Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

Nothing but techie interest to that story. For years (decades, centuries), the standard has been varying use of the "supervisor" the "overseer" whose primary job was/is to watch people work and make sure they're not slacking. Some individuals and companies use that function better than others, and certainly most office/shop supervisors are not the same today as 50 years ago, but still. Some are. The hardest thing a lot of companies have had to get past to take advantage of things like flexible scheduling, telecommuting, etc. has been "but how do I know they're working?" Somehow the idea that a person will do their job without somebody else watching them is a really foreign concept. But consider (now or in the past as applicable), everyone has seen a situation where the supervisor/foreman/manager stood at the time clock to make sure s/he caught anybody late and or trying to cheat; assigned breaks when you could go to the restroom or get coffee; monitor your phone conversations; set up barriers so you couldn't "waste time" chatting with your co-workers; had "efficiency experts", or time/motion studies done, or, in assembly line operations, let the machine dictate the work speed and motions related to it. Electronic monitoring is no different except in it's own efficiency in comparison to one or more human supervisors.

But speaking of "Big Brother", I recently re-read "1984" (for probably the fourth or fifth time), and it is truly incredible how easy (and very obvious) it is to match many of Big Brother's communication/propaganda principles with those of Trump/Republicans.

[Vrede too]

... Electronic monitoring is no different except in it's own efficiency in comparison to one or more human supervisors....

Efficiency and omnipresence is a difference.

[O Really]

... Electronic monitoring is no different except in it's own efficiency in comparison to one or more human supervisors....

Efficiency and omnipresence is a difference.

May be different in definition, but not in effect. The old line supervisors were omnipresent to the extent physically possible. They watched you work, they watched you on break (if you got one), they watched you come and go, and they watched you go to your car to make sure you hadn't stolen something. (reminded of the old Johnny Cash song "One piece at a Time" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Ee_Hkxc-8 ) Or, for a closer view of the foreman, look at "Oney" http://www.metrolyrics.com/oney-lyrics-johnny-cash.html.

Naaa, electronics aren't worse, just a "new boss same as the old boss."

[rstrong]

The company insisted the boxes were intended to reduce energy costs, ensuring that empty cubicles weren’t overheated or over-air-conditioned,

This reminds me of the debate over Radio Frequency ID (RFID) tags now in wide use. For example sewn into clothing for inventory control, but still active after purchase and being used in "creative" ways.

"They freak me out. Not because I think there's some kind of sinister government conspiracy behind them, but because the idea of every dude walking around with a thirty foot cloud of data emanating from his pants is so tantalizing that it invites sinister conspiracies. It challenges criminals' brains to come up with ways to defraud us. It woos law enforcement to blur or bend or rewrite the rules.

Now Smart TVs return data based on your viewing habits, even sensing what show you watch if you watch it off a DVD. Most "Internet of Things" devices are reporting back usage information to somewhere, without the user being warned. The usual claim is that the data is "anonymized", but researchers keep showing how "anonymized" data can pin-point specific people.

[Vrede too]

... Electronic monitoring is no different except in it's own efficiency in comparison to one or more human supervisors....

Efficiency and omnipresence is a difference.

May be different in definition, but not in effect. The old line supervisors were omnipresent to the extent physically possible....

Expanding the extent physically possible expands the effect.

[rstrong]

... Electronic monitoring is no different except in it's own efficiency in comparison to one or more human supervisors....

Efficiency and omnipresence is a difference.

May be different in definition, but not in effect. The old line supervisors were omnipresent to the extent physically possible. They watched you work, they watched you on break (if you got one), they watched you come and go, and they watched you go to your car to make sure you hadn't stolen something.

No, there's a major difference.

Supervisors couldn't be omnipresent. Employees always knew when they could slack off because the supervisor was elsewhere. Constant surveillance was possible, but very rarely practical. Records of your slacking off could be kept, but would be impractical for others to check months later.

Not only is electronic surveillance constant, but it keeps permanent records. Records that any other off-site manager can easily check months down the road. Even setting aside concerns about a software algorithm firing people without knowing the context for their breaks, there's another twist:

The old supervisor was probably someone who had your job and got promoted. Probably from the same workplace. With a pay raise. Micromanaging you is a waste of resources. The NEW supervisor can be someone at the head office thousands of miles away, "supervising" everyone in your office by running a report once a week to see all their breaks. Or someone in Indonesia outsourced to do the job.

[Vrede too]

Plus, this is not just about slacking. Bosses already know who their slackers are and have myriad ways to make that determination. Rather, it's the opportunity to be far more comprehensive and intrusive.

[O Really]

All true, but it's still different only in extent, not in intent or principle. Management has a DNA-driven compulsion to control, and letting go of that control - even when it is in their interest to do so - is anathema to their belief of their own essential-ness. Bottom line to me, though, is it doesn't matter what they track or how they track it - it matters what they do with the data. But I'll bet a lot of those people who found unions worthless might want to reconsider, maybe.

BTW, getting fired by machine isn't new, either. There were companies back 30 years ago who put in "no-fault" attendance policies that said, essentially, "we don't care why you're absent, when you get X number, you get a warning, when you get Y number, you get another, and when you get to Z, you're outta here." Attendance was tracked through sign-ons. Supervisors (although this particular company called them "coaches") got a report, but the warnings were machine-generated, as was the pink slip.

[Vrede too]

From the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation:

Several Water Protectors have reported that agents with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force have attempted to question them. They all refused to talk to the FBI, but the fact that a Task Force charged with investigating terrorism paid these visits to peaceful activists is both chilling and unsurprising. We have documented and repeatedly called attention to the FBI’s abuse of its counterterrorism authority to surveil First Amendment protected activity.

It’s time for this to end.

Write to your Senators today. Ask them to call FBI Director James Comey on the carpet. He has to explain why the JTTF is questioning Standing Rock Water Protectors.

Mr. Comey claims he keeps the FBI’s “suicide letter” to Martin Luther King, Jr. on his desk to remind him of the FBI’s ignoble history. Yet, his FBI continues to repeat its pattern of abuses. Deploying counterterrorism resources to investigate social movements is the norm, not the exception and it is time for this to change.

The protesters at Standing Rock have already been through enough. Local police have used fear mongering and attempts to demonize the Water Protectors as justification for deploying militarized police, setting up military style roadblocks, and arresting nearly 700 people. The visits from JTTF agents, people meant to be fighting terrorism, is yet another transparent attempt to paint the activists as dangerous.

Tell your Senators you won’t stand for it, and neither should they.

As BORDC/DDF grassroots supporter, you are the Bill of Rights frontline of defense.

#Resist,

Chip Gibbons, Policy and Legislative Counsel

[O Really]

So in my re-read about the original and real "Big Brother," I finally understand Trumpsters. I'm assuming everyone here has read "1984" and if not, it's not my problem. Anyway, Julia is younger than Winston, and has grown up totally after the "revolution." Winston is old enough to have some memories before Big Brother, but is concerned because he knows that history is constantly being re-written, that the Party's control over all forms of communication make it impossible to know truth from fiction. Julia isn't bothered by this.

"But she only questioned the teachings of the Party when they in some way touched upon her own life. Often she was ready to accept the official mythology, simply because the difference between truth and falsehood did not seem important to her."


She knows the Party has a lot of fraud, but considers that normal:

"Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him."

And here come the Trumpsters:

"In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."

[Vrede too]

One could argue that Orwell's bleakest prediction was not what government will do but rather what people will accept.

[O Really]

One could argue that Orwell's bleakest prediction was not what government will do but rather what people will accept.

One could indeed. Excellent point.

[Vrede too]

Muhammad Ali’s Son Detained for Hours at Florida Airport by Immigration: Reports

Muhammad Ali Jr., son of the legendary boxing champion Muhammad Ali, was detained by immigration officials at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport for hours on Feb. 7, according to several reports.

Ali Jr., 44, was traveling with his mother, Khalilah Camacho-Ali, to Florida from a speaking engagement in Montego Bay, Jamaica, according to the Courier-Journal....

The Courier-Journal reported that the Alis were taken aside because of their “Arabic-sounding names,” according to their family friend and lawyer, Chris Mancini, who spoke to the outlet.

Mancini claimed that officials held and questioned Ali Jr. for nearly two hours, repeatedly asking him, “Where did you get your name from?” and “Are you Muslim?” according to the Courier-Journal.

Camacho-Ali showed officers a photo of herself with her famous ex-husband and was not detained, the Miami New Times reported. Her son didn’t have a photo to prove his famous pedigree, even though he does hold a U.S. passport and was born in Philadelphia.

“This is an outrage,” Mancini told the New Times. “I don’t know what is going on with Mr. Trump’s claim that his ban is not religion-based. We do not discriminate in this country based on religion.” ...

[Boatrocker]

Muhammad Ali’s Son Detained for Hours at Florida Airport by Immigration: Reports

Muhammad Ali Jr., son of the legendary boxing champion Muhammad Ali, was detained by immigration officials at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport for hours on Feb. 7, according to several reports.

Ali Jr., 44, was traveling with his mother, Khalilah Camacho-Ali, to Florida from a speaking engagement in Montego Bay, Jamaica, according to the Courier-Journal....

The Courier-Journal reported that the Alis were taken aside because of their “Arabic-sounding names,” according to their family friend and lawyer, Chris Mancini, who spoke to the outlet.

Mancini claimed that officials held and questioned Ali Jr. for nearly two hours, repeatedly asking him, “Where did you get your name from?” and “Are you Muslim?” according to the Courier-Journal.

Camacho-Ali showed officers a photo of herself with her famous ex-husband and was not detained, the Miami New Times reported. Her son didn’t have a photo to prove his famous pedigree, even though he does hold a U.S. passport and was born in Philadelphia.

“This is an outrage,” Mancini told the New Times. “I don’t know what is going on with Mr. Trump’s claim that his ban is not religion-based. We do not discriminate in this country based on religion.” ...

The biggest danger I see in the new fascist regime is that too many cops and military will simply "go along" with all the Nazi bullshit. Just following orders, you know.

[Vrede too]

Not that going "along with all the Nazi bullshit" and just "following orders" takes much encouragement. From the Center for Constitutional Rights:

In court this week in No-Fly List challenge

On Wednesday, we will be in court with three American Muslim men who were placed or kept on the No-Fly List by the FBI in retaliation for their refusal to become informants and are appealing the dismissal of their lawsuit against the FBI. FBI agents told the men, none of whom have any criminal record, that they could get off the No-Fly List if they agreed to serve as spies in Muslim communities – not because the government suspected involvement in crime, but simply because the Bureau was interested in collecting information on American Muslims.

In 2015, only days before the first major court hearing in their case, Tanvir v. Lynch, the men received letters from the U.S. government confirming their removal from the list and effectively conceding what the men have always known: that they never posed a security threat of any kind and that the FBI only listed them to coerce them into spying on their faith community. Later that year, the judge dismissed their remaining claims seeking damages for the harm they suffered as a result of being placed on the list.

The men are appealing the dismissal of the case both because they suffered significant emotional and financial distress as a result of their placement on the No-Fly List – they were unable to see wives, children, sick parents, and elderly grandparents overseas for years; they lost jobs and were stigmatized within their communities – and because without consequences for constitutional violations like these, they are more likely to be repeated.

Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari are represented by the CLEAR project (Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility) at CUNY School of Law as well as CCR and co-counsel at the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. CLEAR's Ramzi Kassem will be arguing the case on Wednesday.

[rstrong]

Just a reminder that it's not just the "Five Eyes", Russia and China doing the spying.

Techdirt: Leaked Documents Show German Intelligence Agency Spent Years Spying On Foreign And Domestic Journalists

Included among them were more than a dozen connections belonging to the BBC, often to the offices of the international World Service. The documents indicate that the German intelligence agency didn't just tap into the phones of BBC correspondents in Afghanistan, but also targeted telephone and fax numbers at BBC headquarters in London.

A phone number belonging to the New York Times in Afghanistan was also on the BND list, as were several mobile and satellite numbers belonging to the news agency Reuters in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria.

[billy.pilgrim]

maybe I'm the only one who didn't know this, or maybe the LaGrange cop said to much, but it seems that they can follow you better on the back roads and dirt roads than on the interstate.

we had one of those crazy man and woman car jacking/crime/murder sprees about a month ago with people murdered in Pensacola and Beulah, Florida and Lillian Alabama.

The end was LaGrange or somewhere over in the valley area. When interviewing a very talkative cop he was more than happy to explain that they have tag readers on all back roads and most dirt roads, but have to rely on troopers on the interstates. He said that they followed the couple across Alabama with the tag readers and let them settle in at a flea bag motel before the big arrest.

who would have thunk

[Vrede too]

I know about them, hadn't heard that distribution is that widespread.

[billy.pilgrim]

I know about them, hadn't heard that distribution is that widespread.

They followed these people for 300 miles. The news report detailed the various roads the took.

[Vrede too]

WikiLeaks publishes mammoth haul of CIA spying secrets in Vault 7 release

... The documents that make up the ‘Vault 7’ Project say that the CIA has developed software to enable hackers to spy on people through televisions, mobile phones and computers....

WikiLeaks claims that the U.S. government agency has an extensive global covert hacking programme, featuring malware that is able to use the most popular consumer electronic products to listen to what people are saying.

The organisation said in a statement: “‘Year Zero’ introduces the scope and direction of the CIA’s global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of ‘zero day’ weaponised exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.” ...

The files also contain claims that the CIA’s secret hacking division produced a huge amount of weaponised malware to infest iPhone and Android phones – and lost control of it....

This source is said by the organisation to want a public debate on whether the CIA now has too much power.

Wikileaks added: “In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA’s hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency....

“The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.”

Further information in the documents allege that the CIA deliberately hid their ability to hack smartphones and TVs worldwide from their makers – despite President Obama’s pledge to reveal their knowledge....