4 ms·

A couple older links on Babel Street from Vice and TWP (2017): https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-the-powerful-social-media-surveillan

by eth0up 7y ago

A couple older links on Babel Street from Vice and TWP (2017): https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-the-powerful-social-media-surveillance-used-by-police-secret-service-and-sports-stadiums https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-company-online-surveillance-leads-to-profit-in-washingtons-suburbs/2017/09/08/6067c924-9409-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-com... Babel Street's first customer was the Pentagon, according to TWP. It appears to have since spread with virulence to nearly all branches of government. I wonder how viable they'd be (in cellphone location tracking) if permissions actually meant something in Android. I missed any mention of iphones in the Protocol article, but would default to equal cynicism.

cryptonector 7y ago
Even if permissions are enforced, there will be enough apps that most users will be willing to allow to track them, and those apps can participate in this program without being exactly explicit about it to the user. The apps' privacy policies will essentially be a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo amounting to "and you have no privacy", and users won't even bother to read that. Just because an uninformed user granted some app permission to track them, which app implied it could share that with LEOs, doesn't mean that the courts will consider warrant-less tracking this way constitutional. I don't know and can't predict whether the courts will or won't, but they well might not. There will be interesting cases arising out of this technology eventually. The SCOTUS has already said that police can warrantlessly use surveillance technology that is widely available to the public, but I doubt this tech will so become.
- eth0up 7y ago
  I (further) wonder what percentage of Fdroid apps lend themselves to Locate-X. Certainly qualifies for the "Anti-features" honor. Regarding that which might arise; very interesting for sure, and almost certainly for the worse. I'll never embrace it, but do accept it - it's here to stay along with endless other innovations, or so I fear.

by eth0up 7y ago

cryptonector 7y ago

Even if permissions are enforced, there will be enough apps that most users will be willing to allow to track them, and those apps can participate in this program without being exactly explicit about it to the user. The apps' privacy policies will essentially be a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo amounting to "and you have no privacy", and users won't even bother to read that. Just because an uninformed user granted some app permission to track them, which app implied it could share that with LEOs, doesn't mean that the courts will consider warrant-less tracking this way constitutional. I don't know and can't predict whether the courts will or won't, but they well might not. There will be interesting cases arising out of this technology eventually. The SCOTUS has already said that police can warrantlessly use surveillance technology that is widely available to the public, but I doubt this tech will so become.

eth0up 7y ago
I (further) wonder what percentage of Fdroid apps lend themselves to Locate-X. Certainly qualifies for the "Anti-features" honor. Regarding that which might arise; very interesting for sure, and almost certainly for the worse. I'll never embrace it, but do accept it - it's here to stay along with endless other innovations, or so I fear.