Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Privacy (collected references)
IainB:
EDIT: Oops! Forgot to post this initially:
Identity For All - Permanent Digital Identities that Don’t Require a Central Authority
The Sovrin Solution
Sovrin is a decentralized, global public utility for self-sovereign identity. Self-sovereign means a lifetime portable identity for any person, organization, or thing. It’s a smart identity that everyone can use and feel good about. Having a self-sovereign identity allows the holder to present verifiable credentials in a privacy-safe way. These credentials can represent things as diverse as an airline ticket or a driver's license.
Sovrin identities will transform the current broken online identity system. Sovrin identities will lower transaction costs, protect people’s personal information, limit opportunity for cybercrime, and simplify identity challenges in fields from healthcare to banking to IoT to voter fraud.
...Interestingly enough, this would seem to be exactly the sort of thing that HAT (Hub of All Things) - referred to above per Armando (2016-07-29, 14:49:38) - is apparently designed to protect us from, whilst at the same time increasing our privacy and freedom of choice:
What is the Hub of all Things?
The Hub of All Things
...
-IainB (September 26, 2018, 02:07 PM)
--- End quote ---
IainB:
Well, whilst this news might not be too surprising to some, to me it comes as a complete surprise:
Twitter, Facebook, and Google are Fighting Internet Privacy Laws
WRITTEN BY: JULIANNE SUBIA - NOVEMBER 14, 2018
Recently, the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents companies like Amazon, Visa, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Apple, released its “Framework to Advance Interoperable Rules (FAIR) on Privacy”. On the surface, it looks like tech companies are trying to protect user privacy. In reality, they want to make sure that they can continue to profit off of our data. Using simple privacy tools like DeleteMe and Blur will help you stay in control of your privacy.
(Read the rest at the link.)
Copied from: Twitter, Facebook, and Google are Fighting Internet Privacy Laws - <https://www.abine.com/blog/2018/twitter-facebook-google-fighting-privacy-laws/>
--- End quote ---
Oh noes! Looks like we're gonna have to pay money to third parties like abine.com to protect our personal privacy...Oh wait, how did that happen?
Who would'a thunk it, eh? :tellme:
IainB:
I had always considered that the privacy of my mind was unassailable and that my thoughts were my own, and nobody could take them away from me - even if I were in the Stalags. Now I am not so sure. I commented the other day to my now 17 y/o daughter that, as an experiment, I had for the first time deliberately allowed Google permission to use "my" data - data about me that it already captures and holds and has access to, by default - to aim targeted ads at me. I told her that I found the result interesting, but somewhat disquieting.
Here is a very interesting - if not alarming - review on what happens, apparently almost immediately, when we succumb to allowing this kind of access through our privacy walls, reported on by spreadprivacy.com. Such a loss/reduction in privacy effectively enables third parties to engineer algorithms that could manipulate/modify our paradigms, sometimes without our even being aware of it, and it is happening now, even as I write this. It goes far beyond subliminal advertising, since it can clearly be used - and is being used - to subtly control/manipulate our perception of the reality of the world about us:
Measuring the "Filter Bubble": How Google is influencing what you click
This goes far beyond merely allowing access to private data, being, in effect, more like giving permission to be brainwashed by a third party(ies). And we seem to be highly susceptible to it. It's very clever, and insidious, though I suppose it could be argued that it's not harmful, but merely a conditioning of one's thinking.
Again, Pandora's box has been well and truly opened:
Fast forward to 2018, where we can perhaps now better understand why we might have the apparent privacy shambles that we see around us. It was a gold-rush, opportunistic, every man for himself. Presumably the Google/Facebook founders (and others) would have seen it coming. There were little/no regulations to limit or constrain the progress of BI and its application in the field of mass demographics. Now that some regulations have belatedly been or are being implemented, it arguably may be too late anyway - locking the stable door after the horse has bolted; Pandora's box has already been opened.
-IainB (August 22, 2018, 04:45 AM)
--- End quote ---
4wd:
The death of the technology industry in Australia happened last week.
EDIT: A possibly better explanation of what the new laws involve: Australia’s horrific new encryption law likely to obliterate its tech scene
The new law gives Australian law enforcement agencies the power to issue cooperation notices to technology entities with the purpose of gaining access to specific users’ encrypted messages and data. These entities may include companies, websites, or anything else that transmits data to an end-user in Australia.
--- End quote ---
Australia: Controversial Australian Encryption Act Denounced By Privacy And Cryptography Advocates
Last week, Australia's parliament passed a controversial act that will enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to compel access to encrypted communications. In an explanatory memorandum, the Australian Parliament stated that the new act, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018, is intended to combat "the challenges posed by ubiquitous encryption." Under the act, certain law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be able to approach "designated communication providers," using one of the mechanisms below, for the purpose of gaining access to specific users' encrypted messages and data.
* Technical Assistance Requests (TARs) – These are voluntary requests that allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to request access to communications and data while bypassing the oversight rules surrounding mandatory notices. TARs may be issued by the directors-general of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization (ASIO), the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), or the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), or by the chief officer of an "interception agency," which includes the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), and the state and territory police forces, provided that they obtain the approval of the AFP commissioner.
* Technical Assistance Notices (TANs) – These are compulsory notices requiring a "designated communication provider" to use existing interception or decryption capabilities to provide access to communications or user logs. TANs can be obtained only by the director-general of the ASIO or the chief officer of an interception agency.
* Technical Capability Notices (TCNs) – These are compulsory notices requiring designated communication providers to build infrastructure to meet subsequent TANs. TCNs may be issued only by the attorney general, with the approval of the minister for communications, following a request from the ASIO or the chief officer of an interception agency, and require written notice to the communication provider, allowing them the opportunity to respond within 28 days.
The new act allows these agencies to directly approach specific individuals, such as engineers or IT administrators at an organization, rather than the organization itself. Companies that resist the demands could face a fine of up to $7.3 million, while individuals who refuse could face jail time.
--- End quote ---
Australia’s encryption law threatens NZ cloud data
Tech Companies Line Up To Pan Encryption Bill
Encrypted Messaging App Signal Won’t Comply With Australia’s New Backdoor Bill
... and more ...
Welcome to Australia, a country run by idiots elected by idiots.
IainB:
@4wd: Yes. Some people (not me, you understand) might say that we should have expected to see this sort of messing-about with the privacy rights/rules from the Aussies and that they can't even win a game of cricket without bowling under-arm, or something - but I couldn't possibly comment. :o
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version