Showing posts with label smartphones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smartphones. Show all posts

6 May 2016

Govt can make you unlock your phone

The Blog


Noting the arrival of "biometric" authentication methods on smartphones, Garrison Center Director Thomas L. Knapp argues it "comes with a cost".


The focus here is on using one's fingerprint to unlock one's phone. Considering rulings in Virginia and California that you can be "forced to put your finger on the phone to unlock it", the technology is being used as an excuse for US authorities to violate the Constitution in new ways.

As explained by Knapp, "Giving the police access to your phone is no different than telling them about every call you made". This goes against the strong components of the law that prevent you from "testifying against yourself, which you cannot constitutionally be required to do."

The state is normally limited in when and how it can coerce individuals to incriminate themselves. For example, "If the door is locked, they can break it down, but you don’t have to unlock it for them. If they find your hidden compartment full of evidence, they find it. But you don’t have to show them where it is, or even tell them that it exists."

What will you do about the increasing use of biometric data, when you know you can be coerced to unlock your property using it? For now, Knapp advises you need to "secure your phone with a long and complex pass code, not with your fingerprint."


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

24 November 2015

Mass surveillance unjustified: NYT

The Blog


In an unusual step by a publication close to the US government and part of mainstream media, the New York Times editorial board has slammed mass surveillance in an article.


The article in question mentioned that CIA director John Brennan was trying to blame Edward Snowden and the youth of America, who idolize the whistleblower, for jeopardizing the country's security. In remarks, the CIA man tried to put some of blame for the outrageous terror attacks in Paris, which killed 129 civilians, on Snowden and others who condemn espionage.

Brennan even called the attacks in Paris a “wake-up call.” However, Brennan is a known liar, as the NYT article points out:

  • "Last year, he bluntly denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency’s detention and torture programs when, in fact, it did.
  • "In 2011, when he was President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians, despite clear evidence that they had.
  • "And his boss, James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of data."

The article further states that mass surveillance would not have prevented the Paris attacks, as it was already being used on the attackers but there are simply too many extremists being monitored for the government to know who to arrest and when. As stated in the article, "the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had."

If this is so, then mass surveillance is useless, apparently impressive at a technical level, but in reality impractical in ensuring any security whatsoever for the state or the people. It does no good to have all the information in the universe if you don't know what to do with it. It must be remembered that millions of dollars continue to be poured into these programs, which do nothing to make anyone safe. Not a single terrorist attack has been stopped by intercepting phone calls or emails.

Commenting on the controversy, internet freedoms lobby group Fight for the Future praised the NYT article and asked Americans to forward it to their representatives in Congress. They also added that the technology actually used by terrorists to coordinate the attacks in Paris consisted of non-encrypted SMS messages, meaning that encryption is simply not needed in terror attacks.

The only possible goal of the government's plan for backdoors into encryption is actually to harass political opposition (which Britain's GCHQ admitted in a leaked slideshow), since militant groups and terrorists have shown no reliance on encryption anyway.


In its concluding paragraphs, the NYT article encouraged readers to ignore the lies of the CIA head John Brennan and the FBI's James Comey, who try to muddle Americans' minds by making them believe Snowden has put them at risk from terror when he has merely told the truth. If anything, the ones who are putting Americans in danger are rogue intelligence agencies.

Comey's idea that Apple and Google should ensure all software is sabotaged to be easier to decode and spy on was criticized by Fight for the Future, who said this will actually make people more vulnerable to terrorists. The NYT board concurs with this analysis, having stated, "requiring that companies build such back doors into their devices and software could make those systems much more vulnerable to hacking by criminals and spies".


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

3 November 2015

Clash of the Titans? Technology vs God

The Blog


In a feature article popular at Beliefnet within the category of "Tech Gospel", the idea of an angry God who wants to smite engineers and scientists for their apparent hubris gets discredited.



Titled "Does God Endorse Tech", the op-ed is part of the same educational effort as the L'Ordre blog, also popular at Beliefnet. The article asked, "For those of us who believe in a personal God, how should we see the relationship between technology and the divine, if there is any at all?"

It went on to confess that the God portrayed in the Bible, as well as the deities of other religions such as the ancient Greco-Roman religion, do indeed attack engineers and seekers of knowledge. The religions do all too often portray engineers and seekers of knowledge as sinful. However, it only happens when there are other factors involved.

What offends God, or gods, in most religious traditions, tends to be the attitudes behind feats of engineering and science, rather than these accomplishments themselves. In other parts of religious lore, God actively commands technological accomplishments, such as Noah's construction of the ark in order to save animals from extinction.

The op-ed concluded:

"where one seeks technology for sharing, or to give it to others unconditionally to help them (a treatment for a disease, for example) no righteous God could do anything but endorse such efforts. The god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism appears to approve of sharing, and would not hesitate to endorse or even command the creation of technologies enabling sharing."


Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Tech-Gospel/Articles/Does-God-Endorse-Tech.aspx?p=3#OiKvtlFf3GMItb7f.99


In sum, the observation of the article was that technologies should pursue sharing, dignity and equality, rather than empowering a privileged few or usurping moral authority. Further, religious people should actually consider such technologies, e.g. personal computers and smartphones, to have even been endorsed by God.

As part of its effort to gain greater recognition, the L'Ordre blog has created a new Facebook page at facebook.com/lordrecolumn, and invites its readers to actively share and sign up to its posts.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

Frivolous Litigation Watch: Alaska Already Solved This “Problem”

In a rather strange lawsuit — United States v. State of Alaska, filed on October 23 — the US Department of Justice asked a court to block th...

Follow Me on Twitter