4 ms·

I believe I am not the only one here whose blood boils at such a news story. Thank you EFF for investigating this. My question is, what can we do to fight such

I believe I am not the only one here whose blood boils at such a news story. Thank you EFF for investigating this. My question is, what can we do to fight such oppressive surveillance mechanisms as individuals? Beyond the standard donation to EFF and such. In my rage I want to see the Fog Data Science people prosecuted and the police depts which unquestioningly used their product stripped of their post, but what power do we have as a collection of individuals to work against these nefarious machinations?

keyme 4y ago
You have no power. The moment you'll come close to regainig it in any way, it'll be called an "insurrection" and you'll be neutralized and disgraced.
- swader999 4y ago
  Doesn't take an army to invent alternatives to our always on, always pinging smart phones. At some point someone will.
  - kornhole 4y ago
    It has been done and many of us are using it although we are a small minority. Most people are unable to make the changes needed as the implants are too embedded in them to remove. Try getting someone to switch to degoogled Android from Iphone to see the difficulty.
  - fsflover 4y ago
    It's already invented: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 https://puri.sm/products/librem-5. Needs early supporters to help (I preordered).
  - cronix 4y ago
    I treat my cell phone like a land line. It just sits next to my desk, even when I leave. For the last several years, I don't carry it with me anymore. I lived just fine before they existed and to me the convenience isn't worth the potential ramifications. It's not only whoever is currently in power today and what they deem acceptable...it's also the potential future use of the data by future "leaders" because it's all recorded. Just don't give them anything to record, or as little as humanly possible in this day and age. I know most won't do that, unfortunately. There's rarely anything important enough to actually need instant communication for most people. I bring this up all the time to family and friends: imagine if Hitler, Stalin or Mao didn't have to rely on a network of snitches and spy's (manpower) to get their info on gays, jews, capitalists, dissidents, etc., and just had to keyword search a database and instantly get a list of anyone who used certain words, phrases or ideas, or visited certain establishments via gps records at anytime in the past
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
javajosh 4y ago
Save your blood and accept the simple fact that "the police" are a actually a set of more-or-less independent small government departments who get to beat people up and get away with it. And then arrest the beaten up person putting them in jail indefinitely before trial, and creating an immediate huge financial and social burden on that person. Mostly the public is unaware of this because the frog has boiled in fits and starts, the last big temp increases happened because of 9/11 under Bush and Obama and the distro of military gear to PDs. Tell me: what about this situation implies "self-restraint" is a key virtue of PDs? I'll tell you what the problem is. It's the justice system itself. It's extremely slow and expensive. Defense lawyers have perverse incentives -- delays make money. Prosecution have perverse incentives -- they just want easy wins. The courts have perverse incentives -- they don't want to decide cases. So you get a system rooted in all-powerful patrolmen who effectively serve as judge, jury and executioner, with the rest of it serving as a willing, very highly paid window dressing. So why would a PD ever say no to getting any legal advantage? The solution must be to rethink justice from top to bottom, such that excesses like this are punished meaningfully. I'm uncharacteristically optimistic about the possibility, mainly because of computers and the internet. Justice is about making sound decisions informed by reality after applying agreed upon rules (laws), and it requires a judge/jury. Computers can help with each of these elements in ways barely explored by modern-day courts. They can help with information gathering and jury selection/operation. If we wanted, we could have same day trials of higher quality than the months or years long things we have today. For people aware of these problems, the only solutions they hear involve fixing the justice with new legislation or by electing the right sheriff, mayor, police chief, or if a higher level of government steps in (like the FBI or federal courts). Or even worse that odious pablum "just vote" - if you've been served shit for dinner it won't taste better if you push it 'round your plate. (If someone with infinite money (and with open-minded connections with judges in various courts, and supportive politicians) wants to fund a serious effort in this area, please reach out to me, because this need is critical.)
- landemva 4y ago
  As you wrote, redress in the courts is expensive and unlikely to succeed against the government. The USSC made-up doctrine of government immunity should be removed. BLM got side-tracked into ineffectiveness by avoiding this underlying problem.
upofadown 4y ago
The root problem here is the commercial exploitation of personal data. How can you deny law enforcement access to data that is, for all practical purposes, available to anyone? The solution to this particular problem is political. The USA needs federal privacy laws.
- landemva 4y ago
  Another approach, which can be quickly implemented on the personal level, is to turn off phone GPS location, reset the advertising ID, uninstall apps, and set remaining apps to be restricted when in the background. In other words, don't voluntarily give so much away. Some of this is a choice.
- Test0129 4y ago
  I doubt the people who are literally responsible for deciding who to drone strike with meta data from things like this are going to suddenly turn around and decide "well, we definitely don't want that for our citizens". This is all according to plan. The best part it's totally politically ambiguous. Republicans are war hawks and "the party of the people" (Democrats) have been responsible for thousands of extrajudicial killings overseas. Both major parties LOVE this idea. Who wouldn't want to be able to manufacture a crime against your alleged political adversaries?
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  “How can you deny..” I mean you just can right? A lot of lines are arbitrarily drawn, and drawing a line there is better than none. The categorical difference in power is one justification for the line being there. (Not saying there aren’t also justifications for more privacy still)
advisedwang 4y ago
> what can we do ... as individuals Nothing. An individual is weak. > what power do we have as a collection of individuals to work This is the right question to ask! First of all analyze where does power need to be applied to change this practice. State/Fed lawmakers? Courts? Apple/Google? The data brokers? DoJ/State Attorneys General? The FTC? Police Depts themselves? All of the above? Next, for each of these analyze what would make them change course. For example, via courts a relevant legal challenge and adequately funded counsel is obviously one element, but in truth Judges pay attention to factors outside the courtroom like public opinion, re-election campaigns (for elected judges). Not only that but in the long term which judges are sitting is something that can be influenced either by elections or the appointer. Then consider how do we build organizations that get the power to apply that influence. For example funding the EFF, ACLU et al is great for the "a relevant legal challenge and adequately funded counsel" part, but they do a bad job with public opinion and don't even attempt the other parts. So you can seek out or start organizations that do those elements. Or alternatively imagine you want the US DoJ to step in. Well, ultimately high level DoJ serves the political needs of the current administration, so pressure needs to be applied there. Sadly in the US this is a very difficult angle but it's possible (see: tea party!). For other issues I might suggest joining DSA or something like that, but I don't think that's relevant here. Possibly making a stink within the Democratic party would be effective. As you can probably see, this fans out to a large number of different organizations with different strategies along the way. You can join and support multiple of them, but it's not really practical to do everything so you have to pick a bit. This is why you need to think through what you believe is a viable strategy and find organizations you think are effective.
parineum 4y ago
> My question is, what can we do to fight such oppressive surveillance mechanisms as individuals? Beyond the standard donation to EFF and such. I don't think there is much beyond that to be honest. Those people are the experts and, honestly, a big difference between this country and those that we would not like to become is that we are able to make such a donation without repercussion. In a lot of other places, such activism would have severe consequences.

keyme 4y ago

You have no power. The moment you'll come close to regainig it in any way, it'll be called an "insurrection" and you'll be neutralized and disgraced.

swader999 4y ago
Doesn't take an army to invent alternatives to our always on, always pinging smart phones. At some point someone will.
- kornhole 4y ago
  It has been done and many of us are using it although we are a small minority. Most people are unable to make the changes needed as the implants are too embedded in them to remove. Try getting someone to switch to degoogled Android from Iphone to see the difficulty.
- fsflover 4y ago
  It's already invented: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 https://puri.sm/products/librem-5. Needs early supporters to help (I preordered).
- cronix 4y ago
  I treat my cell phone like a land line. It just sits next to my desk, even when I leave. For the last several years, I don't carry it with me anymore. I lived just fine before they existed and to me the convenience isn't worth the potential ramifications. It's not only whoever is currently in power today and what they deem acceptable...it's also the potential future use of the data by future "leaders" because it's all recorded. Just don't give them anything to record, or as little as humanly possible in this day and age. I know most won't do that, unfortunately. There's rarely anything important enough to actually need instant communication for most people. I bring this up all the time to family and friends: imagine if Hitler, Stalin or Mao didn't have to rely on a network of snitches and spy's (manpower) to get their info on gays, jews, capitalists, dissidents, etc., and just had to keyword search a database and instantly get a list of anyone who used certain words, phrases or ideas, or visited certain establishments via gps records at anytime in the past
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

javajosh 4y ago

Save your blood and accept the simple fact that "the police" are a actually a set of more-or-less independent small government departments who get to beat people up and get away with it. And then arrest the beaten up person putting them in jail indefinitely before trial, and creating an immediate huge financial and social burden on that person. Mostly the public is unaware of this because the frog has boiled in fits and starts, the last big temp increases happened because of 9/11 under Bush and Obama and the distro of military gear to PDs. Tell me: what about this situation implies "self-restraint" is a key virtue of PDs? I'll tell you what the problem is. It's the justice system itself. It's extremely slow and expensive. Defense lawyers have perverse incentives -- delays make money. Prosecution have perverse incentives -- they just want easy wins. The courts have perverse incentives -- they don't want to decide cases. So you get a system rooted in all-powerful patrolmen who effectively serve as judge, jury and executioner, with the rest of it serving as a willing, very highly paid window dressing. So why would a PD ever say no to getting any legal advantage? The solution must be to rethink justice from top to bottom, such that excesses like this are punished meaningfully. I'm uncharacteristically optimistic about the possibility, mainly because of computers and the internet. Justice is about making sound decisions informed by reality after applying agreed upon rules (laws), and it requires a judge/jury. Computers can help with each of these elements in ways barely explored by modern-day courts. They can help with information gathering and jury selection/operation. If we wanted, we could have same day trials of higher quality than the months or years long things we have today. For people aware of these problems, the only solutions they hear involve fixing the justice with new legislation or by electing the right sheriff, mayor, police chief, or if a higher level of government steps in (like the FBI or federal courts). Or even worse that odious pablum "just vote" - if you've been served shit for dinner it won't taste better if you push it 'round your plate. (If someone with infinite money (and with open-minded connections with judges in various courts, and supportive politicians) wants to fund a serious effort in this area, please reach out to me, because this need is critical.)

landemva 4y ago
As you wrote, redress in the courts is expensive and unlikely to succeed against the government. The USSC made-up doctrine of government immunity should be removed. BLM got side-tracked into ineffectiveness by avoiding this underlying problem.

upofadown 4y ago

The root problem here is the commercial exploitation of personal data. How can you deny law enforcement access to data that is, for all practical purposes, available to anyone? The solution to this particular problem is political. The USA needs federal privacy laws.

landemva 4y ago
Another approach, which can be quickly implemented on the personal level, is to turn off phone GPS location, reset the advertising ID, uninstall apps, and set remaining apps to be restricted when in the background. In other words, don't voluntarily give so much away. Some of this is a choice.
Test0129 4y ago
I doubt the people who are literally responsible for deciding who to drone strike with meta data from things like this are going to suddenly turn around and decide "well, we definitely don't want that for our citizens". This is all according to plan. The best part it's totally politically ambiguous. Republicans are war hawks and "the party of the people" (Democrats) have been responsible for thousands of extrajudicial killings overseas. Both major parties LOVE this idea. Who wouldn't want to be able to manufacture a crime against your alleged political adversaries?
therealdrag0 4y ago
“How can you deny..” I mean you just can right? A lot of lines are arbitrarily drawn, and drawing a line there is better than none. The categorical difference in power is one justification for the line being there. (Not saying there aren’t also justifications for more privacy still)

advisedwang 4y ago

> what can we do ... as individuals Nothing. An individual is weak. > what power do we have as a collection of individuals to work This is the right question to ask! First of all analyze where does power need to be applied to change this practice. State/Fed lawmakers? Courts? Apple/Google? The data brokers? DoJ/State Attorneys General? The FTC? Police Depts themselves? All of the above? Next, for each of these analyze what would make them change course. For example, via courts a relevant legal challenge and adequately funded counsel is obviously one element, but in truth Judges pay attention to factors outside the courtroom like public opinion, re-election campaigns (for elected judges). Not only that but in the long term which judges are sitting is something that can be influenced either by elections or the appointer. Then consider how do we build organizations that get the power to apply that influence. For example funding the EFF, ACLU et al is great for the "a relevant legal challenge and adequately funded counsel" part, but they do a bad job with public opinion and don't even attempt the other parts. So you can seek out or start organizations that do those elements. Or alternatively imagine you want the US DoJ to step in. Well, ultimately high level DoJ serves the political needs of the current administration, so pressure needs to be applied there. Sadly in the US this is a very difficult angle but it's possible (see: tea party!). For other issues I might suggest joining DSA or something like that, but I don't think that's relevant here. Possibly making a stink within the Democratic party would be effective. As you can probably see, this fans out to a large number of different organizations with different strategies along the way. You can join and support multiple of them, but it's not really practical to do everything so you have to pick a bit. This is why you need to think through what you believe is a viable strategy and find organizations you think are effective.

parineum 4y ago

> My question is, what can we do to fight such oppressive surveillance mechanisms as individuals? Beyond the standard donation to EFF and such. I don't think there is much beyond that to be honest. Those people are the experts and, honestly, a big difference between this country and those that we would not like to become is that we are able to make such a donation without repercussion. In a lot of other places, such activism would have severe consequences.