My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."

This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".

People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.

They're ultimately employees. Their employers hire them to write the code that the employers want. If they don't write the code, employers just fire them and move on to hire some other people to write code. As much as how ethically questionable it is, it's still very rare that people would give up their jobs to defend their viewpoint.

That was nicely put.

I think you can learn about it most by reading clever, capable people from big tech corporations. Their framing often involves tradeoffs against a slow but inevitable societal pressure that is helped by compromising on freedom.

So I don't believe they are ignorant of all your points; it's rather that they don't see a realistic way how tech, corporations, and perhaps even ordinary people can go forward (being better, or richer, or more sophisticated or whatever) without making that compromise. It's as if they saw the forking paths of the future, and none will end up without technical restraints, regardless of whether they do it or whether things just get worse and someone else then does them.

Oh, the people who work on secure boot, attestation, DRM, and other such features know very well, but don't care. This is because the claimed benefits for them, such as less hackers, less malware, less bot traffic, outweigh any possible downsides for the society.

> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?

Makes me think of the most sobering line I ever saw in a museum (Berlin): The biggest atrocities were committed by people with a spreadsheet and a performance goal.

Meanwhile Signal Corporation keeps trying to connect to updates2.signal.org even when the app is not being used. "Automatic updates", remote code execution by default with no option to disable

Silicon Valley has its own ideas of what "privacy" and "surveillance" mean

To those folks, it does not mean privacy from Silicon Valley companies

The Signal app will keep on trying to connect to the mothership

Because to the people who work on Silicon Valley software, that is not a privacy violation

The battle is over _control_ over software not privacy or surveillance. The later is not possible without the former

Silicon Valley does not want the user to have control any more than they want the government to have control

I often also wonders if ideological zealots ever thinks of this passage while pushing their agenda for control:

    ...and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
    Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,
    so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Did they think that the trillion-dollar companies would become some sort of Che Guevara style insurgents...

Arguably this plan is mostly working for Apple.

The phrase 'banality of evil' comes to mind.

I guess they think "someone is going to do it anyway, so it might as well be me so I can be the one who gets paid for it". But yeah, I'm sure there is also a good chunk of tech workers who are indeed useful idiots who think they are the last link in the chain.

What defines a bad tech vs a good tech? Similar arguments can be made for most research including nuclear fusion, AI, vaccines, space, polymers, combustion engines, electric motors, semiconductors...

Twitter people expressly started their company with the idea of crowd-friendly semi-anonymous msgs on demand.

The game of GO delivers an idea where a very large construct can be built then in one move the entire thing flips to a different purpose... seems relevant somehow..

> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?

Corporations are already hostile enough that it doesn't really matter:

The report says that between 30 and 40 Rockstar employees working in multiple offices in the UK and Canada were fired on October 30, all of them part of a private trade union chat group on Discord. - https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/rockstar-accused-of-...

Leaked Amazon Whole Foods Docs: Workforce Diversity Helps Prevent Unions - https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403 (summarizing https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat...)

Microsoft Are Fixated on “Hate Speech” With Lopsided XBOX Live Enforcement Strike System - https://www.techopse.com/microsoft-are-fixated-on-hate-speec...

Online is terrible for kids. Online is terrible for adults! Too many people don't have the agency or social skills to manage themselves. Conspiracy theories, anarchists and libertarians, misinformation and disinformation, weirdos and beardos and creeps of all description. People end up believing all kinds of things that just aren't real.

It'll be best for society if things are a little more regulated, a little safer. And I'm happy to help where I can. Listening to the terminally online about it would be counterproductive.

>Next step, certainly to outlaw most operating systems and older devices.

They won't have to.

Instead, they'll just make some new essentially mandatory tech which older devices cannot run – update or stop existing, societally.

----

Phones and email already seem this way (i.e. "required") – from my perspective as an internet user whom doesn't use phone/email, personally. Nobody believes me when answering "no phone, no email" – free-est man alive - their loss is disbelief.

This isn’t just your photos. This is all content displayed on the device, all content captured by the camera - everything. Full take. GCHQ must be wetting themselves.

Does the law really require third party? Because having on-device functions configurable by parents doesn’t seem terrible at all.

With just enough fascistic pressure maybe Usenet can be great again. Just have to figure out how to filter known good content from the spam which I think can be solved with OpenPGP identities. Otherwise Tor and download managers for the patient people. Static generated galleries of pictures and videos spread across thousands of small sites. Some downsides of pushing people into dark corners is that all regulation goes out the window along with some tax revenue. Loss of tax revenue may be one way to get their attention.

Signal the messaging app/platform? A funny thing is that Signal barely works (with VPN ofc) here in China. Sending media/images is impossible. Sometimes it’s blacked out weeks on end. Everything else seems to work fine ish (again with VPN ofc).

Shrug. If they don't, they will lose the customers who do care about privacy and they won't lose the ones that don't .. right away. However, it will near guarantee further fragmentation and circling a new solution that will be recommended to normies by their techy friends or current batch of cool kids. We have been here before. The only way to win the game is not to play. Especially with government, the moment you start playing, you lose.

AKA The Witness in Nick Harkaway's novel Gnomon.

Meh, at this point it is pretty much standard clause. They are all copying each other's homework.

Probably because its leadership seems to have been taken over by more politically and less technically inclined people (for better and/or worse) who don't understand why it matters.

The trade is we get (hopefully) people very dedicated to keeping the org developing the stuff alive and well-funded, and gaining mainstream acceptance/attention.

Does the average person think this? Perception of what other people think doesn't always line up with what they actually think.

If only the average person had tools and access to all such information.

It's a great meme, though. Use it more.

https://xkcd.com/610/

isn't more as long as the average billionair thinks it is.

It's not like it's the average person pushing it.

The average person doesn't have any knowledge on this system.

>>> That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.

I 100% agree on the need to counter emotional fire with emotional fire. And this is the right way to combat this sort of overreach

However, I do think that “the choir” need to rethink what is and is not privacy - a huge amount of the benefits of having our every waking moment monitored by the virtual world (which is going to happen) can be lost if we don’t allow epidemiology to follow our digital selves.

Detecting one’s word use is slipping might signal a trip to the doctors or a thousand other digital tells that will help us improve our lives. If we have to fight against ads and digital searches for terrorism, at least let’s get the benefits too.

100%. The public tend to get very angry when police kill innocent people. So the govt want to squash any uprising which is exactly what they've been doing by taking down any video that allows people against the status quo to coalesce and coordinate. They want people to very energetic about voting for one of a few awful options which amount to /dev/null.

Looks proprietary. Need fully open source to guarantee that right long term.

We'll see. I can't be the only voter fed up with how Labour are handling this.

I find they way that Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have dismissed privacy concerns about online surveillance particularly condescending.

Come the next general election they are going to be paid back for this.

(Oh, and I appreciate Signal speaking up and have just donated to them again for doing so).

Well yes, the great cabal of people bringing in these immense rafts of surveillance are the very people who commit, or who certainly hang out with the people who commit the most heinous acts. See the Epstein files.

Notice the same people will also talk during the daytime about morals and equality, while then conducting genocide in the evening.

> it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government.

I can't believe people are really okay with a system where you have to show your real face to access websites. Cameras on phones went from a novelty to a government mandate so you can be observed.

There are various other potential methods to verify one's age, all of which are forbidden by OFCOM. Account age, zero-knowledge proofs, key signing, some kind of OAuth thing, physical tokens that require proof of age to buy, etc. The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement.

Even among the few permitted verification methods, there are obstacles. Each site usually provides only one verification method at one verification provider. You may have to trust a company you never heard of before. Sometimes the photo fails (maybe their system thinks you don't look old enough) and they ask for ID too, or the photo fails and you are locked out of verification. Some services only allow credit card verification (e.g. Steam), so if you have poor credit you aren't able to even view the store page despite being of age.

What I say is, we don't need any of this. For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine. Many adult sites voluntarily use a <meta name="rating"> tag to ensure sites are correctly identified. The ability of adults to access adult content was not impeded. Parental Controls work better than verification because 1) many sites will not deploy age verification, and 2) it's trivial to overcome photo-based ID by holding your device up to a picture of an adult on a television set.

> Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed

"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

Two-factor is one thing. They're mandating client-side scanning in every operating system. This was previously rejected for obvious privacy reasons.

There are already phones with an anti-nudity feature as a parental control option, but the key there is that it's optional. The major pivot with age verification is that all devices treat all users as a child until they identify themselves with a third party. This allows a rhetorical paradox that the controls are only for children, when they apply to adults too by default.

What's wrong with two-factor authentication? TOTP work without any network connection and only requires synchronized clocks to work. You could even do TOTP with pend and paper if you wanted (and were fast enough), no computer needed at all.

Personally, I only have authenticator apps because my job requires them. I don't see any contradiction in being opposed to things you're forced into.

Surveillance which violates the privacy or other rights of lawful citizens is worse than crime, I argue. The criminal fears the police, but the government obeys nobody.

Security cameras in public areas, I don't have a problem. Government mandated scanning software running on my PC, yeah, I have a problem. It amounts to a warrantless search.

Being pro-surveillance is the same thing as being pro-authoritarian unless you provide an alternate solution to prevent abuse of power.

Beyond the fact that this isn't true, it's even less credible coming from a new, anonymous account. If privacy is really so dangerous and has no value, you should have no issue making comments like these under a publicly identifiable account.

This assumes surveillance prevents crime, or even that crime is worth preventing if surveillance is the cost.

In terms of everyday threats to my life, billionaires are a bigger one than criminals.