Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state
Posted Oct 30, 2013 19:31 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)In reply to: Living with the surveillance state by PaXTeam
Parent article: Living with the surveillance state
In any event the fanciness of your lock isn't what is keeping people out, it's the risk of social consequences which prevent bad actors from taking action much of the time. Having the ability to investigate incidents and increase the risk of consequences provides a ton of disincentive for bad actors.
There will still be incidents, you can't prevent that.
Posted Oct 30, 2013 22:23 UTC (Wed)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link] (8 responses)
and i'm still waiting for those addresses, actions speak more than words do, you know... no addresses = you believe in technical measures, simple as that.
as for what is an absolute technical measure, try to pick your own locks. i bet you can't. along with 99.9% (seems to be the random going measure here) of humanity. that makes locks an 'absolute' measure for 99.9% of humanity (including every single poster here ;). i wish we had anything close to that in other areas of life, computers or not.
Posted Oct 30, 2013 23:10 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (2 responses)
They have much better effect. The number one protection against burglar is privacy. If burglar knows where someone lives and knows that someone does not use two turns of key to lock the door every time (or, even better, if s/he knows that someone does not lock keys at all), well… this information is incredibly valuable for a burglar. THIS is why people don't publish it on websites. What does it change? You don't need to pick a lock. To pick a lock is akin to high-level rootkit which is totally stealthy and invisible. If you just want to take something from the apartment then you only need to have a strong scredriver: insert it into a lock hole and turn it with excessive force. All done. Often you can use just a flat screwdriver to move bolt. I think 99.9% (seems to be the random going measure here) of humanity can do that. Wow. Just wow. What kind of logic is that? Let me repeat once more: in a world with reliable locks (where technical measures dominate) this information will be absolutely worthless. Lock can not be picked up anyway, so why not publish it's location? In our world where lock is just a side-show and social aspect is the primary one… of course one will not give up their primary form of protection so easily! FWIW I've seen plenty of people who don't use large bolts on their doors and lock them only with a small latch. IOW: a lot of people are ready to neglect “technical measure of protection”. I've seen very few guys who post notes about their absence on a public website along with the address of apartment. On the contrary: a lot of guys arrange for the with neighbors pick of mail, periodic checking, etc to make sure it's not easy to notice that apartment is temporarily abandoned. IOW: they spent a lot of efforts on their “social measure of protection”. What does it say about relative merits of two approaches?
Posted Oct 30, 2013 23:52 UTC (Wed)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link]
and i thought you just said it was anonimity. make up your mind 'cos the two are different things. and never mind that it's also false as you clearly explain (and contradict yourself) in the rest of your sentence, good job ;).
as for picking a lock and whatnot, you clearly have zero experience with real life locks (and rootkits and other buzzwords, these things have about nothing in common) so maybe stay away from the topic, pretty please? ;)
as for the logic... it's really simple. if you state that you don't believe in technical measures yet you rely on them (=afraid of disclosing where exactly you do) then that's a clear case of hypocrisy, simple as that. my point is that the world isn't black and white where one or another measure dominates everything else, rather it's a careful balance that one has to adapt to his own circumstances (in different parts of the world you'll get away with a different mix of social/technical/etc measures).
Posted Nov 1, 2013 21:54 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Oct 31, 2013 4:49 UTC (Thu)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (2 responses)
I don't see people commonly going around testing doors, and when there are home invasions I don't see basic door locks being a factor.
> and i'm still waiting for those addresses, actions speak more than words do, you know... no addresses = you believe in technical measures, simple as that.
That's ridiculous, but whatever, I guess I'm too dumb to back down, whois raven667.org
> as for what is an absolute technical measure, try to pick your own locks. i bet you can't. along with 99.9% (seems to be the random going measure here) of humanity. that makes locks an 'absolute' measure for 99.9% of humanity (including every single poster here ;). i wish we had anything close to that in other areas of life, computers or not.
I don't see how that is relevant since 99.9% of people aren't commonly trying to break into my house. The risk can be increased if there are more people willing to transgress, if they are desperate for example, and if there is a failure of investigation and remediation, police don't come to your neighborhood for example, but that just makes my point that the strength of societies norms comes from the consequences of violating them, not from technical and authority systems which could prevent you from violating them if you desired to.
Posted Nov 1, 2013 22:56 UTC (Fri)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 2, 2013 20:05 UTC (Sat)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
Thanks man, I love you too. 8-)
> why did you post a pointer to some data
Because I know that information is out there if you have two brain cells to rub together to find it, you can also find out where I work, how much I am paid and what my house is worth among other things. I know that I'm not truly anonymous when I speak online unless I have gone to significant effort to create an anonymous identity separate from my "normal" identity which I have not done.
I think the root of the disagreement is in the perception of risk. You seem to believe that my risk of a home invasion, or something bad happening to me, has been materially changed in some way and I disagree with that assessment. I also don't think you are actually going to jump on a plane and steal my toaster, or that our local drug addled poor are just waiting to read the lwn.net comment section to figure out which houses to rob. You could of course try and pull some juvenile prank which might change my risk assessment slightly but that would also say more about you than me and I am presuming that you are an adult.
A risk assessment which includes means, impact, and most importantly likelihood is useful for everyday living and as humans we are naturally bad at it. All risks seem highly likely and greatly harmful when they are not.
Posted Oct 31, 2013 5:34 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Let's see if your locks are going to help you.
Posted Nov 1, 2013 22:48 UTC (Fri)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link]
why would i want to contradict myself?
Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state
let's make it simple: would your social measures (deterrents) have the same effect if you did *not* have the technical measures in place or not? yes/no?
as for what is an absolute technical measure, try to pick your own locks. i bet you can't.
and i'm still waiting for those addresses, actions speak more than words do, you know... no addresses = you believe in technical measures, simple as that.
Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state
Let me repeat once more: in a world with reliable locks (where technical measures dominate) this information will be absolutely worthless. Lock can not be picked up anyway, so why not publish it's location? In our world where lock is just a side-show and social aspect is the primary one… of course one will not give up their primary form of protection so easily!
Again you were clearer than I. Exactly so.
Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state
Living with the surveillance state