Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Linux.com promoting Google Glass?

[Ted Smith]

Trimming a good deal of context for brevity.

On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 19:13 +0200, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
> I do not accept the premise that from now on I should be an "active defender" 
> if I wish to preserve my privacy! Similarly as I would not accept that for 
> example I should be an "active defender" (using technical means) to preserve 
> my freedom of speech and other basic human rights.

At a certain level of pragmatism, problems cease to be "technological"
or "social" and merely become problems. Then, we just have to choose the
right set of tactics to solve the problem.

For example, home invasion is a problem. There is a social solution
(imprison home invaders) and a technological solution (locks). 

I'm prepared to bet that you lock your doors when you want people not to
open them; I don't see why using privacy-enhancing technology is any
different.

> Google Glass is one (important and big) step towards pervasive surveillance 
> of 
> every aspect of our lives. Such a situation, when combined with an ideology, 
> had a name: totalitarianism.
> 
> And I'm not ok with any part of that definition coming to a town near me.

This is an argument that has no basis in fact. Google Glass is far away
from totalitarianism; totalitarianism has far more to it than
surveillance; the implication is insulting to everyone involved.

For a more realistic view, I suggest
http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Totalitarianism-Hannah-Arendt/dp/1849028974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369512773&sr=8-1&keywords=totalitarianism
(DDG affiliate link)

> First I am checking if I'm alone in this, or not. Apparently not. Then I am 
> getting my arguments in order and good shape -- this e-mail is part of just 
> that. Finally, I use any means at my disposal to contact Linux.com about it, 
> get their comment and send it all out as widely as possible.
> 
> You are welcome to join me.

I won't join you, because I don't see how that will result in a better
world by any metric I care about, for two reasons: I don't think that
linux.com repudiating a passing mention of google glass in a comic strip
will do much social good, and I don't think you'd be successful in
getting them to do so.

> Oh really? What if there is a small text somewhere in the TOS saying "Google 
> reserves the right to upload images, videos and other media created with 
> Google Glass at their discretion to their services solely for advertising 
> purposes"? Is that blatant? Is that a lie?

It is blatant; if it exists the EFF would blog about it. And I think
that most of the people I know who think I'm crazy for using GNU/Linux
would be disturbed by it, so I don't think they'd do that.

> > The Glass hardware has already been rooted, however -- what happens when
> > you have Replicant on Glass, or CM on Glass?
> 
> I have less problems with that. This does not lead to such centralisation of 
> information.

Then it seems your task is relatively clear:

      * Find out if Glass uploads all media to Google
              * If it doesn't, we're done!
      * Find out if Glass has an optional feature which uploads media to
        Google
              * If it does, find out if deactivating that feature
                actually stops it from uploading media to Google
      * Find out if Google has the capacity to cause Glass devices to
        upload media to Google.
              * (This is probably the case, since they can push
                arbitrary code to Android phones already.)
              * If so, find out how to remove this ability.

Until those questions are factually, empirically answered, any further
debate is a waste of time.
-- 
Sent from Ubuntu

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part