On
the Transparency Front – A New York Times article asserts that the blurry lines
between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic surveillance are starting
to vanish, altogether. “National
Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the
FBI without first applying any screens for privacy.” This article - Surprise! NSA data will be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with terrorism - is lurid and over-wrought in tone, but of
course we need to make clear that we’re interested and paying attention. In the long run, that fact can lead to a
balance that protects common citizens.
But... protects
them… from being surveilled? Oh stop. Please. The dumbitudinousness of that ongoing fantasy is plumb wearying.
Not one of the silly jeremiads that have demanded government blindness has ever – and I mean ever, once – proposed any plausible way that can reliably happen, over an extended period. Across the history of our species, show me one time when a society’s elites were denied sight consistently or for very long.
Not one of the silly jeremiads that have demanded government blindness has ever – and I mean ever, once – proposed any plausible way that can reliably happen, over an extended period. Across the history of our species, show me one time when a society’s elites were denied sight consistently or for very long.
There
is a way to stay free and empowered
citizens, even if we are surveilled. Yes, it can be so, despite the
inevitability of elites getting to see.
It happens to be the very same trick that got us our current, anomalous
levels of safety, privacy and freedom, three things I refuse to give up or
“tradeoff” against each other. There is a method. But it takes more work than
whining.
Ah, the ongoing drama. The following riff, written a month ago, is already obsolete... or is it? I'll comment on the latest. But first --
“The
FBI says Apple has the ‘exclusive technical means’ to unlock the phone,” Edward Snowden says in this recent interview. “Respectfully, that’s bullshit.” And
while I am not a cracking expert (nor do I always agree with Snowden) my
own instincts coincide with his on this point - that there is an awful lot of theater in all of this. The FBI is requesting that Apple create
custom iOS software that disables the safety features in the iPhone of San
Bernardino, California, shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, but Apple CEO Tim Cook
has resisted such demands so far.
Apple needs a public image that
they will defend their customers, come hell or high water. Also, if they make
it easy for the FBI to gain access, then other governments like China will be
able to demand the same - (though in fact, Apple is very cooperative with the Chinese government).At the same time, the public has mixed feelings and Apple will lose sympathy if it seems that some major terror act was made easier by encryption.
In The Transparent Society
I speak of the 'ratchet effect." Civil libertarians who rely on notions of
preventing elites from seeing will do fine... until some day when the citizenry
is scared by some traumatic event. At which point all the carefully
erected "do not look" protections will topple away. This is why I do
not put any faith in "do not look" rules, as any kind of long term safeguard.
Earlier, I offered this wager: "there's a good chance that the current iPhone imbroglio is all one big Potemkin act, a stage show put on to let Apple look tough as a defender of customer rights."
The latest? First, exactly as I predicted, the FBI eventually proclaimed: "Never mind! We managed to crack the iPhone without your help."
Second... A proposed bill in Congress, the “Compliancewith Court Orders Act of 2016,” authored by offices of Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Burr, would require people to comply with any authorized court order for data—and if that data is “unintelligible,” the legislation would demand that it be rendered “intelligible.” According to Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It’s effectively the most anti-crypto bill of all anti-crypto bills.” Indeed, recently, some of the world’s top cryptographers warned of the dangers of weakening encryption on behalf of law enforcement… that any backdoor created to give law enforcement access to encrypted communications would inevitably be used by sophisticated hackers and foreign cyberspies.
To be clear, the bill seems to have no chance of passing, as-is. But next time something bad and panic-worthy happens? Remember the Ratchet Effect? Again... (and again and again)... if you base your defense of freedom upon public appearances and assurances that elites cannot see, then you are spectacularly delusional.
We are better defended by the other approach, fierce application of supervision powers, allowing us to look back at the elites who are going to look at us, anyway.
The latest? First, exactly as I predicted, the FBI eventually proclaimed: "Never mind! We managed to crack the iPhone without your help."
Second... A proposed bill in Congress, the “Compliancewith Court Orders Act of 2016,” authored by offices of Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Burr, would require people to comply with any authorized court order for data—and if that data is “unintelligible,” the legislation would demand that it be rendered “intelligible.” According to Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It’s effectively the most anti-crypto bill of all anti-crypto bills.” Indeed, recently, some of the world’s top cryptographers warned of the dangers of weakening encryption on behalf of law enforcement… that any backdoor created to give law enforcement access to encrypted communications would inevitably be used by sophisticated hackers and foreign cyberspies.
To be clear, the bill seems to have no chance of passing, as-is. But next time something bad and panic-worthy happens? Remember the Ratchet Effect? Again... (and again and again)... if you base your defense of freedom upon public appearances and assurances that elites cannot see, then you are spectacularly delusional.
We are better defended by the other approach, fierce application of supervision powers, allowing us to look back at the elites who are going to look at us, anyway.
== We must look back ==
Windows 10 covertly sends your disk encryption keys to Microsoft: Here's a disturbing article by Cory Doctorow, though I can’t verify: “Windows 10 has many unprecedented anti-user features: a remote kill switch that lets it disable your hardware; key-logging and browser-history logging that, by default, sends it all to Microsoft, and a deceptive "privacy mode" that continues to exfiltrate your data, even when you turn it on.”
To which I reply… sure it’s disturbing. And you expect elites to behave any differently than this? Ever?
Doctorow's vague-general "Danger Will Robinson!" cries are typical among the millions who are right to sniff the aroma of looming Big Brother… but utterly wrongheaded to recommend the solution of “let’s hide!”
Doctorow's vague-general "Danger Will Robinson!" cries are typical among the millions who are right to sniff the aroma of looming Big Brother… but utterly wrongheaded to recommend the solution of “let’s hide!”
Dig this and finally dig it well. You will not stop elites from looking, by whining and complaining. You will not stop them by encrypting and tech noodling. You will not blind elites by passing laws that restrict what they are allowed to see. You will not stop the descendants of monkeys from looking at stuff! Especially when they are sitting on the highest branch.
What we can do is remain free and left-alone by looking back. By dropping the sick-stupid and cowardly obsession with hiding…
...and instead concentrating our efforts on supervision, on sousveillance and looking back at power. On applying accountability. On seeing.
That may not blind them, but it will put severe restraints on what they can do with any info about us. What they can do to us.
...and instead concentrating our efforts on supervision, on sousveillance and looking back at power. On applying accountability. On seeing.
That may not blind them, but it will put severe restraints on what they can do with any info about us. What they can do to us.
This is what they fear us doing. And it is why they subsidize the current wave of handwringing moans and articles crying out “stop looking at me!”
A cogent run-down on reasons why it is so hard to cope with cyber-attacks, to determine who is responsible, or even be sure that one has happened at all.
A nightmare scenario, brought into real life... when hackers fooled some Ukrainian civil servants into revealing information that then let the hackers take down part of the Ukrainian power grid. A scenario right out of the pages of Ted Koppel’s new book, Lights Out: A CyberAttack, a Nation Unprepared; Surviving the Aftermath.
The Orwellians are out there, preparing. North Korea’s “Red Star” computer operating system – based on a Linux/Redhat distro – has rigid firewalls, prevents user tinkering, and watermarks all media: “reportedly tags every bit of media it comes into contact with, whether it is on a drive connected to the computer or on the computer itself, including files that aren't even accessed. Once tagged, the media files can then be traced back to whomever has them and, presumably, the source of them.”
A very
interesting article about a speech by an NSA official on the processes involved in hacking into a corporate or national network.
Hackers invaded
a shipping company’s systems to download cargo manifests, allowing Somali
pirates to board a vessel, ignore the fortified crew, and use barcode scanners to find valuable cargo to carry off.
Back in 2012, Youtube added a new feature that allows you to automatically blur all faces in a video. Today, it's going a step further: you can now draw a rectangle around any object in a video and YouTube will then blur it and automatically follow it. Self-controlled editing gives responsible folks a chance to do the right thing before posting.
Stay alert. The world needs lerts.
Stay alert. The world needs lerts.
