Snowden: 'The Central Problem of the Future' Is Control of User Data (techcrunch.com) 157
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.
I can think of bigger central problems (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 don't have to be whipped to be a slave. Most slaves weren't, but they were still slaves.
It's about having all freedom, privacy and choices about your own life taken away. Totalitarianism is also a form of slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is 100% free. We live in society and agree to society's rules. E.g I am not free to murder you. The cops are not free to ignore it if I do. You are not free to not pay taxes which pay for the cops. It all goes together. Believe me you do not want total freedom.
Where each society determines its limits on freedom to be should be left to each society and we should not try to impose our society's value system on another.
Re: (Score:2)
By your definition, both groups are equally free. You're free to kill, but will be punished if you do. Cops are free to ignore you, but will be punished if they do. No difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's kind of the point. Humans may believe they have free will but as a species they're quite gullible and easily convinced ideas are their own.
A child born today whose every choice and preference is tracked can be led later in life such that they feel they're entirely free to choose exactly what's been chosen for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think as humans who have come to dominate the planet, we have a certain responsibility not only for ourselves but also for all the other species that have evolved on this planet, alongside us, and happen to share our natural environment at this point in time.
We're not doing such a good job thus far.
Re: (Score:2)
I think as humans who have come to dominate the planet, we have a certain responsibility not only for ourselves but also for all the other species that have evolved on this planet, alongside us, and happen to share our natural environment at this point in time.
No disagreement there. But I'd like for the other species to live in their natural habitat, and not in zoos as we fill up the planet with our own spawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone should be able to get up to two kids and we would still reduce the population over time. With the people who die before having offspring and those who don't want any to begin with, population would gradually decline without anyone having to forgo a family.
I think some population control at a global scale is desperately needed. All our problems come down to that there are simply too many people using up too many resources.
Re: (Score:1)
>The ongoing islamisation of the population
>Pollution and the depletion of natural resources, including fossil fuels
>Science denial
>Donald Trump
I'm not sure how you can list those things together without wincing at least a little. I completely agree that racist, fascist and simple minded politicians are dangerous but so are people who think like them and claiming "islamisation is an issue" is something which puts you very much in the same boat as Trump. Please educate yourself and refrain from s
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Politically in the current climate, it's easier to dissect the population based on skin colour or religion rather than behaviour.
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:5, Interesting)
I gather originally, group-think and group-identity around a common myth, is what allowed disparate tribes to unite. Islam is just version 3 after Christianity (v2) and Judaism (v1) and Zoroaster (v0). But because group identity is exactly what you want when fighting a war, it is always inherently weaponisable. Which is perhaps why modern people find religion and ideology inherently scary. Because they are.
The saving grace is that most people, whatever their inherited cultural differences, tend to just want to get on with their lives. And the general movement is towards greater empathy, because humanity does grow, and stats that, there are currently fewer wars overall than in previous times, are to be taken seriously. But that's no consolation to anyone currently unlucky enough to be in the middle of one.
Religions are scary. That's why everyone has to insist that they are all of peace. Because we really need everyone to not feel threatened. Because you don't want to help anyone activate the red button to weaponise them any further.
The Middle East is unfortunately still "developing" and doesn't really have a lot of stable nation states. They have a very difficult transition. And they are actively weaponising religion. But that doesn't mean that the the millions of people who are part of those groups culturally, are intent on any of that crap themselves.
Re: I can think of bigger central problems (Score:1)
I don't understand treating all religions as equal, but there seems to be this idea that Christianity is no better or worse than Islam. It's not even reasonable to refer treat each of them as a single religion when, in fact, all the world's major religions have a wide range of beliefs. Some of those beliefs are harmless while others are extremely dangerous. Treating all the major religions as equal is a failure to understand or evaluate the merits of each religion. Pope Francis is a Christian. So was Fred P
Re: I can think of bigger central problems (Score:4, Interesting)
Equal?
Do you mean 'equivalent'?
Even then, they are not.
Islam has various sects with beliefs along a spectrum of 'peace be upon you' to 'surrender or die'. And these sects vary on the topic of secular rule, from an opinion of no opinion to an opinion of absolute religious rule in all of life, for everyone. The most radical Islamic beliefs are either nonviolent and benevolent, or committed to rule by the sword and global domination in the name of their god. We tend to consider the most violent sects as 'radical', failing to also recognize the other extreme. 'Militant' doesn't even describe the violent extremists adequately. But we recognize them.
Buddhism is commonly thought of as a religion, but I'm not sure it isn't better described as a philosophy. And widely misunderstood. But it is not reliant on belief in a deity. Not very religious. Not totally nonviolent, but if you've angered an observant Buddhist, you've done something I think of as wrong.
Hinduism, being a collection of beliefs with commonalities, does rely on deities, but even within that collective there is some discord. Not a monolith, but common enough to be named. Sadly, they sometimes fight among each other.
Christianity is described as a collective group of beliefs encompassing Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxies, Mormon, and a variety of others. Some of those I named I do not grant as actually 'Christian', but they self-identify as such, and I won't exclude them for the purposes of this discussion. Violent Christianity is, to me, almost an oxymoron, but I'm prejudiced. I cannot easily identify a Christian nation today, which is not a problem I seek to address.
Judaism also is composed of various sects, ranging from very relaxed observance to strict, widely considered archaic, practices. And it is not now practiced as historically required by the most ancient beliefs. It is also probably the most persecuted, subjectively yes.
Equal? Hardly. Equivalent? More accurate but still not 100%. To indict religion as a destructive force is, in my mind, a shallow and incomplete understanding of the dynamic. If you include Communism as a religion, you then encompass the best and worst of humanity. You need not hang the motivation for evil on philosophy.
Or, as my good friend reminds me, the best of humans are, at best, human.
Re: I can think of bigger central problems (Score:2)
A nation or a nation - state /city - state?
Ok, half credit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if AC's get notified of replies, but your point is also important, I agree.
It is about scope and scale and detail. Yes, if you are measuring in miles, then 1.2 miles is about the same as 0.9 miles. But if you aare measuring in feet, then there's a big difference between 10 feet and 100 feet. And it is a bit like that with religions.
They all mostly appeal to the "mythic" function in humans. So they are often all mostly the same, in that wide sense. Modernity killed God, and any religion which st
Re: (Score:2)
The Middle East is unfortunately still "developing" and doesn't really have a lot of stable nation states. They have a very difficult transition. And they are actively weaponising religion. But that doesn't mean that the the millions of people who are part of those groups culturally, are intent on any of that crap themselves.
They've been "developing" for over 100 years [economist.com]. Part of the big problem in the Middle East is you have several religions (Christianity, Judaism, Sunni and Shiite Islam, etc...) and all consider Jerusalem to be theirs. If you only consider Jerusalem [wikipedia.org], you've got a much longer history of conflict.
The strange part is all religions teach that they are the one true religion. Christianity is known to be in-your-face and even some sects believe they are the one true Christianity - talk to any devout Catholic about
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Meh, only because we haven't done any major religious wars in recent history they've been quite significant for their time. The day India/Pakistan, Israel/Middle East or indigenous/migrant Europe goes up in flames it'll easily be a WWII-class war.
Religion Replaced by Ideology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Religion has always been a tool of control and manipulation"
This is a shallow and incomplete description. For some religions, since willing acceptance and belief is fundamental to the faith, it doesn't fit the belief.
But it is a common conception, and suffices as criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Politically in the current climate, it's easier to dissect the population based on skin colour or religion rather than behaviour.
I guess that's why they're having so much of a problem with native germans committing sexual assault compared to oh migrants right? No no, I understand. That 105% increase in one quarter from migrants wasn't real. The media and government weren't suppressing stories, and you're not going to be arrested for pointing out facts or put on trial for stating your opinion. Double plus good comrade, please enjoy your extra chocolate ration.
Re: (Score:2)
"Science denial"
I recommend you find a different way to say what you mean. Disagreement on specific science isn't denial of scientific thought. I do not accept the claim that climate change (specifically, global warming) is actually occurring, and is caused by industrialization, and I have specific reasons for that. But I do not 'deny science'. I reject what I have good evidence of as flawed and falsified data*, incomplete and invalid theories and conclusions, and questionable motives.
But I make a living i
Re: I can think of bigger central problems (Score:2)
Data is verifiably altered, therefore I question it.
Please don't restate my complaint incorrectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As of a 2010 study, people in the U.S. who identify as Muslim comprised about 0.9% of the population. As of a further study in 2016, it was up to a whopping 1.0%.
However, the perception of what percent of the population is Muslim pegs it slightly north of 15%. Which then leads to people making all kinds of erroneous assumptions.
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org]. 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 [huffingtonpost.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry for not having mod points...
This from France, where we too are heading to a maxi-christian leader in the coming months...
Re:I can think of bigger central problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Aaaaaaargh I'm an idiot, I should have checked the preview more carefully. Here's the ending of my second paragraph, and my sincere apologies for not having caught that.
"...but for all the people who are afraid that of muslims, if you really are against what you perceive as a culture of barbaric cultural practices, I sure hope you're leading a progressive movement within one of these churches, assuming you're a member. The alternative is that you are, at best, a misinformed hypocrite, which I'm afraid the vast majority seem to be."
Furthermore, I screwed up the first link. Rather than linking to this webpage itself (duh), it's supposed to go here. [forwardprogressives.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The ongoing islamisation of the population
That's a nonexistent pseudo-problem that has been exaggerated out of all proportions by the hysterical mass medias. The percentage of muslims in the US is about 1% and in the EU is about 6%. Even with massive migration (way more than we see now in e.g. Sweden and Germany), these percentages would stay far below any significant threshold and muslims would stay a small minority. The EU could easily deal with with twice or four times the percentage with an overall negligible impact on society as a whole, and e
Re: (Score:3)
Should those who disagree with you be in power and have access to you and the ability to effectively collaboratively control the outcome of your life by denying you access to employment, denying you access to fiscal services and to be able to digitally distort the public perception of you. All those other things cease to be a problem for you because you simply would not be able to survive long enough for them to be a concern.
Want more privacy, fight for it by demanding that governments legislate more priv
Re: (Score:2)
Pandemics
This is quite preventable I think, if we actually manage to lock down certain areas of the world where pandemics pop up. The biggest threat is probably a combined threat of pandemics and terrorism where the contageous agent is released in multiple very busy places of the world simultaneously (new york+london+singapore+peking+tokio+paris+...).
Civil and international war
This is a threat, indeed.
The ongoing islamisation of the population
The problem is not the islamisation itself, but that most of the islam being spread is backwards minded, one which is from the time before the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a list of the 'central problems of civilization' not the 'central problem of the future'.
Everything you've listed has been and will continue to be a concern until we either 1.) get rid of currency or 2.) get rid of national governments. Privacy concerns are just one more to be added to the list as things go on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
She lost, get over it. Not so smug now, are you? Watching liberal smugness levels drop suddenly in November was the greatest show on Earth, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I do find it worrying that it's possible to get the most votes by a margin of nearly 2.5 million people and yet to still loose."
If you do not understand the United States' election process, then please either study it or step back.
Hillary's margin of victory can be expressed as
As of today the best results I can quickly find show Hillary's popular vote margin is 3.28MM. Her margin in California is 4.26MM votes.
Think of it. Her popular vote advantage can be consolidated into the margin of one state. ONE STAT
A new reality (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
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?
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.
Re:A new reality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. What I'm wondering is why all the data collection is only seen as a thread. Yes it is dangerous but there are also opportunities and we as society have to adapt!
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. There is a future where you can compare different recommendations what
Re:A new reality (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Its very difficult to analyze an individual and come up with any actionable data. It is much easier to analyze a bunch of individuals. Cops have known this forever. They can always predict what a mob will do but an individual is more difficult.
Re: (Score:1)
> [C]ome 2050, everyone will wake up in the morning knowing what every politician had for breakfast that day and who they are meeting?
No.
> 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?
No.
> It may mean the end of ideologies and most religions.
Neeeoooooope.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
No.
Neeeoooooope.
Well, I can hope. :)
Re:Disagree... (Score:5, Interesting)
A gov has to find people with the tested intellectual disposition who really enjoy spying domestically with no court oversight.
To hand them the keys to junk cryptography and then collect it all.
Most governments who try that then face data walking out as staff contact the press or have to have massive internal oversight to try and prevent staff misuse of access. Staff cults, faiths, politics then surface deep within trusted areas.
Good staff who know they are not trusted don't preform that well and walk out. The ranks become filled with staff who hide their true interests to advance.
Foreign governments move in with offers of friendship, support, cash, understanding in a frenzy of recruitment. Digital tracking is sold as perfection but the more skilled humans spies always get in.
Even the contractor buddy system starts to break down as the teams influence each other and total corruption sets in.
The classic East German issue has not been solved. How to have informants and undercover officers working on groups of 5-10 protesters, spying and reporting on each other, creating vast amounts of files on other deep cover informants. Given the US love of agencies reporting only to to mil, police and different sections of the US gov domestic collection becomes vast with a lot of duplication. Great for contractors and overtime but not much use for what govs crave.
The more domestic data thats created, the more informants that are needed and have to keep their cover and so create more data to collect.
If you are being tracked (Score:3)
All the West has is data collection. Junk encryption supported by the big US and UK brands was the way in so offer keywords to the collectors.
So the NSA and GCHQ gets everything thanks to the support of US and UK brands.
Give the security services everything they could every want with digital collection.
Lots of online meetings, conversations, chats, forums, faith, cults, politics in every daily internet log kept by the ISP.
Make it interesting, get the contractor or gov worker addicted to the next days amazing fictional instalment. Add some story arcs over the years.
If your a journalist create a few dozen amazing whistelblowers and informants deep in gov or retired. People who have found a conscience after decades in gov and now just want to talk. Create a hint of their decades of documents and add future meetings to the cloud OS. Create a code that they can use.
Don't get fancy, just that material has been sorted and further clarification is needed.
Walk around with your cell phone in city areas, cafes full of "contacts" i.e. government workers and contractors.
Stop for 5 or 10 minutes during for a file hand over. It will show up nice on a map of cell phone movements.
A journalist cell phone stopping for a "meeting" can result in the questioning of 10's of security clearances in minutes. Ensure the contractors have to consider every phone thats next to a journalist everyday for weeks, months, years. Thats 100's of government workers and contractors who had trackable contact with a journalist known to have cultivated a lot of informants. Turn digital tracking into a script and a total work of fiction.
Make sure 100's of fictional files exist packed with keywords any gov would find interesting. Ensure all networked computers running everyone fav US consumer junk OS's.
Slowly a gov worker or contractor will slowly understand that its all fictional junk.
That is the real the problem with tracking your own citizens digitally. The ability for creativity outpaces digital collection that can only focus on keywords and can only afford to task so many contractors to read vast amounts of fictional material and make a determination.
Long term the security services will then have consider the option to task teams of 9 people in shifts per interesting person. Thats East German numbers of gov workers and informants to track one person who can use a consumer OS...
If the US and UK govs want the "normalisation” of government surveillance give them something to read.
Support the junk US bands, their developers, big brand cryptographers who only have the skills to help govs and fill your devices with fictional fun.
If your onto a real story, use your brain and paper notes, avoid CCTV, give your tracked phone to a friend for the day.
La loi "informatique et liberté" (Score:3)
Snowdons worried about surveillance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remind us what country you're living in right now Eddie? Perhaps ask your mate Putin about government data control, misinformation and spying.
Re:Snowdons worried about surveillance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remind us what country you're living in right now Eddie? Perhaps ask your mate Putin about government data control, misinformation and spying.
Let me remind you of what Snowden truly fears at this point, which is a government silencing him in a rather permanent way by taking his life.
Ironically he has found a safe haven in the very closet of the boogeyman you wish to identify.
Re: (Score:1)
" which is a government silencing him in a rather permanent way by taking his life."
Riiiight, because the NSA I'm sure thinks a hit squad is the way to solve the snowden problem.
"Ironically he has found a safe haven in the very closet of the boogeyman you wish to identify."
Yes fancy. Russia taking in someone who is sticking it to the US military and intelligence establishment and is on the run from US authorities. Who'd have thunk it? Its totally unprecedented... oh, wait....
Trust me - once his usefullness
Re: (Score:2)
" which is a government silencing him in a rather permanent way by taking his life."
Riiiight, because the NSA I'm sure thinks a hit squad is the way to solve the snowden problem....
To clarify, the CIA does wet work. The NSA has fuck-all to do with that other than advise the CIA of the inherent continued threat provided by his existence.
Ironically, he's probably still alive today because of willful ignorance the masses provide. If more people actually cared about his revelations or their privacy, the threat to justify a CIA target would have been considerably larger.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't recall ever hearing/reading Snowden supporting or complimenting Russia/Putin for privacy. Your comment is wholly irrelevant, in trying to conflate his comments about the US as support for anyone.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you think that up all by yourself or did mummy help you?
Data pollution... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Chinas dangerous approach - population statistics. (Score:2)
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
Every social media and other interaction added up to make a 'citizen score'.
"In this world, anything from defaulting on a loan to criticising the ruling party, from running a red light to failing to care for your parents properly, could cause you to lose points. And in this world, your score becomes the ultimate truth of who you are – determining whether you can borrow money, get your children into the best schools or travel abroad; whether you get a room in a fancy ho
Not new (Score:3)
Privacy = hypocritical waste of time (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you cute!
I bet you even believe everybody's private data is worth the same...and would be treated the same in this egalitarian Utopia of yours.
Thanks for the chuckle. Let us know when you hit puberty.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course not. Yours are certainly more valuable than mine since you need to use a pseudo. And both are obviously of very little value compared to those of "Anonymous cowards".
Re: (Score:2)
So start with your own transparency. Supply us with your details for banking, email, taxation, place of residence, phone numbers and closest relatives. Or are you a fucking criminal with something to hide? It looks like you are, and you do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Calling you out for a horse shit comment stating that privacy isn't important transparency is, doesn't require more than two seconds. Transparency is an interpreted lie, and the idea that privacy has no value except to criminals is bullshit.
Bad poetry (Score:2)
"[In the past,] your beliefs, your future, your hopes, your dreams belonged to you"
They still do. It's just that some others know what those things are. You still get to pick them. And long before most people reading this were born, there were people who were interested in knowing what they are so they can sell stuff to you, and various non-marketers could get at that too.
C O P Y R I G H T ??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a law (Score:2)
If only there was a law to regulate all this data collection. Maybe we could call it the General Data Protection Regulation [wikipedia.org].
Too Late (Score:1)
It is already too late. The laws in-place were not meant to and do not seem to do a decent job protecting anyone. This has led to corporations and the government to do things that Snowden mentioned. It has already happened and corporations are making huge profits off of it and the government is getting its benefit as well. Some one please explain how the we are supposed to get the two groups to suddenly stop doing what is profitable and convenient. Really, how?
How collecting metadata can be more dangerous? (Score:2)
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.
How collecting metadata can be more dangerous than collecting data that lead to metadata in first place? Snowden speaks nonesense here. Then all the examples he is giving are related to data collection and not metadata collection. Your beliefs, your future, your hopes and your dreams are not lying in the metadata.
Frankly, Snowden is overrated on these topics. I am a bit tired he is given the microphone by fucking journalists which have no clue about what they intend to talk about.
Snowden has a hammer (Score:2)
Snowden has a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. IMHO, the central problem of the future is finding enough affordable energy and being able to deploy it without wrecking the environment.
Also, being able to detect and prevent Earth-colliding asteroids. If we had two years to divert a planet-killer, suddenly not caring if FaceBoook knows I bought a dildo.
The central problem of the future is homelessness (Score:2)
Since nobody can afford to own their own home anymore, and there's no social safety nets, and all the jobs are being automated, so everyone will just get kicked out of their rented homes and die in the streets en masse.
Who is my owner? (Score:1)
Even with slavery there was some type of internal freedom, because "the owner" only was owning the physical part and capacity, never what was inside the person mind ... until now.
The collective behavior indicates what I am trying to accomplish, what are my feelings, my thoughts. The data is there, the only needed thing is to dig enough.
For some time I have been trying to discover what it is exactly the "666" written on the Bible. Initially my thoughts were related with the DNA, as it is a number. It is
Re: CSS collects my DNA every day. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:CSS collects my DNA every day. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CSS collects my DNA every day. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the point. Do you actually think /. is some widely read resource?
Snowden gets bigger news coverage by notoriety alone, which means that thing being said 1000 times already actually gets to more people.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF has he said that hasn't been said 1000 times already?
It's not so much what he said that was new. It's that he proved it.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't use any tool built after electricity was invented or its all your fault they have data on you. Don't use a bank, a phone, or an insurance card, or email or the internet you assholes. You're claiming you're man enough to never leave a trace and have no suffering as a result, but you're too lazy to log in and make a comment here. Stop talking out of your ass and blaming citizens for communicating.