[HN Gopher] The rise of biodigital surveillance
___________________________________________________________________
The rise of biodigital surveillance
Author : whoooooo123
Score : 89 points
Date : 2022-10-27 15:39 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (compactmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (compactmag.com)
| Bakary wrote:
| One aspect I find interesting about HN is that most of the
| posters there are involved in adtech, data-gathering, FAANGs, or
| adjacent businesses, whilst reaping very high rewards for their
| troubles. At the same time, they have an enduring interest in
| adblocking, freedom, liberal or libertarian values and so on.
| This creates a situation where their economic wellbeing and
| working life is directly aimed towards enforcing surveillance
| capitalism and authoriarian tools, while at the same time they
| receive enough resources to avoid the brunt of the consequences,
| and their mental landscape deals with the cognitive dissonance to
| maintain an identity of progressiveness.
|
| It directly mirrors the feudal system with a tiny portion of the
| population living in unimaginable luxury and employing another
| much larger but still small portion overall to keep the hierarchy
| running. In other words, billionaires supported by well-
| compensated SWE vassals who devise ever more sophisticated tools
| to extract value and data-powered obedience through surveillance
| from regular workers.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > One aspect I find interesting about HN is that most of the
| posters there are involved in adtech, data-gathering, FAANGs,
| or adjacent businesses, whilst reaping very high rewards for
| their troubles. At the same time, they have an enduring
| interest in adblocking, freedom, liberal or libertarian values
| and so on.
|
| I think attributing features of the community as a whole to
| individuals within that community like this leads to incorrect
| assumptions. The HN community is varied. I suspect if you were
| to put an HN reader who strongly values user freedom and
| privacy and an HN reader working on adtech in the same room, we
| would not agree on many of these topics.
| Bakary wrote:
| There are a ton of profiles I've seen over the years. A few
| seemed to have lifestyles so independent and idiosyncratic
| that they'd put the Unabomber to shame. Many were involved in
| fascinating and helpful projects. But I find the assumption
| that the overall tone is of venture capital, digital
| nomadism, gentrification and so on to be fairly sensible as
| well as the idea that as whole the community greatly
| contributes to increasing authoritarianism.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| I'm grateful to have served a career that has mostly kept my
| conscience clear.
|
| I began life as a NOC operator at a regional ISP, when ISPs
| were merely an on-ramp to Al Gore's Paradise in the Cloud.
|
| I helped many employers and clients connect to the Internet
| somewhat securely. If the Internet is evil then so am I. I've
| never worked for FAANGs or adtech or data-gatherers.
|
| Late in my career I came around to academia. Worked for a NASA-
| JPL project at a university. Now I work for an online program
| manager.
|
| The data we collect from students is protected by FERPA, and
| I'd say we make an effort to collect as little as possible, and
| the students offer it all voluntarily. Win/win.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| A lot of positions even within FAANGs have nothing to do with
| Surveillance.
| cr4nberry wrote:
| > This creates a situation where their economic wellbeing and
| working life is directly aimed towards enforcing surveillance
| capitalism and authoriarian tools
|
| Adtech doesn't have to be surveillance capitalism
|
| If we're talking about personalized adtech, sure. But if we're
| talking about just adtech in general, not necessarily
| franga2000 wrote:
| "adtech" implies targeting and/or personalization, otherwise
| it wouldn't have the "tech" part - just "advertising".
| cr4nberry wrote:
| Whenever I've heard it used it's referring to general ads
| infra, which includes personalization. But there's also a
| lot more to it
| whoooooo123 wrote:
| Do "most" posters at HN work at FAANG or in adtech? There's a
| lot of those people here for sure, but I can't believe they're
| anything close to the majority.
| Bakary wrote:
| I don't have actual stats of course but intuitively if you
| tally:
|
| - All the FAANG/FAANG suppliers
|
| - All startups or established projects that involve data
| gathering, advertising, SEO, skinner boxes, dopamine
| response, parasocial relationship manipulation, optimizing
| time spent on controlled platforms and products
|
| - All projects that facilitate the above as suppliers or
| second-order businesses
|
| - All gig economy/surveilled/taylorized work facilitators
|
| - All coding work that involves ranking and surveilling
| people for life altering services such as loans, insurance,
| healthcare
|
| - All coding work done to optimize the wealth of the noble
| class (themselves the main beneficiaries of surveillance)
|
| ...there's probably not much left. Even if you maintain a
| strict definition and include only direct adtech shenanigans
| I wouldn't be surprised if that were a huge number in and of
| itself.
| sosborn wrote:
| I think your assumptions are incorrect, but it would be
| really fun/interesting to test our thoughts out with a user
| survey.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _One aspect I find interesting about HN is that most of the
| posters there are involved in adtech, data-gathering, FAANGs,
| or adjacent businesses, whilst reaping very high rewards for
| their troubles._
|
| That seems quite a strong statement. Has there been some sort
| of survey that motivated it?
|
| (Full disclosure: I've been here a long time. I make my living
| from building tech. I have no interest in doing that kind of
| work for any employer at any price, nor in running my own
| business interests that way. I'm well aware that this probably
| leaves lots of money on the table in both cases and I have
| absolutely no problem with that. And my cognitive dissonance
| can look at itself in the mirror just fine when it wakes up in
| the morning before browsing an adblocked version of the web
| over breakfast.)
| [deleted]
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| EU is issuing biometric passports where are loaded your
| fingerprints and some EU states started to issue biometric
| citizen IDs, where are fingerprints stored too. So it is kind of
| already going on?
|
| Additionally citizen IDs are nothing new, at least in Eastern
| Europe, where you will get one when you reach 15 years of age.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Aren't those stored on the card/passport, not in any central
| database? They already have your photo printed on them (as well
| as stored digitally in some cases). I don't really see a
| difference between a fingerprint reader comparing against the
| print stored in the ID card and a camera comparing your face to
| the photo printed on it.
|
| Of course there is the case of a rogue terminal surreptitiously
| saving your fingerprint or photo, but even before we had
| automated facial recognition at border crossings, you'd still
| have to hand in your passport to be scanned (to read the MRZ)
| and stamped, so a rogue terminal could have been saving photos
| all along.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| On passport, but also in the database of the department.
| Thing is that my country government administration sucks and
| those databases are not shared, so when you will get citizen
| ID with your fingerprints and photo, then you will go to get
| your driving license, you will need to get them photo again,
| because internal affairs department and traffic department
| does not talk to each other despite the fact, that they have
| offices in same building.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Ok yeah, that horrible. In Slovenia, your fingerprints (for
| biometric passports) are sent along with the print order to
| the manufacturing facility and then deleted. For all photo
| IDs (passport, ID card, driver's license, weapon permit),
| your photo is either scanned and sent along with the order
| or uploaded to a database that deletes it after 2 weeks.
| Nothing is ever stored permanently or accessible by anyone
| other than the people and systems directly involved in
| getting your document made. *
|
| * That is, of course, what the law says. I have no reason
| to believe "the government" is breaking that law, but no
| way to verify either. It would probably be discovered and
| leaked very quickly if they were though.
| untech wrote:
| Wait, what are the other options? How do they do identification
| without IDs in other countries? I heard that you can use
| driver's license as an ID in the US, but isn't it issued based
| on an actual ID? And not everyone can drive, no matter how
| auto-centric the US might be.
| whoooooo123 wrote:
| My only government-issued ID in the UK is my passport and my
| driving license. In theory if I didn't drive or leave the
| country I wouldn't need an ID at all.
|
| Although the crackdown on illegal immigration means that I
| now need to prove my right to work in the UK whenever I take
| a new job. I'm not sure how I'd do this if I didn't have a
| passport.
| pfortuny wrote:
| In Spain you get your fingerprints printed when receiving the
| (essentially compulsory) ID card... And this is seens as "good"
| and "normal"...
|
| Sigh.
| rekabis wrote:
| > In other words, you are literally nobody until you are
| vaccinated.
|
| Considering the vital importance of herd immunity, the cost
| savings inherent in being overall healthier, and the reduced
| chance that an unvaccinated person becomes a Petri dish for
| evolving new and deadlier strains, I am all for this.
|
| If you hate your community and everyone in it so much that you
| want to hurt and possibly even kill them with the pathogens you
| carry, maybe you should find a different community to be in.
|
| A vaccination card could very well be the entrance fee to a
| kinder and healthier community where people actually care about
| each other, and want to keep everyone else safe and alive. That,
| to me, is a massive bonus that vastly outstrips any possible
| downsides.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > A vaccination card could very well be the entrance fee to a
| kinder and healthier community where people actually care about
| each other,
|
| A vaccination-connected universal ID card will cause people to
| care about each other and to want to keep each other safe? This
| is a very strange thought process.
|
| Do steel bars make people want to stay in jail in order to
| protect the community? Are they the entrance fee to creating a
| loving population of inmates?
| rekabis wrote:
| samatman wrote:
| You are making a case for your own poor mental health, and
| nothing else.
| swader999 wrote:
| You can't get herd immunity from vaccination with a virus like
| corona. This was known from the beginning. It mutates too fast.
| You end up training your immune system for an extinct variant
| and it responds poorly when presented with the latest variant.
| Herd immunity works great for measles and polio, the binding
| mechanism really doesn't survive mutations well for these
| virus.
|
| And ethically, you are proposing these walled societies where
| children risk their health with poorly tested treatments to
| save the older generation? I find that abhorrent.
| Bellamy wrote:
| Where we're you when all the experts and politicians were
| talking (some still are) about herd immunity in beating
| corona?
| swader999 wrote:
| Censored lol.
| rekabis wrote:
| > You can't get herd immunity from vaccination with a virus
| like corona. This was known from the beginning. It mutates
| too fast.
|
| There was a three or four month window, right when the
| vaccines were first released, when a 95+% implementation of
| the initial vaccine shot could have produced a reasonably
| close facsimile of herd immunity, such that it would have
| made it several orders more difficult for the virus to
| effectively mutate. It could have conceivably cut the
| subsequent death toll in half, if not more.
|
| Unfortunately, politics and antivaxx disinformation got in
| the way of that. And people continued to die in droves due to
| selfishness and lies.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| You are making numerous claims throughout this thread
| without a single citation.
|
| Where can I find a study that supports this: "There was a
| three or four month window, right when the vaccines were
| first released, when a 95+% implementation of the initial
| vaccine shot could have produced a reasonably close
| facsimile of herd immunity, such that it would have made it
| several orders more difficult for the virus to effectively
| mutate. It could have conceivably cut the subsequent death
| toll in half, if not more.
|
| Unfortunately, politics and antivaxx disinformation got in
| the way of that. And people continued to die in droves due
| to selfishness and lies."
| swader999 wrote:
| Simply remember what happened. No citation needed.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| lolol, "There was a three or four month window, right
| when the vaccines were first released, when a 95+%
| implementation of the initial vaccine shot could have
| produced a reasonably close facsimile of herd immunity,
| such that it would have made it several orders more
| difficult for the virus to effectively mutate. It could
| have conceivably cut the subsequent death toll in half,
| if not more."
|
| This is a statement that has many claims: 1. 95%
| implementation (whatever that means) in a specified time
| window of initial vaccine could've produced herd immunity
| 2. This herd immunity would've made it "several orders of
| more difficult" for the virus to mutate 3 The estimate of
| a 50% reduction in death toll.
|
| I certainly can't remember something that didn't happen,
| herd immunity that *would've made mutation more
| difficult" or a "50% reduction" that didn't happen.
|
| Your memory must be better than mine, it remembers
| statistics and estimates from counterfactual events.
| swader999 wrote:
| No, you couldn't have physically deployed it faster than it
| mutates. Need at least six months and like you say, only
| had 3-4.
| tlb wrote:
| What physical limit do you mean? There are lots of things
| that are deployed by the billions on short time scales.
| Seasonal foods or fresh flowers are an example of how
| feasible it can be to deliver billions of Xs around the
| world in weeks.
| ISL wrote:
| Agreed, though it would have been necessary to deploy the
| vaccines globally, especially in the least-wealthy parts of
| the world.
|
| In the case of Omicron, there's a good chance that the
| vaccines would have needed to reach a community in Botswana
| ahead of the initiation of the chronic infection that may
| have produced BA.1, BA.2, etc.
|
| First-world extensive deployments would have killed off the
| first-world propagation of variants through Delta in short
| order, but everything changed with Omicron.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| Yeah, I get it, even my bishops have said that vaccination is
| an act of mercy.
|
| But how many acts of mercy do we owe our brothers and sisters?
|
| Five? A dozen? Per year? Per month?
|
| It was inevitable that the COVID-19 vaccines should require a
| followup and a booster and there were variants that mutated and
| then we just had a neverending cycle of vaccine opportunities.
|
| In the '60s when polio was a spectre, it just began to be civic
| duty to get your round of shots. You got the polio and you got
| the pertussis and you got x y and z. Then people were taking in
| their babies so they could load up on vaccines before they were
| even threatened and then stuff was eradicated.
|
| But what's the endgame for that? How many is enough? Who's
| gonna recommend fewer vaccines? Not the manufacturers. Not the
| pharmacies or physicians. Are insurance companies gonna put a
| rate limiter on vaccines? I don't know. It's hard to tell what
| is truly Medically Necessary and what is just putting on a
| show.
| rekabis wrote:
| >Yeah, I get it, even my bishops have said that vaccination
| is an act of mercy. > >But how many acts of mercy do we owe
| our brothers and sisters? > >Five? A dozen? Per year? Per
| month?
|
| Except all it is, is a little prick in the arm. Quite
| literally. Nothing more than that. Unless you are lucky, at
| which point your arm gets sore, and you have a bit of a
| temperature and feel under the weather for a day or so, which
| is evidence that the vaccine is producing an extra-robust
| immune response from your body, ensuring you are getting the
| full benefit of the vaccine.
|
| Would I take it monthly, if a formulation was designed for
| that purpose? Yeah, I would. Why? Because I'm not a
| sociopath. I CARE about the people in my community. I don't
| want to be that Typhoid Mary that causes ANY deaths at all,
| much less a superspreader event that kills multiple people.
|
| It's _all about_ putting the community first, and my trivial
| inconveniences (of getting the vaccine, and its effects)
| second. Because those inconveniences of the vaccine are truly
| trivial. It's a few minutes out of my day, and a little bit
| of crankiness for a day or two if the immune response was
| robust.
|
| Against the loss of someone else's life, or that someone
| getting hit with Long COVID that cripples them for months or
| years, I CALL THAT A BARGAIN.
|
| >It was inevitable that the COVID-19 vaccines should require
| a followup and a booster and there were variants that mutated
| and then we just had a neverending cycle of vaccine
| opportunities.
|
| The precedent has already been there for decades. The point
| being, people who are at risk (the elderly) and those who
| take care of at-risk people are ALREADY taking yearly shots
| for the flu. Why? BECAUSE IT WORKS at strongly limiting
| transmission. They themselves get much less likely to be hit
| with the current strain, and even if they do get hit, it ends
| up being less severe and less transmissible. These people
| protect themselves and those vulnerable people around them by
| getting the yearly flu booster shots.
|
| >But what's the endgame for that? How many is enough?
|
| Now that - thanks to politics and anti-vaxx paranoia - we
| have missed the opportunity for broadly-similar herd immunity
| (there was only a tiny 3-4 month window when the vaccines
| first came out), it will never end. COVID has gone endemic
| because we couldn't vaccinate quickly enough, and completely
| enough. We can place that outcome squarely at the feet of the
| anti-vaxxers who refused to get vaccinated, and the politics
| that made roll-out issues and vaccine wastage such a big
| problem.
|
| >Who's gonna recommend fewer vaccines? Not the manufacturers.
| Not the pharmacies
|
| They have no input into the process, nor should they.
|
| >physicians.
|
| If these are the same people who collect and publish data on
| in-the-wild vaccine effectiveness, then yes. They CAN be the
| people who show when enough is enough. And all that
| information is collected and collated through orgs like
| America's Center for Disease Control, who then provide that
| data to people like immunologist (this being his career
| specialty) Dr. Fauci, who can then craft public policy that
| aligns with whatever real-world peer-reviewed data they have
| on hand.
| h4n1 wrote:
| "all it is, is a little prick in the arm. Quite literally.
| Nothing more than that."
|
| Alright then, I'll just poke myself with a sewing needle
| and you can count that as a vaccination, if that's quite
| literally all it is.
| realce wrote:
| > community where people actually care about each other
|
| Sounds like a community of absolute arrogance and security
| theater disconnected from the realities of natural life.
| rekabis wrote:
| >Sounds like a community of absolute arrogance and security
| theater disconnected from the realities of natural life.
|
| Sounds like a lot of communities around the world, like
| Japan, where people proactively mask up with even the
| slightest tickle in the throat in order to avoid passing
| whatever they've caught onto anyone else.
|
| Community-first attitudes are a hallmark of societal
| stability over the long term, as people think of the
| community first, and themselves second. Everyone benefits
| because the community is put ahead of selfishness and
| solipsism.
|
| Pathologically individualistic "me, me, me" attitudes lead to
| a very superficial community that cannot effectively meet
| threats to its health and survival. Everyone reaches for "why
| should I make the sacrifice when I don't immediately
| benefit?", which means no-one will make the sacrifice move.
|
| I find it very ironic that the military holds so many of the
| second group, when its ethos teaches the first. In a military
| unit, your first instinct is to jump on top of that grenade
| so that you protect your teammates at the cost of your own
| life. You put the team first, so that the team can survive
| with or without you. This only works if every single member
| of the team conforms to that same ideal. Yet the amount of
| antivax in the military - which is no different than refusing
| to protect your teammates because jumping on top of that
| grenade would hurt your own "personal freedoms" - is
| surprisingly prevalent.
| graphe wrote:
| By this narrow definition, we should be happy to contribute to
| welfare, but never to accept it. Pretty useful for an
| authoritarian.
|
| If you hate your community and everyone in it so much that you
| want to hurt and possibly even kill them with the guns you
| carry, maybe you should find a different community to be in.
|
| If you hate your community and everyone in it so much that you
| want to hurt and possibly even kill them with the knife you
| carry, maybe you should find a different community to be in.
|
| If you hate your community and everyone in it so much that you
| want to hurt and possibly even kill them with the sharps you
| carry, maybe you should find a different community to be in.
|
| Now all the citizens are submissive, cannot think for
| themselves, because they refused to stand up for their rights.
| Who knows what could have happened if a country stood up for
| their citizens.
| rekabis wrote:
| Guns, knives, and sharps don't go leaping out of your hands
| to kill anyone simply because these people are in your
| presence. You need to _intentionally use or mishandle_ these
| items for them to be lethal.
|
| Viruses, on the other hand, can make you a lethal object to
| anyone who comes close to you simply by you breathing without
| a mask.
|
| And that's why we have laws on the safe storage, handling,
| and public carrying of these items. We have RESTRICTIONS on
| their usage, in the same way a person can be restricted from
| being a Typhoid Mary who only has to be in the physical
| vicinity of someone else in order to kill them.
|
| Your logical fallacy is: Slippery Slope.
| graphe wrote:
| You intentionally ignored the first section of
| authoritarians. If this is a slippery slope, how do
| authoritarians get their power of not through a slippery
| slope?
|
| If you actually cared about people and a zero covid policy
| would you would move there or isolate yourself forever so
| you can't infect anyone even if you really vaccinated? I
| got my vaccine but I don't pretend it prevents corona, the
| only zero covid policy is what China is doing. Do you
| support them?
| rekabis wrote:
| >If you actually cared about people and a zero covid
| policy would you would move there or isolate yourself
| forever so you can't infect anyone even if you really
| vaccinated?
|
| Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Extremes, and Reductio
| ad Absurdum
|
| I cannot be a part of a community unless I am in that
| community. And once I am in that community, there are
| people I need to protect in that community. Or to be more
| precise, I need to protect that ENTIRE community as best
| as I can and within my own capabilities, while remaining
| a part of it. It is irrational and impractical to have
| everyone who wants to protect others to isolate
| themselves wholly via extra-community physical distance -
| we need hundreds of planet Earths in order to do that.
|
| And because I am not a community of one, there are also
| others - like my octogenarian parents - that I need to
| take care of. They depend on me in ways I can only
| satisfy through being physically there for them, to
| physically assist them. And while I have vaccinated
| myself, I also depend on everyone else I come in contact
| with - frequently do to things for my parents that they
| cannot do themselves anymore - to be vaccinated and to
| mask up as well. To protect themselves as best as
| possible, to put the needs and lives of the community as
| a whole ahead of their own trivial inconveniences.
|
| >You intentionally ignored the first section of
| authoritarians. If this is a slippery slope, how do
| authoritarians get their power of not through a slippery
| slope?
|
| Your logical fallacy is: Circular Reasoning.
|
| Apathy and learned helplessness explains the rise of most
| Authoritarians quite well just in of itself, no slippery
| slope needed.
|
| >Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief,
| bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the
| people) - a proposition is claimed to be true or good
| solely because a majority or many people believe it to be
| so.
|
| Concerning the effectiveness of vaccines or masking up?
| Sorry, not yours. The real-world scientific evidence has
| no counterpart that has survived the test of disproof.
|
| >Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) -
| the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts
| positive or negative consequences from some course of
| action in an attempt to distract from the initial
| discussion.
|
| Concerning the effectiveness of vaccines or masking up?
| Sorry, not yours. The science has survived plenty of
| tests of disproof on this one.
|
| >Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to
| worse problems" or "not as bad as") - dismissing an
| argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be
| more important problems. First World problems are a
| subset of this fallacy.
|
| See: Polio. Spanish Flu. Smallpox. Rinderpest. Hepatitius
| B. Measles. Whooping Cough. The list goes on and on.
|
| Or are historical facts not your concern?
| Vecr wrote:
| What are you even talking about? Do you have any models
| that so far have been consistent with reality to support
| the idea that current ideas of vaccination and surgical
| mask wearing would actually meaningfully protect
| octogenarians from getting a SARS-CoV-2 (virus that
| causes COVID-19) infection before they die? What people
| like Vincent Racaniello, Daniel Griffin, and Paul Offit
| say is that immune memory pretty much can't be formed to
| any protective extent in people that old, so the correct
| strategy is for immune compromised, old, and otherwise
| high-risk people to make plans with their doctors to
| immediately take Paxlovid after infection is first
| detected, or otherwise to be infused with Remdesivir
| (Veklury) if that's not possible. For people like this,
| repeated boosting is just one step forward, and (a couple
| months later) one step back. The immune memory and
| anamnestic response never becomes enough. As far as
| anyone can tell, current vaccination strategies can't
| halt transmission anywhere in the world in real-life
| conditions, and it's highly unethical to give someone a
| biologic when the risk of that biologic outweighs the
| risk of not getting that biologic, or getting a less
| risky alternative.
| goatcode wrote:
| If you have a sensible set of statistics that you believe
| justify surrender of personal sovereignty of identity to this
| degree, I would invite you to ponder a set of statistics that
| you would think completely monstrous, but still arguable,
| toward such a surrender. There is someone out there who
| believes the opposite to you, and if you think the creation of
| a power that benefits your opinions should take place, know
| that it could be used by this hypothetical person to benefit
| his opinions.
|
| If you're ok with all that, then you have a justifiable
| position. If not, then you do not.
| rekabis wrote:
| > If you have a sensible set of statistics that you believe
| justify surrender of personal sovereignty of identity to this
| degree, I would invite you to ponder a set of statistics that
| you would think completely monstrous, but still arguable,
| toward such a surrender. There is someone out there who
| believes the opposite to you, and if you think the creation
| of a power that benefits your opinions should take place,
| know that it could be used by this hypothetical person to
| benefit his opinions.
|
| Your "personal sovereignty" argument is equally applicable to
| a sociopath who wants to maim and kill at will.
|
| Because that's what Plague Rats are: sociopaths that care
| only for their own "rights", and are more than eager to let
| everyone around them die in order to avoid a trivial
| imposition that would significantly improve safety.
|
| If you want to be a part of a community, you also have an
| obligation TO that community, to keep it safe from any
| pathogens you risk transmitting.
|
| If you cannot do your duty of care to that community, find a
| different community to be in, then. Because you have
| demonstrated you don't give a single shite about anyone but
| yourself.
| goatcode wrote:
| >Your "personal sovereignty" argument
|
| What is this you're talking about? I talked about personal
| sovereignty OF IDENTITY. If you're going to strawman, at
| least strawman based on a correct reading of your target's
| point.
| brnaftr361 wrote:
| You're assuming there are only communities who _want_
| paternalistic interference.
|
| That is not the case.
|
| You seem like you're possessed by the delusion of
| objectivity. There is no such thing.
| goatcode wrote:
| >There is no such thing.
|
| Effectively, that is true; and the closer you get to
| absolute objectivity, the scarier it becomes to the
| average person (which was the crux of my point, so I
| appreciate your pointing out what you did). Fitting that
| the dude would have mentioned psychopaths, in that light.
| cr4nberry wrote:
| > If you hate your community and everyone in it so much that
| you want to hurt and possibly even kill them with the pathogens
| you carry, maybe you should find a different community to be
| in.
|
| Interesting how you default to thinking about this as a binary:
| it's either you _love_ your community or _hate and want to
| kill_ your community. There 's no indication of any sort of
| nuance, no indication of acknowledging that maybe there are
| other people in your community who might feel differently. And
| even if they did, their feelings are irrelevant because you're
| already dead set on insisting that you "know what's best for
| them"
|
| If you hate your community so much that you'd insist on shoving
| your own beliefs down everyone else's throat and demonizing
| anyone who disagrees as _killing the community_ , maybe you
| should find a different community to be in?
| rekabis wrote:
| cr4nberry wrote:
| > Get out of here, you sociopathic Plague Rat. You hate
| everyone around you, and wish them to die. I don't. I want
| to _protect_ the people around me, and am very willing to
| take a tiny jab in the arm to do so.
|
| Please stay out of the USA. That's all I have to say
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| It's a mistake to use biometrics for authentication. Perhaps as
| weak identification it's acceptable.
|
| It's a username, not a password. Because it's public, shared (you
| leave bits of bioinformation everywhere you go) and not
| deliberately changeable.
|
| A password is none of those things.
| [deleted]
| macawfish wrote:
| I hope people realize this includes things like gait and gesture
| recognition and RF fingerprinting across multiple RF spectrums.
| overthemoon wrote:
| Just talking about the US here, but what about our current
| identification systems are so deficient that we need this?
| cr4nberry wrote:
| SSNs are incredibly insecure (and also used in a way they were
| never intended). I don't think we need biometrics to replace
| them, but _if_ there 's a push to replace them, people will
| likely push for biometrics as hard as possible
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > The stated mission of ID2020 is to provide digital identities
| for all people worldwide by 2030
|
| I'm guessing the stated mission has been changed once or twice
| since it was founded.
| [deleted]
| beckingz wrote:
| Sounds like they were years ahead of their time.
| michaelmcdonald wrote:
| > This may at first glance sound sensible. But consider: If an
| impoverished family doesn't accept the health NGO's preferred
| interventions for its children, these children may not be
| provided any other opportunity to establish a "legal, broadly
| recognized identity" necessary to access things like primary
| school. In other words, you are literally nobody until you are
| vaccinated.
|
| Author is making quite a leap that the _only_ way to receive a
| digital ID is to get vaccinated. If a program like this ever does
| take off you will see alternative methods of identification
| acquisition. Case in point: I don't need a driver's license to
| get a state issued ID. Functionally they are the same in terms of
| proving I am who I say I am, but one affords additional benefits
| of stating I can drive.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The way it works today is they you either get the school
| vaccinations or a sometimes limited exception, otherwise you
| don't get to attend. It seems like they're just putting a layer
| on top of this.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Since primary school is mandatory in my country, they have to
| accept all kids, with or without vaccination. Kindergarten
| aren't mandatory, so it is up to them if they accept
| unvaccinated kids or not.
|
| There are exceptions for kids that cannot be vaccinated
| because of medical reasons which is argument for those
| parents who does not want to vaccine their kids and still
| want get them to kindergarten regardless their health
| condition.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Primary and secondary school is mandatory here too. They
| won't let you go without shots, or an exception (medical,
| or in some states a religious/belief one). The alternative
| is that you're home schooled (even private schools are
| required to mandate the shots).
| t0bia_s wrote:
| How mandatory is primary school when it require medical
| intervention? Isn't education unconditional right?
| giantg2 wrote:
| It's legally mandatory. That's why they'd be required to
| home school (standards are set by the state), or face
| charges.
| chatterhead wrote:
| "China is using all the means available to an authoritarian state
| to reach its 5-year R&D plan to make the biotechnology sector 5%
| of its GDP by 2020." - Tara O'Toole statement to Senate
| subcommittee 2019
|
| Social Credit Systems are just lakes of aggregated data
| accessible by a government. From your health to how you choose
| you will end up a model in a prediction system.
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| Yeah, hard pass.
| treetoppin wrote:
| Making things legible to the state is one of the ever going
| projects of any state. So while I think it's important to make
| sure that refusal to participate in one of these projects doesn't
| preclude you from still receiving the services of the state, it's
| also isn't surprising that the state wants to make its
| constituents more legible to itself. The balance falls in
| figuring out how to firewall these different functions to prevent
| certain kinds of identity from making it so you can't receive the
| services that are the whole reason why you have a state.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Blanket refusal to get an ID card or passport will get you into
| trouble in some countries as a citizen (e.g., Germany).
| Possible fines etc. aside, establishing your ID in a lot of
| situations will get quite difficult.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > it's also isn't surprising that the state wants to make its
| constituents more legible to itself
|
| And not just the state, and it's enlisting the help of private
| companies.
|
| From the article:
|
| > The privacy risks, including the possibility for constant
| surveillance and data harvesting, will fade into the background
| when you are about to miss your flight if you can't skip to the
| front of the line
|
| Personally, when going to Mexico, I was asked to submit to a
| photo verification to board the plane. I asked to opt out. I
| was told it was impossible.
|
| Later, after verification, I realized I was lied to and
| manipulated: data was obtained under false pretense, under
| threat of being unable to board, and to top it out, with a lie!
|
| Next time in the airport, I will only unmask to TSA agents, and
| only those who require I do, never to the gate because as said
| in the article all it takes is one leak and then it's
| impossible to undo:
|
| > But as Nick Corbishley, author of a recent book on digital
| IDs, points out, decisions made in the moment may carry long-
| term negative consequences: "If biometric data is hacked, there
| is no way of undoing the damage. You cannot change or cancel
| your iris, fingerprint, or DNA like you can change a password
| or cancel your credit card." Unless we collectively decline to
| participate in this new social experiment, digital IDs--tied to
| private demographic, financial, location, movement, and
| biometric data--will become mechanisms for bulk data harvesting
| and tracking of populations around the globe. Welcome to the
| new abnormal.
| graphe wrote:
| Is there any hope for those of us that used Facebook when it
| came out then deleted it? Seems like they already have all
| our data now. My DNA is everywhere and my fingerprints are
| technically everywhere too. Wouldn't be hard to get it.
| collegeburner wrote:
| yeah the nasty thing is the private company loophole works.
| like the TSA puts in these stupid ass measures everybody
| hates then is like "oh well you can get clear if you don't
| like it!"
|
| it's supposed to be illegal for the feds to use private
| companies to do what they can't but for some reason this
| hasn't gotten killed in court. literally the agency shouldn't
| exist nor should airport security like it does now.
| jscipione wrote:
| The 4th Amendment right to privacy has been so badly violated by
| the US Federal Government and TSA that the Constitution is no
| longer valid - the contract is beyond broken, the US government
| has descended into absolute dictatorship and it is the duty of
| all Americans to "dissolve the political bands which have
| connected them with another." "it is their right, it is their
| duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
| their future security."
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _The 4th Amendment right to privacy has been so badly
| violated by the US Federal Government and TSA that the
| Constitution is no longer valid_
|
| Without the constitution, would you be holding all the cards or
| would the Army?
| jscipione wrote:
| We have a Constitutional Convention, enact a new Constitution
| and a new Capital, then release all the dirty secrets from
| the old (current) government similar to how documents were
| released in the early 1990's when the Soviet Union fell
| apart.
|
| The armed services, being part of the old government would
| lose their authority along with the rest.
|
| This assumes a peaceful transition of power, if violence is
| used instead all bets are off.
| kupopuffs wrote:
| Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts?
| jscipione wrote:
| I remember them being controversial at the time and expiring
| without opposition.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I remember them being controversial at the time and
| expiring without opposition.
|
| Controversial, sure, but the other part is only half right.
|
| The "Alien and Sedition Acts" consisted of four separate
| acts passed in 1798, by their popular names:
|
| 1. The "Alien Friends Act" had a two year term and expired.
|
| 2. The "Sedition Act" had a two year term and expired.
|
| 3. The "Naturalization Act" had no fixed term but was
| repealed and replaced in 1802.
|
| 4. The "Alien Enemies Act" had no fixed term, and remains
| in force with some amendments.
| mindslight wrote:
| While I wholeheartedly agree with where you're coming from
| (most rights listed in the Bill of Rights are being violated in
| some blatant manner), the problem is that vein of thought has
| now been claimed by an authoritarian movement idolizing an
| empty huckster who wears a diaper. Something similar happens to
| every good political critique - when it finally starts getting
| traction in the wider sphere, it's taken over by opportunists
| leading morons, and the whole thing just goes sideways.
|
| I've reacted by becoming much more conservative, voting for
| deep state supporting candidates because at least they're the
| devil we know. I guess I'll just keep my head down politically
| and keep working on communications technology that might
| extricate us from the state gradually. Because replacing the
| state top-down with fascist madmen certainly isn't going to
| lead anywhere good.
| motohagiography wrote:
| There is nothing friendly or helpful or optimistic about digital
| identity schemes, they are domestic passports for movement, and a
| pervasive, specific and ongoing threat against you as an
| individual for giving the appearance of non-compliance, or even a
| lack of enthusiasm for compliance. It's dominion. Honestly, a
| digital ID scheme is what the next global, multi year or even
| decade long land war will be fought over. I know we have a
| convention about avoiding discussions of violence, but digital
| ID, just like the ID schemes of early 20th c Europe and Russia,
| is the thing that you either nip in the bud in the present, or
| the number of lives that will be lost over it just grows every
| single day as the cancer of these systems establishes itself in
| our societies.
|
| There is zero hyperbole in this. I've worked on digital identity
| solutions, and fundamentally, they are not a consumer product
| anybody actually wants because their use cases are _all_ about
| enforcing rules _against_ the identity subject. The only way the
| tech survives is it must be mandated, and then it 's a question
| of whose problem does it solve?
|
| The only people that a global digital identity solves a problem
| for are the people administering it, literally against the whole
| world. The survivors will ask, "how did it all happen so fast,
| what were the warnings?" and this obscure comment will be the
| hunger stone and harbinger. I'm literally saying millions of
| people will die, partially because of my inability to be
| persuasive, but mostly because of your misunderstanding of what
| this technology does and of what it is the effect.
| hooverd wrote:
| Not that I'm in favor of it, but India, with its ~1.3 billion
| pop and Aadhaar hasn't fallen over just yet.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Arguably, the caste system maintains social order in India,
| and so digital ID for castes who are educated to be treated
| poorly isn't a change. The change would be for westernized
| countries where everyone used to be taught they have freedom
| and human dignity.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| strong agree -- federated Identity is still possible, and
| political speech with anonymity too
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-27 23:01 UTC)