SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Christine Hall of FOSS Force has interviewed Richard Stallman with a series of seven questions. The interview wraps up with a question about LLMs and a question about service as a software substitute which leads to a discussion about digital surveillance.
Let’s contrast this with traditional systems of age verification to see how much worse this is. When you buy alcoholic beverages, a store clerk will ask to see your ID, but won’t record your identity, only take note of your age. That practice respects your privacy; its surveillance impact is null. But digital age verification systems record who you are, and precisely everything you do.
At 73 years old, I am sure all the sites that do age verification would rule I am old enough. But doing the age verification would give them my name or an ID number, and I refuse to give them that.
Because of my age, I am entitled to a discount card for the Boston trains and buses. But the card would record my identity every time I board a subway train or bus. I would rather pay full fare than submit to that.
I don’t own a car, or want to, but we need to stop cars from reporting where people go. I hope to find a mechanic who will work out how to convert connected cars into “disconnected cars.” I think it could be done by wrapping some sort of metal sheets around the antennas that transmit privacy-violating data, or receive GPS. Or perhaps just unscrewing them. To do navigation, use a stand-alone GPS receiver that isn’t connected to the car’s surveillance system.
One of the dangers of tech companies storing your personal data — and personal data about you — in their servers is that agents of repression can get that data from the company without even informing you.
For more about digital surveillance, see
https://gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html.
One long-running theme which RMS emphasizes is that software freedom remains a moral issue.
Previously:
(2023) The Four Freedoms and The One Obligation of Free Software
(2018) Happy 35th Birthday GNU!
(2018) RMS on a Radical Proposal to Keep Your Personal Data Safe
(2017) The Free Software Movement is Barking Up the Wrong Tree
(2017) US Court Upholds Enforceability of GNU GPL as Both a License and a Contract
(2015) GNU Prophet Richard Stallman Calls Windows and MacOS Malware
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02, @02:48PM (5 children)
This is what the antennas look like- no connector, nothing to unplug: https://duckduckgo.com/?ia=images&iax=images&q=smd+chip+antenna [duckduckgo.com]
As much as I hate the surveillance, data storage, and misuse, I'm even more worried that it's not protected, and really can't be. Evil people will get at it and copy it. Just more exposure to "identity theft", and nobody in power seems to actually care.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 02, @02:53PM
I know how to make them care, really fast: Steal and publicize their data. Unfortunately, their response will be not to actually dismantle the surveillance systems, but simply punish those who spread that data, and buy private and premium options that protect their data but not yours.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by soylentone on Wednesday September 02, @10:29PM (3 children)
There is always a way, even if you just RF shield it as RMS states.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03, @01:24AM (2 children)
"Just"? Good luck! You need to find where the RF circuits are, and no matter how hard you try, some RF will leak out. Point is, for many of us it's much easier once you find the RF circuits and identify the SMD antenna (easy for EE's like me) you can, well, I'd find the chips feeding it and remove their power. That's only if I'm ever forced to have a 'net connected car. I'll keep my jalopies thank you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Unixnut on Thursday September 03, @04:45PM (1 child)
Problem is that I suspect modern cars will not work unless they are connected to the mothership. If you disconnect/power down the tracking/spyware subsystems the car might not start, or it will be in "limp" mode until you go to a services to have them re-connect you (chargeable of course).
It will probably end up being forced, the EU has already started banning older cars from cities "to help the environment", and I expect they will carry on doing so and extending it until your choice is always-connected spyware on wheels, or using always-connected spyware public transport/taxies.
I know non-car (and even non-techy) people deliberately buy cars 2014 and older as anything newer is already too computerised and spyware infested, I too stick to even older cars, but they are getting expensive, hard to get parts for and maintain.
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Friday September 04, @01:08AM
In a few more years, the Chinese will make enough improvements to LFP batteries and electric motor hardware, to allow for cheaply handcrafted, fully free GNU/Car and get better range than any older car.
Too bad the primary obstacle will be the government, who will complain about the quality of such vehicle.
Older cars don't seem to be much different to modern cars when it comes to the expense and difficultly of getting parts and carrying out maintenance.
Ideally a decent older car wouldn't need anything but fluid changes (until it comes time to replace the timing chain and brake pads) and with a cheap crappy car, you can ignore minor issues, like a slightly clogged fuel filter.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02, @04:50PM
I'm always pleased to read that RMS is not compromising, and it's nice when he gets some press.
With apologies for my Subject, stolen from,
https://heinleinsociety.org/rah-rah-r-a-h-by-spider-robinson/ [heinleinsociety.org]
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday September 02, @05:21PM (5 children)
Let's say I am Tyler Robinson. I have dashcam footage of me in my car at the same time Charlie Kirk is killed. The GPS logs Ford keeps confirms this. The operators will have an extremely hard time disproving this. Their psyop will fail.
Let's say I take out the cam. I disconnect the GPS and wifi. How do I prove i did not kill Charlie Kirk?
(Score: 5, Touché) by pe1rxq on Wednesday September 02, @05:26PM
Cars did not have GPS in 1963, how are you going to prove you where not the second shooter in Dallas?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday September 02, @05:56PM (3 children)
You don't.
There's this concept called 'innocent until proven guilty', where the first principle is that you are innocent, and it is for the prosecution to prove your guilt, often beyond reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of your peers.
If there is no GPS log, then there is no evidence that the GPS device was in the area of the shooting. In the absence of evidence, the first principle is that you are innocent.
You are under no obligation to make it easy for the prosecution by keeping a log of your whereabouts and sending patterns that is made available to the investigating authorities.
You do not need to prove your innocence: it is for the prosecution to prove your guilt.
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Wednesday September 02, @07:46PM (1 child)
I think the judge would still allow it as admissible possible consciousness of guilt evidence, so then it would be up to the jury.
Lets say in the future 99.9% of cars are tracked, but your isn't. It might be considered similar to destroying your phone, wiping your drives. Might matter when the tracking was disabled for the vehicle.
The post above yours about in the 60s there was no tracking so how do we know you didn't shoot Kennedy, is in a different world than in one where tracking has been accepted. One where it might sway a juror.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 03, @12:33AM
Wiping your drives or destroying your own phone is perfectly legal unless you know that law enforcement is actively looking for whatever is on those drives (e.g. receiving a subpoena). Otherwise, they're your drives, you can delete data off them, run them over with your car, use them for target practice, or hit them with a sledgehammer. And there are lots of completely innocent reasons to do this sort of thing, e.g. to comply with data privacy regulations or contractual promises.
As for turning off my car's tracking: I just want to minimize power usage for things that have nothing to do with me getting from point A to point B. Or because I didn't want my wife to potentially learn that I frequented a sleazy by-the-hour motel. Or because I was tired of scammers using the fact that I entered a particular state in their scam attempts.
We should not be trying to turn legal activities into crimes just to make law enforcement's life easier when they want to ruin somebody's life, nor should we on juries automatically accept prosecutor's explanation of why certain things happened.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Username on Thursday September 03, @02:16PM
>You are under no obligation to make it easy for the prosecution by keeping a log of your whereabouts
My point is the logs would help the defense. It's harder for the operator to spin their lies. Sure, they could steal my rifle while I'm gone and plant it at the scene, but if my dashcam proves I was somewhere else they will have to shift the narrative to fit. If they do it too many times people notice and the psyop fails.