10 ms·

"and notify the user when such attempts are made to their device." We aren't going to remove the security state. We should make all attempts to, but it won't h

"and notify the user when such attempts are made to their device." We aren't going to remove the security state. We should make all attempts to, but it won't happen. What needs to happen is accountability. I should be able to turn off sharing personal information and if someone tries I should be notified and have recourse. This should also be retroactive. If I have turned off sharing and someone finds a technical loophole and uses it, there should be consequences. The only way to stop the rampant abuse is to treat data like fire. If you have it and it gets out of control you get burned, badly.

fsflover 9mo ago
This is exactly what GDPR does.
- jmward01 9mo ago
  Does it apply to the government like it applies to people? Is it enforced against governments like it is enforced against people and corporations? A core issue here is that laws, and the application and enforcement of laws, generally do not. Having said that I applaud the attempt and encourage pushing forward on the anti-surveillance aspects of GDPR while recognizing all laws are flawed.
  - cromulent 9mo ago
    The telco would be the one collecting it first, I assume. It would be interesting for someone in the EU to request their data from their telco, and if it contains these precise locations, question the usage.
    - wolvoleo 9mo ago
      Tescos in the EU are required to track location for emergency call purposes and provide it to the government in such occasions. That means they need the ability to collect it all the time.
      - subscribed 9mo ago
        The parent comment specifically mentioned the _collected_ data, not the ability/authorisation to collect it. They're raising the possibility of asking _why_ the data was collected if there was no emergency? Of course if the telco doesn't store the rewuests/responses, there will be no records to show.
        wolvoleo 9mo ago
        It needs to be collected to serve the devices properly. Today's RF is very targeted with multi stream etc.
  - kingkawn 9mo ago
    State actors are inherently only subject to their own oversight
  - ozim 9mo ago
    Yeah it applies to government like local municipalities have to adhere to GDPR, they cannot just have your name on the register, they have to have a legal reason. Way you could argue it doesn’t apply to government is that the government makes the law so they can make the law that makes data processing and having your name on some kind of registry required. But still they have to show you the reason and you can escalate to EU bodies to fine your own country if they don’t follow the rules.
  - molszanski 9mo ago
    I guess. In Poland when I go to gov offices I need to sign 25 GDPR clauses
themafia 9mo ago
> We aren't going to remove the security state What security state? They aren't doing this for anyone's safety. This is the surveillance and parallel construction state. > What needs to happen is accountability. No agency can have this power and remain accountable. Warrants are not an effective tool for managing this. Courts cannot effectively perform oversight after the fact. > The only way to stop the rampant abuse is to treat data like fire. You've missed the obvious. You should really go the other direction. Our devices should generate _noise_. Huge crazy amounts of noise. Extraneous data to a level that pollutes the system beyond any utility. They accept all this data without filtering. They should suffer for that choice.
- fooqux 9mo ago
  > Our devices should generate _noise_. Huge crazy amounts of noise. Extraneous data to a level that pollutes the system beyond any utility. They accept all this data without filtering. They should suffer for that choice. I like the idea on principle, but I'll like it far less when I'm getting charged with computer fraud or some other over-reaching bullshit law.
- ruszki 9mo ago
  > They aren't doing this for anyone's safety. Strictly speaking, this is not completely true. When you call an emergency number, it’s very good that they can see exactly where you are. That was how this was sold 15+ years ago. But of course, that’s basically the only use case when this should be available.
  - cpncrunch 9mo ago
    Should it not be available with a valid court order as well?
    - p-e-w 9mo ago
      Why? What is the rationale? Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that anything goes as long as a court decrees it, in which case there’s nothing to debate really.
SilverElfin 9mo ago
For consequences, we need to do away with the notion of qualified immunity. Why should police officers, politicians, agents of the government have any immunity for their actions? They should carry personal liability for breaking the law and violating others’ rights. Otherwise, there is no reason they’ll change. Right now, at best you’ll sue the government and get some money, but all you’re doing is punishing other tax payers.
- hedora 9mo ago
  Committing a crime and also abusing your authority to aid in the crime should be greater than the penalty for just committing that crime. Qualified immunity is the only legal doctrine I can think of where piling on extra crimes reduces your liability.
- themaninthedark 9mo ago
  In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle of federal law that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". Under 42 USC § 1983, a plaintiff can sue for damages when state officials violate their constitutional rights or other federal rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity Qualified Immunity only sets the bar or threshold that you have to meet in order to sue.
  - myko 9mo ago
    Nearly impossibly hard to receive justice against government officials due to this standard
    - _heimdall 9mo ago
      The rules and laws allowing the federal government to take over a state case against a federal agent seem much more damaging. The cops involved in the most recent Minneapolis shooting will almost certainly face no repercussions because of this. The state can bring a case but the feds are clearly uninterested, they would simply take the case into federal court and spike it.
jart 9mo ago
Don't cheer that any policy be applied to technology you wouldn't want applied to your own brain. Imagine you get Neuralink and your best friend files for the right to be forgotten. Then poof. All your memories together gone.
- subscribed 9mo ago
  This right is applied per entity. If I send it to the company A, company B doesn't execute it unless they're a subsidiary of A (or A is their data controller) and my request was carefully crafted. In the scenario you painted, that would mean that my _former_ friend has issued their request to me. In that case? Fair. Poof if that's their wish. Otherwise? How do you imagine it work?
  - jart 9mo ago
    I think I should have the right to remember the things I see.
- dd8601fn 9mo ago
  Why? My memory is not a marketing database at Facebook, and I don't see any obligation to pretend it is.
_heimdall 9mo ago
> We aren't going to remove the security state We definitely won't get rid of it if we accept failure. I get that it seems extremely unlikely, but there's no use in trying to just mitigate the risk short term. One way or another that power will be abused eventually (if it isn't already).
- voidfunc 9mo ago
  Idealist views like this get us nowhere either tho. The reality is somewhat more murky. On a long enough time horizon your point makes sense, we might be able to get rid of the security state by slowly chipping away at ig over hundreds or thousands of years. Most of us are going to be dead in about 40 years tho. Security state isn't going anywhere in that timeframe.
  - _heimdall 9mo ago
    Why not? Change like that happens slowly, then all at once. I can't say I'm optimistic that it will be gotten rid of, but if its worth fighting for then it doesn't matter if it seems likely.
  - Zetaphor 9mo ago
    I'm curious to hear someone explain why you're being downvoted
    - CalRobert 9mo ago
      Maybe the dead in forty years comment. Though considering accelerating climate collapse and the possibility of nuclear conflict it’s not completely unreasonable in my view.
      - close04 9mo ago
        I read it as we’ll be dead because most people on this forum are 30+ years old and will statistically be dead ~70. Most of us, not most of humanity.
    - deleted 9mo ago
lrvick 9mo ago
I turned off all cell carrier tracking 5 years ago. 100% of it. By canceling my cell phone subscription. I know I know, I must be amish, I have heard it all. But I run two tech companies, travel, have a family, and do most of the things most around here probably do other than doom scrolling. So much more time in my own head to think.
- lazide 9mo ago
  I’m guessing you have a bunch of other people with their own cell phones doing things? That’s the reason most other people are (fundamentally) going to struggle.
  - lrvick 9mo ago
    Traveling internationally or domestically, booking flights, hotels, going to concerts, theme parks, the movies, organizing hangouts with friends, exploring new locations... all of these things I do just fine by using a web browser on a desktop computer before I leave home, and sometimes printing a couple things. I live a typical middle class lifestyle just without the doom scrolling. All the ways of living an active life engaged in the modern world that worked before the 2009 smartphone explosion still work just fine today. Just without tiktok and instagram. I think I am okay without those.
    - lazide 9mo ago
      So what - printed maps? No ‘where are you?’ texts or the like? No looking up nearby anything you’re curious about but didn’t know about before hand? Certainly possible, I guess, if everyone in your circle does the same, and has a ton of patience, and you spend a ton of extra time doing all the prep in advance. And don’t need to deal with things like traffic jams right now, or the like.
      - jll29 9mo ago
        When you agree to meet someone somewhere at some time, all further communication is redundant (I expect you to be reasonably punctual and I don't need your SMS updates "Hi, leaving the house now." followed by "hi, I'm running 5 min late", I will wait, and if you are not coming, you can call me to apologize if you care one bit). For people who don't know their way, you can use in-car navigation systems rather than smartphone map apps.
DeathArrow 9mo ago
>We aren't going to remove the security state. We should make it impossible for the data to be obtained without express user agreement.

fsflover 9mo ago

This is exactly what GDPR does.

jmward01 9mo ago
Does it apply to the government like it applies to people? Is it enforced against governments like it is enforced against people and corporations? A core issue here is that laws, and the application and enforcement of laws, generally do not. Having said that I applaud the attempt and encourage pushing forward on the anti-surveillance aspects of GDPR while recognizing all laws are flawed.
- cromulent 9mo ago
  The telco would be the one collecting it first, I assume. It would be interesting for someone in the EU to request their data from their telco, and if it contains these precise locations, question the usage.
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    Tescos in the EU are required to track location for emergency call purposes and provide it to the government in such occasions. That means they need the ability to collect it all the time.
    - subscribed 9mo ago
      The parent comment specifically mentioned the _collected_ data, not the ability/authorisation to collect it. They're raising the possibility of asking _why_ the data was collected if there was no emergency? Of course if the telco doesn't store the rewuests/responses, there will be no records to show.
      - wolvoleo 9mo ago
        It needs to be collected to serve the devices properly. Today's RF is very targeted with multi stream etc.
- kingkawn 9mo ago
  State actors are inherently only subject to their own oversight
- ozim 9mo ago
  Yeah it applies to government like local municipalities have to adhere to GDPR, they cannot just have your name on the register, they have to have a legal reason. Way you could argue it doesn’t apply to government is that the government makes the law so they can make the law that makes data processing and having your name on some kind of registry required. But still they have to show you the reason and you can escalate to EU bodies to fine your own country if they don’t follow the rules.
- molszanski 9mo ago
  I guess. In Poland when I go to gov offices I need to sign 25 GDPR clauses

themafia 9mo ago

> We aren't going to remove the security state What security state? They aren't doing this for anyone's safety. This is the surveillance and parallel construction state. > What needs to happen is accountability. No agency can have this power and remain accountable. Warrants are not an effective tool for managing this. Courts cannot effectively perform oversight after the fact. > The only way to stop the rampant abuse is to treat data like fire. You've missed the obvious. You should really go the other direction. Our devices should generate _noise_. Huge crazy amounts of noise. Extraneous data to a level that pollutes the system beyond any utility. They accept all this data without filtering. They should suffer for that choice.

fooqux 9mo ago
> Our devices should generate _noise_. Huge crazy amounts of noise. Extraneous data to a level that pollutes the system beyond any utility. They accept all this data without filtering. They should suffer for that choice. I like the idea on principle, but I'll like it far less when I'm getting charged with computer fraud or some other over-reaching bullshit law.
ruszki 9mo ago
> They aren't doing this for anyone's safety. Strictly speaking, this is not completely true. When you call an emergency number, it’s very good that they can see exactly where you are. That was how this was sold 15+ years ago. But of course, that’s basically the only use case when this should be available.
- cpncrunch 9mo ago
  Should it not be available with a valid court order as well?
  - p-e-w 9mo ago
    Why? What is the rationale? Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that anything goes as long as a court decrees it, in which case there’s nothing to debate really.

SilverElfin 9mo ago

For consequences, we need to do away with the notion of qualified immunity. Why should police officers, politicians, agents of the government have any immunity for their actions? They should carry personal liability for breaking the law and violating others’ rights. Otherwise, there is no reason they’ll change. Right now, at best you’ll sue the government and get some money, but all you’re doing is punishing other tax payers.

hedora 9mo ago
Committing a crime and also abusing your authority to aid in the crime should be greater than the penalty for just committing that crime. Qualified immunity is the only legal doctrine I can think of where piling on extra crimes reduces your liability.
themaninthedark 9mo ago
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle of federal law that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". Under 42 USC § 1983, a plaintiff can sue for damages when state officials violate their constitutional rights or other federal rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity Qualified Immunity only sets the bar or threshold that you have to meet in order to sue.
- myko 9mo ago
  Nearly impossibly hard to receive justice against government officials due to this standard
  - _heimdall 9mo ago
    The rules and laws allowing the federal government to take over a state case against a federal agent seem much more damaging. The cops involved in the most recent Minneapolis shooting will almost certainly face no repercussions because of this. The state can bring a case but the feds are clearly uninterested, they would simply take the case into federal court and spike it.

jart 9mo ago

Don't cheer that any policy be applied to technology you wouldn't want applied to your own brain. Imagine you get Neuralink and your best friend files for the right to be forgotten. Then poof. All your memories together gone.

subscribed 9mo ago
This right is applied per entity. If I send it to the company A, company B doesn't execute it unless they're a subsidiary of A (or A is their data controller) and my request was carefully crafted. In the scenario you painted, that would mean that my _former_ friend has issued their request to me. In that case? Fair. Poof if that's their wish. Otherwise? How do you imagine it work?
- jart 9mo ago
  I think I should have the right to remember the things I see.
dd8601fn 9mo ago
Why? My memory is not a marketing database at Facebook, and I don't see any obligation to pretend it is.

_heimdall 9mo ago

> We aren't going to remove the security state We definitely won't get rid of it if we accept failure. I get that it seems extremely unlikely, but there's no use in trying to just mitigate the risk short term. One way or another that power will be abused eventually (if it isn't already).

voidfunc 9mo ago
Idealist views like this get us nowhere either tho. The reality is somewhat more murky. On a long enough time horizon your point makes sense, we might be able to get rid of the security state by slowly chipping away at ig over hundreds or thousands of years. Most of us are going to be dead in about 40 years tho. Security state isn't going anywhere in that timeframe.
- _heimdall 9mo ago
  Why not? Change like that happens slowly, then all at once. I can't say I'm optimistic that it will be gotten rid of, but if its worth fighting for then it doesn't matter if it seems likely.
- Zetaphor 9mo ago
  I'm curious to hear someone explain why you're being downvoted
  - CalRobert 9mo ago
    Maybe the dead in forty years comment. Though considering accelerating climate collapse and the possibility of nuclear conflict it’s not completely unreasonable in my view.
    - close04 9mo ago
      I read it as we’ll be dead because most people on this forum are 30+ years old and will statistically be dead ~70. Most of us, not most of humanity.
  - deleted 9mo ago

lrvick 9mo ago

I turned off all cell carrier tracking 5 years ago. 100% of it. By canceling my cell phone subscription. I know I know, I must be amish, I have heard it all. But I run two tech companies, travel, have a family, and do most of the things most around here probably do other than doom scrolling. So much more time in my own head to think.

lazide 9mo ago
I’m guessing you have a bunch of other people with their own cell phones doing things? That’s the reason most other people are (fundamentally) going to struggle.
- lrvick 9mo ago
  Traveling internationally or domestically, booking flights, hotels, going to concerts, theme parks, the movies, organizing hangouts with friends, exploring new locations... all of these things I do just fine by using a web browser on a desktop computer before I leave home, and sometimes printing a couple things. I live a typical middle class lifestyle just without the doom scrolling. All the ways of living an active life engaged in the modern world that worked before the 2009 smartphone explosion still work just fine today. Just without tiktok and instagram. I think I am okay without those.
  - lazide 9mo ago
    So what - printed maps? No ‘where are you?’ texts or the like? No looking up nearby anything you’re curious about but didn’t know about before hand? Certainly possible, I guess, if everyone in your circle does the same, and has a ton of patience, and you spend a ton of extra time doing all the prep in advance. And don’t need to deal with things like traffic jams right now, or the like.
    - jll29 9mo ago
      When you agree to meet someone somewhere at some time, all further communication is redundant (I expect you to be reasonably punctual and I don't need your SMS updates "Hi, leaving the house now." followed by "hi, I'm running 5 min late", I will wait, and if you are not coming, you can call me to apologize if you care one bit). For people who don't know their way, you can use in-car navigation systems rather than smartphone map apps.

DeathArrow 9mo ago

>We aren't going to remove the security state. We should make it impossible for the data to be obtained without express user agreement.