[sudo-discuss] Breaking: Oakland to lead country in, diverting anti-terror funding to ubiquitous warrantless surveillance

[GtwoG PublicOhOne]

Re. Anthony:

"Or a 'dumb' phone with any software or firmware at all on it, for that
matter?": good point.  Agreed, and IMHO nothing beats a physical switch
that can turn off the mics, cameras, GPS, etc. by disconnecting power. 
That would make a good subject for a hacker/maker event: installing
power-off switches in "smart"phones that don't have removable batteries.

Re. Shawn: 

"Roving wiretaps."  Like when Apple collected GPS data from iPhones and
publicly posted the users' locations and movements?   That was an
immediate danger to the life of anyone who was a stalking victim.  Like
the voice command apps, that require the microphone to be always-on,
listening for keywords, relaying them to a corporate server-farm to be
processed?  Do you know what other keywords are on that list, aside from
the ones they tell you about? 

"Wireshark or a cell signal detector."  I've used Wireshark to
troubleshoot VOIP, and it is not something that laypeople would be able
to use.  If there's a cell signal detector that's layperson-usable, I'd
love to know about it.   (I have a standing design for a "blackout box"
that will enable someone to put their "smart"phone in it and block
surveillance while being able to ring on incoming phone calls.)

"The look of Shotspotter is a secret and afaik we can't even know
exactly where they are for that reason."  That's just poor marketing by
Shotspotter.  Shotspotter needs to get cool looking enclosures with
patented round corners, and an "app" you can buy for $2, and have hip
sexy celebrities Oooh and Aaah about them.  Then everyone will want
one;-)  (Ad concept: pop music star holding up iPhone with Shotspotter
app on it.  Sound effect: repetitive rapid gunfire.  Celebrity voice: 
"It's the rhythm of the city!  Tune it in, with Shotspotter!")

"The ownership of a smartphone is voluntary..."  And having
conversations within earshot of someone else's smartphone that you can't
see, isn't voluntary.  Though, per Google's court filing that claims
that anyone who communicates with a GMail user consents to be spied on
by Google, I suppose one could come up with a similar interpretation for
conversations conducted in earshot of someone else's mobile surveillance
device.

"Voluntary" is a slippery word, whereby manipulation of "consumers" is
regularly justified.  Have you read every EULA you've clicked "OK" on? 
Fine print at the bottom of a "user agreement" doesn't hold a candle to
the frequent appearance of hip sexy celebrities Ooohing and Aaahing over
the latest piece of self-surveillance hardware. 

"Provides advantages" vs. "thrust upon us."  Advantages like lower cost
to taxpayers for transcribing conversations recorded at closer range? 
"Thrust upon us" like the disappearance of anonymous-cash-paid public
telephones that used to be on every street corner?  Or is everything
justifiable in exchange for "convenience" and Angry Birds?  (When
Microsoft put Solitaire on Windows, people were cynical.  But Angry
Birds and Farmville?)

What level of invasiveness would be sufficient to make that "voluntary"
transaction a bad bargain? 

How'bout "smellavision" (ambient chemical sensors) where the
"smart"phone picks up smells in its vicinity, for example the scent of
recreational marijuana?  How'bout a "smart" EEG sensor that gives you
the "convenience" of not having to say a word: just think the thought? 

How'bout all your phone calls being recorded in realtime by default?  I
didn't believe this one either, until a few months ago, when I heard it
straight from a proverbial horse's mouth.

Where do you draw the line in the sand, and what do you do when it's
crossed? 

Or is it "OK" if these intrusions are introduced slowly enough for
people to "get used to them," frog-in-boiling-water style?   First GPS,
then always-on microphones, then one camera per device, then two cameras
(front and back) per device, then speech recognition (constant
monitoring of the microphone, as I said: what else is on that keyword
list?). 

What next?  Here's one example of "what next."  Microsoft plans to
introduce a permanent replacement for cookies, embedded in Windows, that
will track people even more aggressively and will be impossible to turn
off.  Google, Apple, and Amazon are doing likewise.  And if anyone here
thinks that's only about "personalized advertising," I have a bridge for
sale, cheap. 

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/private-tracking-arms-race/

Principle:  If it's not-OK for government to do something, it's not-OK
for corporate interests to do the same thing.  That's the core of the
difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. 

Keyphrase: "predict and control." 

-G.


=====


On 13-10-15-Tue 3:20 PM, Shawn Lesniak wrote:
> On 2013-10-15 15:11, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
>> So is the objection to ubiquitous microphones, the closed software that
>> controls them, the fact that they might be turned on without peoples'
>> knowledge, or the fact that the police can use them to listen to what's
>> nearby...? 
>>
>> And, how does that description differ from a "smart"phone?
> yes, somewhat yes, yes, yes
>
> The description differs because the use of cell phones as roving
> wiretaps is believed to be somewhat rare at this point because users can
> use wireshark or a cell signal detector to see if anomalous amounts of
> data are being transmitted.  The look of Shotspotter is a secret and
> afaik we can't even know exactly where they are for that reason.
>
> Moreover, the ownership of a smart phone is voluntary and provides
> advantages to the owners whereas Shotspotter is thrust upon us and it is
> not obvious how to avoid it.
>