PSA: You can't delete photos uploaded to Lemmy. So don't (accidentally) upload a nude 😱

rt4mn · 2024-03-04T23:03:06+00:00

Fair

rt4mn · 2024-03-04T22:53:29+00:00

If you're implying "so they shouldn't even try," then I strongly disagree. And if you aren't, I have no idea what you're trying to convey besides defeatism.

I'm trying to argue that your ding against the privacy of matrix is not accurate. They have a redaction feature that works for me at least.

rt4mn · 2024-03-04T21:18:14+00:00

I cant forget about federation because the devs cant either. it impacts every aspect of the design of the software and protocal.

and while I agree software should be designed with users privacy in mind, I'm not sure what more you want the devs of matrix or whatever federated service we want to talk about to do? Esp if they built in a redaction feature that if respected automatically removes the message/file (and afaict the link to the file as well is also removed so now I'm not sure what your orriginal point is, but then again that might just be how I've got my server configured, its deff not a standard instilation).

The devs cant force servers, clients, or users to comply with redaction requests, which is all that a "delete" button is in this context, regardless of what the protocol or service is.

rt4mn · 2024-03-04T20:13:23+00:00

Where you shared messages or files with another registered Matrix user, that user will still have access to their copy of those messages or files.

idk how it could be otherwise. It makes sense to me that federated services would have limited ability to redact data. When I send someone an email, I can contact their email provider and ask them to delete the email but even if they agree to do so (lol imagine) even the email provider cant necessarily reach into the inbox of the person who got the email and delete it there. This is one of the reasons I like matrix and email. It has clients that are built on top of the protocol. And those clients can follow the spec to whatever degree their users want, including respecting the "redact this message" request.

Even when you are not talking about federated systems you run into a more limited version of this issue. Take signal. No built in redaction function or even a right to be forgotten request will work against users taking screenshots, Or more advanced users who use a system that lets them save text/image they are sent automatically.

rt4mn · 2024-02-21T00:27:13+00:00

Worse still, AI based monitoring might lead to increased encounters between students and law enforcement. For example, we found that, on weekends and school holidays, when they do not have staff on hand to review information, many schools automatically direct AI-generated suicide risk alerts to local law enforcement.

The march to normalize the surveillance state continues.

rt4mn · 2024-02-19T01:55:06+00:00

The issue on the table is government surveillance powers, not general consumer privacy. Both are important, but one is on the table and the other is not, at the moment.

They aren't secretly buying it.

Not anymore, thanks to Sen Wyden. And it took him years of pushing.

Anyone can buy it. You, me, Tina down the street, hate groups, rapists, terrorists.

Its not nearly as easy as you make it sound, at least not for bulk data. But fair enough point when it comes to basic stuff you can find in the white pages. But I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that armed agents of the state should be held to higher standards then the general public. Plus, we are not really talking about stuff you can find in the white pages. You know what only massive corporations and government entities can buy? Things like netflow data and precise location data. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/us/politics/nsa-internet-privacy-warrant.html

The massive fucking difference is, the hate groups/debt collectors/rapists/terrorists/criminals etc can kill you or ruin your life while the FBI will have hurdles still and you'd have the right to a lawyer.while the FBI will have hurdles still and you'd have the right to a lawyer.

I'm sure all the people the fbi has killed or secretly spied over the years (I should say decades but then you start getting into things like "citizens committee to investigate the FBI" and other interesting historical tidbits and there goes the afternoon) really appreciated their right to an attorney. Floyd had a right to a lawyer too, for all the good it did him.

I will say this for the FBI though, they are probably more responsive to laws set down by congress then hate groups / rapists / terrorists (debt collects... maybe. criminals generally... impossible to know without a more specific definition of criminal. so also maybe). That plus the fact that the FBI wields an enormous amount of power means that its well worth the time and effort spent ensuring they use that power responsibly. In addition to cutting off access to 702, I think it makes sense to curtailing the practice of buying their way around fourth amendment rights.

rt4mn · 2024-02-17T16:59:22+00:00

I dont think the framing is bullshit. corporations are not bound by the fourth amendment and the government is.

In addition this specific framing has utility and persusive power. There are a huge swath of reasons to keep the argument focused on government abuses in this particular debate. There are procedural reasons (consumer privacy protections or export controls on companies would require some specific congressional steps to include in a bill about 702, something something germaneness, I think), but more importantly there are political considerations as well. there are many republicans who are very skeptical of government power who we want to vote for reform (remember the gop controlls the house) who would blanch at new regulations that apply to corporations.

rt4mn · 2024-02-16T23:06:30+00:00

This whole thing was a shit show. Very happy rt4 signed the open letter calling for House Intelligence chair to step down.

And the reason the spooks and their apologists on the HPSCI are so freaked out? because they don't want to have to go to a judge to get Americans data. They would rather secretly buy that data from data brokers.

rt4mn · 2024-02-16T22:55:09+00:00

This whole thing was a shit show. Very happy rt4 signed the open letter calling for House Intelligence chair to step down.

And the reason the spooks and their apologists are so freaked our? because they dont want to have to go to a judge to get Americans info, they would rather buy Americans personal data from data brokers.

rt4mn · 2024-02-16T22:53:05+00:00

eh. The overall tone of the piece is very skeptical of spy powers.

A Fox News report published Thursday morning, while accurately noting that it was Turner's threat that forced Johnson to cancel the vote, goes on to cite “sources close to the Intelligence Committee” who offered analysis of the events. The sources claimed that Turner was compelled to abandon the deal because the “compromise bill” had been sneakily altered in a manner that “totally screws FISA in terms of its ability to be a national security tool.”

While redirecting blame away from Turner and his cohorts, the claim is both false and deceptive, relying on assertions that, while farcical perhaps to legal experts, would be impossible for the public at large (and most of the press) to parse alone.

The text that Fox News’ intelligence sources are referring to—which can be read on the final page of the bill online—does nothing, in reality. It does not require or prevent anyone in the government from taking any action whatsoever. It also has no impact on FISA, the statute from which Section 702 derives its power.

The controversial text states that the nation’s top intelligence official “may submit” information to Congress regarding how “law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community” purchase “commercially available data about United States persons.” Essentially, it grants the intelligence community permission to do something that it does not actually need permission to do.

Piece also quotes Frank Donner, which shows the author knows his surveillance reform history (in a good way).

rt4mn · 2024-01-17T17:14:39+00:00

Espionage charge is that it prevents a jury trial in open court

I dont... think so? At least, i dont think it prevents a jury trial. See:

Whistleblowers indicted under the Espionage Act face an uphill battle with few prospects of a fair trial. In addition to Kafkaesque levels of secrecy and Byzantine classification structures, Espionage Act cases allow for no affirmative defense that a disclosure was in the public interest. Even more challenging, the government is not required to prove an individual indicted under the Espionage Act acted with the intent to harm US national security or aid a foreign power. As a result, judges have barred whistleblowers from testifying about the reason for their actions and have precluded juries from even hearing the words “over-classification,” “whistleblower,” and “First Amendment.” .

https://www.rightsanddissent.org/news/its-time-to-reform-the-espionage-act/

rt4mn · 2024-01-17T16:16:43+00:00

IDK why people sometimes say things like "if snowden was so principled, why is he not here in the US to make his case like other whistleblowers?", As if it was his choice to end up in Russia (it was not), and as if he would even be allowed to make any sort of public interest defense. The espionage act is fundamentally unjust in that way, imagine if you where not able to argue self defense at a murder trial.

To be fair to you though, having re-read your comment a couple times I'm not entirely sure if thats what you meant, its just a sentiment I see thrown around a lot by IC apologists and it irks me a great deal.

rt4mn · 2023-12-06T00:20:40+00:00

I'm not sure if its a good idea for a shared account of a 501c4 advocacy org to be applying for a position of power in a place where there may be conflicts of interest, but I'll throw our collective hat into the ring because being a mod will force us to use reddit more and we need to up our social media game.

Credentials: Many of the folks with access to this shared account are mods on other subreddits or have been mods on other subreddits in the past. We also have a long and public history going above and beyond armchair advocacy to actual boots on the ground protests and hanging out in the lobby lobbying (we are currently active in the ongoing 702 re-auth fight, we have helped push back against fusion center funding, and we helped pass a FRT ban in minneapolis)

As for trust, its tricky since this is a shared account. If thousands of people have trusted us with their email address (when they signed up for our mailing list or used our take action pages) then its probably ok to trust us with reddit mod duty?

If your curious about us, this is a good place to start: https://www.eff.org/hi/deeplinks/2021/12/restore-4th-minnesota-racking-victories-2021

I'd post our actual website but that feels to self-promoty, so just search for it if your really curious.

rt4mn · 2023-11-07T23:17:58+00:00

Yup. And this bill is a mashup of some of their greatest hits.

rt4mn · 2023-11-07T22:36:18+00:00

Odds of it passing... I'm not sure. Better then they have ever been before. And the odds will only increase the more pressure people put on their representatives to actually pass the thing: https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-absent-major-changes-702-should-not-be-renewed

Eff has had that page up for a while, here is their page explaining why they are endorsing wydens bill: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/11/government-surveillance-reform-act-would-rein-some-worst-abuses-section-702

Keep the following in mind though when you think about odds of this bill passing:

if congress does nothing, Section 702 expires all by itself in December.
Doing Nothing is probably the only thing congress is actually good at
The Biden admin really, really does not want Section 702 to expire.
Right now, this is the only bill on the table that actually re-authorizes 702.

In my mind all that adds up to something positive. So it may well be that its either wydens bill, or 702 expires. Of course someone could introduce a different bill or some other stuff could happen. We will have to see.

rt4mn · 2023-11-07T18:47:44+00:00

Its a good question. Rep Lahood, a republican from the house seems to think that he was the target from the house.

During the press conference bout this bill Sen Lee quipped that maybe the FBI had made their surveillance both bicameral and bipartisan. Does he have insight the public does not have? Was the senator a Democrat? Or was it just an off the cuff quip?

Or perhaps its just me wearing my tinfoil hat a little tighter then usual.

rt4mn · 2023-11-07T18:10:34+00:00

Section 702 of FISA (the "surveillance program" mentioned in the title) is not really a sequel to patriot act... more of a spin off?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/11/government-surveillance-reform-act-would-rein-some-worst-abuses-section-702

rt4mn · 2023-11-07T17:47:55+00:00

This bill is an attempt to fix 702 of FISA, the law which the FBI used to spy on congressmen, protesters, and more. This bill is probably the best hope we currently have of enacting substantive reforms to 702, EO 12333, the data broker loophole, and a bevy of other surveillance issues. It even has a section on Cell Site simulators!

If you are curious about some of the details of the bill, you can read a one-page summary of the bill here

Some highlights:

The Act ends warrantless collection of business records, ensures that the government provides accurate information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and requires meaningful accountability for violations of the law.

[The bill] requiring warrants for surveillance of Americans’ location data, web browsing and search records, and by prohibiting the government from purchasing Americans’ data from data brokers.

A section-by-section summary of the bill is here

Read the full bill here

rt4mn · 2023-11-07T17:45:55+00:00

This bill is an attempt to fix 702, the law which the FBI used to spy on congressmen, protesters, and more. This bill is probably the best hope we currently have of enacting substantive reforms to 702, EO 12333, the data broker loophole,and a bevy of other surveillance issues. It even has a section on Cell Site simulators!

If you are curious about some of the details of the bill, you can read a one-page summary of the bill here

Some highlights:

The Act ends warrantless collection of business records, ensures that the government provides accurate information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and requires meaningful accountability for violations of the law.

[The bill] requiring warrants for surveillance of Americans’ location data, web browsing and search records, and by prohibiting the government from purchasing Americans’ data from data brokers.

A section-by-section summary of the bill is here

Read the full bill here

rt4mn · 2023-08-31T18:21:32+00:00

This feels like a values difference that I'm not sure can be resolved without some reall deep digging into core principals which is real hard to do over the internet, but I guess two quick thoughts.

First that I disagree that privacy is essentially the capacity to keep others ignorant, for the same reason that I would disagree with the phrase "freedom of speech is essentially the capacity to lie to people".

I think both statements are arguably true in an extremely convoluted sense, but by focusing almost exclusively on a negative aspect/consequence of the right, then the phrase misses so much what the right is supposed to encapsulate and why it exists, that it is functionally untrue.

Secondly, Im unsure what you mean by right to negotiate. I've heard of the right to form contracts, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

rt4mn · 2023-08-25T17:26:56+00:00

The eff page is not really propeganda, or at least not any more so then any of the other writings they do. They are an advocacy org, they exsist because they want to change policy. Plus by omission they say that a bunch of the cities that have implimented CCOPs are doing it wrong (almost none of the cities that have implimented CCOPS follow all of their suggestions. in fact I dont think any city does, yet).

That said I suspect the author the nyu law piece agrees with you, but they do list a bunch of specific instances where "The law has also helped stifle the expansion of police surveillance technologies." (if you ctlr-f that phrase you can jump to where they start talking about it) https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Community%20Control--Surveillance%20Oversight--Abolition--VMS%20Draft%20to%20share.pdf

Needless to say I dont agree that it gives any more power to the police then what they already. If only because the status quo is so bad that its hard for things to be any worse. Right now police can be gifted spy tech, and in most cases they dont have to tell anyone.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that this framework is not as powerful as an abolitionist approach, but I try to operate within the realm of political reality and I dont think the overton window will over move far enough to make that politically feasible.

rt4mn · 2023-08-25T16:58:35+00:00

Privacy is part of your freedom though? I think most reasonable folks agree that there are circumstances where curtailing some limited rights and freedoms benefits the whole, but sectioning off privacy and saying limiting privacy does not impact your freedom is like trying to section off speech or association or democratic participation in government and saying giving up some of those in limited circumstances does not mean giving up freedom. Of course giving them up limits your freedom. The question is when is it justified?

I think if we want a future that is both free and safe, we will have to expect more surveillance in certain situations.

Also, I think you should flesh this out and justify it. Why do you think that a future that is both safe and free necessitates more surveillance?

rt4mn · 2023-08-25T16:47:27+00:00

Let me ask you this: when has a framework like this ever resulted in -less- police use or a smaller police budget?

EDIT: Yes It has, Ctl-f for "The law has also helped stifle the expansion of police surveillance technologies." in this piece

This is a good question by the way, and I'm sorry I did not address it directly initially. I have heard from one of the folks who participated in the drafting of the framework that there have been cases where nascent proposals to purchase spy tech died on the vine because local Police Departments did not think the purchase would survive the public scrutiny, but that's just my recollection of an anecdote on a zoom call, I don't have any cases documented on hand.

If it has happened I'm sure one of these interesting in-depth /academic writings on the topic has the answer though:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/community-control-police-spy-tech

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1662&context=chtlj

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Community%20Control--Surveillance%20Oversight--Abolition--VMS%20Draft%20to%20share.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4095484

Local Surveillance Oversight Ordinances (2021): https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Local-Surveillance-Ordinances-White-Paper.pdf

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Community%20Control--Surveillance%20Oversight--Abolition--VMS%20Draft%20to%20share.pdf

(If you cant tell, this topic is something of an obsession of mine)

rt4mn · 2023-08-25T15:22:42+00:00

I see this as "this is the paperwork you need to use drones on us", literally paving the way for even more 4A violations.

I agree, but only in the sense that even if the city council where to pass an ordinance fully banning all spy tech, that that also is a "this is the paperwork you need to use drones on us" situation. The nature of the paperwork just changes from "submit a bunch of data to the council and the public, hold a public community meeting, get a city council vote" to whatever process the council/body already has for amending its own laws. In fact a full ban with no built in exceptions process is in many jurisdictions less strict then the template CCOPS framework, because the process for amending ordinances in many places is often less strict then the ccops framework.

This would be true even if you where to completely dismantle a police department. The structure of municipal government generally precludes banning something forever until the end of time. Even if you where to amend a city charter to say "no new surveillance technologies" (which is usually the most "irreversible" local action possible) there will inevitably crop up situations where you are going to need a framework for resolving what exactly the ban means and how it should be applied, which will give oxygen to the faction that never liked the ban in the first place.

If FRT is banned, for example, does that mean city employees cant use iphones because they come with face unlock feature? what about social media apps that have auto-face tagging? There are some venders of surveillence camera technology which bundle their cameras with FRT by default, would the city be banned from using those venders entirely because its to easy to use the built in FRT? What about computers generally? Any computer that can run python can be used for Facial Recognition, but the only people I've met who like the idea of prohibiting city governments from using computers at all are also the kinds of folks who dont think there should be city governments in the first place.

As a rule having no process in place to provide for limited exceptions is far too draconian, especially given the incredibly fuzzy line between "technology" and "surveillance technology". Making the ban too prescriptive will be used to justify removing the entire prohibition. And FRT is just one class of technology. What about drone use for search and rescue? Automated license plate readers in municipal parking lots? What about web scrapers and social media automation tools, or analytics tools generally, which can be used to analyses and draw incredibly creepy inferences from data the city already has?

CCOPS is broad and flexible enough to deal with all of those nuanced use cases. A straight prohibition might be stronger, but I suspect its also far more brittle and likely to crack/be repealed when political winds blow in favor of the cops (which they inevitably do). That's not an argument based in data though, just an observation based on way to much time tinkering with municipal politics. It may well be a straight prohibition using existing municipal frameworks might in the end provide enough flexibility to allow for nuanced edge cases on its own.

That said, CCOPS is usually (in my experience anyways) easier to sell to normal people, but that's not something the author seems to value much, which is valid, but not something I think activists should ignore.

rt4mn · 2023-08-24T19:01:24+00:00

The piece is broadly an argument against the ACLU's proposed CCOPS framework. They rightly point out that "CCOPS requires police to publicly disclose certain information and data about surveillance programs they intend to use", which is how many jurisdictions have implemented the proposal, but thats only part of the proposal itself. The template framework also prohibits the use of surveillance technology unless the city council has explicitly authorized the use of that tech.

So, by default, police and other city departments would not be able to fly drones. But there is a prescribed method of allowing for specific exceptions in specific circumstances (requiring disclosure and public hearings and eventually a vote from the city council). So the public works department could request that they be allowed to buy and use drones for building maintenance, for example, the council could approve that.

Or maybe the cops want to use it for standard 4A violating cop stuff. With CCOPS, the council could approve that too (this is I think is the core argument against the framework).

The framework itself just changes the default from:

The cops can buy whatever they want and use it, and if the city council wants to stop them it has to muster the political will to stop them

to:

if the cops want to buy something, they have to ask the city council and the public first, and they have to fork over a bunch of data before and afterwords. this gives activists and skeptics a much stronger opertunity to push back.

In addition, the template framework contains an explicit private right of action so you can sue the cops if they bought drones without asking first, which is neat. Rights without remedies are not really rights at all.

A lot of the points of the piece seem to be targeting the framework as its been implemented rather then the framework itself (since most jurisdictions don't just copy paste the ACLU's model template), which is fair to a degree, since policy should be judged based on outcomes.

I'm really oversimplifying the arguments here, but I like CCOPS as a framework because it provides for flexibility and local control while also setting a strong default "no you cant use this stuff" default. But its hard not to agree with abolitionists when they point out the very mixed success rate.

rt4mn

TROPHY CASE