They’re trying to make us feel powerless, while giving investors the impression they have the most dystopian product: as products without regard for morals tend to yield the highest returns. The biggest bullshitter will secure most venture capital, to be weaponized against competitors.
That’s the spirit! We’re only as weak as they can make us feel weak.
If only they had a “legitimate public-interest justification”, then they could feed it straight into Brussels’ Regional Informatics Center (BRIC), together with the thousands of public cameras from: police stations, the subway system, the port of Brussels, the fire and emergency medical assistance department, and the public service department responsible for traffic management, signals and tunnels; to be analyzed by video analytics tools (alerting operators upon “illegal parking or a large group of people, for example”, bookmarking video clips with movement, and where the “next step will be to integrate facial and number plate recognition”), as reported in their Genetec customer story…
deleted by creator
Honestly I only think it’s fair, to also have the driver be subject to surveillance, when they knowingly expose others to the car’s exterior cameras.
Ah, that sucks. Ring cameras or something?
The first would be considered incomplete, and lead most to ask: “U kunt … wat?” (“You can do … what?”). “U kunt het” as “You (formal) can do it” would sound like “You removed head” but with a thick Dutch accent haha
deleted by creator
Ah okay, so you have some sort of online portal for you doctor’s office; where you can either log in using your DigiD or a regular account? That would make sense for a digitally managed system.
Scheduling a doctor’s appointment and getting a prescription refilled? I’ve never used my DigiD for that, nor do I think it’s even an option here; it’s pretty much all telephone. And as for the source code, only part of the source code was published (as a result of ‘Wet Open Overheid verzoek’: a request for transparency); and I believe they’re migrating from Github to code.overheid.nl.
citing a warning given to parents that submitting a false statement of residency may be a felony.
Couldn’t you send a letter to the address with a verification mechanism, instead of defaulting to inquiring mass-surveillance databases? And why are school districts investigating potential felonies to begin with, shouldn’t that be handled by law enforcement?
This is the same as if I put a police officer on the side of the road with a pen and a notepad and he writes down every license plate number that drives by
The concept of collecting personal data, for the slim chance of becoming relevant in the future, should not be acceptable to anyone. If license plates are not directly relevant to an investigation, the officer, camera, or whatever else, shouldn’t be logging it.
Yeah, but the point I’m trying to make, is that it doesn’t defeat the underlying argument which fuels it. The people using the fallacy are under the false impression, it’s necessary to ensure their safety. It’s this fabricated sense of insecurity, primarily as a result of safeguarding a self-perpetuated aristocracy, which has manufactured their consent. If this would become evidently clear to people, they would no longer default to this fear-based rhetoric.
That exact thought has been on my mind for quite some time. It’s hilarious to me, we’re actually led to believe massive data centers are being constructed, simply to generate silly cat images. It’s as credible as the increased bandwidth provided by 5G or fiber optics, to facilitate the download of movies within seconds: rather than being in preparation of sensors mapping the physical world in real-time, for permanently mobile (vehicles, drones, robots, etc.) or stationary sensors, respectively.
Governments around the world go to great lengths, to not have to directly consult citizens on issues. They rather put a system in place that monitors them in the background, presumably to be able to generate rapports: serving as pseudo-studies, gaslighting them into believing there’s support for causes they might oppose; and/or to serve personalized propaganda. It’s ultimately the reason for the “age” verification of the web: at the very least ensuring organic engagement, and at worst tying any online activity to individual persons.
If we do not manage to stop the current trajectory, we might end up in a dystopia, where there’s a God-like apparatus quite literally always observing us (which is what Peter Thiel might really refer to, when comparing efforts against it to the anti-Christ). Where we need to explain to our children the sky is looking back at them, and everyday objects hide sensors, tracking their every move and breath they take. And that despite you being their biological parent, any relevant decisions are actually being made by the machine.
If that becomes reality, I seriously doubt I could live life knowing that. And will likely take my own life as a result of it, that is assuming it will allow me to haha… ;)
I would agree, despite it shifting towards a more proactive approach: where action is based on behavioral analysis and risk-scoring. It most certainly allows for exploitation of their socio-economic status: conditioning them to settle for underpaid positions for example. Yes, as to control public perception, of a system which typically works against their best interest. Tin foil hats off to you ;)
Truly “privacy-focused” smart glasses wouldn’t have gesture- or voice controls: because it wouldn’t come with cameras nor microphones. It wouldn’t allow ambiguity surrounding the ability, for these devices to collect personal data without consent: “trust me bro” toggle switches (controlled by the wearer) don’t provide reasonable reassurance, to those in the vicinity of such sensors. Which would pretty much leave a heads-up display, which isn’t something for me: I like clear separations between the digital and physical world, and this seeks to further blur that line; together with the obvious surveillance implications of course…
“Benefiting private economic interests is absolutely one of the leading factors in creating these groups and organizations, and the public is all too happy to carry water for it,”
This sums up any of these private-public partnerships… Asset protection against primarily petty crime (while “shielding” behind terrorism), and increased camera-coverage at no cost to the taxpayer (to more efficiently treat symptoms, instead of recognizing problem causes: as to maintain the dysfunctional system, which disproportionately benefits a few). Respect to Albury for having a functional moral compass.
I hope this discussion will gain some more mainstream traction, because it’s the more immediate threat or practice, while not nearly being addressed sufficiently. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with, is the perceived notion, that the lack of transparency is the problem. The fact that these systems are in place is the problem: stop collecting excessive personal data on your workers (which depend on their jobs for an income), and all the problems magically disappear; without ambiguity.
I’m of the opinion that “private” property, which structurally invites the public (including workers), shouldn’t classify as “private” property, and be subject to much stricter regulations on deployment of surveillance systems. It’s not ethically justifiable, for people to be forced, to subject themselves to surveillance, simply to be able to make a living and buy food for themselves. Advances in technology have made it so, that surveillance tech is no longer compatible with modern society: supervisors (including law-enforcement) got to greedy, and now it’s (hopefully) coming to bite them in the ass.
The EU’s executive arm has also developed its own age verification app, which has the “highest privacy standards in the world,” according to Von der Leyen. Member states will soon be able to integrate it into their digital wallets, and it can easily be enforced by online platforms. “No more excuses – the technology for age-verification is available,” the EU chief said.
So more pro age-verification propaganda, instead of what the headline suggests: nothing concrete in that regard. How about devices with parental control for kids, which only allow access to platforms suitable for the demographic, instead of “age”-gating the entire internet (including for adults)?
That’s my point. If your non-Pixel or Googled phone is able to support the new Play Services, you could use that device for the verification, instead of using the GrapheneOS device.
So create the misconception the data remains local (as the processing happens locally), while incentivizing users to use face authentication (enabling the 8-second selfie cam video clip upon unlock: used for heart rate estimation through skin changes), and the EULA roofying of course serving as the “explicit consent”.