.