|
|
|
|
|
|
by KarlKemp
2267 days ago
|
|
|
It’s specifically set up to protect privacy. If governments didn’t care, or had anything near the power and data that conspiracy theorists always assume they do, or felt justified to disregard the law, or empowered to change it, they’d tell Apple & Google to flip the switch and all location matching would happen tonight, in some unlucky eurocrat’s excel table. > Furthermore, you have to ask yourself why such an initiative suddenly springs to life exactly at this time. I don’t get this paragraph at all. It’s no mystery why this is happening now and didn’t happen last year: there’s a pandemic on. I realize you say as much. But somehow, with the “no more, no less” and “technological experiments” you make it sound sinister. Like C-SPAN, but with an iMovie horror sound & lighting preset. |
|
|
So are wars and terrorism. Fundamental human rights are pressured as soon as they are threatened.
I'll leave this here:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/02/joint-civil-society-stat...
> it’s specifically set up to protect privacy.
It can't protect privacy. A non-profit isn't a public authority. This initiative is meant to (a) create technology that adheres to existing legislation and (b) lobby - read argue or ask - with politics to use this technology.
The harsh reality is that authorities can happily ignore or cherry pick from such efforts, and that they are free to change or deprecate legal frameworks is such is deemed necessary "in the public interest".
This initiative sounds nice, but I don't read anywhere how they tie into the longstanding efforts of human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
That's why I feel this is a technological experiment. It simply doesn't even consider the social impacts: there's no mention whatsoever of social research or leveraging existing social research.