0

a society where every person has a computer on them on them at all times and recording video of everything

which is not so different from what we have already, and as is now known the FBI/NSA/whoever can turn on your cellphone camera and microphone remotely and listen in on anything you do.
Welcome to the Brave New World of 1984, move alond THX, nothing to see, and don't forget to take your medication so you remain properly sedated...

0

Anyone see the movie 'slackers' - the POV shifts everytime whoever is the 'current' POV meets someone to that person. One of the characters is a guy who walks around with all sorts of video equipment draped all over himself - he does not believe it happened unless it was taped. (this was back when video was the storage media of choice).

0

For a number of years I lived in Australia. The nearest neighbour was twenty or thirty miles away. We tackled problems with Hornets, various poisonous spiders, and venomous snakes, etc. All of that came with the territory.

A great many people share their environment with Lions, Tigers, or Bears. As well as other predatory type animals. It goes with the territory.

I wonder how many subscribers to these forums live in areas where anybody can carry a gun, or weapon of some description. Even if there are gun controls, there are still guns available to someone who doesn't live too far from them. It goes with the territory.

We've recently heard or read of reports were one government was monitoring the phone calls of the leader of another government. But all governments are involved in some kind of espionage, it's seen as part of their security. That's how things are.

This doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about our own mortality, or how we are perceived, or our privacy. But we can't allow these concerns to cripple us. In the video clip you provided, that gentleman made reference to Adam & Eve. Hey, that's how they used their free will, and they got what they wanted. Everybody has a choice, even if that choice is asking a few more questions as to what the consequences to any given action could or would result in.

0

The creators of LavaBit and Silent Circle have joined forces to create Dark Mail, a new secure, encrypted and peer-to-peer email system more resistant to government surveillance. They're calling it the "Dark Mail Alliance." Details at mashable

0

Nice idea, but they'd better not be based in USA or the US government will most likely shut them down for national security reasons.

0

If they're in the USA there is probably a law requiring any encryption method to have a back door for the NSA or who-ever to use to decrypt it. It is illegal to create a phone network which cannot be tapped, I don't see why it would be permitted to have an e-mail system which cannot be decrypted.

0

That's the irony. Laws that require communications to be "tappable" are there to allow law enforcement to be able to tap into it if they can show cause (get a warrant), which is perfectly fine. But now that they have obscenely abused of their capabilities to tap into people's communications, people will flock towards 100% secure ("untappable") means of communication, including the "bad guys", making catching the bad guys much harder.

This kind of "hide and seek" game is untenable. When an agency like the NSA starts tapping into all "normal" communication channels, all the people communicating anything of real interest to the agency will do so on a more secure channel, leaving the agency to waste its time processing meaningless / uninteresting chatter. Then, they'll want access to the more secure channels, leaving the people of interest to hide in another place. Sure, you might catch a few people by surprise, but it's like trying to catch cockroaches with a spotlight.

And in the mean time, people's privacy is stampeded, and constitutions or human rights charters are befouled. And all sorts of collateral abuses are perpetrated.

0

The project is open source so a back door would be visible to those programmers with cryptograpy experience, Also, no services built on that will have access to the keys so warrants would be useless.

0

This thread has been dormant for three years but perhaps it's worth revisiting in light of the recent spate of Wikileaks documents focusing mainly on how the CIA cooperated with British intelligence to engineer a way to compromise smart televisions and turn them into improvised surveillance devices. This has always been a possibility with "always on" devices and it is why there is no way I would ever enable any Cortana features on Windows 10. According to M$ I cannot strip Cortana completely from my system but I've disabled as much as I possibly can.

0

Republicans in the US have voted to gut FCC regulations that protect the privacy of internet users. The change in regulations would allow ISPs to sell customer data to marketers. In response, Adam McElhaney has started a GoFundMe campaign. In his own words

I plan on purchasing the Internet histories of all legislators, congressmen, executives, and their families and make them easily searchable at searchinternethistory.com.

He hoped to raise $10,000. To date he has raised over $54,000.

0

Re: hacking smart TVs

I haven't read the original documents but my understanding is that (1) it wasn't done remotely, an agent had to actually go in and upload code from a USB to take over the TV. (2) it would only be permitted with a warrant. In which case it is essentially the same as planting a bug in someone's house which is already legal under certain circumstances. Spying is necessary to ensuring security and that includes a gov't spying on it's own citizens. Bugging people's homes, tapping their phones, hacking their e-mail, or whatever else should be permitted and agencies should have that capability. However, it needs proper oversight and regulation.

Re: FCC regulations

I'm completely baffled that the Republicans did that. It's practically begging ISPs to abuse their power. But I heard recently that ISPs are now the second biggest lobby in Washington after arms manufacturers so IMO they are the new biggests threat to society.

0

I'm completely baffled that the Republicans did that

It just make it legal for the big corporations to make even more money than they are making now at the expense of the rest of us. Why wouldn't the republicans be in favour of that?

0

I think there's a fortune to be made for anyone able and willing to start privacy-centered companies. Companies who value privacy for real and don't snoop or let others snoop and protect their clients/customers. Surely someone can start manufacturing TV's, phones, cars, etc., and the software/firewalls/operating systems to go along with them to make them actually secure, start privacy-protecting ISPs where the "We will never sell your data or give it up without a real warrant" line is actually true, as well as the guts to tell the NSA/FBI/DEA/police/marketers to pound sand. My guess is that lots of people would pay lots of money to surf the web and watch TV in peace, privacy, and harmony, and drive without worrying about you car's computer uploading absolutely everything to the government and God knows who else.

I know it's technologically feasible. It's a matter of will. I think it's doable and will make someone rich. People will pay for that.

A guy can dream, right? No, I truly believe it's not just a dream. It'll take a lot of guts though and the willingness to give some very powerful people who like things the way they are the middle finger when they tell you they need to monitor your TV habits and your phone calls in order to keep your children safe from pedophiles and terrorists.

0

Unfortunately, when the big providers have the ability to buy enough poiliticians so that they can create laws to prevent fair competition, I can't see that happening. Chattanooga, Tennessee successfully created an public utility based internet service that was both inexpensive (compared to the big three) and high speed. Laws were quickly passed in several other states to make this sort of thing illegal.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Yes, I imagine Comcast lined a few pockets on that one. There are other legitimate issues though. Federal government imposing its will on the states. FCC overreaching its authority. Treating the internet as a "utility" to be run and regulated by government vs. leaving it to private businesses. Etcetera.

Now were those the REAL issues or just excuses so they could take Comcast's money and nip that idea in the bud so Comcast would have less competition? It's actually both, I think. You can side with Comcast and Tennessee on the legitimate issues without liking or trusting them just like you can defend the guilty-as-sin criminal defendent when the government overreaches there. I don't know enough about the case to judge.

But I doubt it's fatal, and two can play Comcast's game as far as manipulating politicians. The precedent is set. Someone provided Comcast's service for WAY cheaper, so there's a lot of money to be made, so more people will try. Monopolies are tough to crack, but it's been done before.

0

Verizon and Comcast have made public statements to the effect that they did not sell customers' individual web browsing history before the FCC privacy rules were adopted and have no plans to do so now that they have been repealed.

Please note the distinction between "we have no plans to" and "we will never". Six months or a year from now they could develop a plan to sell private data without invalidating their prior claim.

Also notable is that Verizon privacy officer Karen Zacharia said in a blog post Friday the company has two programs that use customer browsing data. One allows marketers to access "de-identified information to determine which customers fit into groups that advertisers are trying to reach" while the other "provides aggregate insights that might be useful for advertisers and other businesses."

Only AT&T stated clearly that they "will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period." In a blog post Friday, AT&T said it would not change those policies after Trump signs the repeal.

0

Treating the internet as a "utility" to be run and regulated by government

Considering the amount of stuff that is dependent on the internet it really should be considered a utility. In the UK at least, you're now required to have an e-mail address and apply for jobs online in order to qualify for unemployment benefits.

Also notable is that Verizon privacy officer Karen Zacharia said in a blog post Friday the company has two programs that use customer browsing data.

Verizon also just annouced an update to their phones that will allow them to collect information on every app their customers have installed and when each of those apps are used.

1

A company in Canada recently lost a class actions suit because of privacy issues. It seems that their product, which can be controlled remotely via smart phone, was collecting temperature, frequency and duration of use and sending it back to the head office. The product was a vibrator (yes, that kind of vibrator). Customers were justifiably upset.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.