Home is where my government has a backdoor https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/14/fbi-nsa-cia-warn-against-huawei-smartphones/ …
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Home is where my government is in an protectionists trade war with the country which it is indebted with the most?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samim
The NSA is not targeting Foxconn or other Chinese phone makers. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that not only the US installs backdoors, and someone really saw grounds to be upset.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
"NSA is not targeting Foxconn etc" is unlikely. Evidence of related cases (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras … / https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/nsa-spied-on-eu-politicians-and-companies-with-help-from-german-intelligence/ … etc.etc.etc) points towards a different reality. The interesting question for me is, how much are NSA & Chinas efforts privatised and unified by now?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samim
The US government makes a suspicious show of being angry at Apple for crypto, but does not warn against their Chinese suppliers. State surveillance is not fully privatized, because it needs to be tightly controlled, and US and China governments are not allies but competitors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
On the surface, it's hard to disagree. But considering the following makes one paranoid: A) all critical data of global societies are in databases. B) all databases are inherently insecure and leak all the time. C) obtaining and merging databases is technically *very* easy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samim
With the WL and Snowden revelations we have passed the surveillance Singularity. (Actually a few years before that if you were paying attention.) There is no more additional reason for paranoia now, we are firmly in the age of perfect surveillance, and we better get used to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
totally agree & "the surveillance singularity" is a useful term. I'm not arguing along the lines of "oh no, it's all bad, make it go away!" > I'm questioning what global society should/can do with it's new cybernetic panopticon capabilities and who gets to part of the discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think we now have to put all our energies and hopes into strengthening pluralist rational liberalism. Governments are not going to give up these tools once they have them, but we must be worried about what motivates our governments and what constraints they operate under.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Very nicely said and agree. To put a finer point on this, consider this:pic.twitter.com/GomK4aLgR5
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samim
I think any attempt to characterize the problems of the world as moral failings is futile. People will always act on what they consider to be their best interest under the circumstances.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.