Privacy advocates resign over facial recognition plans

[Juan]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:15:26 +0100
Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey at cathalgarvey.me> wrote:

> Forcing those in power *not* to look back at us, and granting
> ourselves greater ability to visualise power's actions, are not
> mutually exclusive goals. We should be doing both, including methods
> to hide ourselves and to better monitor and hold accountable those in
> power.


	yet more pro-establishment propaganda. 

	sure, the social democrat and statist clown garvey is going to
	'hold accountable' his masters by voting and 'encrypting' his
	mail...

	





> 
> Of course, those monitoring are often punished, so necessarily the 
> ability to monitor *and* hide go hand in hand.
> 
> In other words I reckon the approach of fighting mass surveillance 
> (including acknowledging that corporations are NOT people and their 
> surveillance is qualitatively different from my private CCTV system)
> and pushing for greater transparency, in tandem with mass-crypto and 
> ubiquitous sousveillance, is exactly the right thing to do..and it's 
> more or less what I think we're doing already globally with the 
> cypherpunk, pirate party, and eff-ist movements.
> 
> On 11/08/15 20:49, Sean Lynch wrote:
> > So what do people think of David Brin's "transparent society"
> > approach to this problem? We can't completely stop ourselves from
> > being watched, but we can make use of all this technology
> > ourselves. Police have ALPRs and dashcams and bodycams, but by and
> > large they have actually resisted expansions of their own
> > surveillance because they want the flexibility to be able to make
> > up justifications after the fact. Phone cams have for the most part
> > taken that choice away from them. The result seems likely to be
> > less police abuse than at any point since at least the early 20th
> > century in the US.
> >
> > Even Snowden's leaks were enabled by very similar technologies to
> > what the NSA deploys against us.
> >
> > Is there any reason to believe that, overall, technology will
> > benefit governments more than it does individuals?
>