Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • December 29, 2023 12:32 PM

@ All,

In the article it is noted that Jay Stanley senior policy analyst at the ACLU who specialises in technology, is concerned that it could easily be used to expose information about individuals that they never intended to share. Further he wories about who would use such technology,

“Stanley worries that similar technology, which he feels will almost certainly become widely available, could be used for government surveillance, corporate tracking or even stalking.”

To which I would add the various forms of Federal, State, Civil, and corporate “Guard Labour”, who are always,

“Looking to do more with less resources”.

Or more correctly do nothing with what every they can grab[1]. If they think you are guilty just because you are on their arbitary short list, then they will only persue that which will convict you…

The only preventative legislation against this sort of use of techbology was written in times before the technology existed, and when that sort of surveillance required considerable and expensive human resources, thus was almost “naturally self limiting”.

As some might have noticed such technology is not just new but very inexpensive, in fact rediculously so. This means that the old legal limitations on such surveillance now nolonger exists or are totally ineffectivective. Thus causing the very serious defects of the old legislative process that relied solely on cost to minimise bad behaviours are now very painfully apparent.

This is only going to get worse with the likes of Palantir who’s basic business model is to significantly under cut the cost of law enformance detectives and inteligence analysts. So get them replaced with “computer algorithms” the price of which they will jack up on the same business model that illegal substance dealers use to turn children into profit.

People still chide me for making sure I do not appear in photographs or audio recordings, even though I’ve been quite strict about it since the 1980’s. I sometimes wonder how long it will be before they actually take onboard my reasons…

Hopefully they will not find out the hard way, why being circumspect and nearly anonymous can be “good for your health”.

Think of it as the modern form of,

“Give me six lines…”

[1] Contrary to what people think, guard labour has little or no interest in either justice or correctly solving crime. As I’ve noted before their process is,

1, Build a list of suspects.
2, Prune the list down.
3, Look not for evidence but what a prosecutor can use to confound a jury thus get them to believe in nonsense to obtain a conviction.
4, Get any kind of conviction to keep politicians / funds holders happy.

That is once you are on the guard labours short list they immediately fail to carry out one of their primary requirments which is that of “impartiality”. That is they don’t look for, ignore, or hide information that might show you are innocent, so they can get the case closed quickly and most importantly as cheaply as possible.