In my opinion we are not merely on the way to digital dystopia.
We are living in it and have become complacent, desensitized and accustomed to it for a while.
Many of the things occurring in our present times, the digital information age, already appear dystopian to any of our ancestors.
I challenge everyone to list some of the modern commonplace occurrances that would seem utterly dystopian 30 years ago.
Cameras at every intersection
Overarching governments listening to private conversations
24/7 Mass Media Warfare.
General public not caring, and even encouraging number 2
Constant warmongering
Donāt forget the monopolistic was that big tech lords over most of the internet deciding what can stay and what has to go.
The corporation-izing of FOSS.
More poeple need to support organisations that campaign for sensble internet/digital policies and laws. I donate to the FSF & ORG because I agree with many of their campaigns and I think with enough support they will do a good job on my behalf. I donāt always agree with everything they say (some people in the FSF seem a bit too puritan for my liking) or do, but thatās life.
FSF - www.fsf.org
FSFE - www.fsfe.org
EFF - https://www.eff.org/
ORG - https://www.openrightsgroup.org/
(*insert org for yoru country)
The ORG (UK based) has only about 3,500 supporters. Itās budget is tiny compared to what the tech-giants spend lobbying the UK Government and EU and yet they still manage to do good work and point out the ridiculousness of many proposals.
So, if you donāt yet do it, I really encourage you to find one of these groups who best represent your democratric interests and donate to them. As great as L1Techs is, this forum is tiny and on these matters a bit of an echo-chamber; I doubt anyone disgrees with the main premise of this thread.
fuck I want a cabin in the woods
Right, UK is a PART of Europe, it isnāt ALL of Europe.
I remember reading ā1984ā back in school and shuddering to think that could ever be a reality. It was comforting to think that I live in a āfreeā country that felt like such a thing would be impossible to happen unless we lost āRed Dawnā style (this was during the cold war).
Then, somewhere around 1993-94 someone pointed out to me that technology miniaturization was leading to a revolution in sensor technologies and things from cameras to microphones, to radios were becoming so tiny, they could all be hidden in plain sight. Cameras that could see through a pinhole in a wall etc. Commercial Wifi was still just a twinkle in an engineers eye at the time and cell phones were large and clunky.
I found the possibilities of this both intriguing but also disturbing in implications when placed in light of a possible ā1984ā society. Still I comforted myself that I still lived in a āfreeā society and it was unlikely that people would stand for a government using such technology against us.
Move forward to the early 2000s and suddenly, almost everyone was buying cell phones and they were getting smaller and smaller and each generation had more capabilities. The introduction of the first really successful āmodernā smartphone in 2004 saw this expand with required data plans and always connected phones with user configurable software with built in GPS and magnetometers so that the phones could track your location and even your activity.
I comforted myself with the thought that the companies that brought us this technology were not run by the government, and seemed keen to be genuinely interested in improving our lives and even put out privacy statements to quell our fears that they would protect our data from misuseā¦
Then shortly following this was the rise of social media. Companies like facebook and Google would bring us amazingly powerful tools to connect and share information with our friends like never before and whatās more? These services were provided to the public āfreeā of charge!
Little did anyone seemed to think how these companies would be able to stay in business, seemingly giving away their servicesā¦ collecting our data and selling it all to the highest bidder. Governments of course saw the potential and lined up to feed on our data too.
Then countries like China, who seemed to take ā1984ā as an instruction guide rather than a warning, began to surveil its citizens on a level never before seen in history. Other countries began to take notesā¦
And now I have the benefit of hindsight. I once thought that people in a free society wouldnāt put up with a government forcing their spying on us. I was so very wrong. Instead, we will gladly buy the tools of our own surveillance and happily carry them on our bodies at all times and the truth of the extent of this surveillance is far worse than anything George Orwell could have ever imagined and itās met with shrugs.
Like a glutton who gets his first taste of cake, our governments want ever more power, not only to see what we are doing but what we are thinking, they now want to control what we can read and what we can know and hopefully influence what we can think.
Article 13 is merely a way to ensure that this happens. Its a way to prevent a narrative from reaching the people that isnāt sanctioned. If you dare link to a news article with your own spin on the story you will be punished.
Porn ban is yet another test of encroachment. Another degree of turning up the heat in hopes the frog wonāt jump before heās cooked.
Encryption bans are inevitable and by extensions so will VPNs. China is already there, so too will the others follow. This is a must because its the only way to circumvent the surveillance and the control.
TL/DR:
Donāt forget people using the Internet as a tool for silencing and oppressing different opinions or people they ādonāt likeā.
Or people using it to spread propaganda and false information around.
Thatās two more to add to the list.
I wonder if events like 9/11 had anything to do with people cowering and willing to sell out their liberties and privacy just to āget the bad guyzā who were in another country (not to mention attacking the wrong place).
Whenever governments pass laws against āthe deplorablesā people tend to think its ok because they arenāt deplorable. However thatās when we need to beware. Those same laws can be used against you too.
Laws against linking to the news and porn and encryption donāt better society. Those things donāt harm others inherently. They are meant to make criminals of the law abiding.
You guys still have the post-9/11 state of emergency?
I donāt know if we still do tbh.
We still have a good portion of the patriot act and surrounding legislation that will be around for the foreseeable future. We still have secret FISA courts and we still have security theatre in our airports and ports of entry.
The mere idea of a secret court in a free society just makes my skin crawl.
The problem is they would just make it illegal. Then you start using VPN, then they ban VPNs, then you resort to Tor. Then they will forbid anyone running Tor nodes.
My point is that you can try to avoid it as much as you can but eventually you will run out of options.
Going to prison for āhate speechā.
Having to provide Photo ID with your name and address and sign a long ass document just to buy pay as you go SIM card.
Iām still waiting for shit to explode.
If only mesh nots worked.
We donāt need nodes when everything is TOR
Care to explain?
When everyone is using it, then there are no entry and exit nodes, it is all TOR.
I believe youāre referencing Article 11, not 13? There are protections for personal expression and opinion in previous legislation. The linking of news sites is in no way banned or punishable. Itās merely an, albeit badly conceived, attempt to provide the press with another income stream, and only applies to sites that collate news.
If you are referring to Article 13, that only applies to large sites with users. The same copyright restriction exist that allow for publication in part that doesnāt go against existing copyright protections.
The idea is okay, but the execution has a lot to be desired.
You can thank the Helen Lovejoys in the UK parliament for that one.
Hereās the one where I think people are being pessimistic. There is a massive scope for privacy protections in EU law. I could see the UK government attempting to do something like this, but any legislation to that effect would be heavily fought against in the both national courts and the ECtHR, because it goes against existing rights.
There is no consensus for countries in Europe to control their citizens with authoritarian methods. The whole idea of keeping the judiciary independent is to prevent this.
Thereās no defending the wording of the legislation in the OP. Saying that, I donāt think it would prevent custom firmware being developed, because you can demonstrate that it doesnāt allow usage out of spec.
