Right. In any other case I might be shocked, but this guy presumably has a security clearance. Why would you expect NOT to have your life scrutinized on an ongoing basis when you're in the middle of such sensitive work? You know what it entails when you sign up.
Why? Because using a VPN of this nature, in addition to standard crypto methods between parties will defeat the metadata loophole. All your data routes through a foreign host and, unless they're co-opted by the NSA, your metadata is still secure. If they're unrelated to any of your other business, the metadata is useless to the VPN provider. Regular PGP keys will keep them from reading your actual data.
I'll forego my modpoints for this thread. The thing that bothers me about this idea is that you're asking the same people who maintain a secret no-appeal "no fly" list to pretty-please give you permission to have a decent travel experience. They have demonstrated they have little interest in being fair about these things, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent in the sense that it establishes second-class citizens. That sounds like a direct conflict with "All men are created equal" to me.
And furthermore, why should I ask permission to travel? Look, just because there's a workaround for edge cases doesn't mean the premise of controlling my right to travel is valid. The right to travel is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We may not fully respect that document any more than our own Constitution in the US, but it's about as close to consensus as we're likely to get and there's not much excuse to ignore that as far as I'm concerned.
And that's not even considering the potential for abuse by the people we're trying to keep off of planes with all this security theater...
Loose carbon fiber isn't very flammable, but that is because of the binder used to keep it in fabric form leading up to its lamination with epoxy or other thermoset resin. After lamination, the binder dissolves and the carbon then is as flammable as its surface area allows, and the resin is often flammable as well.
Diamonds, in fact, can produce a self-sustaining combustion process. There's a BBC short series in which a blowtorch is used to heat a small diamond to combustion temperature, then dropped in liquid oxygen, where it completely incinerates - no residue or ash whatsoever. It was a pretty impressive series, going all the way from alchemy to nuclear science. I highly recommend it.
Yes and no. We just legalized cannabis in a fair swath of the US. Granted this is after decades of increasingly draconian enforcement procedures that have literally created war zones, but it is finally happening nonetheless. OWS was a bit less cohesive in their message; they have no figurehead and no defining goal. "Jail some bankers" was about all you could take away from the whole thing. There's a right way (SOPA protest), and a wrong way to make messages heard these days. You mostly need an unassailable moral high ground (be the bigger man - unlike OWS where they left litter and didn't shower, etc.) and a some visibility. Maybe it doesn't hurt to have a bigger public scandal going on so that you can get concessions on your issue, if only so you'll take the attention off the other hot topic...
There's another one you should see, too. Too much choice, and no easy way to differentiate the choices is a maddening experience.
For example, one of the problems I discovered when recently attempting to set up my first Android device as a car stereo without a data connection is that while there are lots of options for media players on Android, there is not a good way to compare them side-by-side, leaving the burden on the potential user to research every single option in-depth before figuring out which option they like. And I wasn't even sure I'd found all the appropriate apps because they all have different ways of describing themselves; for a search company, Google apparently can't get a "music player" search on their own store right. I ended up having to search a bunch of "top 5 Android media player" articles just to feel like I had a good mix of candidates.
When I am leaving the Play Store to do basic research on my apps (which I eventually made a purchase on), Google has done something wrong. We can argue exactly how a store should be laid out ad infinitum but something as simple as a user tag search could be of immense help to people jumping into a relatively mature ecosystem for the first time.
After it mauls someone in the room to death, you re-evaluate that trust.
Especially when the dog growls something at you about "you're either with us or against us" when you try to talk it down. Have we forgotten how unilateral the march to war was, already? I mean, the "Coalition of the Willing" was basically just countries sending a few troops to say they helped us out just so that they could say, "Hey point that thing somewhere else!" in case we started talking about invading other countries that had some tangential link to the Evil List of State Sponsors of Terror.
You may be correct referring to NYT buckling if it stood alone. However, if you RTFA (why yes, I AM new here, why do you ask?), you'll see that the Guardian actively partnered with the Times in processing and releasing the leak documents. Part of the reason is specifically as you stated: that as an American company, NYT has First Amendment protections that the Guardian does not.
There was also a contingency to release articles in ProPublica if Guardian were suppressed in some fashion. So, since the articles were going to publish anyway, it's easier for the Times to shrug off any pressure from the Feds, and they clearly have an economic incentive to be a party to the newsworthy data.
They're not quite so bold yet. As evidenced by the backlash against the NSA, the common people wouldn't stand for anything so overt. My point stands; any major destruction of Guardian property will only make a martyr of them and blow back on the UK establishment; it's the archetypal underdog "speak truth to power" fight. The bigger the crackdown is, the harder the pushback will be, up to riots etc. And if they try to quash that, it will be like Tienanmen Square and you will set the whole country on fire. GCHQ hasn't got the public support to pull that off and they know it.
The hard drive destruction demand itself was pretty ill-advised; I imagine somebody in MI5 has gotten a call from the spook department Stateside telling them to knock it off, they're pouring gas on the fire the NSA is quietly trying to put out. It's not like Greenwald is there in person, anyway; they couldn't possibly think they would be nabbing the only copy of the files. It was a simple bluff of intimidation.
You missed it, GCHQ already tried this. Despite the fact that the documents belonged to the US government not the UK authorities, they claimed ownership and demanded the documents be turned over or destroyed. And yes, they have backups, so the whole exercise was pointless posturing. A "random" office fire is just going to blow back on them at this point.
Agreed. The technology is available that there's really no excuse for not building a proper house in areas affected by these things.
In fact here is an early overview of a house FEMA gave a grant for, specifically because they reviewed the design and determined that it was likely not to require emergency assistance despite being directly on the Florida coast. Cost on structures built on the principle used (concrete/"shotcrete" dome) is often estimated at very near equivalency per square foot with more typical wood-beam structures. The only thing you have to do for a tornado is use polycarbonate window fixtures (or shutters). Additionally, the energy efficiencies of the way these are built is such that the pilot light can go out and you may not notice your water getting cold for a few days in sub-zero weather. There's at least one documented case of it.
The only problem that remains to be solved is getting insurance and mortgage lenders onboard with this "unconventional" construction model, as they're inexperienced with it and tend not to want anything to do with it for no better reason than ignorance.
More specifically, they have a huge and unaccountable budget, meaning they can afford to spend lavishly on recruiting and personnel costs. Money isn't everything, but give a man a little power along with it and you have 90% of what people strive for on a personal level for their whole lives, and money can also buy a lot of power...
Read that first point again. You both agree that there is no expectation of privacy of things you leave uncovered on your front porch. Your vitriol is unwarranted.
What you should be calling him out on is the fact that he is glossing over the weaknesses introduced in security software such that even using cryptography does not afford you much privacy, and in fact may only serve to single you out for additional scrutiny. It's like the NSA has a camera that can see through one-way mirrors and are specifically looking for pot plants behind mirrors on peoples' porches. I tend to agree that people should be encrypting things that are important as a matter of course (e.g. how online banking and shopping already do), but arguing as if that is the reality is to miss the greater picture.
...you do know they made another Deus Ex, right? It's very true to the original, not that half-breed sequel that was horribly dumbed down. And, like the first, you can play it completely pacifistic if you want (aside from the few boss battles anyway). Lots of different ways to proceed through different areas and quests. If you aren't ideologically opposed to Steam DRM, I can happily recommend it.
See my UserID? I'm new here. But I have mod points today even so. You'd have gotten one if you had anything worthwhile to say. Instead, I am replying only to let people who think they may want to join know that, yes, there's a point to logging in when you comment. Moderation is not a closed circle, and if you keep at it you will have your day eventually.
Want my mod point? Here's how to get it: tell me something I might not know, that's interesting or useful. Give me a clever turn of phrase to borrow for an argument in meatspace. A link to a site with a great summary or inside track on a useful subject. A citation for an angle not properly served by the usual media suspects. And no, I'm not giving one to an AC post unless it's the only thing going.
I think GP is getting at the inherent discrepancy between the Gate Gestapo (AKA TSA) and a completely unsecured runway. If we're worried about mules carrying guns, knives, etc. onboard a plane, why aren't we concerned about guys driving up and throwing a sticky bomb into the wheel well and blowing up the plane with no operative casualties at all? Seems like an even better proposition than suicide bombs from their angle, and if we're going to pretend we're concerned about nail clippers, we should probably see that the whole system isn't subverted by some guy having his wife drive up and give him the contraband just before boarding. Once the word gets out it will be an endless plague of circumvention, like how everybody knows where to get the latest Gaga album for free download online.
Not that I agree with the lengths we go to to keep scary-looking metal objects off of planes, but if we're going to have rules there is something to be said for consistent enforcement.
Wrong. IT provides a service that someone (the company) is paying for, and which all or most departments use. Just because they do not sell anything *external to the company* does not mean that they are not selling anything - but on the books it is not counted as a service paid for, it is categorized as a simple cost of doing business. You could almost be excused, given that CEOs and CFOs are making the same mistake, if not for your lowID on a site like Slashdot. where you can be presumed to have been around long enough to know better.
The trick is getting somebody to market this service properly to the buyer e.g. inform upper management what the benefits of the department are and why cutting their funding is a bad idea, where as you correctly noted it is viewed as merely a wasted expense. I've heard a proposal that every call be logged as an expense to the department requesting IT service as a way of identifying the actual value the IT department is providing to the company. Presuming that the department heads are smart enough to properly calculate cost/benefit and when these services are really required rather than wasting IT personnel time on frivolous crap this could work to everyone's advantage. However, presuming competence and capacity for critical thinking from management has often proved to be heart-breakingly naive.
I agree it's tough to deal with an exception based on map apps. If you didn't know where you were going, maybe you should have set up your turn-by-turn directions before you put the car in Drive. Not too much sympathy there.
Completely disagree on the drunk driving bit though. Intent matters, and if you're driving impaired even if you're attempting to mitigate it by driving slower, taking less-used back streets, etc. then you're at best negligent. People need to know their limitations, especially before they get behind the wheel. Now, I think maybe some people can handle driving in some conditions better than others. So the way to handle this may be: punish at the time of accident, but use extenuating circumstances such as intoxication, vehicle maintenance status, texting behavior, etc. to inform the punishments. If some idiot is drunk and texting at 60mph in a 40mph zone, instant felony, even if the accident only caused minor injuries or damage. Alternatively, if the proverbial overworked single mom rushing home to let her kids in the house from school totals your car, let her off with a slap on the wrist as long as somebody's insurance covers it and she is paying any deductibles. Let's be honest, she's probably already suffering enough.
What gets me really is the "pre-crime" aspect like you're saying. If a person causes no injury to others, why punish them for failing to meet some arbitrary standard? And I would add, it's a standard that, as we've seen with reduced yellows and red light cameras, tends to be set very strictly for reasons of increased revenue and not at all for safety reasons, which is completely beyond their mandate as far as I'm concerned.
It exists in the acceptance and use of economic systems. I mean, what gives money value? Even criminals in the hardcore underground use paper money - because they can use the social contract to their advantage when they possess it (e.g. public goods of real value can be traded for it). All that the social contract means is that you are participating with the understanding that there are rules. What the rules are, and what it means to you, are formed by your associations and the company you keep, as well as who you do business with, and all the terms you negotiate for those relationships (and, naturally, the legal environment in which you are participating).
We tailor the rules to attempt to eliminate acting in bad faith with varying degrees of success. The fact that some bad actors attempt to twist the underlying concept for some goal does not mean that the basic idea is wrong - it simply needs to be more explicitly defined for public reference, and bad actors punished by the rules of participation.
Why would you think there's a plan? We dream of things that could come about in the future a la Star Trek,but it doesn't seem realistic to the average person even in the countries at the cutting edge of this trend (EU, USA, certainly not China). Therefore, there is no public consensus - I mean, what's the public consensus on what to do about the Sun going into the red giant stage and swallowing the middle planets of our solar system? We haven't thought that far ahead. Most people are terrible at putting disparate pieces of information together to form a coherent view of the future, much less form a rational plan addressing wide-scale problems like this. There are a few visionaries, but they mostly form advocacy groups or write sci-fi novels, and hardly get the necessary attention. Elon Musk is the rare exception.
So when the time comes, as is typical in history, there will be major upheaval and social angst, and finally something will be done at the "last minute" which will be imperfect and require iteration for generations. Really, I think the only time we've averted something like this ahead of time was with the Y2K bug, and even then it came down to the wire.
So many issues remain to be decided: response to global warming, end of ubiquitous make-work, the apparent death of Public Domain in intellectual property law, the consequences of medically-halted aging on cultural rejuvenation (i.e. generations no longer change and push society to improve), the fragility of humans inhabiting only a single biosphere with no alternative in case of apocalyptic disaster... the list goes on. We don't care, collectively. We're focused on whose sports team is going to win the championship this year, and how to dumb down daily life so as to require no brain cells whatsoever, and did you hear what Miley Cyrus just did? So when the.001% have drone armies keeping the peace and some flagrant abuse kicks off the Butlerian Jihad, we're going to be caught mostly flat-footed, wondering where our knight riding a giant sandworm is because They Shouldn't Be Allowed To Do That. It'll be painful, terrifying, and completely preventable.
I would say it's even part of the right of every citizen to refuse to comply with laws that are unconstitutional, similar to Jury Nullification but from the perspective of a different position in the judicial process. Or if you think the prosecutors are railroading the defendant, ignoring critical evidence, etc. why would you want to be a party to the injustice? If you were involved in the new equivalent of the 1934 German People's Court for example, or perhaps a FISA hearing in more modern terms, how else could you obey your conscience?
Some part of me believes that there should be a prison sentence for this kind of thing simply to insure that it's not done frivolously, but that it not go on your permanent record.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. In any other case I might be shocked, but this guy presumably has a security clearance. Why would you expect NOT to have your life scrutinized on an ongoing basis when you're in the middle of such sensitive work? You know what it entails when you sign up.
Why? Because using a VPN of this nature, in addition to standard crypto methods between parties will defeat the metadata loophole. All your data routes through a foreign host and, unless they're co-opted by the NSA, your metadata is still secure. If they're unrelated to any of your other business, the metadata is useless to the VPN provider. Regular PGP keys will keep them from reading your actual data.
Relevant XKCD for the more visually-oriented
I'll forego my modpoints for this thread. The thing that bothers me about this idea is that you're asking the same people who maintain a secret no-appeal "no fly" list to pretty-please give you permission to have a decent travel experience. They have demonstrated they have little interest in being fair about these things, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent in the sense that it establishes second-class citizens. That sounds like a direct conflict with "All men are created equal" to me.
And furthermore, why should I ask permission to travel? Look, just because there's a workaround for edge cases doesn't mean the premise of controlling my right to travel is valid. The right to travel is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We may not fully respect that document any more than our own Constitution in the US, but it's about as close to consensus as we're likely to get and there's not much excuse to ignore that as far as I'm concerned.
And that's not even considering the potential for abuse by the people we're trying to keep off of planes with all this security theater...
Loose carbon fiber isn't very flammable, but that is because of the binder used to keep it in fabric form leading up to its lamination with epoxy or other thermoset resin. After lamination, the binder dissolves and the carbon then is as flammable as its surface area allows, and the resin is often flammable as well. Diamonds, in fact, can produce a self-sustaining combustion process. There's a BBC short series in which a blowtorch is used to heat a small diamond to combustion temperature, then dropped in liquid oxygen, where it completely incinerates - no residue or ash whatsoever. It was a pretty impressive series, going all the way from alchemy to nuclear science. I highly recommend it.
Pro Publica is also the fallback for releasing Snowden-leak-related articles in case The Guardian gets muzzled, as of a previous article here on /.
Yes and no. We just legalized cannabis in a fair swath of the US. Granted this is after decades of increasingly draconian enforcement procedures that have literally created war zones, but it is finally happening nonetheless. OWS was a bit less cohesive in their message; they have no figurehead and no defining goal. "Jail some bankers" was about all you could take away from the whole thing. There's a right way (SOPA protest), and a wrong way to make messages heard these days. You mostly need an unassailable moral high ground (be the bigger man - unlike OWS where they left litter and didn't shower, etc.) and a some visibility. Maybe it doesn't hurt to have a bigger public scandal going on so that you can get concessions on your issue, if only so you'll take the attention off the other hot topic...
There's another one you should see, too. Too much choice, and no easy way to differentiate the choices is a maddening experience.
For example, one of the problems I discovered when recently attempting to set up my first Android device as a car stereo without a data connection is that while there are lots of options for media players on Android, there is not a good way to compare them side-by-side, leaving the burden on the potential user to research every single option in-depth before figuring out which option they like. And I wasn't even sure I'd found all the appropriate apps because they all have different ways of describing themselves; for a search company, Google apparently can't get a "music player" search on their own store right. I ended up having to search a bunch of "top 5 Android media player" articles just to feel like I had a good mix of candidates.
When I am leaving the Play Store to do basic research on my apps (which I eventually made a purchase on), Google has done something wrong. We can argue exactly how a store should be laid out ad infinitum but something as simple as a user tag search could be of immense help to people jumping into a relatively mature ecosystem for the first time.
After it mauls someone in the room to death, you re-evaluate that trust.
Especially when the dog growls something at you about "you're either with us or against us" when you try to talk it down. Have we forgotten how unilateral the march to war was, already? I mean, the "Coalition of the Willing" was basically just countries sending a few troops to say they helped us out just so that they could say, "Hey point that thing somewhere else!" in case we started talking about invading other countries that had some tangential link to the Evil List of State Sponsors of Terror.
I'll just leave this here
You may be correct referring to NYT buckling if it stood alone. However, if you RTFA (why yes, I AM new here, why do you ask?), you'll see that the Guardian actively partnered with the Times in processing and releasing the leak documents. Part of the reason is specifically as you stated: that as an American company, NYT has First Amendment protections that the Guardian does not.
There was also a contingency to release articles in ProPublica if Guardian were suppressed in some fashion. So, since the articles were going to publish anyway, it's easier for the Times to shrug off any pressure from the Feds, and they clearly have an economic incentive to be a party to the newsworthy data .
They're not quite so bold yet. As evidenced by the backlash against the NSA, the common people wouldn't stand for anything so overt. My point stands; any major destruction of Guardian property will only make a martyr of them and blow back on the UK establishment; it's the archetypal underdog "speak truth to power" fight. The bigger the crackdown is, the harder the pushback will be, up to riots etc. And if they try to quash that, it will be like Tienanmen Square and you will set the whole country on fire. GCHQ hasn't got the public support to pull that off and they know it.
The hard drive destruction demand itself was pretty ill-advised; I imagine somebody in MI5 has gotten a call from the spook department Stateside telling them to knock it off, they're pouring gas on the fire the NSA is quietly trying to put out. It's not like Greenwald is there in person, anyway; they couldn't possibly think they would be nabbing the only copy of the files. It was a simple bluff of intimidation.
You missed it, GCHQ already tried this. Despite the fact that the documents belonged to the US government not the UK authorities, they claimed ownership and demanded the documents be turned over or destroyed. And yes, they have backups, so the whole exercise was pointless posturing. A "random" office fire is just going to blow back on them at this point.
Oblig. XKCD
Agreed. The technology is available that there's really no excuse for not building a proper house in areas affected by these things.
In fact here is an early overview of a house FEMA gave a grant for, specifically because they reviewed the design and determined that it was likely not to require emergency assistance despite being directly on the Florida coast. Cost on structures built on the principle used (concrete/"shotcrete" dome) is often estimated at very near equivalency per square foot with more typical wood-beam structures. The only thing you have to do for a tornado is use polycarbonate window fixtures (or shutters). Additionally, the energy efficiencies of the way these are built is such that the pilot light can go out and you may not notice your water getting cold for a few days in sub-zero weather. There's at least one documented case of it.
The only problem that remains to be solved is getting insurance and mortgage lenders onboard with this "unconventional" construction model, as they're inexperienced with it and tend not to want anything to do with it for no better reason than ignorance.
More specifically, they have a huge and unaccountable budget, meaning they can afford to spend lavishly on recruiting and personnel costs. Money isn't everything, but give a man a little power along with it and you have 90% of what people strive for on a personal level for their whole lives, and money can also buy a lot of power...
Read that first point again. You both agree that there is no expectation of privacy of things you leave uncovered on your front porch. Your vitriol is unwarranted.
What you should be calling him out on is the fact that he is glossing over the weaknesses introduced in security software such that even using cryptography does not afford you much privacy, and in fact may only serve to single you out for additional scrutiny. It's like the NSA has a camera that can see through one-way mirrors and are specifically looking for pot plants behind mirrors on peoples' porches. I tend to agree that people should be encrypting things that are important as a matter of course (e.g. how online banking and shopping already do), but arguing as if that is the reality is to miss the greater picture.
...you do know they made another Deus Ex, right? It's very true to the original, not that half-breed sequel that was horribly dumbed down. And, like the first, you can play it completely pacifistic if you want (aside from the few boss battles anyway). Lots of different ways to proceed through different areas and quests. If you aren't ideologically opposed to Steam DRM, I can happily recommend it.
See my UserID? I'm new here. But I have mod points today even so. You'd have gotten one if you had anything worthwhile to say. Instead, I am replying only to let people who think they may want to join know that, yes, there's a point to logging in when you comment. Moderation is not a closed circle, and if you keep at it you will have your day eventually.
Want my mod point? Here's how to get it: tell me something I might not know, that's interesting or useful. Give me a clever turn of phrase to borrow for an argument in meatspace. A link to a site with a great summary or inside track on a useful subject. A citation for an angle not properly served by the usual media suspects. And no, I'm not giving one to an AC post unless it's the only thing going.
I think GP is getting at the inherent discrepancy between the Gate Gestapo (AKA TSA) and a completely unsecured runway. If we're worried about mules carrying guns, knives, etc. onboard a plane, why aren't we concerned about guys driving up and throwing a sticky bomb into the wheel well and blowing up the plane with no operative casualties at all? Seems like an even better proposition than suicide bombs from their angle, and if we're going to pretend we're concerned about nail clippers, we should probably see that the whole system isn't subverted by some guy having his wife drive up and give him the contraband just before boarding. Once the word gets out it will be an endless plague of circumvention, like how everybody knows where to get the latest Gaga album for free download online. Not that I agree with the lengths we go to to keep scary-looking metal objects off of planes, but if we're going to have rules there is something to be said for consistent enforcement.
Wrong. IT provides a service that someone (the company) is paying for, and which all or most departments use. Just because they do not sell anything *external to the company* does not mean that they are not selling anything - but on the books it is not counted as a service paid for, it is categorized as a simple cost of doing business. You could almost be excused, given that CEOs and CFOs are making the same mistake, if not for your lowID on a site like Slashdot. where you can be presumed to have been around long enough to know better.
The trick is getting somebody to market this service properly to the buyer e.g. inform upper management what the benefits of the department are and why cutting their funding is a bad idea, where as you correctly noted it is viewed as merely a wasted expense. I've heard a proposal that every call be logged as an expense to the department requesting IT service as a way of identifying the actual value the IT department is providing to the company. Presuming that the department heads are smart enough to properly calculate cost/benefit and when these services are really required rather than wasting IT personnel time on frivolous crap this could work to everyone's advantage. However, presuming competence and capacity for critical thinking from management has often proved to be heart-breakingly naive.
I agree it's tough to deal with an exception based on map apps. If you didn't know where you were going, maybe you should have set up your turn-by-turn directions before you put the car in Drive. Not too much sympathy there.
Completely disagree on the drunk driving bit though. Intent matters, and if you're driving impaired even if you're attempting to mitigate it by driving slower, taking less-used back streets, etc. then you're at best negligent. People need to know their limitations, especially before they get behind the wheel. Now, I think maybe some people can handle driving in some conditions better than others. So the way to handle this may be: punish at the time of accident, but use extenuating circumstances such as intoxication, vehicle maintenance status, texting behavior, etc. to inform the punishments. If some idiot is drunk and texting at 60mph in a 40mph zone, instant felony, even if the accident only caused minor injuries or damage. Alternatively, if the proverbial overworked single mom rushing home to let her kids in the house from school totals your car, let her off with a slap on the wrist as long as somebody's insurance covers it and she is paying any deductibles. Let's be honest, she's probably already suffering enough.
What gets me really is the "pre-crime" aspect like you're saying. If a person causes no injury to others, why punish them for failing to meet some arbitrary standard? And I would add, it's a standard that, as we've seen with reduced yellows and red light cameras, tends to be set very strictly for reasons of increased revenue and not at all for safety reasons, which is completely beyond their mandate as far as I'm concerned.
It exists in the acceptance and use of economic systems. I mean, what gives money value? Even criminals in the hardcore underground use paper money - because they can use the social contract to their advantage when they possess it (e.g. public goods of real value can be traded for it). All that the social contract means is that you are participating with the understanding that there are rules. What the rules are, and what it means to you, are formed by your associations and the company you keep, as well as who you do business with, and all the terms you negotiate for those relationships (and, naturally, the legal environment in which you are participating).
We tailor the rules to attempt to eliminate acting in bad faith with varying degrees of success. The fact that some bad actors attempt to twist the underlying concept for some goal does not mean that the basic idea is wrong - it simply needs to be more explicitly defined for public reference, and bad actors punished by the rules of participation.
Why would you think there's a plan? We dream of things that could come about in the future a la Star Trek,but it doesn't seem realistic to the average person even in the countries at the cutting edge of this trend (EU, USA, certainly not China). Therefore, there is no public consensus - I mean, what's the public consensus on what to do about the Sun going into the red giant stage and swallowing the middle planets of our solar system? We haven't thought that far ahead. Most people are terrible at putting disparate pieces of information together to form a coherent view of the future, much less form a rational plan addressing wide-scale problems like this. There are a few visionaries, but they mostly form advocacy groups or write sci-fi novels, and hardly get the necessary attention. Elon Musk is the rare exception.
So when the time comes, as is typical in history, there will be major upheaval and social angst, and finally something will be done at the "last minute" which will be imperfect and require iteration for generations. Really, I think the only time we've averted something like this ahead of time was with the Y2K bug, and even then it came down to the wire.
So many issues remain to be decided: response to global warming, end of ubiquitous make-work, the apparent death of Public Domain in intellectual property law, the consequences of medically-halted aging on cultural rejuvenation (i.e. generations no longer change and push society to improve), the fragility of humans inhabiting only a single biosphere with no alternative in case of apocalyptic disaster... the list goes on. We don't care, collectively. We're focused on whose sports team is going to win the championship this year, and how to dumb down daily life so as to require no brain cells whatsoever, and did you hear what Miley Cyrus just did? So when the .001% have drone armies keeping the peace and some flagrant abuse kicks off the Butlerian Jihad, we're going to be caught mostly flat-footed, wondering where our knight riding a giant sandworm is because They Shouldn't Be Allowed To Do That. It'll be painful, terrifying, and completely preventable.
I would say it's even part of the right of every citizen to refuse to comply with laws that are unconstitutional, similar to Jury Nullification but from the perspective of a different position in the judicial process. Or if you think the prosecutors are railroading the defendant, ignoring critical evidence, etc. why would you want to be a party to the injustice? If you were involved in the new equivalent of the 1934 German People's Court for example, or perhaps a FISA hearing in more modern terms, how else could you obey your conscience?
Some part of me believes that there should be a prison sentence for this kind of thing simply to insure that it's not done frivolously, but that it not go on your permanent record.