Schneier on Security

Curious • May 3, 2016 9:02 AM

This thread about “smart things” made me think about what I think of as being an old system of security, like with a mechanically locked door, and that it afaik incorporate just a few parties, that with the internet-of-things as I imagine could compulsively leads to multi party relations, probably helps deteriorate not only the security one thinks one have, but also undermining the privilege as such of having security as such (think here of privacy as being a right for the individual, for having or choosing things so that others aren’t entitled nor even being encouraged to exclude ‘your’ opinion about things). I think it would be important to include the following “things” as being ‘subject matter’ regarding everyone’s opinions: ‘choices’, ‘expectations’, ‘presumptions’, ‘hopes and ‘common sense of man (but not “society”, oddly enough)’.

(“Society” as a metaphorical construct in any way, would not entail moral actors, as explained later here below.)

I wonder if perhaps it could be said that US law is really being ignorant, of anything related to an individual by even having such words/terms as “expectation” alone (heh, “all one”), if being treated as if ‘expectation’ was a delegated belief that by merit of recognition also might have the side effect of simply excluding anything that pertains to an individual as ‘rights’, and any understanding of such rights (incl. the opinion, beliefs, knowledge, existence even, of an individual).

I like to think that, usually, the implementer, owner or the supervisior for one’s locked door at home, probably involve just a few parties; yourself with your key, the company that makes the lock, and whoever, if any, that actually owns your property and door/lock. Adding more parties to this, allowing for any number of additional intruders as a particular problem in itself, seem to not only weaken what one could call ‘security’ as an effect, in the sense of a door not ending up allowing an intruder to pass through, but I think such technology that in this sense would allow what I just now called “any number of additional intruders”, I think it would be fair to consider such technology to be intrusive if ending up trivializing not only the security of someones house for example, but also and more importantly perhaps for discussion about law, that such tech trivializes and in effect undermines peoples need/demand for ‘privacy’ (specifically if people’s real privacy doesn’t really exist as a legal entity and whereof a governments idea of ‘privacy’ can’t or won’t include the needs and demands on any one individual).

I think, being a customer of internet-of-things should imo never entail the trivialization, or, the negation of rights, even if being imaginary rights (metaphorical/imagined or even based on an individuals expressed or imagined need for privacy), in the form of choices (own), expectations (own), presumptions (own), hopes (own), and ones own belief in common sense. The last part could perhaps be particularly interesting, as that notion of “common sense” probably will challenge common idea about common sense (think tradition and history), and that would as I see it possibly open up for new things, new ideas and perhaps more importantly, new laws and regulations that favor the individual as having rights as such. So in a way, I suspect that notions or specific ideas about “common sense” if taken too seriously, could perhaps end up being used as a rhetorical ploy for simply wanting to be pragmatic, but ofc being pragmatic is nothing like common sense if you think about it. Being pragmatic always favor the acting party, as a moral choice as such, while common sense favor pretty much all the others as well for acting on the will to do something in particular. I think it should be obvious that being a member of a group that somehow is associated with having made a choice, has nothing to do with being moral if oneself is not free, willing and able to make a choice alone. Ergo, the very idea of making a choice as a group imo should not be possible philosophically speaking, or rather, metaphorically speaking. Thus I will argue, perhaps being understood by others as suggesting something provocative, that any idea of ‘acting on authority’ as being ‘moral’ as such, as if a mere subscription to common ideas, or an association to groups of people or an organization of people inferred being a moral actor as such, such is not possible I’d argue and so groups can’t really be said to make choices at all, as if been/being a matter of fact. ‘Generalization’ is a “huge” problem this way, and should at best be considered a ‘difficult’ problem to even understand.

If considering a notion of there being a consumer, specifically as if the consumer by act of purchasing some tech item is having been retroactively imposed with the power of acting, or having made choice in a specific or generalized sense, I think such types of arguments should in turn be considered a moot point, and instead simply be though of as being a metaphorical construct (as if simply being rhetorical, and thus treat the meanings as generalizations, or as being imposed on the listener/reader, or at best being suggestive and thus being something of less import), and that any credence to any such ideas should be voided if politicians, authorities and anyone involved with technology were to seemingly argue that consumers already are cared for within the existing rules and regulations (and I am here simply assuming that they are not).

So, I will at the end here phrase the general question: have individuals everywhere been given the right to privacy?

Here is the kicker: one would think that people as individuals would be entitled to equal rights, for being individuals everywhere without exclusion or exception, despite age, sex/gender, looks and interests.

Presumably, as imo nation states have made impossible the very idea of individuals having rights as such, I question why that is. In my country, I’d argue that you can end up ending your life in a ditch as you die there of starvation, with no rights to be claimed by yourself, not ever, yet as a consumer, you can in a court of law actually claim rights to be brought to bear as you please given the premises in specific law for consumer purchases for goods above a certain minimum value already set by this particular law (equivalent to about $25 the last time I checked).

In this way, with the internet-of-things today, I think the lack of privacy seem like something of a humanitarian disaster that never ends, seemingly because of how the rights of individuals doesn’t exist when presumably competing against state and corporate power and interests.