The reason companies want our data is pure profit. Google, Facebook and other large companies make billions from our data. But if it's our data, why isn't it our money?
I am also not allowed to earn money with the music that someone else makes? Why is someone else allowed to earn money with data that I have generated?
#surveillancecapitalism #deleteFacebook #deleteGoogle
The metamessage to me, especially in light of the Crypto AG disclosures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/), is that backdoors have always been the principle means of signals intelligence.
Intercepting the phones, tapping the lines, listening on broadcasts, surveilling deaddrops, compromising encryption, are all far easier than the computationally hard work of cracking strong crypto.
And LEO / Intel don't like to break a sweat.
#EFF #surveillance #SurveillanceState #SurveillanceCapitalism #FBI #NSA #CIA #FiveEyes #Mossad #MI5 #MI6 #Mossad #GRU
Under the remarkably anodyne title "What is Really New in Fintech" and published by the International Monetary Fund blog, these four men proposed that credit ratings be improved by "tapping various nonfinancial data: the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases".
https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/17/what-is-really-new-in-fintech/
Everything you do online, transferred to, assessed, rated, and stored permanently, one would suspect, by that most highly egalitarian and trusted of all institutions, the global financial system.
Arnoud Boot is professor of Corporate Fiance and Financial Markets at the #UniversityOfAmsterdam, in the country whose census records were used during WWII to prosecute the Holocaust on the Netherland's Jewish population. Of 107,000 deported Jews, only 5,200 survived.
Peter Hoffman is an economist working at the Financial Research Division of the #EuropeanCentralBank ( #ECB ), researching microstructure of financial markets, but apparently neither ethics nor privacy and surveillance.
Luc Laeven is Director-General of the Directorate General Research of the #ECB, and previously worked with the #IMF, #WorldBank, and #ABNAmroBank.
Lev Ratnovski is Sr. Econoist at the #IMF's research department.
These men would sell your entire personal informational history to gain a few fractions of a percent of interest income.
The banality of evil indeed.
#ArnoudBoot #PeterHoffmann #LucLaeven #LevRatnovski #Surveillance #SurveillanceCapitalism #Privacy #BrowserHistory #SearchHistory #Profiling #Credit #Risk #Holocaust
There was a time when people who were exploring computational technology saw it as the path toward decentralization and freedom worldwide. What we have ended up with, instead, is a world that is increasingly centralized, subject to surveillance, and unfree. How did that come to be? In a keynote at the online 2021 linux.conf.au event, Cory Doctorow gave his view of this problem and named its source: monopoly.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/844102/a23d1543b5a55cae/
Note that this is a shared link created by an LWN subscriber. Please consider subscribing to LWN if you value its content and can afford to do so. The site has served the Linux and Free Software community excellently for decades.
#CoryDoctorow #Pluralistic #Monopoly #Decentralisation #Centralisation #Surveillance #SurveillanceCapitalism #SurveillanceState #LinuxConfAU #LWN
Let's be very clear here: in no small part the blame for what happened today lies with surveillance capitalism.
It is profitable to put right-wing/fascist/conspiratorial content in front of more eyeballs, since it generates more "engagement". So Facebook, YouTube and others became perfect channels for this kind of crap.
Big Tech made money on this, for them today's insurrection is an "externality".
-- Rysiekúr Memesson
https://mastodon.social/@rysiek/105512138395670576
#Jan6Coup #Facebook #YouTube #Twitter #Google #SurveillanceCapitalism #AdTech
Digitisation and distribution (to multiple agencies, organisations, and firms) has been ongoing mostly since the 1960s, though accelerating greatly as disk storage costs passed through the threshold of personal-budget levels in the late 1990s.
I'd been working with industry data in the early 1990s, when several analytic departments at a mid-sized firm might share a couple of gigabytes of mincomputer storage. At a conference during the 1990s, in an audience of several hundred data analysts, only a few hands went up for dealing with GB-scale datasets (the raised hand representing telecoms data as I recall). I realised circa 2000 that storage capable of storing a few hundred bytes data (plenty for a basic dossier) on every individual in a large country, or soon the world, would be within a modest household budget. Shortly afterward, the first news stories of data brokers started appearing, as well as Total Information Awareness, often contracting with those same data brokers.
Early social networking sites were beginning to apply collaborative-filtering moderation systems, which I quickly realised, having helped in the design of several myself, were themselves prodigious personal preferences data collection systems on the part of reviewers --- rating systems like many swords cut two ways; reviewers rate content, but ratings and content preferences also rate the reviewers. (An interesting twist on the Quis custodiet ipsos custodes question.)
In 1900, the only routinely digitised mass citizen data were US Census tabulations, updated decadally and not generally accessible. By 1960, telephone, banking, and airlines data (through SABRE) were digitised, largely as with Census data, on punch cards. Tape and further expansion to credit, insurance, and utility data developed by the 1970s, though punch cards remained in heavy use through the 1980s. The first widespread data privacy outcries came in the 1970s, see for example Newsweek's 1970 article, "The Assault on Privacy (1970)" (PDF), though early infotech pioneers such as packet-switched networking pioneer Paul Baran were writing on data, surveillance, privacy, and ethical concerns in the 1960s. (An aside; those publications are freely available online by RAND at my request.) Marketing and advertising were increasingly represented by the 1990s, as well as healthcare data, though records there remained (and still remain) highly fragmented.
By the 1990s, previously offline court and legal documents began getting digitised in bulk (a practice begun years earlier), sometimes by local courts, more frequently by aggreggation services such as LexisNexis, Westlaw, JustCite, HeinOnline, Bloomberg Law, VLex, LexEur, and others who took advantage of pubic access to compile and store their own aggreggations. Often literally by sending individuals to those rural courthouses mentioned above, and recording or duplicating records, one at a time, from clerks.
Access costs matter. And by costs I'm referring to all inputs, not just money: time, knowledge, rates of availability, periodic caps (e.g., 4 records/hr., but a daily cap of 8 records, 16/week, 32/month, effectively imposing an 8 hr/month access restriction), travel, parsing or interpretation, ability to compile independent archives (rather than relying on the source or origin archive), etc.
Aggregation itself is an invasion of privacy. Reduced search, parsing, and inference-drawing costs enable observation, surveillance, and manipulation.
Reduced costs don't simply facilitate existing uses, but facilitate new, lower-value, activities. This is a rephrasing of the Jevons paradox; increased efficiency increases consumption. Trying to reduce consumption through greater efficiency is like fucking for virginity. Another characteristic is that many of these new uses are of very limited, or negative, social benefit. Very often of fraud, or predatory practices.
Technnology is far less an equaliser than a power multiplier, amplifying inequalities. Information technology especially so.
Data corrupts. Absolute data corrupts absolutely.
#data #InfoTech #surveillance #SurveillanceState #SurveillanceCapitalism #privacy #manipulation #DataAggregation #JevonsParadox #ActonsLaw #PaulBaran
Then few days before Christmas my near full address popped up on Bing. You search for my (sadly rare) name and the top result is a Google Maps pin to my exact street with zip code and city. I'm still shocked...
I sent a GDPR request to Bing right away asking for the Maps link to be removed/blocked in connection with my name. Bing refused, citing that the public interest to access this information outweighs my right to privacy. At this point I'm not sure what to do next.
German Redditor TimelessStrawberry spent most of a year scrubbing their personal data from appearing online only to have Microsoft's Bing reference a name search with a Google Maps pin for their precise street address. Response to a GDPR request to Microsoft for removaal of references to TimelessStrawberry's name was "the public interest to access this information outweighs my right to privacy".
Suggestions in the Reddit thread include taking up the matter wwith EU authorities, including their MEP, German, and EU authorities, including European Data Protection Supervisor; further requests or legal demands of Microsoft, or data poisoning/data chaffing, amongst others.
https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/kodsjx/i_deleted_my_residential_address_from_any_and/
#microsoft #bing #SurveillanceCapitalism #privacy #gdpr #germany #eu
... Due to porous data protection measures in Russia, it only takes some creative Googling (or Yandexing) and a few hundred euros worth of cryptocurrency to be fed through an automated payment platform, not much different than Amazon or Lexis Nexis, to acquire telephone records with geolocation data, passenger manifests, and residential data. For the records contained within multi-gigabyte database files that are not already floating around the internet via torrent networks, there is a thriving black market to buy and sell data. The humans who manually fetch this data are often low-level employees at banks, telephone companies, and police departments. Often, these data merchants providing data to resellers or direct to customers are caught and face criminal charges. For other batches of records, there are automated services either within websites or through bots on the Telegram messaging service that entirely circumvent the necessity of a human conduit to provide sensitive personal data.
For example, to find a huge collection of personal information for Anatoliy Chepiga — one of the two GRU officers involved in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter — we only need to use a Telegram bot and about 10 euros. Within 2-3 minutes of entering Chepiga’s full name and providing a credit card via Google Pay or a payment service like Yandex Money, a popular Telegram bot will provide us with Chepiga’s date of birth, passport number, court records, license plate number, VIN number, previous vehicle ownership history, traffic violations, and frequent parking locations in Moscow. A sample of the baseline information provided can be seen below, with key personal details censored. ...
https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2020/12/14/navalny-fsb-methodology
h/t @Glyn Moody
#surveillance #DataAreLiability #SurveillanceCapitalism #SurveillanceState #bellingcat #privacy #russia
So, a redditor tracked down the location of a monolith placed in the Utah desert a few years ago, recently discovered by authorities, who did not disclose where it was.[1]
I looked at rock type (Sandstone), color (red and white - no black streaks like found on higher cliffs in Utah), shape (more rounded indicating a more exposed area and erosion), the texture of the canyon floor (flat rock vs sloped indicating higher up in a watershed with infrequent water), and the larger cliff/mesa in the upper background of one of the photos. I took all that and lined it up with the flight time and flight path of the helicopter - earlier in the morning taking off from Monticello, UT and flying almost directly north before going off radar (usually indicating it dropped below radar scan altitude. From there, I know I am looking for a south/east facing canyon with rounded red/white rock, most likely close to the base of a larger cliff/mesa, most likely closer to the top of a watershed, and with a suitable flat area for an AS350 helicopter to land. Took about 30 minutes of random checks around the Green River/Colorado River junction before finding similar terrain. From there it took another 15 minutes to find the exact canyon. Yes... I'm a freak.
-- /u/Bear__Fucker @ reddit
It's relatively well known that 33 distinct bits is enough to uniquely identify any individual person now alive on Earth.[2]
Geospatially, assuming 10m resolution, 44 bits is enough to identify any unique location on Earth's land surface. 46 bits buys you the oceans as well.
Searching for a ~1m^2^ monolith visually within a 10m^2^ square is reasonable.
GNU units:
You have: ln((.3 * 4 * (earthradius^2) * pi)/10m^2)/ln(2)
Definition: 43.798784
You have: ln((1 * 4 * (earthradius^2) * pi)/10m^2)/ln(2)
Definition: 45.535749
49 bits gives 1m accuracy, 63 bits 1cm, 69 bits 1mm. Anywhere on Earth, land or sea.
For comparison, cellphone positioning accuracy is typically 8--600m:
https://communityhealthmaps.nlm.nih.gov/2014/07/07/how-accurate-is-the-gps-on-my-smart-phone-part-2/
https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/
The power of disparate data traces to rapidly narrow down search spaces on a specific item, individual, or location, is what makes #BigData aggreggation so powerful, and terrifying.
Notes:
https://old.reddit.com/r/geoguessr/comments/jzw628/help_me_find_this_obelisk_in_remote_utah/gdfbzee/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25199879
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304012305/33bits.org/about/
#privacy4 #location #33bits #44bits #data #deanonimization #DataAreLiability #surveillance #SurveillanceState #SurveillanceCapitalism
IEEE Security & Privacy. March/April 2013
- What is called censorship when practiced by a government is content filtering when practiced by an organization. Many companies want to keep their employees from viewing porn or updating their Facebook pages while at work. In the other direction, data loss prevention software keeps employees from sending proprietary corporate information outside the network and also serves as a censorship tool. Governments can use these products for their own ends.
- Propaganda is really just another name for marketing. All sorts of companies offer social media-based marketing services designed to fool consumers into believing there is “buzz” around a product or brand. The only thing different in a government propaganda campaign is the content of the messages.
- Surveillance is necessary for personalized marketing, the primary profit stream of the Internet. Companies have built massive Internet surveillance systems designed to track users’ behavior all over the Internet and closely monitor their habits. These systems track not only individuals but also relationships between individuals, to deduce their interests so as to advertise to them more effectively. It’s a totalitarian’s dream.
- Control is how companies protect their business models by limiting what people can do with their computers. These same technologies can easily be co-opted by governments that want to ensure that only certain computer programs are run inside their countries or that their citizens never see particular news programs.
Technology magnifies power, and there’s no technical difference between a government and a corporation wielding it. This is how commercial security equipment from companies like BlueCoat and Sophos end up being used by the Syrian and other oppressive governments to surveil — in order to arrest — and censor their citizens. This is how the same face-recognition technology that Disney uses in its theme parks ends up identifying protesters in China and Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/03/it_for_oppression.html
See previously: Propaganda, Censorship, and Surveillance are attributes of the same underlying aspect: Monopoly and Centralised Control.
#propaganda #censorship #surveillance #monopoly #SurveillanceState #SurveillanceCapitalism #control #power #decentralisation #decentralization #pluralism
All three problems have the same effective solution: Break up the monopolies.
Propaganda is a function of amplification, attention, audience capture, selective promotion, discovery, distraction, stealing the air supply or acquiring of any competion, and coöption of the platform. Propaganda is an inherent property of monopoly control.
Censorship and Gatekeeping are functions of excludability, audience gating, selective exclusion, obfuscation, distraction, stealing the air supply or acquiring of any competion, and, again, coöption of the platform. Censorship is an inherent property of monopoly control.
Surveillance whether of the state, capitalist, or non-state actor varieties, is a function of population and provider capture, coercion or gatekeeping of vendors and pipelines, and, again, coöption of the platform. Surveillance is an inherent property of monopoly control.
Speakers and Audiences --- a public --- divided across independent networks, with access to different editorial selection, from different distribution networks, with access to different input message streams, are far less subject to propaganda, censorship, or surveillance. Epistemic diversity resists control
It's importance to realise that the key is not nominal control but actual control, which may be nonobvious or unapparent to many participants. A system with appearances of decentralisation may well be centralised under the surface. Retail brand labels vs. brand ownership, or Luxottica's stranglehold over the eyeglasses market, for example, give a false sense of "consumer choice" in a case of actual tight corporate control.
What's the fundamental connection between monopoly and control? Control is about maximising desired outcome to applied effort. In monopoly, there is a central focus of influence: the monopolist. Even a very partial controlling share can still be effective. In a first-past-the-post majority scenario such as elections or corporate share ownership, the bloc which swings the majority has control, even if it itself is numerically a minority. In markets, networks, organisations, etc., a single place to permit or deny input or output increases control by decreasing effort and increasing effect. Price and costs often afford control, a faact monopoly apologists attempt to turn into a strength. By offering lower-price goods or services, or facing lower internal provisiioning and operating costs, monopolists can undercut competitors, even without taking active anticompetitive measures such as price-dumping, rebating, blackballing, blacklisting, exclusive dealing, tying, bundling, non-competes, and the like.
All monopolies are network structures with dominant nodes. These may be entry, exit, or transit nodes.
Increasing the number of entry, exit, and distribution points decreases the efficacy of propaganda (input control), censorship (output control), or surveillance (network control), as well as of targeted manipulation such as adtech and computational propaganda (data retention and algorithm control).
Careful readers may note the close correspondence with the ancient trivium of the classic liberal education: grammar (input), rhetoric (output), and logic (processing based on inputs and stored memory). The ancients had limited network control, widespread surveillance to them was exceedingly expensive, though small-town gossips and palace spies offer analogues.
... and others breaking through some seriously Borked chickenshit thinking on this topic.
Expanded from an earlier HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24735860
#propagand #censorship #surveillance #monopoly #SurveillanceState #SurveillanceCapitalism #control #power #decentralisation #decentralization #pluralism
Why Amazon Knows So Much About You
…One database contains transcriptions of all 31,082 interactions my family has had with the virtual assistant Alexa. Audio clips of the recordings are also provided. The 48 requests to play Let It Go, flag my daughter’s infatuation with Disney’s Frozen.
Other late-night music requests to the bedroom Echo, might provide a clue to a more adult activity…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/CLQYZENMBI/amazon-data
#amazon #surveillanceCapitalism #dataAreLiability #privacy #bbc
On why pervasive facial recognition is recognised as "creepy" in ways that other forms of surveillance, such as the massive amounts of personal and location data tracking afforded by mobile phones, is not.
In addition to the frequently noted fact that your phone is separable in ways your face, Nick Cage and John Travolta excepted, is not, there's the notion of manifest versus latent (or tangible vs. intangible) perceptions.
Humans are visual creatures. To "see" is synymous with "to understand". Vision is a high-fidelity sense, in ways that even other senses (hearing, smell, taste, touch) are not. And all our senses are more immediate than perceptions mediated by devices (as with radiation or magnetism) or delivered via symbols, data, or maths.
This is a tremendously significant factor in individual and group psychology. It's also one that's poorly explored and expressed -- Robert K. Merton's work on latent vs. manifest functions, described as the consequences or implications of systems, tools, ideas, or institutions, is about the closest I've been able to find, and whilst this captures much of the sense I'm trying to convey, it doesn't quite catch all of it.
But his work does provide one extraordinarily useful notion, that of the significance of latent functions (or perceptions):
The discovery of latent functions represents significant increments in sociological knowledge. There is another respect in which inquiry into latent functions represents a distinctive contribution of the social scientist. It is precisely the latent functions of a practice or belief which are not common knowlege, for these are unintended and generally unrecognized social and psychological consequences. As a result, findings concerning latent functions represent a greater increment in knowledge than findings concerning manifest functions. They represent, also, greater departures from "common-sense" knowledge about social life. Inasmuch as the latent functions depart, more or less, from the avowed manifestations, the research which uncovers latent functions very often produces "paradoxical" results. The seeming paradox arises from the sharp modification of a familiar popular perception which regards a standardized practice or believe only in terms of its manifest functions by indicating some of its subsidiary or collateral latent functions. The introduction of the concept of latent function in social research leads to conclusions which show that "social life is not as simple as it first seems." For as long as people confine themselves to certain consequences (e.g., manifest consequences), it is comparatively simple for them to pass moral judgements upon the practice or belief in question.
-- Robert K. Merton, "Manifest and Latent Functions", in Social Theory Re-Wired.
Emphasis in original.
Another related concept and term is cognizibility, that is, the capacity of being known or apprehended, a concept I first encountered in William Stanley Jevons's qualities of the material of money. Which has a clear relation to recognition as well.
(Adapted from an Hacker News comment.)
#Manifestation #ManifestVsLatent #tangible #cognisability #RobertKMerton #Sociology #Surveillance #SurveillanceCapitalism #SurveillanceState
I look at the #Freedombox and #Freedombone projects with interest as I think these will be what the future #Internet will be built on, if we want to move away from #SurveillanceCapitalism. The book written by #ShoshanaZuboff , The Age of Surveillance Capitalism , is a brilliant snapshot of how bad things have got with today's Internet. We need to rebuild a decentralised web if we are to take back control of what was built for the people and not against the people.
Projects like Freedombox and Freedombone have noble intents but how widely are they deployed and at what point will mass deployment on these systems really start making a difference? Until things like #Federverse and #decentralisation hit the mainstream news, are we really going to see a massive shift in behaviors? Are we going to see a change in the way people use the Internet? What we really need is a #MeToo movement that opens people's eyes against the abuses of the big five: #Google , #Facebook , #Amazon , #Apple and #Microsoft. #MeToo was born within #Hollywood, no wonder it got traction ... The new Internet will need its own Hollywood, won't it ...?
...In 2014, Facebook filed a patent application for a technique that employs smartphone data to figure out if two people might know each other. The author, an engineering manager at Facebook named Ben Chen, wrote that it was not merely possible to detect that two smartphones were in the same place at the same time, but that by comparing the accelerometer and gyroscope readings of each phone, the data could identify when people were facing each other or walking together. That way, Facebook could suggest you friend the person you were talking to at a bar last night, and not all the other people there that you chose not to talk to....
Not just dust.
Not just Facebook.
A critical point about social media -- or any public or trackable posting of data, is that it leaves identifiers which can be traced back. And these are creating records which are accessible and can be processed at rates and volumes never previously possible. It is a new "data physics". The rules of the universe have changed.
I've long been aware of persistent identifiers -- the pattern of yellow dots that colour laser printers leave, as an example (Whistleblower Reality Winner was caught based on this, due to copies of documents shared with the NSA and posted online by The Intercept), or the patterns of dead pixels in most digital cameras. There are reasons I not only don't post photos of myself but photos from my camera. But even similar patterns of dust on lenses -- an ephemeral identifier -- can be used to match up devices. As can location and timing data, gait data, and more, available from the gyroscopes which let you play pinball or tilt-ball games on your smartphone or tablet.
Or facial recognition of faces in crowds. A Hacker News commenter notes that he and his current partner turned out to have both been in a photo taken at a march before they met, which was auto-tagged after they'd followed one another online.
With 7.3 billion people in the world, all it takes are 33 bits of distinct identifying information. That can come from all kinds of sources, but location, purchase data, facial recognition, device "fingerprints" (ranging from specifically-encoded UUIDs to incidental patterns such as described here) are often sufficient. And centralised systems create repositories from which a tremendous number of such patterns can be sorted, sifted, and matched automatically.
I'm not sure how future options, including distributed and decentralised systems, will change this. But it's something I'm very much keeping in mind.
It's not about Facebook. It's not about whether Facebook does or doesn't do this, or will or won't in the future. It's that the nature of online discussion creates highly persistent, highly detailed, not very apparent to the user data trails that can be used to draw all kinds of connections and inferences between people.
Many, many years ago, when the Web was young, and I was only slightly old, I went on an outing with some friends. We'd had a guide who had a slightly unusual name, linked to a cultural reference, and who mentioned that they'd transferred from one uni to another. I did not remember the name offhand or a last name.
But with that information, in about 20 minutes, I was able to narrow down the list of possibilities to a single person based on the then-prevalent practice of unis of listing student rosters online, as well as track down parents, hometown, and other information.
It's one of a few bits of sleuthing I've done over the years, others have have started from more or less information, produced more or less detail, sometimes been successful, sometimes not. But here was 33 bits of information captured in three pieces of data.
Today there's often a bit more of a shell wrapped around some aspects of this, but with either a very little bit of privileged access (a PI's licence, access to a skip-tracing database, Lexis-Nexis, etc.), there is all kinds of information online. Financial, legal, and other records similarly.
It's not that none of this data existed before. Some did. But it was buried in paper files, or microfiche, and you had to log road or air miles traveling to remote outposts to gather it (or pay someone to do so). And a huge amount of the information simply did not exist. (Though bits did: AT&T's comprehensive calling data files dating to the 1980s.)
I'm still not sure what to make of the difference between having information and knowing it. Trivial case in point -- I'd been looking for information on historical Usenet populations and usage, and discovered that that had been sitting in the pages of a book within a metre of my head for much of the past decade -- John S. Quarterman, The Matrix. I had the information but I didn't know it.
And that's for an individual. How much "knowledge" does an institution have? How many cases do the 13,000 agents of the FBI manage, how many suspects do they "know"? Is the information that they hold knowledge, or does it simply become material to be used as an investigation opens. Either because there is an actual crime in process, or because it's become politically expedient (or of personal interest to some agent) to do so?
Or the NSA, CIA, GRU, MI5/MI6, the Chinese or Indian or Israeli information ministries, etc., etc.
And what of AI. What is the real awareness and subject-knowledge of these systems? How rapidly can they identify individuals within crowds, say? (Some of the demos I've seen are frightening, though they may also be optimistic. Or not.)
And what happens when these capabilities are weaponised. We've seen this happen to online media. There are projections of this happening to weapons systems. What of misdemeanor police enforcement (Chinese healthcare CEO busted for jaywalking as an headshot on a bus advert is registered by a street-based facial-recognition camera), or automated lawsuit filings, or weaponised AI-driven adversarial political research and online media campaign activities in the 2020 election cycle? Drug lords, business empires, white nationalists, whatevvah.
Because that day's very nearly on us if not already here.
#data #surveillance #surveillanceCapitalism #privacy #panopticon #NotJustFacebook #dust #identity #identification
https://gizmodo.com/facebook-knows-how-to-track-you-using-the-dust-on-your-1821030620
I dag er det @Bjørn Gregory-Stærk som sier det vi må si igjen og igjen og igjen: https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/MgaK30/Vi-ma-ta-internett-tilbake--Bjorn-Stark
