Prompted by “Emerging Cyber Threats For 2016, According To Georgia Tech Institute Of Technology”: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/georgia-tech-cyber-threats-2016,30457.html
Every now and then, the computer geek in me emerges here to ripple out important (if not critical) expressions of public relevance.
I’m unsure why I find myself on the minority end of so many issues, when all I do is make fully logical sense (at least in effort and always waiting patiently to be challenged in this regard like a meditating monk). I suppose it’s due to my refusal to deny “lame” but important points (e.g. computer security, uncorrupted judicial fundamentals, mathematical economic reality, etc.) It’s also probably due to the baseless idea that logic is insufficient in this often overly complex reality (an idea effectively unleashing wild amounts of reason abuse to severe public devastation without address).
A stickler for computer security, I find myself overwhelmed and disgusted by the severe apathy against security issues involving privacy. I finally entered the smartphone and tablet arena last year, but use portable devices minimally for personal tasks and even less so for professionalism. On the latter front, I merely use the camera during my hikes and test the mobile angle of my website work. Still, along with the obvious benefit of having a phone on me, that’s enough to guarantee my location always being known (even if I turn the questionable location feature off) for best through worst.
The simple truth is conflict of interests guarantee the absence of intelligent trust towards even well-established technology companies (nonetheless data-mining governments). They generate revenue and other forms of control via surreptitiously taking information pertaining to your life (they farm your data, so you’re like farm animals to them). If what they’re doing is okay, then why not apply full transparency to the process to highlight that benefit? I remain perfectly confident that I would be horrified (but not surprised) over the data profile about me that can be assembled basically without my knowledge, just because I agreed to mandatory software licensing (and often use non-cash payments).
My answer isn’t to cry number of the beast (or such), but to encourage exploring and righteously leveraging market opportunities to provide privacy-protecting products and services at an increased cost to offset any necessary data sharing revenue for commercial success. When the incentive to protect user privacy is necessary for professional survival, then much better security practices can (and obviously should) be applied. As a responsible entertainer, my job isn’t to supply that demand, but encourage relevant professionals to embrace that opportunity to strengthen society.
I also want to see separate popular devices capable of more simply identifying data flow in and out of any given context (basically the non-geek version of a packet sniffer and data summarizer). That includes my portable devices and any Internet-connected appliances that I may acquire in the future. In other words, since there’s likely to be no prompt change in the obscene licensing practices guaranteeing ample perception into your private life (e.g. allowing an app to use your video camera and microphone to possibly record you in your home without your knowledge — such as having perhaps questionable sex in front of your smart television), then there should be a separate and dedicated device recording data in and out of my network and providing me enough information to determine if I should remove an app and expose corrupt data flow to incite enough public outrage for proper remedy.
The greatest security threat wasn’t mentioned in the prompting piece (which is still worth reading, btw), but certainly belongs here — defeatism.
Quitting due to the overwhelming dominance of oligarchical forces and their secretive data practices putting you at risk for someone else’s revenue (or other form of control) is never an option, because defeatism is (at least arguably) the only true evil.
People need privacy tools to defend themselves, but too many people are demonstrably satisfied to be (and have their children become) cattle waiting to perhaps have their (perhaps abusively publicly perceived) abuses publicly exposed to their detriment upon challenging an abusive oligarchy.
Greatly improving the availability and application of those tools is an opportunity, and it’s what a real economy is supposed to be all about (actual economic growth comes only from supplying the demand for new products and services). Instead, and still in tune with security threats, we have a pretend economic rebound that really is a repackaged version of the same issue causing the 2008 nightmare (merely injecting unbacked credit against economic integrity, while merely publicly propping up the illusion of reasonably sound economic results to the contrary — with sarcastic thanks to the mainstream media refusing to honor their journalism code of ethics to expose this unbearably powerful fraud), as clearly proven by the supremely low federal interest rate that sends the markets trembling upon the notion of raising that rate. So-called growth comes from financial leverage (spending borrowed money with no intention to pay it back due to decreasing interest rates increasing that spending power — but only up to a point where interest rates can go no lower, such as now).
Brace yourself, folks. The Utopian future is anything butt (i.e. pleasurable only for those interested in bending over as the pathetic and mindless cattle they chose to embrace with their heads stuck in the sand for “protection”). You want real change you can believe in, then that change only starts with you and like-minded beings (not politicians “benefiting” by reckless and constant reason abuse against public safety).
Another key point is I have no problem with a responsibly applied veil of national security, but the value of that veil always corresponds with the equally valuable veil of personal privacy. I’m not an ‘us versus them’ kind of man, because my focus is upon abuse itself, so not the people engaging in that abuse (demonization and its highly selfishly destructive results is the tool of fools). Oligarchical leadership makes sense, but only when the true leaders (the sufficiently organized masses) are healthy.
Finally on the security front is the protection of public expression (a necessary tool for that sufficient organization). Shadow censorship (i.e. blocking public exposure of a user’s expression without their knowledge, so leaving that user believing nobody cares about that expression) is a serious beast of an issue showing a limited window of opportunity to form a better public strength against such shadowy crap. In other words, as time passes, the oligarchy is gaining control via better understanding (and “regulating”) the Internet, and reaching more powerfully into controlling Internet activity to protect their (too often questionable) power.
My confidence in the dominating form of human cattle promptly addressing these serious threats prior to serious incidence is zero due to their demonstrable apathy spanning history. However, as also historically demonstrated upon sufficiently highly abusive corruption, there will likely be a (perhaps violent) public backlash against selfish “leaders” triggering critical mass, and that may even include taking those data sharing channels and following them back up into the lives of the corrupt controllers to bring survival of at least our species to the forefront to correct that highly obscene data corruption.
Reverse data mining against these companies and governments is likely to occur by a fed up hacker base. Instead of earning revenue from that reversal, leverage will hopefully come in the form of righteous public outrage over the informational rape endangering us all pathetically for a misplaced buck. Advertisers (marketers, etc.) take the relatively minor public demand to learn about products and services, for prime example, and turn that desired glass of informational water into a never-ending fire hose blasting that water all over the place with no respect for the psychological (and other healthy) impact due to that societal inundation.
So much more to say here about improvingly defining personal context with respect to law and privacy for a better society, but that’s mentioned in my Liberty Shield informational roots, if you’re interested in fundamentally restoring just law (and consequently just privacy) to form a just society (not just the continuing illusion of one at obscene public risk against posterity).
Stick with the “wisdom” in leveraging reason abuse for your “success”, or join us in cleaning up the mass mess that has utterly disgraced our species? Your choice for now, but not for every upcoming generation, because the oligarchy eventually inevitably (i.e. certainly) will be able to technologically reach into the computerized brain to sustain their power — security threat at critical mass.