78 replies to this topic

[*Anastasia]

When the machines take over it won't be like Terminator. There won't be armed automatons herding us into pens.

This scenario was immensely better when I misread, 'pens,' as, 'penes.'

I want a computer that has an interface that seems human. It doesn't actually have to be self-aware, it just has to be sophisticated enough to make it seem that way.

[Redezra]

I'm definitely not cool with it even deep down. I think that is the kind of subconscious duplicity you can only get by being a left-leaning libertarian.

 

As I said, Privacy is a basic right and disregarding it is evil. Now then, we accept that people who infringe on the rights of others sacrifice their own rights in doing so. This is why we imprison (revoke the right to freedom) from murderers (people who violate the right to life). If the government is infringing on our right to privacy, it sacrifices its right to govern. Plain and simple.

 

Furthermore: "The government is spying on you and there's nothing you can do about it. Just give up." OR "The government is spying on you, but there are ways to fight back and maintain some degree of privacy." Which of these sentiments is based on fear, again?

Yours. You're the one afraid of people watching you. Quick risk assessment, likelihood of them doing something bad that personally affects you on the level of Snowden or Assange? Unless you're one of those sorts of people, really, really fucking small. Should you expend tremendous amount of effort to avoid that? Probably not, because the risks just aren't there.

 

 

Windows 10 is the reason that my new laptop runs Ubuntu exclusively.

 

>Microsoft: "Windows 10 is coming out! Get in line for a free upgrade now while you still can!"

>Microsoft: "Windows 10 is out! We're still letting people get in on the free upgrades! Get it before we start charging!"

>Microsoft: "We're just going to make Windows 10 a recommended upgrade and make it increasingly difficult to avoid."

>Other tech people: "Hey guys, Windows 10 sends a lot of data back to Microsoft. You can't turn that fully off and it'll just turn itself back on anyway without your permission."

>Every Windows OS before this has cost a fair amount of money

>We live in a world where PRISM exists, and is known to exist

 

Really? Really? Really?

 

Windows 10 is shit. How much are they paying you to make these posts, Redezra? Does your paycheck come from Microsoft, or do you get it directly from the NSA?

 

Hey, the Australian Signals Directorate gets PRISM data, they're BFFs with the NSA. I don't have to be working for your government, I could just be working for mine.

 

And if you think that Open Source solutions are going to save you, you have another thing coming. They are in your firmware. They are in your microcontrollers. They are in your CPU. Unless you've personally replaced the firmware on those devices, you are at risk. 

 

You cannot win. To believe anything else is to deceive yourself. The only option people have is to make sure that the agencies that do watch everything are carefully monitored and are ethical. They aren't at the moment, I'll give it that, but trying to stop them watching your stuff is categorically impossible.

And you know what's even more of an unpopular opinion? The benefits of mass surveillance so far have outweighed the costs. Have you had your freedom impinged? Have they kicked down your door? Have you been rejected from a job because someone disapproves of your porn habits? No? Is there any evidence that this has been misused? Well, yes, but LOVEINT is not using mass surveillance to subdue and oppress the populace. You are currently acting out of fear. Until evidence arises that this is being used in a significantly malicious way, I have no problem with the NSA and friends watching everything.

It's an arms race, to be sure, but the simple fact of the matter is that for all their resources they cannot be everywhere. I may not be able to win with one option indefinitely, but I can win with multiple options over time. Sure, as those options become more mainstream they'll find ways to infiltrate but that's just when I have to push out further and find a new frontier to settle in. If they are trying to monitor everything (and they are) then they are already unethical in my book. Stopping them is only impossible by your own, skewed, perspective. You want it to be impossible so you can tell everyone it's not worth thinking about.

 

It is unpopular because it's false. There is no benefit mass surveillance could provide which would outweigh the cost. You can move the goalposts and create this scenario where only cartoonishly overblown abuses of power are cause for concern, but try to understand that your position then loses any basis in reality. I am acting out of principle, but feel free to keep swinging at that straw man and feverishly defending a system that has no respect for your own personal rights. Privacy is a basic human right. Disregarding it, regardless of intent, is evil.

 

Why are you so desperate to paint this as ok? Why is your kneejerk reaction to claim that anyone who disagrees is a fearmonger, Rothsdezra?

 

> 

The benefits of mass surveillance so far have outweighed the costs.

 

Key words: "so far."

Key words:

 

 

Seriously fuck Snowden. You know how much of an issue people who believe in shit are for security people? Enormous. They pass background checks, security checks, magic checks, those checks you get when playing blackjack, whatever. And then they breach your security. They put your organisation at risk. And for what, so that they can feel good about themselves? Bullshit. Fucking humans. You're all fucking liabilities.

 

If you can't deal with the ethical grey area, stay the fuck out of the ethical grey zone. You might think you're doing the right thing, but you aren't. This is neccisary work, no matter how bad it is, no matter how many lines this crosses, it is required so that people have the freedom to say that it's a terrible thing and should be stopped. Anarchist libertarian love fests are a great thing, but if nothing's protecting the situation, the first nutjob with a crusade and who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty is going to turn the whole situation into Genghis Khan vs Middle Asia.

 

Until everyone plays by the rules, we cannot afford to play by them. Or we lose. You don't want us to lose, that's bad. 9/11 bad. Paris bad. Idealism does not win in the world, what wins is pragmatism, and the guy or gal with the biggest stick. And the eye of Sauron is a pretty bloody big stick.

 

I am not afraid of the ASD, or the NSA, or GCHQ, or whomever, because I believe wholeheartedly that they are doing this to defend their own freedom too. The ends, in this case the continuation of a global society that strongly believes in the freedoms of speech, expression, politics, and so on, justify the means, in this case mass surveilance and a 1984 style Big Brother setup

 

I believe that if a government ever truly tried to crush those ends with those means, the aforementioned agencies would be on our side, or at least their staff would be. I don't say that from nothing, I know people that work in those kinds of agencies, some of them are close friends of mine, and I know that is what they would do.

 

Of course, people view the govt as a boogieman and run by people they don't like, ascribe the personas of the parties or high level ministry with the actions of the governing body, and don't realise that the entire thing is comprised of some of the most patriotic citizens the country has to offer. This is why Snowden's leak was dangerous.

 

 

 

Writing this, I'm intrigued by my own story with regards to all of this. I went in to this year believing that the NSA and Friends were horrible, and what they were doing basically inexcusable. And, one of my lecturers, guest lecturer, bigwig incident response engineer with a private security house, told me that Snowden was an asshole and deserved to be punished. Not killed, that's horrible, but thrown in jail forever. And naturally I thought that was bullshit.

But, now knowing what I know, and having seen what I have seen.... yeah no, lecturer guy was right. This is a nightmare world where there is no way to defend without being some level of evil. There's no other way to defend properly. In the old days, network infrastructure was limited to small amounts of accessors and users, and they'd not be storing their lives online. It's the whole explosion of interconnection with the internet that has made this a problem, and there is no way to defend successfully against anyone without being everywhere and seeing everything. Snowden dun fucked up.

[Shokkou]

I'm definitely not cool with it even deep down. I think that is the kind of subconscious duplicity you can only get by being a left-leaning libertarian.

 

As I said, Privacy is a basic right and disregarding it is evil. Now then, we accept that people who infringe on the rights of others sacrifice their own rights in doing so. This is why we imprison (revoke the right to freedom) from murderers (people who violate the right to life). If the government is infringing on our right to privacy, it sacrifices its right to govern. Plain and simple.

 

Furthermore: "The government is spying on you and there's nothing you can do about it. Just give up." OR "The government is spying on you, but there are ways to fight back and maintain some degree of privacy." Which of these sentiments is based on fear, again?

Yours. You're the one afraid of people watching you. Quick risk assessment, likelihood of them doing something bad that personally affects you on the level of Snowden or Assange? Unless you're one of those sorts of people, really, really fucking small. Should you expend tremendous amount of effort to avoid that? Probably not, because the risks just aren't there.

 

>> 

 

Windows 10 is the reason that my new laptop runs Ubuntu exclusively.

 

>Microsoft: "Windows 10 is coming out! Get in line for a free upgrade now while you still can!"

>Microsoft: "Windows 10 is out! We're still letting people get in on the free upgrades! Get it before we start charging!"

>Microsoft: "We're just going to make Windows 10 a recommended upgrade and make it increasingly difficult to avoid."

>Other tech people: "Hey guys, Windows 10 sends a lot of data back to Microsoft. You can't turn that fully off and it'll just turn itself back on anyway without your permission."

>Every Windows OS before this has cost a fair amount of money

>We live in a world where PRISM exists, and is known to exist

 

Really? Really? Really?

 

Windows 10 is shit. How much are they paying you to make these posts, Redezra? Does your paycheck come from Microsoft, or do you get it directly from the NSA?

 

Hey, the Australian Signals Directorate gets PRISM data, they're BFFs with the NSA. I don't have to be working for your government, I could just be working for mine.

 

And if you think that Open Source solutions are going to save you, you have another thing coming. They are in your firmware. They are in your microcontrollers. They are in your CPU. Unless you've personally replaced the firmware on those devices, you are at risk. 

 

You cannot win. To believe anything else is to deceive yourself. The only option people have is to make sure that the agencies that do watch everything are carefully monitored and are ethical. They aren't at the moment, I'll give it that, but trying to stop them watching your stuff is categorically impossible.

And you know what's even more of an unpopular opinion? The benefits of mass surveillance so far have outweighed the costs. Have you had your freedom impinged? Have they kicked down your door? Have you been rejected from a job because someone disapproves of your porn habits? No? Is there any evidence that this has been misused? Well, yes, but LOVEINT is not using mass surveillance to subdue and oppress the populace. You are currently acting out of fear. Until evidence arises that this is being used in a significantly malicious way, I have no problem with the NSA and friends watching everything.

It's an arms race, to be sure, but the simple fact of the matter is that for all their resources they cannot be everywhere. I may not be able to win with one option indefinitely, but I can win with multiple options over time. Sure, as those options become more mainstream they'll find ways to infiltrate but that's just when I have to push out further and find a new frontier to settle in. If they are trying to monitor everything (and they are) then they are already unethical in my book. Stopping them is only impossible by your own, skewed, perspective. You want it to be impossible so you can tell everyone it's not worth thinking about.

 

It is unpopular because it's false. There is no benefit mass surveillance could provide which would outweigh the cost. You can move the goalposts and create this scenario where only cartoonishly overblown abuses of power are cause for concern, but try to understand that your position then loses any basis in reality. I am acting out of principle, but feel free to keep swinging at that straw man and feverishly defending a system that has no respect for your own personal rights. Privacy is a basic human right. Disregarding it, regardless of intent, is evil.

 

Why are you so desperate to paint this as ok? Why is your kneejerk reaction to claim that anyone who disagrees is a fearmonger, Rothsdezra?

 

>>> 

The benefits of mass surveillance so far have outweighed the costs.

 

Key words: "so far."

Key words:

 

 

Seriously fuck Snowden. You know how much of an issue people who believe in shit are for security people? Enormous. They pass background checks, security checks, magic checks, those checks you get when playing blackjack, whatever. And then they breach your security. They put your organisation at risk. And for what, so that they can feel good about themselves? Bullshit. Fucking humans. You're all fucking liabilities.

 

If you can't deal with the ethical grey area, stay the fuck out of the ethical grey zone. You might think you're doing the right thing, but you aren't. This is neccisary work, no matter how bad it is, no matter how many lines this crosses, it is required so that people have the freedom to say that it's a terrible thing and should be stopped. Anarchist libertarian love fests are a great thing, but if nothing's protecting the situation, the first nutjob with a crusade and who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty is going to turn the whole situation into Genghis Khan vs Middle Asia.

 

Until everyone plays by the rules, we cannot afford to play by them. Or we lose. You don't want us to lose, that's bad. 9/11 bad. Paris bad. Idealism does not win in the world, what wins is pragmatism, and the guy or gal with the biggest stick. And the eye of Sauron is a pretty bloody big stick.

 

I am not afraid of the ASD, or the NSA, or GCHQ, or whomever, because I believe wholeheartedly that they are doing this to defend their own freedom too. The ends, in this case the continuation of a global society that strongly believes in the freedoms of speech, expression, politics, and so on, justify the means, in this case mass surveilance and a 1984 style Big Brother setup

 

I believe that if a government ever truly tried to crush those ends with those means, the aforementioned agencies would be on our side, or at least their staff would be. I don't say that from nothing, I know people that work in those kinds of agencies, some of them are close friends of mine, and I know that is what they would do.

 

Of course, people view the govt as a boogieman and run by people they don't like, ascribe the personas of the parties or high level ministry with the actions of the governing body, and don't realise that the entire thing is comprised of some of the most patriotic citizens the country has to offer. This is why Snowden's leak was dangerous.

 

 

 

Writing this, I'm intrigued by my own story with regards to all of this. I went in to this year believing that the NSA and Friends were horrible, and what they were doing basically inexcusable. And, one of my lecturers, guest lecturer, bigwig incident response engineer with a private security house, told me that Snowden was an asshole and deserved to be punished. Not killed, that's horrible, but thrown in jail forever. And naturally I thought that was bullshit.

But, now knowing what I know, and having seen what I have seen.... yeah no, lecturer guy was right. This is a nightmare world where there is no way to defend without being some level of evil. There's no other way to defend properly. In the old days, network infrastructure was limited to small amounts of accessors and users, and they'd not be storing their lives online. It's the whole explosion of interconnection with the internet that has made this a problem, and there is no way to defend successfully against anyone without being everywhere and seeing everything. Snowden dun fucked up.

 

Nope. Yours. Quick risk assessment: what is the likelihood of the average person being watched doing something wrong? I am not afraid of people watching me. I think it's wrong and will fight it because it is wrong. You are afraid of people not being watched. The thought of someone slipping through the net terrifies you, and with the system as it is you should be. Not because the system needs to be tighter though, but because by tightening the system you are only alienating ordinary law-abiding people and making them your enemy. If you want to treat ordinary citizens as enemies, don't be surprised when they start catching on and reacting accordingly.

 

Snowden did nothing wrong. He did the right thing in exposing the corrupt abuses of power in our current system. He is a hero of the American people and the NSA and the federal government they spy on us for are nothing more than treasonous, illegitimate pretenders. Rather than burying ones head in the sand and pretending the core values of our country are not being cast aside by fearmongering control freaks, more people should be speaking out and exposing the hypocrisy of those operating in this so-called "grey zone."

 

Unironically saying "or we lose" and bringing up 9/11 and Paris while trying to say my position is the one of fear? Classic. Here's a tip, Redezra. If we wait until everyone is playing by the rules we want before they apply not only have we already lost, but we can never win.

Edited by Shokkou, 19 November 2015 - 10:18 AM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

You have way too much faith in human institutions, Red.

[Shokkou]

You have way too much faith in human institutions, Red.

Especially considering the fact that they are, ultimately, run by that which she trusts least: humans.

 

In fact, let's dig into the meat of her post because there are some real enlightening gems in there.

 

"Fucking humans. You're all fucking liabilities."

 

On this point, at least, we agree. All humans are potential liabilities. We are not so different, you and I, Redezra. Where we diverge though is that while you think the way to correct for this liability is to concentrate power into as few points-of-failure as possible, I feel it is wiser to disperse that power and have as much redundancy as possible. One of these philosophies put men on the moon and narrowly prevented the accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon over the US. The other gave us such shining examples as Caligula and the Third Reich.

Edited by Shokkou, 19 November 2015 - 01:29 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Did you just seriously use "we're not so different, you and I?" Well played.

[Shokkou]

[Haflinger]

On the topic subject: I miss VMS. If someone were to walk up to me with a VAXstation running OpenVMS I would be so happy.

 

The benefits of mass surveillance so far have outweighed the costs.

Just wait until IS gets a datadump from PRISM.

The only way to stop criminals from getting data is to not keep it.

[Redezra]

You have way too much faith in human institutions, Red.

Especially considering the fact that they are, ultimately, run by that which she trusts least: humans.

 

In fact, let's dig into the meat of her post because there are some real enlightening gems in there.

 

"Fucking humans. You're all fucking liabilities."

 

On this point, at least, we agree. All humans are potential liabilities. We are not so different, you and I, Redezra. Where we diverge though is that while you think the way to correct for this liability is to concentrate power into as few points-of-failure as possible, I feel it is wiser to disperse that power and have as much redundancy as possible. One of these philosophies put men on the moon and narrowly prevented the accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon over the US. The other gave us such shining examples as Caligula and the Third Reich.

 

That's a terrible example and you know it. If the Nazis had wanted to go to the moon, they would have been on the moon. They just had conquest and genocide on their minds, and to be honest, they achieved great things along those lines. Terrifying, unethical, monstrous, but they were tremendously efficient.

 

Plus, I don't even want a fourth reich, what I want is freedoms or the illusion thereof (much better, prevents bad things from happening) maintained by a strong and stable society. Security is not easy, the fact that you can't paint anything with one brush makes it ludicrously hard. But success would be such a good thing to have.

 

On the topic subject: I miss VMS. If someone were to walk up to me with a VAXstation running OpenVMS I would be so happy.

 

The benefits of mass surveillance so far have outweighed the costs.

Just wait until IS gets a datadump from PRISM.

The only way to stop criminals from getting data is to not keep it.

 

IS won't get a datadump from PRISM. They aren't smart enough, not even in the same ballpark.

[KiWi]

I should've made a better poll.

I assume your vote Redezra "It bothers me on a princpled level, but ultimately I don't do anything about it." is you have a problem with Snowden releasing the information, not necessarily the fact that the government was confirmed to be collected the data in the first place (which was the intention of the question, so I'll take the blame here).

[Shokkou]

 

You have way too much faith in human institutions, Red.

Especially considering the fact that they are, ultimately, run by that which she trusts least: humans.

 

In fact, let's dig into the meat of her post because there are some real enlightening gems in there.

 

"Fucking humans. You're all fucking liabilities."

 

On this point, at least, we agree. All humans are potential liabilities. We are not so different, you and I, Redezra. Where we diverge though is that while you think the way to correct for this liability is to concentrate power into as few points-of-failure as possible, I feel it is wiser to disperse that power and have as much redundancy as possible. One of these philosophies put men on the moon and narrowly prevented the accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon over the US. The other gave us such shining examples as Caligula and the Third Reich.

 

That's a terrible example and you know it. If the Nazis had wanted to go to the moon, they would have been on the moon. They just had conquest and genocide on their minds, and to be honest, they achieved great things along those lines. Terrifying, unethical, monstrous, but they were tremendously efficient.

 

Plus, I don't even want a fourth reich, what I want is freedoms or the illusion thereof (much better, prevents bad things from happening) maintained by a strong and stable society. Security is not easy, the fact that you can't paint anything with one brush makes it ludicrously hard. But success would be such a good thing to have.

 

>On the topic subject: I miss VMS. If someone were to walk up to me with a VAXstation running OpenVMS I would be so happy.

 

The benefits of mass surveillance so far have outweighed the costs.

Just wait until IS gets a datadump from PRISM.

The only way to stop criminals from getting data is to not keep it.

 

IS won't get a datadump from PRISM. They aren't smart enough, not even in the same ballpark.

 

You're missing the point. They were able to commit the heinous acts they did because of the consolidation of power. The examples were not all made with regards to the same thing. The Third Reich example was speaking from a political standpoint. The moon landing was from an engineering standpoint. The US space program built in redundancy after redundancy to their systems to make them as safe as possible, but be it politics or engineering having more redundancy is always better and having fewer points-of-failure is always asking for trouble. That's what I'm getting at. You don't trust people? Distribute the power so individual points-of-failure can't cause catastrophic damage.

[Redezra]

I don't trust people en masse, they're likely to do stupid things because of group dynamics. I trust individuals. If you're a good person, I know you're a good person. Thus the reduction in points of failure makes sense. A situation can be engineered where only good people are at the points of failure, there can be artificially far more strength in the structure.

[Shokkou]

But how do you know that they're going to stay good, and even if you could know that for certain why should millions of people who've never even met you take your word for it? Take a look back at Snowden, for example. Even in a system much like the one you envision, people will still be able to slip through the cracks and cause problems that you can't predict and those problems will be all the worse for the fact that you've created this artificially high concentration of power. Face it. It's just not practical.

Edited by Shokkou, 19 November 2015 - 09:04 PM.

[Haflinger]

IS won't get a datadump from PRISM. They aren't smart enough, not even in the same ballpark.

Christ, you really think so?
 
They'll get PRISM as soon as the Chinese think it's to their benefit they get it.

[Redezra]

But how do you know that they're going to stay good, and even if you could know that for certain why should millions of people who've never even met you take your word for it? Take a look back at Snowden, for example. Even in a system much like the one you envision, people will still be able to slip through the cracks and cause problems that you can't predict and those problems will be all the worse for the fact that you've created this artificially high concentration of power. Face it. It's just not practical.

 

Don't put Snowdens in a place of power. Don't put hitlers in a place of power either. 

 

Put people like Shokkou in a place of power, and don't give him the ability to get out of the place of power, and you have a different story.

[Shokkou]

But how do you know that they're going to stay good, and even if you could know that for certain why should millions of people who've never even met you take your word for it? Take a look back at Snowden, for example. Even in a system much like the one you envision, people will still be able to slip through the cracks and cause problems that you can't predict and those problems will be all the worse for the fact that you've created this artificially high concentration of power. Face it. It's just not practical.

 

Don't put Snowdens in a place of power. Don't put hitlers in a place of power either. 

 

Put people like Shokkou in a place of power, and don't give him the ability to get out of the place of power, and you have a different story.

How do you tell beforehand though? I'm sure the US government and the NSA thought he was the right kind of person and look how that worked out for them. Who's to say someone actually evil wouldn't be able to slip through in the same way?

 

Don't go trying to stroke my ego, Redezra! Why would you put me in power? How and why would you prevent me from getting out? What, exactly, are you expecting me to do?

Edited by Shokkou, 20 November 2015 - 12:54 AM.

[Redezra]

Because, as the HHGTTG so aptly put it, the best people for power are the people who least want to be there.

[Shokkou]

How do you know I wouldn't just turn into an asshole though? A different kind than the one I already am, that is... and you didn't answer my question of how you'd keep me from getting out of it.

[Haflinger]

Because, as the HHGTTG so aptly put it, the best people for power are the people who least want to be there.

I don't think Shokkou even owns a cat.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I don't trust people en masse, they're likely to do stupid things because of group dynamics. I trust individuals. If you're a good person, I know you're a good person. Thus the reduction in points of failure makes sense. A situation can be engineered where only good people are at the points of failure, there can be artificially far more strength in the structure.

 

There are no good people. Just people.