Privacy – Page 22 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Culpable misinformation

The inescapable Bruce was very mild, characterising Comey’s texts as a joke. Like here, on this. Whereas puppets everywhere (in NL as well, here) can show only a handful cases if any at all where mass surveillance (like this by InfoSec Taylor:

explains) has been key. Referring not to any paraphrase (here) of Ben Franklin (“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”) ..?

But the point is: Where failure to act may be culpable in the same way that acts may be, deliberate (intentful) misrepresentation by omitting knowledge and/or presenting false conclusions may be as culpable as outright lying. In particular, when in the public sphere (of income) where speaking the truth (the whole, and nothing but…) is part of the deal, however indirectly through defense of a constitution. Wilful neglect of that duty (that may include informing oneself properly!) is a scam, con, deceit, fraud.

So, come clean. And:

[F..tis didn’t get away with it; too simpleton despite pretense]

Ah, some comms overview

Still looking for a definitive (if there’s such a thing) categorisation of ‘social’ media, some tweet flew across my screen (as is its type) that, well, at least has some pointers. To this TechCrunch article.
But, as I indicated already in this here my own earlier post, I asked for a classification that would not only cover some of today’s (social, actual or not, or not) media but also the past ones. To be able to see whether and if not when how, changes occurred over, e.g., the past four decades and back through times immemorial. Where the TC article only has some latter-day media, not even categorised with all dimensions I foresaw. But then, it’s something … maybe memyselfI will pick up the subject later, and expand.

For now, I’ll leave you with:

[Unsure how open for discussion; Toronto]

Your Things’ Id, Ego, Super-Ego

Just putting it out there; my pres at the very successful IDentity.Next conference last week in Noordwijkerhout. Though it is without any actual speaker notes, you may still get the points – or we may have a discussion about certain uncertainties therein.
I’ll stop now; too much in the unwind mode still, due to the great discussions on the spot.

So, here it is. And this:

[Things creeping up on you; Zuid-As]

VoteChain

A short question: Would anyone have pointers to info on how to use blockchain methodology to have (physical-world) voting on the ‘Net but with integrity, secrecy and (non-)repudiation everywhere, from eligibility registration to tallying and publication ..?

Because I’d say there’s possibilities with said technology ( / process / methodology / application ?).
E.g., what was it again with that Swiss canton that did three votes per voter and newspaper publication of codes, and other such schemes ..?

Otherwise, this:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLIVVDmDjDI]
Will return on this subject. For now:

[Not seen so oft; for no (?) reason; FLlW near Baltimore]

All in all, together in order

Ah. Actually, I needed a well-ordered list of the subset of my posts re All Against All. Because searches don’t pony up the rightly ordered results, herewith for future reference:

Part 1 here;
Part 2 here;
Part 3 here;
Part 4 here;
Part 5 here;
Part 6 here.

So… Done. For you:
DSCN4588
[Well-calculated dare, Madrid]

Morozov’s no joke

Just a vey few:

“The fear of appearing inauthentic, of being a fake, has propelled nearly as much technological innovation as pornography.”

“But Adorno does have a point: authentic things are not necessarily morally good, and morally good things are not necessarily authentic.”

“In this, the authenticity rhetoric of Facebook is strikingly similar to the public debates in 1950s America over whether uniformity (everyone living in mass society is essentially the same) was a greater sin than conformity (some people adopt ideas, habits, and beliefs only to get along). The latter, the conformists,were seen as phonies who chose to be someone else; the former, those who were uniform by design, were seen as the real phonies – as people who thought they were making choices and being their unique selves, when in fact they were anything but.”

Worrying about usability – the chief concern of many designers today – is like counting calories on the sinking Titanic.”

The goal of privacy is not to protect some stable self from erosion but to create boundaries where this self can emerge, mutate, and stabilize.”
“Digital technology has greatly expanded the windows and doors of our own little rooms for self-experimentation – but we are now at a point where those rooms are on the verge of turning into glass houses.”

“Given the complexity of the self, trying to reduce the privacy concept to a purely utilitarian framework is like steamrolling a statue to capture its essence in the simpler space of the two-dimensional plane.”

Oh how many more such insights are there, to Learn. And weep. For that:

[Yes, Gettysburg battlefield. Ominously.]

Seamless complacency, rise of the crackers

Yes, seamless integration as, e.g., pursued by the likes of Appl, may polish some edges of the roughness of the world. OMG! I have to turn this plug over to make it fit! The horror! Why didn’t someone fix this!?
Such, to be shipped to the battlefields of the Middle East and Africa, traumatised at the bus ride already.

And, the consumerism, the ultimate ideal of marketeers and Silicon Valley alike, will bring both down crashing. Because the ideal of consumerism everywhere, will also, does already also, pervade education, leaving (achieving its goal at) numb drone consumers – that have no means of income as they’re too mediocre at far too low a level to have any differentiating value (of potential (work)); a vicious circle – that will not be able to see value in services offered but moreover are incapable of building the Next Thing of even maintaining the old.

That will be left to
a. The ever shrinking (!) money(sic)-mostupper class. Not true class!
b. Crackers.
a. This of course, till the exponentially spiraling competition of the money hierarchy will result in < 1 slot, in the end.
b. This of course, since there will be renegades, outcasts, that go their own way. And will be legion. As they drop out, are brute- nuclear-force pushed out of the consumerist lowest classes. Suddenly, have to be resourceful – and (t)hence go after the resources… Only outcasts will see the porous base of the systems stack and hack their way into it. Cultural abandonment leading to … this, you know.

Ah, lessons …? Don’t Be Evil, and Be Prepared. To abandon. ..?
Whatever, there’s still:

[~~Metropolis~~… La Défense, many years back]

You(‘)r(e) right(s)

Well, whatever percentages in this; Voltaire was right. Even if there would be just one citizen who’d think otherwise, all others should (also) defend his (her?) right to be wrong, to the death.

As it’s already five o’clock (here), have a nice weekend, with:

[Not quite St.Pat’s Day material, still quite equivalent of the Green … Frankenmuth, MI]

Total priv’stalking

Errrm, would anyone have pointers to literature (of the serious kind, not the NSFW kind you only understand) regarding comparison of real physical-world stalking versus on-line total data collection ..?
No, not as some rant against TLAs but rather against commercial enterprise than not only collects, but actively circles around you, wherever you go. Giving you the creeps.

Because the psychological first response is so similar, can it be that the secondary behavioural response / adaptation is similar, in self-censorship and distortion of actual free movement around … the web and free choice of information ..?

And also, whether current anti-stalking laws of the physical world, would actually work, or need strengthening anyway, and/or would/could work or need translation/extension, to cover liberty of movement and privacy-as-being-the-right-to-be-left-alone i.e., privacy as the right to not be tracked, privacy as the right to anonymity everywhere but the very very select very place- and time(!!)-restricted cases one’s personal info is actually required. Privacy as in: companies might have the right to have their own information but not the right to collect information of or on me (on Being or Behavioural) as that is in the end always information produced by me, through being or behaving. The (European) principle still is that copyright can be granted, transferred, shared out in common parlance by payment for use (or getting paid for transferring the right to collect such payments) i.e., economically, but not legally; the actual ownership of the copyright remains with the author!

See why I excluded the TLAs ..? They may collect all they would want but not use unless on suspicion after normal-legal specific a priori proof; that’s their job. No officially (…) they may not step outside their confined remit box, but they do have a box to work within.
Now, back to the question: Please reply with other than the purely legal mumbo-jumbo that not even peers could truly understand but just babble along with.

In return, in advance:

[Foggy (eyes), since in the olden days, probably never to be seen again; Bélem]

My Opia

Not being your topia anywhere or dys here topia or whatever.
Was struck by the surge in posts, columns, articles about security in IoT. Because it appears to indicate a need for a new index. Being on the level of myopia one needs, to understand the hype value (a la this). Or hyperopia (?). Or rather – what’s it called when one’s view is narrow, or broad ..? That was what I was after: With the above-linked Second-biggest G.’s Hype Cycle, one should have a perpendicular index of width/breadth of hype and/or potential impact. So that when one would consider oneself to somewhat suddenly be caught in relatively speaking the in-crowd of, purely e.g., IoT and IoT security/privacy issues that one has steered oneself into, it would come as no surprise that suddenly though with some lag, one sees the posts, columns, articles flying around on the same subject without any real news or rather more (for one!) Been There, Done That type of news reporting. For others, the news may be news…

A second aspect would be: How to position oneself. Doing hardcore research style environment scanning and reporting on that in traditional and SM media, would quickly become impossible as any field of study explodes in width and depth as it get off the ground, leaving the actual keeping up with all developments to be impossible. Even when your cutting edge development reporting wouldn’t catch on but with a few aficinados at the very most, and when you’d wait until aspects have crystallised to clarity far enough to be understood by your mainstream audience (if any), the subjects have a. watered down beyond being interesting to you, b. watered down beyond recognition still for your audience, c. still not yet reached interest-through-urgency / -news-value for them.

Whatever. Just an idea; any of your help in developing such a sight/scope index is very much appreciated…

In advance:

[Pretty close, no mirage; Segovia]