Defcon 18 Changing threats to privacy Moxie Marlinspike Part

wonder if a surveillance society could work if everyone was allowed access to the information. [VIDEO] tl;dw -- it does.

Lots of people don't care about voting in elections, giving to charity, partaking in public demonstrations or looking after their health either. The problem is not so much whether people mind if their location is tracked or whether they have control over their hardware etc. It's more that once these things reach a critical mass it is very difficult to start to go back if we don't like where we are or indeed for an individual to make a choice to live outside of this stuff. It is articulated quite well here: [VIDEO] At around 09:00

> The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia. This development has not been properly recognized outside of national security circles. I agree with Moxie Marlinspike on that, we were preparing for fascism but got social democracy[1]. Assange is still preparing for fascism. [1] [VIDEO]

> Or, maybe, IM with OTR without logging, but that . . . might also fall prey to crazy counterparty either not disabling logging or intentionally recording and blackmailing. I thought this was one of the benefits of OTR over, say, PGP. That is, with PGP if you sign a message the counterparty can wave it around and say "look at what this poerson said", while with OTR, since the encryption is done with a shared key, it could be just as likely that the counterparty made it up. At least, that's what I gleaned from this wonderful video[1] someone linked to on HN yesterday. [1] [VIDEO]

Reminds me of this talk [VIDEO] by moxie. We thought we would get facism, instead we got social democracy. We will be able to deal with this, though, using appropriate laws. Europe will certainly go down that route, the US will probably follow. For example, using the camera to take pictures or videos that are stored or shared (vs. just processed by some augmented reality algorithms) could enable a small lamp on the frame of the glasses. Just like a video recorder, but without the ability to (easily!) turn it off.

Hmm...the writer of the article almost echoes the exact same narrative of Defcon 18 Changing threats to privacy - Moxie Marlinspike [VIDEO]

Moxie Marlinspike gave a fantastic talk on this subject in 2010, even down to the government mandated tracking device vs mobile phone: [VIDEO]

The point is, Google isn't just "selling space." They collect the data about you, admitting themselves that they prefer to never delete anything. The key word is "targeting," remember? In process, they still know more about you than your mother or partner. Somewhere in their guts, there is a collection of data about you, the depth of it not even imaginable before. How we got here: Moxie Marlinspike, 2010: [VIDEO]

I would highly encourage anyone who thinks that the solution is as simple as "don't use XYZ" to see what Moxie Marlinspike had to say about "Changing threats to privacy" at Defcon 18: [VIDEO]

Define: freely I think Moxie Marlinespike's talk at Defcon 18 (2010) was a really good one: [VIDEO] He talks about how we do not really have a free choice when it comes to things like having a Facebook account or having a mobile phone. Namely due to the network effect, you don't really have a choice if you want to be a normal member of society.

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology: [VIDEO] When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the populace, should be expecting a lot more in return.

There's a reason most people don't like hearing that: it's not a solution. I could try to explain, but Moxie Marlinspike did it a lot better: [VIDEO]

> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision Yes, it is voluntary, but it would be socially alienating not to be on that service. Here's a relevant talk [0] by Moxie Marlinspike talking about that. [0]: [VIDEO]

I would encourage you to watch the Defcon 18 talk by Moxie Marlinspike, called "Changing threats to privacy". It explains why "simply don't participate in X" is not really a valid option. Here's the link to the talk: [VIDEO]

> There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. I suggest watching Moxie Marlinspike's keynote for Defcon 18: [VIDEO]

But at some point, it becomes a basic requirement to participate in society, and that gives the people who want out an impossible choice, not by any virtue of the platform, but by the platform hijacking the virtue of society.[0] [0]: [VIDEO] "Changing threats to privacy"

> I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to transparency. It's not that I disagree with you on the topic of transparency, it's that I think we can't really compare opinions on two very different topics as if they were the same topic. People complaining about too many subscription content providers are not really arguing for or against a monopoly. It's not the same discussion. > And I'd say Google and Facebook haven't done a sufficient job in proactively informing the public about what they collect, how they generate revenue from it, and what's currently stored about a user. Granted, but I'm pretty sure that even if they did so, it wouldn't make much difference. I always refer people to Moxie Marlinspike's DEF CON keynote called "Changing threats to privacy" [1]. I would definitely recommend watching it in full, but the key takeaway from it -- for the purposes of this discussion -- is that it all boils down to choice. He talks about the way technology changes the fabric of the society, how it changes the way people interact, communicate and coordinate, and declining to participate in this new way of doing things exposes you to the "no network effect". This is why it's not enough for Google and Facebook to merely inform people about what they collect and how they use it. As long as they're practically monopolies, they can disclose and inform and then go on just the same, because there's no other viable alternative and they'll work hard to ensure