"How journalists and activists can identify and counter physical surveillance"
https://medium.com/@roryireland/how-journalists-and-activist...
As many veterans of past civil rights battles have said: Don't get mad, organize!
The shortfall comes in with backdooring and just getting access. There's nothing stopping a government that strongarms laws like this into law, from strongarming a company into giving access to data.
Unless you plan on selling freelancing services related to anti-surveillance work (Security, building an audience in the area) really filling your time with anything but sales is going to hurt in a years time
Otherwise the freelancing comment would have been superfluous
But you read it how you like.
I'm not really seeing how US government application of authority is better than the UK's on the basis of a vocal citizenry.
I got the feeling that the Brits didn't trust their government with that info and control it implies. In Sweden we have the opposite: ID cards are seen as an asset and surveillance cameras are severely restricted by the government, for privacy reasons.
There's also the fact that ~87% of the population already hold a passport, and some of those that don't likely have a drivers license.
Entrepreneurs value their reputations more, having to gain approval from strangers more often. Meeting with a customer/VC/bank/mayor/state committee/supplier for the first time? good chance they'll google you.
In a typical corporate desk job, they do some basic checking (arrest record) at hire, then leave you alone.
I'm sorry this doesn't help directly, but it I share it to help interpret the apathy of your typical human. Perhaps if they considered the future when they might be subject to judgment by a group they don't know.
A lack of privacy induces apathy. This is exactly what your friend responded from and acted upon. The better argument to start with, and one that counters apathy, is: I do not value privacy because I have many things to hide but rather because I have many things I value.
So, is this the mere-exposure effect in practice? Or is there another psychological effect at play here?
[0]whoever that may mean
The solution to government surveillance is not laws - we've already seen that laws don't stop secret shadow government entities - the only defense is technology.
But it's the same everywhere, introduce an encroaching bill, have uproar from those with the heads screwed on (the minority). Let it grow a little stale in the publics eye and keep reintroducing with slight alterations it until it passes into law.
There's a definite sense of helplessness and hopelessness when approaching the subject with the public. Even within IT there's a sense of 'who cares'. I had a conversation about it just last weekend. I asked for my roommates phone so I could look at all his emails, sms, etc. He gave it to me and said he doesn't care.
How do those who want to maintain privacy reach out to people and let them know it's not OK? Because this is not OK.
Anyway - off to study journalism.
[1] - https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/privacy