13 ms·
Stop replacing London’s phone boxes with corporate surveillance
- lokopodium 9y agoMac address randomization is a must if your wifi is on in public (you don't even need to connect anywhere to be fingerprinted and tracked). Also use cookie self-destruct plugins for your browser.
- defo_nonconvex 9y agoPossible on Android and without root?
- TACIXAT 9y agoAs of iOS 8 and Android 5.0 the operating systems should do it automatically.
- michaelt 9y agoresearchers found that "the overwhelming majority of Android devices are not implementing the available randomization capabilities built into the Android OS," which makes such Android devices trivial to track. [...] Apple, meanwhile, introduced MAC address randomization in iOS 8, only to break it in iOS 10. [...] its network probe broadcasts to include a distinct Information Element (IE), data added to Wi-Fi management frames to extend the Wi-Fi protocol. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/mac_address_randomization/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/mac_address_randomi...
- distances 9y agoFor avoiding wifi tracking I suggest Smarter Wifi Manager [0]. It's great for automatically keeping wifi off when not at home/work. [0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.kismetwireless.android.smarterwifimanager https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.kismetwire...
- myopicgoat 9y agoMAC address randomisation has been proven to be essentially useless: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02874v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02874v1
- goblins 9y agoHaving read just the abstract is seems that current implementations of Mac address randomisation is essentially useless rather the Mac address randomisation itself. Hopefully in the future the implementation will improve. Until then WiFi is off.
- stordoff 9y agoDoes anyone know how the MAC randomisation in Windows 10 devices stacks up? I'd assume it's better than a fixed MAC, but a quick Google search doesn't give much info. about how easily it can be sidestepped.
- tinus_hn 9y agoPreventing every possible form of tracking is so difficult it’s almost a lost cause. Preventing forms of tracking that are actually in use is much easier.
- Spivak 9y agoThe goal isn't to defeat every possible form of tracking, it's to make it more difficult than it's worth to track you. Do you think this system even bothers to take into account the tiny number of people who turn MAC randomization on? I don't think my door lock is going to protect me against a professional locksmith, having one is nonetheless still useful.
- Reason077 9y agoThese are based on the LinkNYC kiosks in New York which date back to 2015 or so. The hardware looks exactly the same.
- AndyMcConachie 9y agoUntil Brexit the UK will have to deal with GDPR. Things are gonna get interesting. grabs popcorn
- timthorn 9y agoThe UK intends to continue with GDPR post-Brexit
- mtgx 9y agoBut not with that pesky so-called "Charter of Fundamental Rights" that keeps forcing them to slightly update their mass surveillance laws every couple of years, as they're ruled invalid...again, and again. It's why the cons have intended to switch to UK's own "Bill of Rights" since Cameron.
- stordoff 9y agoIn fairness, keeping the Charter as-is doesn't make a huge amount of sense given how tied it is to Citizens of The Union/Member States/Union law (e.g. A15, and most of Title V - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...). Even if you enshrined it into UK law, large parts would cease to apply anyway (e.g. anything that grants rights to "Every citizen of the Union" or begins "The Union recognises"). More concerning would be a withdrawal from the ECHR, which focuses on fundamental human rights per se, not fundamental rights arising out of EU membership.
- Silhouette 9y agoMore concerning would be a withdrawal from the ECHR, which focuses on fundamental human rights per se, not fundamental rights arising out of EU membership. Both are concerning, though. I was recently educated by a real lawyer about my idealistic view of the ECHR. It turns out that I had a fundamental misunderstanding for years, so I will share the essence of what they told me in case I wasn't the only one. (I am not a lawyer, so please forgive any continuing misunderstandings in what follows.) The thing about the ECHR is that it doesn't really operate as a law, more a benchmark against which other laws are measured. A UK court will attempt to interpret UK law in a way that is compatible with the ECHR/HRA where possible. However, if a law cannot be so interpreted and is not compatible with the ECHR, the most a court can actually do is issue a declaration of incompatibility, which is the political equivalent of being told off and put in the naughty corner. The law itself still stands. Usually after a declaration of incompatibility the government does acquiesce and modify the law to be more compatible, but there have been some notable instances such as voting rights for prisoners where they have refused to do so. At that point, regardless of any theoretical protections afforded by the ECHR, the practicality is that is has no more power. The legal situation seems to be quite different as far as the Charter and enforcement through the CJEU go, because that mechanism appears to have real legal teeth in its own right. This is the mechanism that will almost certainly disappear as part of Brexit, and so it is important for the protection of rights and liberties that something analogous be enshrined in primary UK legislation. The government of the day could still change it later, because in this country we don't have a constitution that guarantees these sorts of rights and sits at a higher level of law, but at least they would have to do so actively and under full parliamentary scrutiny like any other law.
- slackuser 9y agoSorry, but can somebody give a full explanation why is it so bad? And if you want want you can just not to use this kiosks, right?
- TheAdamAndChe 9y agoGood question. Many people really don't like the incredible amount of cultural and political influence that these large multinational corporations are obtaining through data collection and analytics. This is just another example of corporate influence extending further into aspects of society that were formerly handled by the government.
- aluhut 9y agoSince someone already explained, would you mind explaining why the part about data in the article didn't strike you as bad in the first place?
- slackuser 9y agoProbably because there i know that my data have been already sold. McDonald will sell my data when i use they WiFi. My network provider will sell my data, my phone provider. Fitness company also will sell me. Facebook consider me as a product for 5-6 years already. I think in modern society it is a normal thing
- aluhut 9y agoFirst: you speak for yourself. I for example share nothing on my fake name Facebook account. I use it to tell relatives to call me/send me a Signal message. Even with an Facebook account, they can only share what you give them. Nobody forces you to use McDonalds WiFi. Use your data plan. Your ISP must have some kind of stricter regulations even outside of Europe (where I am) then some ad sponsored access point. There are huge differences and data minimization is a thing. Your approach however is terrible. It makes it look like everything is lost and there is nothing to protect anymore. This is not only wrong, it sends out a horrible message to others.
- 9y ago
- jotm 9y agoI was wondering why they don't use old style phone boxes with new tech inside. But of course, someone will piss, take a shit or do drugs inside. Great way to ruin it guys.
- Theodores 9y agoI don't know if these phone boxes will last for long, there have been plenty of efforts to repurpose them for free wifi, maps, local council services and so on but these experiments never last for that long. The fundamental problem is the guy with the iPhone X has a contract for lots of 4G bandwidth and would prefer to just use that except for at home/work when the wifi gets used. So you are left with customers for the service that have pay as you go SIM only contracts for an old iPhone 4S.
- jstanley 9y agoWhy is the guy with an iPhone X a more desirable customer than a guy with an iPhone 4S?
- Spooky23 9y agoPeople who spend a grand on a phone tend to buy other things.
- rco8786 9y ago...but the product is free WiFi.
- tinbucket 9y agoI think the real product is the data of the person using the 'free' WiFi. The WiFi is a service designed to gain access to that product. In that instance, the data of someone spending £1,000 on a phone is more valuable than the data of someone using a PAYG iPhone 4S.
- Spooky23 9y agoCarrier signals suck in many parts of NYC. There’s a value for on street WiFi.
- HenryBemis 9y agoBriton are 95% comfortable with massive surveillance. The "average Joe" has the "I got nothing to hide" and that "go get them paedophiles", which are very true statements. We are talking about a nation that has 4,200,000 [1] cameras surveilling them and nobody bats an eye about this. For some reason, Britons have decided (or was forced to them and they didn't push back) that privacy is not necessary, so, let them have it. What harm can 3 more cameras can do? :) (per kiosk, per street) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
- timthorn 9y agoWith state surveillance, I'd agree. I don't think things are so clear cut for private sector actors. Private CCTV is tolerated because it's a) typically not a networked system, b) rarely mined for analytics and c) often conflated with council run systems anyway.
- dingaling 9y ago> (or was forced to them and they didn't push back ) How do you suggest that we should have pushed back? By voting the bastards out? The UK is actually quite good at that, but policy outlives politicians thanks to the civil service.
- celticninja 9y agoNew government can easily reverse or change the policies of previous governments, the civil service jut enacts what the government of the day tells them to do.
- desas 9y agoSort of. The civil service has lots of people with their own agenda which they push to the elected politicians when they ask the civil service for options on how to solve problems
- 9y ago
- walshemj 9y agoAh yet another attempt to keep the payphones division alive whilst I can feel sympathy for those stuck in payphones as a share holder of BT.A I do ask is this actually going to turn a profit.
- icc97 9y agoThis level of surveillance is a shame given that by luck of never being invaded by the Nazis there's no ID cards in the UK. Somehow also people managed to stop attempts to get ID cards introduced. It might even be because of this. That is, it's easy for other European governments to track people as they have to carry ID at all times. Because the UK government are worried about the lack of this, they go down the CCTV route.
- bayerrr 9y agoAs a German, you could not be more wrong with your idea about ID cards. ID cards are not used to track your movement. There is no need to show an ID to the police unless they have suspicion that you committed a crime and confront you. There are no passport controls along roads. There is a huge difference between the scales at which passport controls and CCTV can be executed, too, because passport controls require work by a police officer, whereas CCTV can be automated with face recognition. Our police is understaffed, too, you rarely see them. Whenever you use your ID card it is to buy alcohol or enter a concert, and police do not check the ID, but an employee of the venue. The employees just check the date of birth if you look like a young person, and sometimes if the picture is matching your face.
- dozzie 9y ago> As a German, you could not be more wrong [...] Why do you think he's German?
- KirinDave 9y agoThere is something very important in working out our tolerance to surveillance vs the utility that is absolutely impossible to get without risking surveillance. I can't really articulate it yet, but reading this article it occurs to me how really the old phone system didn't offer much more in the way of privacy (every phone call was recorded), but it offered more in the way of obscurity. Now that our information systems and techniques are good enough that obscurity is increasingly becoming unreachable (even by design), we need to come to terms with what that really means. It feels like a big loss, but every time I sit down to analyze what we've really lost, I never can identify anything actually valuable to me in contrast to the privacy rights that we already struggle to maintain. But also, a consequence of a networked society is that people can cooperate to create systems that have remarkably disproportionate collecting capacity. In the same sense that the consequence of an industrialized society is that people can cooperate to create disproportionate manufacturing capacity. No amount of rules, conservative independence, liberal appeal, or public outcry can change that fundamental truth. Nor can we undo the march of technology without a fundamentally cataclysmic restructuring of the world's economy.
- magnetic 9y ago> I can't really articulate it yet, but reading this article it occurs to me how really the old phone system didn't offer much more in the way of privacy (every phone call was recorded) Can you explain a bit more what you mean here? Where are you to make this statement (UK like the article?)? Are you just talking about calls on public phones? When you say "recorded" do you mean metadata only, or the actual audio?
- ppod 9y agoSocieties that willingly forego privacy in order to allow things like social credit scores will have a large competitive advantage. The effect on social interaction and interaction with the state will be similar to the effect that tripadvisor has on restaurants, or that uber and lyft have on taxi customer service. Our historical models of losing privacy emphasise the state at the centre of the panoptican observing all citizens while remaining hidden themselves. Correctly implemented, technological tracking of services and employees and bureaucrats has the potential to be much more like true transparency, with everyone having a more accurate picture of everyone else's history of behaviour. Whether you think that this is desirable or not is really about values and preferences, not an objective question. But I think it is objectively likely that a society like this would enjoy a competitive advantage in terms of organising its economy and society.
- Animats 9y agoSure the West and China are both turning into biometric dystopias buuuuuuuut ours delivers fried chicken to your train seat. - Naomi Wu, Shenzhen. For some railroad lines in China, you can order food while on a train and have it delivered to you at a station. That requires finding the passenger quickly, so some combination of cell phone tracking and face recognition is used.[1] KFC is using this system. China's approach to Big Brother is more like a service function. The Government knows who you are and what you're doing, but China has been like that for centuries. There's no tradition of anonymity. The older paper-based systems worked when people didn't move much. The newer technology is being used to provide routine services, such as convenience store checkout and finding purse snatchers. London has a lot of cameras, but many of them are old, so they have poor resolution. Newer 4K surveillance cameras [2] finally have enough resolution to be useful for recognizing faces at 40 feet or so. [1] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-07/13/content_30092586.htm http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-07/13/content_300925... [2] https://www.lorextechnology.com/articles/What-is-4k-Video/R-sc16000060 https://www.lorextechnology.com/articles/What-is-4k-Video/R-...