If not, you're a bad guy and we can discount any argument you put forth am I right?
Am I right?
High five? Anyone?
Anyone?
Point being that the enemies privacy have been waging an extremely successful propaganda war against our position for longer than most privacy advocates have been alive. A campaign that is at once massive and specially calibrated to go unnoticed. (How many connect the 'Telescreen' to the example in [1] in their minds?) They have the power to ensure that hand picked, specific examples, calibrated to inflame, are used as flag bearers in the zeitgeist. They have a long game of very specific goals, coupled with an army of natural language, behavioral psychology, and media experts all dedicated to that singular purpose. They have decades of experience at manipulating populations at scale, and a track record replete with successes.
Meanwhile, we sit on HN and social media talking to each other about how our side will be proven right in the end. You know, 'cuz "freedoms".
We have to start addressing the legitimate points that government and law enforcement types are making, because not doing so cedes more and more ground in public behavior and public opinion to those enemies of privacy. The great irony here is that we ourselves have helped them manage to cast themselves in the public eye as the "champions of safety", due largely to the poorly chosen nature of our bedfellows. We need to start getting out in front of a lot of the legitimate arguments that law enforcement is making, and we need to push back against professionally subtle narratives in the national media that attempt to attach us to yet more unsavory bedfellows.
----
[1] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/woman-assaulted-boyfriend-...
https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/23/the-fbi-recommends-you-c...
and, mostly because it's mentioned in the engadget article:
https://twitter.com/topherolson/status/745294977064828929/ph...
Specifically Apple-related and North American examples?
And Apple-related? North American? That's not relevant at all.
You boldly claimed that the government is observing me in my home through my devices, and I want you to show your work.
PRISM happens at the ISP level, and doesn't mention directly using iPhones, Macs, HomePods or tv as surveillance endpoints... So, where's your proof showing that they're surveilling US Citizens through those specific devices?
That's an oddly narrow goalpost. Apple shares user encryption keys with the Chinese government, for example, giving the Chinese government access to all iCloud pictures, messages, documents, videos, etc.
I didn't want to get accused of moving it later. Also, I'm only interested if there's evidence that applies to me. I'm 100% Apple and 100% USA-based, so if there's proof that "the government is listening!" then I want to see it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
Chinese government nationalized the data centers six months later, gaining access to all the encryption keys and user iCloud data at rest:
https://mashable.com/article/china-government-apple-icloud-d...
Apple does business in China the way they have to do business in China. I don't agree with that, but I'm also quite sure they have not given my iCloud keys to China.
Also, how exactly was what I said "not accurate at all"? I accuarately said Apple was sharing iCloud data and encryption keys with the Chinese government.
Direct quote. Emphasis mine.
Is the full sentence with context, meaning access for all the iCloud data for the encryption keys being shared. Don't mince words because you misunderstood the sentence.
PRISM was proof that governments pressure tech companies to become sources.
How to build a program to retain power:
1) Make new tech that is very convenient but has potential to become surveillance vector. -> e.g, Phone with voice recordings, fingerprint Face ID, location data, network of friends. Smart TV, smart watch, smart locks, Alexa, etc. 2) Support consumer adoption. 3) Keep public attention on the evils of foreign states and domestic terrorism. 4) Convert devices into active surveillance sources citing home security, public safety and the classic “what do you have to hide?”. 5) Do so as fast as possible without creating a revolt. 6) Have such pervasive surveillance that it becomes increasingly difficult to discuss, assemble and revolt. 7) Continue to introduce more controls, reduce freedoms, increase work week, taxes.
Many smartphones have this, and will respond to "Ok Google" or "Hey Siri". Do you view this differently?
The phone has to cherry pick phrases and capture times. With the right codex, the phone could keep recording for a long time after the right phrase or your IMEI is targeted. Still sub-optimal, but not as easy as Alexa. My bigger concern around phones is GPS data. That's why I've not had a phone in my name in the last twenty years and never owned a smart phone.
Now put the data sets from your phone, Alexa, your credit/debit card together and that paints quite a full picture.
The Ring device is very interesting. It faces the street. I mean, the house on the other side of the street. A network of those can track the movement of anyone that lives near one.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/29/us/ring-cameras-police/inde...