17 Mar
2013
17 Mar
'13
6:19 p.m.
Yo's-
(Thanks Patrick!)
Three things are needed. One is better tech. Two is smarter usage.
Three is the courage of our convictions.
1) Better tech:
YES we need better cellphone tech. For example:
= Open source source code, with detailed instructions for compiling it
and using it. (Full and explicit documentation should enable an average
person to follow the steps successfully.)
= Downloadable object code: compiled from the source code by trusted
entities such as EFF, and downloadable from their website, along with
detailed instructions for using it. (This will bring people onboard who
can't compile from source.)
= Devices that are pre-loaded with the new operating system and
utilities. These would need to have some means by which users could
connect to trusted sites to verify what was actually on their devices.
(This will make the project accessible to the vast mass of humans who
aren't geeks.)
= While we're at it, the software should include cryptography and
steganography, and improved voice fidelity.
= And the software should be cross-platform: for existing mobile
devices, for laptops with headsets, for desktops with landline phones.
Make it universal and it will spread.
About hardware: YES we need our own hardware, from a trusted source.
= A "ringer" that cannot be subverted into a microphone. This part is
easy: an oscillator and resonant buzzer. (Musical ringtones are
needless nonsense that facilitate using speakers as microphones.)
= Physical switches that cut off the mic, the speaker, the camera, the
GPS sensor, and the inertial sensor (inertial sensors are another
surveillance modality, details on request). The way to cut off a sensor
is by a) cutting off its power, _and_ b) shorting its signal output to
ground (both steps are required).
On landline phones these functions are collectively known as the
"hookswitch," and you can physically inspect it to see that it is in
fact cutting off the speech circuit when the receiver is on the hook.
Combining all the "sensor OFF" functions into a single switch similar to
a landline "hookswitch" would require a "ten-pole / double-throw"
switch: probably difficult to source that component, but not impossible.
= Another physical switch that cuts off power entirely.
With this combination of switches, you would have the choice of a)
putting the device on "standby" such that it can receive calls but
doesn't do anything else until you turn on the "hookswitch", or b)
turning the device OFF altogether. "On - Standby - Off." Simple and
straightforward.
These switches could easily be built into the edge of the device,
between two ridges that protect them from being damaged. I have a
design in mind for this but don't have the time to post a diagram at
this moment. Alternately they could be placed under a hinged cover on
the device.
= No "supercapacitors" on the circuit board, that could keep some of the
functions running even when the battery is out, for example functions
that are usable for remotely-triggered surveillance. It would not
surprise me if supercaps are being used in mobile devices for this
purpose right now, for GPS recording, and audio recording (the content
from which would automatically upload when the device is powered up
again). Without supercaps on the board, battery-out means device-OFF.
= We have, in the local hackerspace community, people who have been
highly successful in the business of making innovative hardware. We
need to discuss this with them. This will lead to a product that can be
mass produced.
Probably the resulting device will be thicker and slightly larger than
present devices. That's a small price to pay for privacy and the
freedom that comes with privacy. We can do this!
2) Smarter usage:
Embedded surveillance has become "popular" because it gives people
things they want: for example the ability to get voicemail messages
transcribed to text in email, so they can "skim" rambling messages more
quickly. (In fact, figuring out a garbled text translation of a
voicemail message takes longer than listening to the actual audio, but
the marketing makes people believe it's faster.)
This leads to two things:
One is, more better tech. I was just speaking with a friend who'll
probably post a comment to this thread, and he suggested that we already
have most or all of the open-source tools needed to replace Google
Docs. We can develop open-source, freedom-and-privacy-enhanced,
replacements for most of the things people use that are connected to the
"predict-you-and-control-you" surveillance economy.
The other is, smarter usage.
Use email headers intelligently: when a topic of conversation changes,
revise the header accordingly, to make it easier for people to find the
new topic. This is something I've gotten used to doing for work
purposes. It's easy, it just takes a little thought, and thought is
what differentiates live humans from dead ones.
Keep voicemail messages concise so people can actually listen to the
audio rather than depending on a surveillance-machine to transcribe to
text. This also eliminates the potential for automated transcription
errors and the hassles they cause. (Voicemail-to-email should deliver
the actual audio clip to the recipient, so they can choose whether to
dial up their mailbox in the regular way, or listen to their messages on
their computer or other device. I can demonstrate this in actual use if
anyone's interested.)
Also for email: Specify priority in the header, e.g. say "urgent" or
"routine," or whatever, and when receiving email, always read stuff
that's marked for higher priority.
Also for email: Say enough to make your meaning clear the first time.
If someone has to write back to you to ask what you meant, you left
stuff out. For example, "Let's get dinner after the meeting" is vague:
which meeting, when? "Let's get dinner after the general meeting this
Wednesday night" is specific enough to be clear the first time. Leaving
stuff out imposes a burden on the other person: to write back and ask
what you meant, and to hold up their time and attention waiting for a
reply (it also imposes a burden on yourself to reply to their
questions), and contributes to the "overload" factor.
One of the key reasons people do dumb things in their personal
communications (like not responding to voicemail and email) is because
they're on chronic low-level overload. Part of this is due to dumb
usage practices such as vagueness, that gnaw away at attention with
needless back-and-forth. Part of it is because the oligarchy tries to
keep us saturated with MEDIA (the oligarchy's messages and content) all
the time, and very often we happily obey. When our heads are stuffed
full of MEDIA, we don't have time or patience for ordinary communication
from other people. The answer to this is, reduce the overload: _consume
less media, make more room for the people in your life_. Also make
more room for solitude and reflection, thinking and daydreaming, and
"doing nothing" while your mental batteries recharge themselves.
3) The courage of our convictions: WE can build a new infrastructure
if we choose.
A new internet, new voice and data utilities, new software and apps, new
hardware where needed.
Robust, resilient, freedom and privacy enhanced, and at the same time
safer from predators & parasites and more secure to run critical
infrastructure such as the power grid.
WE have the talent to do this. It will start small but if it's any good
it will spread. We can create right-livelihood jobs doing it, that the
oligarchy can't buy out later.
Go back and read some of the early 1980s stuff about the electronic
frontier, the open horizon of freedom and community, the vast promise of
technology to liberate people in so many ways. What happened since that
time was that the parasites & predators took over, to the point where
the "technologies of freedom" became "the technologies of
convenience"
and thereby "the technologies of control."
WE do not have to submit. WE can liberate the digital commons.
-G.
=====
On 13-03-17-Sun 2:56 AM, Patrick Schmidt wrote:
Speaking about corporate cellphones where you cant
take out the
battery and dont know who
controls the mic:
Would be awesome if the Hacker Community finally comes up with Open
Hardware Mobile Phones and awesome Open Hardware Cameras.
2013/3/16, Anon195714 <anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net>et>:
>
> Yo's-
>
> There's a big stinking skunk in the room, that everyone seems to miss,
> including a lot of people at SudoRoom and other hackerspaces:
>
> The biggest threat to freedom & privacy is not the government, law
> enforcement, the intelligence agencies, etc.
>
> The biggest threat is the corporate sector. And many of us are
> willingly serving ourselves up to them on a silver platter, with
> condiments included, and dragging our friends into it with something
> less than fully informed consent.
>
> What government can do to you with the data they collect: Prosecute you
> for a crime or disappear you to Gitmo. Some day, though at present it's
> merely a paranoid fantasy, perhaps order a drone strike to shoot you on
> the street.
>
> What the private sector can do to you: Get you fired from your job,
> deny you the ability to get another job, or an apartment, a mortgage,
> health insurance, a bank account, or plain-vanilla consumer credit.
>
> Which set of consequences is more likely to happen to you? Which set of
> consequences causes more fear today? Which set of consequences
> realistically makes you look over your shoulder?
>
> On a day-to-day basis, are Americans talking about their fear of going
> to prison, or about their fear of losing their jobs, losing their homes,
> losing their health coverage, etc.? Do you know anyone who has a kid?
> Ask them whether they're more afraid of going to prison or of losing
> their job and the roof over their head.
>
> Round-ups of dissidents make news. Political prosecutions make news.
> Suicides of young guys who were being aggressively prosecuted for
> hacking, make news.
>
> Someone getting fired (or not getting hired) because their boss found an
> "objectionable" comment by them somewhere online, or an embarrassing
> picture of them on Facebook, doesn't make the news.
>
> As far as the media and public opinion are concerned, losing your job
> and losing the roof over your head don't make you a persecuted
> dissident, they make you a "loser." And when you rant about getting
> fired or denied an apartment because of your politics or your lifestyle,
> you're not just a "loser" but a "whiny loser."
>
> There is no more effective means of enforcing servile conformity than to
> offer mundane rewards and punishments, that individuals internalize.
> There is no more effective way to get people to comply, than to sell
> compliance as "convenience." As a science fiction character of mine
> said in the 80s, "Why put a person in prison, when you can put prison in
> the person?"
>
> But there's something even more insidious about this.
>
> It creates a culture of internalized compliance, conformity, and
> submission. A culture where dissent and nonconformity are "tolerated"
> (because overt repression would trigger more dissent), but where the
> vast majority does what is expected of them. A culture where today
> people say "privacy is obsolete" and "there is no more privacy,"
a
> culture that's one step away from "freedom is obsolete."
>
> The biggest risk is not that you'll personally be targeted, lose your
> job, and end up homeless. The biggest risk is that the culture as a
> whole won't give a fiddler's fig about those who are quietly
> dispossessed, because everyone is too busy falling in line to chase the
> latest consumer baubles, or to keep from being eaten by the latest
> economic alligators.
>
> Big Data is the feed-in to that system.
>
> Do you have any idea of the totality of tracking that's going on now?
> Keyword search "flash cookies" or go to http://www.eff.org and search
> their website for their write-ups about 'em. Look up "super cookies"
> and "LSOs" or "local stored objects" while you're at it.
>
> Depending on your operating system & browser, take a close look at the
> files & folders on your machine that store these things. Open the
> folders and watch what happens when you turn up the privacy settings on
> your browser, or click the options to clear your cache, cookies,
> browsing history, etc. What you'll see is that these f---ing bugs
> instantly regenerate themselves: like cockroaches they are almost
> impossible to kill off entirely.
>
> Using open-source OS & browsers doesn't fix this. You can write a
> custom script to route them to dev null and it won't stop them. They
> are designed to thwart your security measures and keep on sending data
> to their owners, no matter what you do. They are arguably a criminal
> violation of anti-hacking statutes because they circumvent security
> measures on machines, but so far nobody has raised a lawsuit about that
> (I have pestered the folks I know at EFF about this and will keep doing
> so, but their docket is pretty jammed as it is). "Privacy policies"
> that destroy privacy are arguably "contracts of adhesion" that are not
> enforceable. And yet....
>
> Everywhere you go online, everything you do online, is being collected
> with a degree of completeness that would cause you to crap your pants if
> you knew how far it goes.
>
> The ostensible goal is to sell advertising. But I have a question:
> what's the actual return on investment for that? How many goods &
> services are actually sold because advertisers can "target" you for
> "personalized" messages? How often have you bought something because
> you got a targeted ad? I'm willing to bet: not enough to justify the
> amount of money being spent on all the tracking, spying, and digital
> flashlights shoved up our collective colon.
>
> The purveyors of all this neo-surveillance are basically scamming the
> business world when they say it's "necessary" to "remain
competitive"
> and all that nonsense. One could make the same claim for telemarketing,
> and the only ones who get rich on it are the telemarketers themselves.
>
> So here's where fellow Sudoers and other friendly folks end up turning
> themselves into FOOD for Big Data, and dragging their friends into it
> with something less than informed consent:
>
> Facebook, Google, texting, and smartphones. And very soon, Verizon and
> other cable TV services, about which more some other time, keyphrase
> "watch you cuddle."
>
> Most of us here despise Facebook, except we'll give someone a pass for
> using it if they're a public or quasi-public figure who wants to use it
> for publicity purposes.
>
> But very very many of us here use Gmail addresses and Google Voice
> telephone numbers.
>
> Google is the paradigm case of Big Data. Even NSA is envious of Google,
> and NSA recently adopted a Google database system for use in their new
> facility in Utah.
>
> When you use GMail or Google Voice, you are being subjected to the same
> kind of keyword-recognition collection & analysis system that NSA uses
> for intercepting overseas traffic. The difference is that you don't get
> to vote for their boss every four years.
>
> When the only way to reach someone by email is at their GMail address,
> and the only way to reach them by phone is by calling their Google Voice
> number, they are effectively saying to their friends: "If you want to
> write to me or talk to me, you have to submit to intensive
> surveillance." If you value the friendship, you submit. Or you say
> nothing on the phone and nothing in email, other than "let's meet in
> person." Thereby throwing away all the potential value of over a
> century of communications technology.
>
> What Ithiel de Sola Pool called "technologies of freedom" in 1983, have
> become technologies of control that rival _1984_. As Winston Smith said
> to O'Brien, when O'Brien switched off the telescreen in his apartment,
> "You can turn it off!", and O'Brien replied, "We can turn it off.
We
> have that privilege." Try taking the battery out of an iPhone. Try
> taking the battery out of the forthcoming, and ironically named,
> "iWatch." They watch. You can't turn it off. Interesting, that. So
> when you hang out with someone who's carrying an iPhone, wearing an
> iWatch, or worst of all Google Goggles, once again, you're submitting.
>
> Facebook is a surveillance machine. Google is a surveillance machine.
> Twitter is not only a surveillance machine, it was designed as an
> intelligence collection platform. I know someone who developed intel
> collection & analysis software for use on Twitter. I'll tell that story
> in person. "Texting" in general, like Twitter, is an intel collection
> platform. And "smartphones" are surveillance devices you carry around
> with you. Do you really trust software you can't inspect?, that
> controls a camera, a microphone, and a GPS tracker, that you carry
> everywhere you go?
>
> There used to be a pretty strong cultural attitude among geeks, hackers,
> etc., that using AOL for email, was for losers. Cool People didn't go
> anywhere near AOL.
>
> AOL's big sin was censorship. They tried to "moderate" their little
> corner of cyberspace. In the end they failed, and at this point (I had
> to check that they still exist at all) they are nothing more than
> another dumb "aggregator" page.
>
> But make no mistake about this: Surveillance IS censorship.
>
> When people are being watched, they behave differently. They submit,
> they conform, they comply.
>
> And in the end, "convenience" is a dumb-ass excuse for compliance.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>