If the technologists don't develop a better understanding of how humans and power work, the same problems will develop in the new version.
Case in point: the blockchain. Sounds fun at first, but if you look closer you realize it's fundamentally incompatible with what humans and society needs: it records everything, is not really anonymous, can't be changed, is designed to limit accountability, etc.
We put our values into code. Code restricts. Code becomes law.
In the grand scheme of things society's ills aren't fixed by technology. What we need is to stimulate compassion, education, a broader recognition of our desires, biases and ideological needs. Technology can support that, but in the end it's the hard work of being human, and recognizing the limits and dangers of technology.
LG's phones have in the past been popular with the technology community, because they have been relatively root and rom friendly. This is partly because they formed the template for some nexus devices. Phones like the G2 (2013) and G3 are still being updated by the community. LG itself is also the company most willing to keep making security updates, according to a study I read last week.
In case the files get removed or you use a text-only browser:
The first PDF document looks like an official FCC letter and reads:
Dear American citizenry,
Weâ(TM)re sorry Ajit Pai is such a filthy spineless cuck.
Sincerely,
The FCC
The second PDF is just an empty document with one line of profanity.
With the upcoming GDPR going into effect I would have expected more privacy features.
Perhaps something for Android P:
- Individual granting of app permissions with more depth than the current system. The current implementation protects Google's own interests.
- Android-side implementation of things like Bluetooth's new privacy features, if at all possible.
- Not broadcasting wifi SSID's that you're visited before.
- Allowing for better integration of things like TOR, to for example route DNS requests through TOR.
On the market side:
- A way to sort apps in Google Play by number of permissions needed. A flashlight app that needs 28 permissions? No thanks!
- Make a smooth streamlined market for privacy features, like buying a subscription to third-party VPN access with your Google credit at the push of a button.
This reminds me all the times companies say: "Don't worry, we will not sell your data".
This is a similar smokescreen, because an equally important question is: are they selling the 'derived data' or 'modelled data' that their algorithms distill from your data? For example, when your Facebook likes reveal that you are probably pregnant/gay/smoker/etc, even though you have never literally given up that information.
Because most people don't know about this distinction, they are lulled into a false sense of trust when they hear their data isn't being sold.
Society: let's create a comprehensive solution, combining laws and technology for optimum protection.
Technologists: Nah, just give us the technological part. One layer of security should be enough for everybody.
The Californian ideology, that strange hybrid where mostly progressive people at the same time believe in small government and the 'disruption' of institutions.
I was baffled when I discovered that Firefox sends your Wifi connection data to a Google maps server. Continuously.
The main reason I use(d) Firefox was for privacy reasons. But they seemed to not care about that core feature anymore.
Which is odd, because it could soon be a point that returns market share to them.
Aside from the "not even research is allowed" bit, this is a good idea.
Currently most people believe anonymisation is possible. Just the noise around this law might help most policymakers understand that the real question is 'for how long do we believe we can make this anonymous'.
This post almost feels like a hit job: the idea is placed in a very negative light with a lot and mostly negative comments straight away.
You'd think the people on Slashdot would also understand the problem this law tries to address. Big databrokers are bringing together so many datasets that, once overlapped, the k-anonymity levels of each of those datasets might not be sufficient.
Any privacy solution will have to be a combination of both technological AND judicial protections. (And public awareness)
Whenever they talk about "your data", that's a smoke screen.
Your data is not as valuable as the "derived data" or "modelled data" that they distill from your data. These are the thousands of scores and ratings that databrokers sell. This is "their data", and it's way more valuable.
In the USA these algorithmically derived scores are even protected as "corporate free speech"!
- The microphones in your laptop and tablets are not always listening. That's different. And on a laptop you can check this using software like Oversight. But most importantly: it's a social norm. - Scale matters. As a society there is no need to accept that internet connected devices with always listening microphones become a new norm. We have a say in this.
The argument that it's all "not really new, so accept it" is used a lot in tech circles. But that relies on a 1.0 understanding of privacy, where it's a binary thing: you have it or you don't.
The reality is that privacy is "contextual integrity" where it depends on the situation: you share more with your doctor than with your grocer. This also goes for the internet and our devices, and similar nuances must be enforced that way through technology itself and through the new morals we create, share and accept online.
One of the foreseeable problems was pointed out by, amongst other people, Cory Doctorow at CCC Congress in 2012 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYqkU1y0AYc]. Basically, these devices are comparable to MP3 ripping software, but for things.
According to Doctorow a new copyright war could be upon us, and this time we're pissing of more powerful lobbying interests.
A lot is possible, but in my experience it's often just too costly to be worth it. The medialab I work for explored this issue last year: we copied a euro-coin with a metal 3D printer. It worked great, except that it cost 30 euros to do.. [http://kunstroof.setup.nl/ (Dutch)]
Slashdot Mirror
Blockchain:
- Unclear accountability (the real reason for popularity)
- You're putting data on lots of computers, in different jurisdictions.
- Can't really delete anything (privacy nightmare)
- Not really anonymous.
- Encryption will be broken in time.
- Power not really distributed, just obfuscated (lies with devs).
- Slow and overly complex.
Sources:
http://estsjournal.org/article...
https://medium.com/enspiral-ta...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016...
http://blog.ezyang.com/2011/06...
If the technologists don't develop a better understanding of how humans and power work, the same problems will develop in the new version.
Case in point: the blockchain. Sounds fun at first, but if you look closer you realize it's fundamentally incompatible with what humans and society needs: it records everything, is not really anonymous, can't be changed, is designed to limit accountability, etc.
We put our values into code. Code restricts. Code becomes law.
In the grand scheme of things society's ills aren't fixed by technology. What we need is to stimulate compassion, education, a broader recognition of our desires, biases and ideological needs. Technology can support that, but in the end it's the hard work of being human, and recognizing the limits and dangers of technology.
Captcha: accuses
LG's phones have in the past been popular with the technology community, because they have been relatively root and rom friendly. This is partly because they formed the template for some nexus devices.
Phones like the G2 (2013) and G3 are still being updated by the community. LG itself is also the company most willing to keep making security updates, according to a study I read last week.
In case the files get removed or you use a text-only browser: The first PDF document looks like an official FCC letter and reads: Dear American citizenry, Weâ(TM)re sorry Ajit Pai is such a filthy spineless cuck. Sincerely, The FCC The second PDF is just an empty document with one line of profanity.
With the upcoming GDPR going into effect I would have expected more privacy features.
Perhaps something for Android P:
- Individual granting of app permissions with more depth than the current system. The current implementation protects Google's own interests.
- Android-side implementation of things like Bluetooth's new privacy features, if at all possible.
- Not broadcasting wifi SSID's that you're visited before.
- Allowing for better integration of things like TOR, to for example route DNS requests through TOR.
On the market side:
- A way to sort apps in Google Play by number of permissions needed. A flashlight app that needs 28 permissions? No thanks!
- Make a smooth streamlined market for privacy features, like buying a subscription to third-party VPN access with your Google credit at the push of a button.
This reminds me all the times companies say: "Don't worry, we will not sell your data".
This is a similar smokescreen, because an equally important question is: are they selling the 'derived data' or 'modelled data' that their algorithms distill from your data? For example, when your Facebook likes reveal that you are probably pregnant/gay/smoker/etc, even though you have never literally given up that information. Because most people don't know about this distinction, they are lulled into a false sense of trust when they hear their data isn't being sold.
Society: let's create a comprehensive solution, combining laws and technology for optimum protection.
Technologists: Nah, just give us the technological part. One layer of security should be enough for everybody.
The Californian ideology, that strange hybrid where mostly progressive people at the same time believe in small government and the 'disruption' of institutions.
I was baffled when I discovered that Firefox sends your Wifi connection data to a Google maps server. Continuously. The main reason I use(d) Firefox was for privacy reasons. But they seemed to not care about that core feature anymore. Which is odd, because it could soon be a point that returns market share to them.
I am a privacy researcher.
Aside from the "not even research is allowed" bit, this is a good idea.
Currently most people believe anonymisation is possible. Just the noise around this law might help most policymakers understand that the real question is 'for how long do we believe we can make this anonymous'.
This post almost feels like a hit job: the idea is placed in a very negative light with a lot and mostly negative comments straight away.
You'd think the people on Slashdot would also understand the problem this law tries to address. Big databrokers are bringing together so many datasets that, once overlapped, the k-anonymity levels of each of those datasets might not be sufficient.
Any privacy solution will have to be a combination of both technological AND judicial protections. (And public awareness)
Whenever they talk about "your data", that's a smoke screen. Your data is not as valuable as the "derived data" or "modelled data" that they distill from your data. These are the thousands of scores and ratings that databrokers sell. This is "their data", and it's way more valuable. In the USA these algorithmically derived scores are even protected as "corporate free speech"!
Nonsense.
- The microphones in your laptop and tablets are not always listening. That's different. And on a laptop you can check this using software like Oversight. But most importantly: it's a social norm.
- Scale matters. As a society there is no need to accept that internet connected devices with always listening microphones become a new norm. We have a say in this.
The argument that it's all "not really new, so accept it" is used a lot in tech circles. But that relies on a 1.0 understanding of privacy, where it's a binary thing: you have it or you don't.
The reality is that privacy is "contextual integrity" where it depends on the situation: you share more with your doctor than with your grocer. This also goes for the internet and our devices, and similar nuances must be enforced that way through technology itself and through the new morals we create, share and accept online.
Let's not accept always listening devices.
Funnily enough, you can: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aiorobotics/zeus-the-worlds-first-all-in-one-3d-copy-machine
One of the foreseeable problems was pointed out by, amongst other people, Cory Doctorow at CCC Congress in 2012 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYqkU1y0AYc]. Basically, these devices are comparable to MP3 ripping software, but for things. According to Doctorow a new copyright war could be upon us, and this time we're pissing of more powerful lobbying interests. A lot is possible, but in my experience it's often just too costly to be worth it. The medialab I work for explored this issue last year: we copied a euro-coin with a metal 3D printer. It worked great, except that it cost 30 euros to do.. [http://kunstroof.setup.nl/ (Dutch)]