Re: Switching gears

[Sean Lynch]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Razer  wrote:

>
>
> On 09/26/2016 01:29 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:
>
> > "We don't have to allow the State to contract out to private companies
> for red light cameras and ALPRs and then let them sell the data to whomever
> they want."
>
>
> They don't give a fuck what you want. Sorry to be so blunt about it but
> that's the simple fact of the matter.
>

That is a reasonable anarchist perspective, and I can't say I disagree with
it, at least not strongly. But Brin is very much a statist, which makes his
view at the very least hypocritical.

Re: Switching gears

[Razer]

On 09/26/2016 01:29 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:

> "We don't have to allow the State to contract out to private companies for 
> red light cameras and ALPRs and then let them sell the data to whomever they 
> want."


They don't give a fuck what you want. Sorry to be so blunt about it but
that's the simple fact of the matter.

Rr


> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:03 PM, John Newman  > wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:40:22PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:01 AM,  > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to
> say that I
> > > don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd
> rather not have
> > > a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?
> > >
> > > Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden
> revelations,
> > > a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.
> > >
> > > I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for
> citizens to put
> > > web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams..
> whatever.. and
> > > have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff
> up. Open
> > > source surveillance, if you will.
> > >
> > > The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
> > > surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable
> strategy is
> > > deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going
> anywhere,
> > > and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs
> to be
> > > under our control.
> > >
> > > Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that
> would bite
> > > police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
> > > government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which
> camera
> > > angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to
> check, and
> > > disprove.
> > >
> > > I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but
> perhaps
> > > that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?
> > >
> > > I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not
> something you're
> > > going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a
> devil's advocate
> > > type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked
> strategy for
> > > dealing with a fucked situation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > This seems like exactly David Brin's proposal in The Transparent
> Society.
> >
> > http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html
> 
> 
> 
> I think the one thing that can be said in favor of this proposal
> (sort of) is the huge number of extra judicial killings by
> corrupt/cowardly/disgusting US cops that have been caught on phone
> cameras in the past few years, killings that would no doubt have
> otherwise been covered up.
> 
> 
> My main objection is that Brin is basically throwing up his hands with
> respect to any kind of pushback against surveillance, saying it's
> inevitable. I'm not just assuming this from what he's written there,
> either; he's commented on my Facebook threads about surveillance by
> actually saying we should ignore that stuff and focus on his
> sousveillance instead. Though he seems to do a lot of self-promotion on
> Facebook generally, so perhaps he's just overdoing it.
> 
> But it's not actually true that surveillance is a "done deal" or that we
> have no control over the form it takes. We don't have to allow the State
> to contract out to private companies for red light cameras and ALPRs and
> then let them sell the data to whomever they want. We can force the
> implementation of retention & sharing policies. What you don't have
> can't be exfiltrated or abused. We may not be able to prevent its being
> collected in the first place, but we can sure as hell stop the
> construction of the databases, at least where we know about them. And
> we'll never know about them if we don't keep paying attention.
> 
> The problem is that Brin seems to view this as a fight against the
> technology. But it's really a fight against blindly deploying technology
> with no thought as to how it's used. We may not be able to stop
> surveillance, but there are lots of different ways to bring it into the
> light and regulate it where it's deployed by government, and citizen
> sousveillance is only a small part of that.
>  
> 
> 
> The Quantum Thief (recommended recently by Mirmir) has a really
> interesting take on privacy in the moving martian city Oubliette -
> the gevulot.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gevulot_(Jean_Le_Flambeur_universe)
> 
> 
> 
> John
> 
> 

Re: Switching gears

[Sean Lynch]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:03 PM, John Newman  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:40:22PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:01 AM,  wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say
> that I
> > > don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not
> have
> > > a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?
> > >
> > > Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden
> revelations,
> > > a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.
> > >
> > > I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to
> put
> > > web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever..
> and
> > > have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open
> > > source surveillance, if you will.
> > >
> > > The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
> > > surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is
> > > deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going
> anywhere,
> > > and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be
> > > under our control.
> > >
> > > Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would
> bite
> > > police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
> > > government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera
> > > angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and
> > > disprove.
> > >
> > > I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
> > > that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?
> > >
> > > I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something
> you're
> > > going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's
> advocate
> > > type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for
> > > dealing with a fucked situation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > This seems like exactly David Brin's proposal in The Transparent Society.
> >
> > http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html
>
>
> I think the one thing that can be said in favor of this proposal
> (sort of) is the huge number of extra judicial killings by
> corrupt/cowardly/disgusting US cops that have been caught on phone
> cameras in the past few years, killings that would no doubt have
> otherwise been covered up.
>

My main objection is that Brin is basically throwing up his hands with
respect to any kind of pushback against surveillance, saying it's
inevitable. I'm not just assuming this from what he's written there,
either; he's commented on my Facebook threads about surveillance by
actually saying we should ignore that stuff and focus on his sousveillance
instead. Though he seems to do a lot of self-promotion on Facebook
generally, so perhaps he's just overdoing it.

But it's not actually true that surveillance is a "done deal" or that we
have no control over the form it takes. We don't have to allow the State to
contract out to private companies for red light cameras and ALPRs and then
let them sell the data to whomever they want. We can force the
implementation of retention & sharing policies. What you don't have can't
be exfiltrated or abused. We may not be able to prevent its being collected
in the first place, but we can sure as hell stop the construction of the
databases, at least where we know about them. And we'll never know about
them if we don't keep paying attention.

The problem is that Brin seems to view this as a fight against the
technology. But it's really a fight against blindly deploying technology
with no thought as to how it's used. We may not be able to stop
surveillance, but there are lots of different ways to bring it into the
light and regulate it where it's deployed by government, and citizen
sousveillance is only a small part of that.


>
> The Quantum Thief (recommended recently by Mirmir) has a really
> interesting take on privacy in the moving martian city Oubliette -
> the gevulot.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gevulot_(Jean_Le_Flambeur_universe)
>
>
> John
>

Re: Switching gears

[John Newman]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:40:22PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:01 AM,  wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say that I
> > don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not have
> > a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?
> >
> > Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden revelations,
> > a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.
> >
> > I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to put
> > web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever.. and
> > have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open
> > source surveillance, if you will.
> >
> > The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
> > surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is
> > deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going anywhere,
> > and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be
> > under our control.
> >
> > Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would bite
> > police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
> > government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera
> > angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and
> > disprove.
> >
> > I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
> > that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?
> >
> > I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something you're
> > going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's advocate
> > type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for
> > dealing with a fucked situation.
> >
> >
> >
> This seems like exactly David Brin's proposal in The Transparent Society.
> 
> http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html


I think the one thing that can be said in favor of this proposal
(sort of) is the huge number of extra judicial killings by
corrupt/cowardly/disgusting US cops that have been caught on phone
cameras in the past few years, killings that would no doubt have
otherwise been covered up.

The Quantum Thief (recommended recently by Mirmir) has a really
interesting take on privacy in the moving martian city Oubliette -
the gevulot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gevulot_(Jean_Le_Flambeur_universe)


John


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Switching gears

[Sean Lynch]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:01 AM,  wrote:

> I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say that I
> don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not have
> a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?
>
> Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden revelations,
> a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.
>
> I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to put
> web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever.. and
> have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open
> source surveillance, if you will.
>
> The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
> surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is
> deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going anywhere,
> and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be
> under our control.
>
> Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would bite
> police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
> government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera
> angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and
> disprove.
>
> I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
> that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?
>
> I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something you're
> going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's advocate
> type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for
> dealing with a fucked situation.
>
>
>
This seems like exactly David Brin's proposal in The Transparent Society.

http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html

Re: Switching gears

[juan]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:01:51 -
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:


> 
> I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens
> to put web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams..
> whatever.. and have a distributed system where we can live stream
> that stuff up. Open source surveillance, if you will.

Surveillance of what?


> 
> The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
> surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy
> is deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going
> anywhere, and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology
> needs to be under our control.

So, once you have everything recorded and available to anyone,
including your enemies, what, exactly is left under your
control? 


> 
> Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would
> bite police and agents of the state as easily as us.

No it won't?


> Rather than the
> government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which
> camera angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to
> check, and disprove.
> 
> I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
> that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?
> 
> I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something
> you're going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a
> devil's advocate type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a
> fucked strategy for dealing with a fucked situation.



Surveillance is an intrinsically bad activity. To 'open source'
it is like 'open sourcing' any other facet of the police state.
If your goal is an 'open source' police state, then go for it.
Otherwise...

Also, this seems like an example of why 'competing' with the
state, copying the shitty or outright criminal 'services' that
the state provides isn't a good idea.







 

Re: Switching gears

[Mirimir]

With ubiquitous smartphones, we're getting there. Say what you will
about Facebook, but they seem to have real commitment to sharing. So
far, they've allowed some rather contentious and inflammatory stuff.

Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/21/16 10:59 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have talked
>> about it a lot.
> Heh. Kinda funny. I called it "Little Sister" when I mentioned it to my
> buddy.

I like that.  Perhaps the well-designed incarnation should be "Little Sister" 
to be more opposite and less threatening than "Big
Brother".

>
> Yeah, those are good points you make. A voting system that could
> downvote/purge irrelevant/private clips would be good. It should be motion
> captured, to preserve storage/bandwidth.
>
> Of course you're right that there are implications for misuse. I'm not
> sure thats a deal-breaker for me, exactly, criminal types will use their
> own tech to case a joint anyhow. Sure, maybe it lowers the bar, but there
> seem to be adequate payoffs.
>
> My main concern is the privacy implications, and the social implications,
> of people who get accustomed to always being on cam. I see it evolving to
> a type of super-amped up example of the Japanese concepts of honne (true
> sound)/ tatemae (facade). Honne being "how one truly is" and tatemae "how
> one presents themself in society." All cultures have such concepts, but
> for the Japanese, they were, and are, very deeply ingrained and felt,
> including nuance for different levels, and things one never says even to
> their closest associates.

In the US, we've essentially decided that a wide range of things that used to 
be private are more or less fine to be public. 
Generally, at least in certain areas, it isn't a negative and can even be 
positive in some ways sometimes.  The fact that some laws
are changing and the broader public is becoming more sophisticated helps a lot. 
 A few obvious examples: sexuality (now legal), soft
drugs (more legal), not being religious, 50 Shades et al, porn, nudity, sex 
tapes.  All of those required strict privacy and
partitioning in the past.

> I don't know that those are trades I'm willing to make.
>
> The black bloc tactic of smashing cameras isn't bad, except like most of
> their tactics, it just won't scale. It's great for young adults with
> plenty of piss and vinegar in their veins, but its not going to attract
> the masses. I'm not worried about attracting the anarchist kids willing to
> get facial ink to make sure they can't get a proper job and "sell out" or
> willing to do a stint in the clink. They're going to be alright.
>
> I'm more concerned with getting to the critical mass of mainstream folks.
> Your points about providing a free type of security monitoring solution
> for their homes might help attract them, with the side-benefits being that
> it can undermine a state monopoly on surveillance.
>
> Still.. the social costs scare me. But those costs may very well get paid
> whether an open system exists, or not.
>
>

sdw

Re: Switching gears

[xorcist]

> I disagree.

> Therefore, the one and only effective way to get back freedom is to
> shutdown the tyranny. Maybe weapons are required, like in the US
> independence war, maybe a massive amount of people is required, like we
> east germans did in 1989.
>
> Anything else are illusions.

Valid points.

I don't pin much hope on violence, though. Violent revolution has never
produced any type of long-lasting freedom. At best, a short respite from
tyranny.. like lancing an infection to let out just enough pus to relieve
the pain, but no antibiotics for a cure.

US independence is a great example. Their declaration of independence
lists charges against the King of England. Today, it strongly parallels
the US government's lesser infractions.

All violence does is to transfer power to a new group, and perhaps
consolidate it further. It does nothing to dissipate it.

Mass scale strikes or protests might have a better chance. At least that
sets a foundation not predicated on violence, and therefore coercion,
which is the premise of all government and all tyrannies.

I don't see insurrection as a real way forward, just an outlet for
inevitable frustration before we start the cycle over again. Maybe that is
inevitable, but I don't like to believe that.

Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears

[Razer]

On 09/21/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have
> talked about it a lot.  The difference now is that it is doable in a
> wide range of circumstances due to bandwidth, storage, compression,
> cameras, and AI filtering, plus possible IoT, etc. integration.  For a
> completely neutral example of real reality shows: http://explore.org/ 
> But beware, you may become hooked.
> 
> I think it could be good, especially in certain areas.  You could have
> graduations of privacy where when enough people have declared something
> as needing public attention, it is opened to all, replicated, etc.  The
> flip side is that if something should be private and the only interest
> is prurient or bullying, then enough veto votes should be able to shut
> it down and excise the memory of something.  Like Google blurring faces
> in Street View.  Voting on the right/wrong side of history perhaps
> affects your karma score, weighting future votes, modulo fog of war
> discount.  Conversely, at certain types of events, like a concert or
> parade, marathons, etc. the default could be public as people could then
> have memories, virtual selfies, etc.
> 
> Legally, in the US at least, whenever you are viewable from publicly
> accessible land, it is legal to photograph or video you.  (But not
> always to capture audio...)  There are few restrictions, some quirky:
> You can be photographed through your house window, but not by a zoom
> lens.  (I.e. only by a lens with a view similar to your eyesight.)
> 
> The problems in managing this securely, fairly, and while supporting
> valid societal interests without trampling anyone are very similar to
> the problems in creating a secure distributed communication overlay
> network without enabling unfettered terrorist use.


COPS get to define what a 'terrorist' means under their COPNATION laws.


Why are you hanging around this list?  You just tipped your hand to the
fact you're a friend of the state this list is intended, in many ways,
to undermine. I'm a terrorist, motherfucker. Try to fetter me.

We're all terrorists here and you want to 'fetter' us with your
boilerplate bullshit till our eyes glaze over and the neurolinguistic
'load' of garbagespeak sinks in. Right?

Ps. You know much too much about the vagaries of photographic privacy
laws. Private Dick, or a wannabe.

Rr


<
> 
> 
> On 9/21/16 10:01 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say that I
>> don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not have
>> a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?
>>
>> Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden revelations,
>> a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.
>>
>> I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to put
>> web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever.. and
>> have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open
>> source surveillance, if you will.
>>
>> The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
>> surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is
>> deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going anywhere,
>> and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be
>> under our control.
>>
>> Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would bite
>> police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
>> government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera
>> angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and
>> disprove.
>>
>> I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
>> that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?
>>
>> I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something you're
>> going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's advocate
>> type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for
>> dealing with a fucked situation.
> 
> sdw
> 

Re: Switching gears

[Stephen D. Williams]

I can identify with that view somewhat.  What used to be the case was that 
people would heavily scrutinize, gossip, report, etc.
what others were doing.  That was a tyranny of sorts too.  By having more 
photos, video, and social sharing of all kinds, a much
wider range of life was exposed as being normal, harmless, tolerated, etc.  
That trend is only going to continue.

The privacy laws in Europe seem good-hearted.  Hopefully they will turn out 
well.  Not sure that could work in the US, except by
convention.

I've been a bit of a photographer for a long time.  There is a lot of 
psychology about things, and it has been evolving.  And there
have been some funny missteps: Google Glass created a backlash while nobody 
cares at all if you have a GoPro running.  There is
etiquette about taking someone's picture, with reactions varying widely.  One 
interesting detail is that if you aren't looking at
someone, they generally don't care if you take their picture.  I have a few 
spherical cameras that I use as a tourist or in races.


On 9/21/16 10:42 AM, Tom wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> One cannot fight a tyranny (let's face it: a surveillance state is
> indeed a tyranny) this way. For example, in the EU this kind of stuff is
> just forbidden. And with whatever you might come up with, they'll criminalize
> it, 0.1% of the "offenders" will be punished and the rest of the
> populace will surrender.
>
> Therefore, the one and only effective way to get back freedom is to
> shutdown the tyranny. Maybe weapons are required, like in the US
> independence war, maybe a massive amount of people is required, like we
> east germans did in 1989.
>
> Anything else are illusions.
>
>
>
> Tom

sdw

Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears

[xorcist]

> That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have talked
> about it a lot.

Heh. Kinda funny. I called it "Little Sister" when I mentioned it to my
buddy.

Yeah, those are good points you make. A voting system that could
downvote/purge irrelevant/private clips would be good. It should be motion
captured, to preserve storage/bandwidth.

Of course you're right that there are implications for misuse. I'm not
sure thats a deal-breaker for me, exactly, criminal types will use their
own tech to case a joint anyhow. Sure, maybe it lowers the bar, but there
seem to be adequate payoffs.

My main concern is the privacy implications, and the social implications,
of people who get accustomed to always being on cam. I see it evolving to
a type of super-amped up example of the Japanese concepts of honne (true
sound)/ tatemae (facade). Honne being "how one truly is" and tatemae "how
one presents themself in society." All cultures have such concepts, but
for the Japanese, they were, and are, very deeply ingrained and felt,
including nuance for different levels, and things one never says even to
their closest associates.

I don't know that those are trades I'm willing to make.

The black bloc tactic of smashing cameras isn't bad, except like most of
their tactics, it just won't scale. It's great for young adults with
plenty of piss and vinegar in their veins, but its not going to attract
the masses. I'm not worried about attracting the anarchist kids willing to
get facial ink to make sure they can't get a proper job and "sell out" or
willing to do a stint in the clink. They're going to be alright.

I'm more concerned with getting to the critical mass of mainstream folks.
Your points about providing a free type of security monitoring solution
for their homes might help attract them, with the side-benefits being that
it can undermine a state monopoly on surveillance.

Still.. the social costs scare me. But those costs may very well get paid
whether an open system exists, or not.

Re: Switching gears

[Tom]

I disagree.

One cannot fight a tyranny (let's face it: a surveillance state is
indeed a tyranny) this way. For example, in the EU this kind of stuff is
just forbidden. And with whatever you might come up with, they'll criminalize
it, 0.1% of the "offenders" will be punished and the rest of the
populace will surrender.

Therefore, the one and only effective way to get back freedom is to
shutdown the tyranny. Maybe weapons are required, like in the US
independence war, maybe a massive amount of people is required, like we
east germans did in 1989.

Anything else are illusions.



Tom

Little Brother, Re: Switching gears

[Stephen D. Williams]

That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have talked 
about it a lot.  The difference now is that it is doable
in a wide range of circumstances due to bandwidth, storage, compression, 
cameras, and AI filtering, plus possible IoT, etc.
integration.  For a completely neutral example of real reality shows: 
http://explore.org/  But beware, you may become hooked.

I think it could be good, especially in certain areas.  You could have 
graduations of privacy where when enough people have declared
something as needing public attention, it is opened to all, replicated, etc.  
The flip side is that if something should be private
and the only interest is prurient or bullying, then enough veto votes should be 
able to shut it down and excise the memory of
something.  Like Google blurring faces in Street View.  Voting on the 
right/wrong side of history perhaps affects your karma score,
weighting future votes, modulo fog of war discount.  Conversely, at certain 
types of events, like a concert or parade, marathons,
etc. the default could be public as people could then have memories, virtual 
selfies, etc.

Legally, in the US at least, whenever you are viewable from publicly accessible 
land, it is legal to photograph or video you.  (But
not always to capture audio...)  There are few restrictions, some quirky: You 
can be photographed through your house window, but not
by a zoom lens.  (I.e. only by a lens with a view similar to your eyesight.)

The problems in managing this securely, fairly, and while supporting valid 
societal interests without trampling anyone are very
similar to the problems in creating a secure distributed communication overlay 
network without enabling unfettered terrorist use.


On 9/21/16 10:01 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say that I
> don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not have
> a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?
>
> Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden revelations,
> a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.
>
> I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to put
> web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever.. and
> have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open
> source surveillance, if you will.
>
> The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
> surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is
> deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going anywhere,
> and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be
> under our control.
>
> Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would bite
> police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
> government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera
> angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and
> disprove.
>
> I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
> that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?
>
> I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something you're
> going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's advocate
> type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for
> dealing with a fucked situation.

sdw

Re: Switching gears

[grarpamp]

Shouldn't open stream everything, as that violates
privacy we seek and advocate. More interesting is
to capture and motion detect it all. Camera operators
moderate for innocent civilian privacy and publish footage
of entities and individuals violating the privacy of others.
And of course all employees of any entity of the
state in the course of their work. People don't see
google map cars, county auditors,
real estate agents, law enforcment, criminals,
investigators and nosy types, etc trolling around
their neighborhoods and their residences because
they're away at work or not 24x7 at their windows.
Nor do they know sites where it all ends up,
except for google maps maybe. But it's not as
visceral as that fuck they see on cam outside
their house due to their anti-cam subscription to all
suspicious motion within 100 meters, and workercam
subscription to their public agents of choice for the lols.
Deterrance and supervision... but with a point and target to it.

Switching gears

[xorcist]

I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say that I
don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not have
a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?

Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden revelations,
a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.

I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to put
web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever.. and
have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open
source surveillance, if you will.

The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is
deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going anywhere,
and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be
under our control.

Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would bite
police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera
angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and
disprove.

I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?

I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something you're
going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's advocate
type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for
dealing with a fucked situation.