4 ms·

Because there is an element of Trust involved in the statement: "Just observing identifiers you can't use to identify individuals", which unless you completely

Because there is an element of Trust involved in the statement: "Just observing identifiers you can't use to identify individuals", which unless you completely understand the protocols and math (does anyone?) inflict at least a small amount burden on the mind. EDIT: Just to add a little bit to this reply. Using your example, counting the number of cars on a highway is clearly surveilling the group of highway goers. This could perhaps allow you to note that one demographic travels more on Sunday than another, or that a remote farmer himself was out for groceries last Tuesday.

Someone 5y ago
So, you bought a device that runs software you cannot inspect on a zillion different CPUs (the one you think your phone runs on, the one running below it, the phone modem’s ones, the one in your flash disk, etc), one of which has to tell the phone network where your phone is all the time, so that the network can find your phone when you get a call. For most users, another one regularly tells the manufacturer of your phone where your phone is, so that, if you lose it, you can use it to locate your phone. With neither, you can check whether that data is deleted in a timely manner or whether extra data, such as IDs of phones near you, is being sent out and collected. Now, the seller of said phone adds a feature, documenting that it collects hashes of phones near you on your device. Again, there’s no way for you to check that, but why would that require more trust?
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  New databases. But your point is very valid. We already live under mass surveillance, to the point of insanity. I reject this way of living and would like to be part of the solution... without giving up on the good aspects of the technology.
35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> EDIT: Just to add a little bit to this reply. Using your example, counting the number of cars on a highway is clearly surveilling the group of highway goers. This could perhaps allow you to note that one demographic travels more on Sunday than another, or that a remote farmer himself was out for groceries last Tuesday. Analogies suck, don't use them: 13038042-A0D5-4E76-8964-AF27B0EAD352 travels more on Sunday than others, and BD1DC4FD-2D17-44E3-91CF-198403C5E2B4 was out for groceries last Tuesday. There is no database that correlates bd1dc4f to anything; indeed, check back soon and the physical phone that used to be bd1 is now f0f4442. Spot the difference?
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  Much trust in these hashes we must have, no? Much more trust in the absence of catalogs of them that others have. I can't prove anything, nor do I try, but still it rests on my mind.
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
    Sure, the NSA could backdoor an opt-in system around a political third rail that is hardly if at all used in the United States. Or, it could attack the radio processor that runs a parallel operating system on our phones that we can't inspect. Or hell, if the goal is "tracking people", they could attack the legal infrastructure that is used to legally track people via cellphones today.

Someone 5y ago

So, you bought a device that runs software you cannot inspect on a zillion different CPUs (the one you think your phone runs on, the one running below it, the phone modem’s ones, the one in your flash disk, etc), one of which has to tell the phone network where your phone is all the time, so that the network can find your phone when you get a call. For most users, another one regularly tells the manufacturer of your phone where your phone is, so that, if you lose it, you can use it to locate your phone. With neither, you can check whether that data is deleted in a timely manner or whether extra data, such as IDs of phones near you, is being sent out and collected. Now, the seller of said phone adds a feature, documenting that it collects hashes of phones near you on your device. Again, there’s no way for you to check that, but why would that require more trust?

nixpulvis 5y ago
New databases. But your point is very valid. We already live under mass surveillance, to the point of insanity. I reject this way of living and would like to be part of the solution... without giving up on the good aspects of the technology.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago

> EDIT: Just to add a little bit to this reply. Using your example, counting the number of cars on a highway is clearly surveilling the group of highway goers. This could perhaps allow you to note that one demographic travels more on Sunday than another, or that a remote farmer himself was out for groceries last Tuesday. Analogies suck, don't use them: 13038042-A0D5-4E76-8964-AF27B0EAD352 travels more on Sunday than others, and BD1DC4FD-2D17-44E3-91CF-198403C5E2B4 was out for groceries last Tuesday. There is no database that correlates bd1dc4f to anything; indeed, check back soon and the physical phone that used to be bd1 is now f0f4442. Spot the difference?

nixpulvis 5y ago
Much trust in these hashes we must have, no? Much more trust in the absence of catalogs of them that others have. I can't prove anything, nor do I try, but still it rests on my mind.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  Sure, the NSA could backdoor an opt-in system around a political third rail that is hardly if at all used in the United States. Or, it could attack the radio processor that runs a parallel operating system on our phones that we can't inspect. Or hell, if the goal is "tracking people", they could attack the legal infrastructure that is used to legally track people via cellphones today.