User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Security quotes of the week

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 23:31 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)
In reply to: Security quotes of the week by tialaramex
Parent article: Security quotes of the week

The problem with building the surveillance network is that somewhere down the line the bad guy gets in charge and he uses the system in the way everyone was afraid he would. You Londoners should have heeded Orwell's warning, all you've done is set a precedent that's being used throughout the world to build similar surveillance networks. Networks that have been proven not to prevent crime and in most cases don't even help solve it, negating the entire reason it was built and is maintained. (I'd point out that the photo that identified the Boston bombers was a cell phone camera shot, not surveillance cameras)

The "oh it's not been used maliciously so it probably won't" isn't IMO a safe assumption, because someone somewhere sometime in the future, is going to abuse that system and it's going to hurt people. It's not worth it.


(Log in to post comments)

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 23:36 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Oh, come on: unintended consequences aren't intentional. Besides: our leaders are busy assuring us that nothing bad will happen, and back up those assurances not only with numbers, but also the % symbol.

So it's all justified, and stuff.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 3, 2013 9:43 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

Your argument can be generalised as: the problem with government policy X is that a bad guy might run the government, right, yes, we're familiar with this argument. But it's completely neutral. You can use this argument to support or oppose any policy whatsoever, simply putting it in the hands of this imaginary Hollywood-style villain where everything is a weapon. Votes for women? Monstrous. Decimalisation? Oppressive. And so on.

So it makes a lot more sense for us to consider how policies will affect the real world, where political leaders are flawed human beings not supervillains bent on mayhem. If I had to list the major threats our society faces I don't think "bad guys using London CCTV cameras to set up a tyrannical dictatorship" will come close to the top thousand. It's certainly lower on my list than "huge meteorite strikes central London" for example, in advance of which we have done (and plan to do) precisely nothing whatsoever.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 3, 2013 9:58 UTC (Fri) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]

Only that the last surveillance state that ended badly isn't even remotely as long ago as the last major meteor strike.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 18:28 UTC (Sat) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]

>Your argument can be generalised as: the problem with government policy X is that a bad guy might run the government, right, yes, we're familiar with this argument. But it's completely neutral. You can use this argument to support or oppose any policy whatsoever, simply putting it in the hands of this imaginary Hollywood-style villain where everything is a weapon.

You can use this argument to oppose any policy which gives a government more power that it has now. And it doesn't assume a Hollywood-style villain but a human-style animal, who will have a natural tendency to become corrupted by any power.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 18:51 UTC (Sat) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

I'll submit that the slippery slope argument is valid in light of the demonstrable, cancerous growth of bureaucracy in our day.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 19:54 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Yeah, just imagine the GoodOleTime when you could just dump your toxic waste into a nearby river. None of these pesky environment regulations!

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 14, 2013 13:26 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>I'll submit that the slippery slope argument is valid in light of the demonstrable, cancerous growth of bureaucracy in our day.

That doesn't make any sense at all - how can that be your argument in favour of disallowing private individuals or organisations from placing cameras in public places?

I dislike the surveillance society as much as the next guy, but the only way you can prevent it would be to add *extra* bureaucracy prohibiting people from exercising what many people (not unreasonably) consider to be their right.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 3, 2013 11:26 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

As to Orwell's warning, the technology was out of the bag years ago, and hasn't turned out that way at all. That's because it's our cameras, not their cameras. The centralised surveillance network linking all the information to some Big Brother control centre hasn't really happened, and with the recent discarding by Parliament of Theresa May's Communications Data Bill probably isn't going to here in the UK.

As to the camera assisted law enforcements against the nut who put a cat in a wheelie bin round the corner from me (news of which went global a couple of years ago), and more seriously the Boston bombers, these were the results of private cams and distributed cooperation of citizens in charge of our own cams, as opposed to the kind of centralised surveillance network envisaged by Orwell.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 9:20 UTC (Sat) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> The centralised surveillance network linking all the information to some Big Brother control centre hasn't really happened

...yet.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/05/the_publicp...


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds