Posts by the GCHRD

How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app

Re: Not at all surprised

I've heard that "Youve nothing to hide" nonsense since the early 2000's when people really started to understand they were the product.

The point is not the guilt or innocence of the phone owner. We should all be able to walk around and do what we please without shame. The problem is what the data collector does without disclosing it to the phone owner.

People with GM cars found out they may have been declined insurance because their driving data was collected and shared without consent. Ever wondered why your job application was declined? Why your life insurance was declined? Why you're having trouble getting a mortgage or loan? Why did your credit score go down?

We don't have control over the sources of collection. Then we're forced into the shadowy world of online application forms, where we never interact with a human, software may simply not consider you in the process, and no human ever saw what happened, whether the information was correct, or if the decision was fair or lawful.

But if you have control over your privacy, they MUST come and speak to you personally.

Now’s your chance to try Microsoft’s controversial Windows Recall ... maybe

Oh where, oh where, may the law makers be?

With appropriately written T&C this will be the largest on going acquisition of real world AI training data, since they vacuumed up the entire Internet.

Wealth capable of challenging governments

Concentrated power without a democratic mandate

Entry level expenses so high, only the richest can play the game

Unprecedented speed of development

A demonstrated lack of regard for existing rights or regulations

A complete absence of regulatory initiative

and now access to every real time human activity through immanent product deployments in phones and computers and cars

Cheers to 2024. The first full year 1.5 degrees Celsius over climate norms.

time to BOAKYAG

Lockheed Martin demos 50kW anti-aircraft frickin' laser beam

Neglect Democracy, Build Nightmare Weapons Instead

If I assume the Putins of the world are inevitable, the weapon is a great advancement. What if this endless conveyor is not inevitable?

Unfortunately the 'inevitable' mindset incorrectly assumes we must always accept the legitimacy of Putins after they cheat to gain power. We supposedly live in a rules based society, the rational-legal framework. The cheapest 'cost per shot' would be for NATO allies to strengthen the legal framework around fair elections. Putin, Sunak, Trump, Bolsanaro, and the Generals of Myanmar cannot win a fair election.

Second, UN member states should stop switching from the rational-legal framework to feudal deference, when a dictator or autocrat assumes power, with no legitimate mandate. This throwback to medieval days, when you could kill your brother or storm the palace to get the crown, cannot not continue to be recognized as a path to power.

There will always be cheats and scoundrels. We know how to write a fair election process that excludes them. That process must become the international standard. Shun anyone who games the system and only engage with legitimate leaders. Immediately shut down all international cooperation until a certified election is held to correct the crime. They cannot survive without international cooperation and the serious threat of a completely closed physical and economic border would likely deter any further attempts.

The absence of a few pages of election standards and the absence of international agreement to support those standards, with NATO-like solidarity, allows the Putin scenario to repeat and repeat. When will we stand up for each other and demand that our governments treat the root causes, not the expensive and deadly consequences. Every place in the world where we allowed the fairness of elections to be damaged, has become a nest of violence and corruption.

The cheapest 'cost per shot' is no shot.

With Mastodon, decentralization strikes back

A Multi-pronged Approach is Underway

Bruce,

Thank you for your cogent writing on this topic. I'm not in the IT world, but the tools you discuss here are essential infrastructure for an improving civics framework.

I also want to thank the commenters here who represent such a significant talent pool and work so hard to get the rubber on the road.

We continue to bang politicians and bureaucrats on the head in the world of civics, policy and regulation. The best tools still need regulatory curbs for the corner case users of them. Even simple speed limits need fines or even jail to make them effective.

Know that the other parts of the puzzle are being attended to and 2023 looks like a bit more progress will be made.

Cheers,

Paul Lock

Founder

the GCHRD

Twitter dismantles its Trust and Safety Council moments before meeting

Re: The False American Notion of Free Speech

The evidence is all around you, it maintains the world you live in, yet nearly everyone is distracted by shiny, logical-sounding axioms.

In the Western tradition, a statute or regulation merely sets out the gross goals of a law, the shoulder cases or the ultimate definition of the scope, application and limitation of a law are derived from the history of court judgments on the issue; the case law. The third leg on the stool is 'community standard', the context for the adjudication. Rape law, just a few decades ago, was judged in the context that 'women shouldn't wear short skirts or go to bars' if they didn't want to be raped. The community standard has evolved and now men are convicted if they use a woman's appearance as a pretext to an attack.

In the case of 'free speech', we have curbs and prohibitions that go back centuries. You will recognize the ones that protect against lies, as contract, fraud and libel laws. The ones that protect against misrepresentation exist under advertising, labelling and consumer protection. The common thread in all of them is they protect money. Enter the community standard again and we have a growing understanding that it is important to protect the integrity of public discourse. Trust in public discourse is essential to a healthy democracy.

Unfortunately, a string of politicians and public figures around the world have done the math and decided that the segment of the population that can be activated by invective, fomenting and lies, is often sufficiently large to give them a win in an election or deliver a business advantage. A person who is willing to burn down the system to win, is not contributing to a sustainable society. A concept unequivocally established in the examples above.

The Soviet Union was an exemplar of zero trust for public discourse and both personal behaviour and politics were severely damaged as a result. Over my lifetime, the great shock to me has been watching major powers in the West slide into exactly the same characteristics.

The political problem for the immediate future, is reducing this explanation to a soundbite that is more widely digestible. Until then, the liars can use shiny axiomatic statements to defeat the truth at every turn.

Thank you for your upvotes. Many of you work at the pointy end of this issue and your thoughtful attention is appreciated and important.

Cheers

The False American Notion of Free Speech

Freedom is never absolute. Your freedom of movement at a four way stop is curbed for the greater safety of society and so there is an increasing understanding among governments that some forms of individual speech serve no purpose in a healthy society.

In Canada, hate speech is a criminal offence and our decades old curbs clearly need updating to stop the lies, disinformation and fomenting that are now amplified by commercial algorithms. No person who assumes a public profile should be allowed to damage trust in the public discourse, or profit from that damage.

Musk is certainly worthy of ridicule, before his business plan is complete, because he has used his high profile to promote a false concept of 'absolute free speech'. This false concept has been used here as a justification for incitement and aggression, that have not advanced the discussion. It has caused an aggressive atmosphere that repels the healthy debate of ideas and lowers the standard to simple opposition.

Typically I find the comments at the Reg a worthy read and the exchange of a range of ideas is very informative and entertaining. Most of this discussion was not that. And THIS is the point. We can do so much better than this. Musk and some commenters here have simply lowered the bar to throwing pies at one another.

Twitter unveils US midterm election integrity plans, upsets almost everyone

Re: world leaders and politicians should be held to a higher standard when tweeting

There is a growing awareness that a healthy public discourse is essential to the stability of democracy. I've been advocating for basic standards of democratic process for decades, have given up, and recently started again.

Disinformation and conspiracy theory was more of an amusement, when we used to talk about 'Elvis is not dead.' Unfortunately the nexus of frictionless communication and surveillance capitalism has left us with a ticking time bomb and the bad guys know it. The shameless push to achieve autocratic power in many western nations should strike fear in every heart.

There are however, tools close at hand to turn the tap off. In Canada, we have codified the fact that some forms of communication serve no purpose in a healthy democracy. Since 1970, it has been a criminal offence for any citizen to make hateful statements about another. Our hate speech legislation has served to remove the worst offenders from the public stage before they can do significant damage.

Now we all need to consider that a new class of curb must be placed on those who seek any public profile; media, politicians, celebrities, social media influencers. Those who transmit false statements or foment should face the criminal charge and jail time of our hate speech law.

Of course we already afford these protections to money. Contract law, advertising regulation and defamation laws describe the template that should extend to protecting the peace and good order of democracy.

Thankfully, some of note are now specifically raising the concept;

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/18/the-big-idea-should-we-have-a-truth-law

My own writing on the matter is here;

https://medium.com/@theGCHRD/lies-fomenting-and-hate-speech-4b71a045c9b8

https://medium.com/@theGCHRD/the-truckers-are-victims-just-not-of-mandates-8fc840356095

If you have ideas that would add traction to the adoption of these regulations, a bit of wind in the sails would certainly be appreciated. Brexit, climate change, antivax, Putin, Trump; it's well past time to wrest control from the liars.