That said, I do think that the impulse here comes from a sense that there is wisdom and solution in the polity and this has been evidenced in many cases. Racists lose their jobs, their apartments, their social status . Call-out culture undoubtedly has its limits, but call out culture/ostracism is a step up from outright impunity which is often the result of appeals to the state. However, embracing and strengthening non-state security and justice could move us further.
Racist attack? Pickup that cellphone and hit RECORD. Black people get more justice from exposing racism on Facebook or Twitter than any appeals to the state https://blavity.com/white-woman-called-a-black-man-a-nr-over-a-parking-spot-and-his-wife-wasnt-having-it I think this is the point Samudzi and Anderson were trying to make in the Anarchism of Blackness. We can't try to reform what is so patently antiblack. My point is FB and Twitter are no substitute for true security/justice.
@zatnosk And Google is a surveillance capitalist. It’s like having medical protocols designed by Philip Morris. The protocol is political and the infection runs deep.
@bob@Shamar (cont) Otherwise, they couldn’t be more different. Open Source cares about business. Free software/freedom technology/ethical technology cares about people.
Open source is a tool for business. Free software is a tool for individuals.
@bob@Shamar That’s because Simon is squarely about Open Source. Open Source was a reactionary immune system response by the business community to Free Software (in its original form, limited to copyleft licenses). They could see the value in free as in free labour and the value of privatisation but they didn’t want the “share alike” aspects of Stallman’s licenses. The only thing that Open Source and Free Software have in common is that the source is open.
Also, for the record, “will you be nice to Facebook and Google during the afternoon?” is the wrong question to ask one of your speakers. My role is to call out, not to coddle, multinational corporations that violate human rights when they’re being legitimised. #NordicPrivacyArena
As long as @fosdem remains wilfully ignorant of the role they play in legitimising surveillance capitalism by ignoring the ethics of their sponsorship choices, I encourage any group who purports to care about human rights to boycott their event.
@indie and I will be boycotting it until such time as their policies forbid sponsorship by (and thus legitimisation of) surveillance capitalists like Google (their main sponsor last year), Facebook, and Palantir.
@diggity@privacylab@mozilla@mozfestprivsec Looks like a good talk, Sean; shame about the venue. I didn’t see mention in the slides of Google’s own apps (or even Google Play Services itself) being a tracker. Was this mentioned?
Also, did you happen to get a chance to also mention that Google itself is one of the largest trackers in the world and that Mozilla gets over a billion dollars from them for exposing people to their tracking by default?
Not honoring Do Not Track (DNT) is a #GDPR violation. If you receive a DNT signal, you must turn off all tracking. Furthermore, as the person has made their choice explicit and clear, you must not ask them again (via popovers, modals, etc.)
How do we get this enforced. The first part seems like it is already covered by GDPR. Would the second half we enforceable under the current framework?
@drequivalent Indeed. And I’ve yet to see a political party that exists to enable the sort of change that would make it irrelevant or a politician who does not, themself, wish to rule. That’s what we need for a peer-to-peer future and I don’t see it arising out of centralised hierarchical political structures.