agree 100% > The surveillance imposed on us today far exceeds that of the Soviet Union.
and of the GDR where i grew up did i send this here ? https://soundcloud.com/media-roots/surveillance-valley-the-secret-military-history-of-the-internet-interview-w-yasha-levine > On 03 Apr 2018, at 20:21, marc.garrett via NetBehaviour > <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I noticed one of my fave people Richard Stallman, wrote an article in the > Guardian today. > Worth a read and it would be interesting see what others on this list think, > regarding the subject matter of the article. > > Wishing you well. > > marc > > > A radical proposal to keep your personal data safe | Richard Stallman > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance?CMP=share_btn_fb > > The surveillance imposed on us today is worse than in the Soviet Union. We > need laws to stop this data being collected in the first place > > Journalists have been asking me whether the revulsion against the abuse of > Facebook data could be a turning point for the campaign to recover privacy. > That could happen, if the public makes its campaign broader and deeper. > > Broader, meaning extending to all surveillance systems, not just Facebook. > Deeper, meaning to advance from regulating the use of data to regulating the > accumulation of data. Because surveillance is so pervasive, restoring privacy > is necessarily a big change, and requires powerful measures. > After the Facebook scandal it’s time to base the digital economy on public v > private ownership of data > Evgeny Morozov > Read more > > The surveillance imposed on us today far exceeds that of the Soviet Union. > For freedom and democracy’s sake, we need to eliminate most of it. There are > so many ways to use data to hurt people that the only safe database is the > one that was never collected. Thus, instead of the EU’s approach of mainly > regulating how personal data may be used (in its General Data Protection > Regulation or GDPR), I propose a law to stop systems from collecting personal > data. > > The robust way to do that, the way that can’t be set aside at the whim of a > government, is to require systems to be built so as not to collect data about > a person. The basic principle is that a system must be designed not to > collect certain data, if its basic function can be carried out without that > data. > > Data about who travels where is particularly sensitive, because it is an > ideal basis for repressing any chosen target. We can take the London trains > and buses as a case for study. > > The Transport for London digital payment card system centrally records the > trips any given Oyster or bank card has paid for. When a passenger feeds the > card digitally, the system associates the card with the passenger’s identity. > This adds up to complete surveillance. > > I expect the transport system can justify this practice under the GDPR’s > rules. My proposal, by contrast, would require the system to stop tracking > who goes where. The card’s basic function is to pay for transport. That can > be done without centralising that data, so the transport system would have to > stop doing so. When it accepts digital payments, it should do so through an > anonymous payment system. > > Frills on the system, such as the feature of letting a passenger review the > list of past journeys, are not part of the basic function, so they can’t > justify incorporating any additional surveillance. > Sign up to the Media Briefing: news for the news-makers > Read more > > These additional services could be offered separately to users who request > them. Even better, users could use their own personal systems to privately > track their own journeys. > > Black cabs demonstrate that a system for hiring cars with drivers does not > need to identify passengers. Therefore such systems should not be allowed to > identify passengers; they should be required to accept privacy-respecting > cash from passengers without ever trying to identify them. > > However, convenient digital payment systems can also protect passengers’ > anonymity and privacy. We have already developed one: GNU Taler. It is > designed to be anonymous for the payer, but payees are always identified. We > designed it that way so as not to facilitate tax dodging. All digital payment > systems should be required to defend anonymity using this or a similar method. > > What about security? Such systems in areas where the public are admitted must > be designed so they cannot track people. Video cameras should make a local > recording that can be checked for the next few weeks if a crime occurs, but > should not allow remote viewing without physical collection of the recording. > Biometric systems should be designed so they only recognise people on a > court-ordered list of suspects, to respect the privacy of the rest of us. An > unjust state is more dangerous than terrorism, and too much security > encourages an unjust state. > > The EU’s GDPR regulations are well-meaning, but do not go very far. It will > not deliver much privacy, because its rules are too lax. They permit > collecting any data if it is somehow useful to the system, and it is easy to > come up with a way to make any particular data useful for something. > > The GDPR makes much of requiring users (in some cases) to give consent for > the collection of their data, but that doesn’t do much good. System designers > have become expert at manufacturing consent (to repurpose Noam Chomsky’s > phrase). Most users consent to a site’s terms without reading them; a company > that required users to trade their first-born child got consent from plenty > of users. Then again, when a system is crucial for modern life, like buses > and trains, users ignore the terms because refusal of consent is too painful > to consider. > > To restore privacy, we must stop surveillance before it even asks for consent. > > Finally, don’t forget the software in your own computer. If it is the > non-free software of Apple, Google or Microsoft, it spies on you regularly. > That’s because it is controlled by a company that won’t hesitate to spy on > you. Companies tend to lose their scruples when that is profitable. By > contrast, free (libre) software is controlled by its users. That user > community keeps the software honest. > > • Richard Stallman is president of the Free Software Foundation, which > launched the development of a free/libre operating system GNU > > Copyright 2018 Richard Stallman. Released under Creative Commons > NoDerivatives License 4.0 > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
