3 ms·

I can't help but relate the 'First they came ...' prose to the above. I don't really have much to say as I feel the erosion of freedom is clearly apparent and '

I can't help but relate the 'First they came ...' prose to the above. I don't really have much to say as I feel the erosion of freedom is clearly apparent and 'worse' than before by all definitions. From "The Transparent Society" Wiki page (I have not read the book) > Brin argues that a core level of privacy—protecting our most intimate interactions—may be preserved, The UK govt. has already invaded intimate interactions, to the point that they got hauled into a Human Rights court https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime... I mean, how much more are you going to accept before they finally come for you?

shadowgovt 7y ago
> I mean, how much more are you going to accept before they finally come for you? Your example is the UK government being roped in by HUDOC, so I believe my answer is "Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC." In particular, the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence (intercepted communications), not collection of images of people in public and comparison of those images against persons of interest (a thing already legal to do by hand via human operators, which the computer algorithm merely speeds up). Private correspondence is private; why should people believe that their public movements should be so?
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  > Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC This is basically the 'finally they came for me' argument I was making. You will sleep in until it's too late is what you are suggesting. > the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence This was my point contradicting "The Transparent Society"'s optimistic POV. I give up.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I don't take Transparent Society's read as optimistic; it highlights dangers but treats those dangers as mitigable if we pay attention. For example, HUDOC acts as oversight for the risk of overreach of the UK's police apparatus. Given that such oversight exists, the addition of facial recognition to do what the UK camera network is designed to do already (but faster and with programmable parameters) is probably acceptable. The benefits are clear and the risk mitigated by oversight.

shadowgovt 7y ago

> I mean, how much more are you going to accept before they finally come for you? Your example is the UK government being roped in by HUDOC, so I believe my answer is "Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC." In particular, the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence (intercepted communications), not collection of images of people in public and comparison of those images against persons of interest (a thing already legal to do by hand via human operators, which the computer algorithm merely speeds up). Private correspondence is private; why should people believe that their public movements should be so?

monkeynotes 7y ago
> Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC This is basically the 'finally they came for me' argument I was making. You will sleep in until it's too late is what you are suggesting. > the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence This was my point contradicting "The Transparent Society"'s optimistic POV. I give up.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I don't take Transparent Society's read as optimistic; it highlights dangers but treats those dangers as mitigable if we pay attention. For example, HUDOC acts as oversight for the risk of overreach of the UK's police apparatus. Given that such oversight exists, the addition of facial recognition to do what the UK camera network is designed to do already (but faster and with programmable parameters) is probably acceptable. The benefits are clear and the risk mitigated by oversight.