No. It's a futile effort. There's too much to know about too many things in this world, and of the important things that people should know, this is pretty low on the list. It's up to the professionals (ie. us) to make decisions on behalf of those who can't, don't, and won't be able to understand the ramifications of those decisions (be it because they don't have the time, capability, capacity, or willingness to understand).
Agreed. That also is what government is for, to protect citizens from abuse and dangers, via regulation. Banks and automobile companies can't sell fraudulent or dangerous products to everyday consumers, for example.
Government can play a role in the improvement in the everyday life of it's citizens. As an example, I pay 25 euros/month for 200mbps fibre internet thanks to my government's antitrust laws.
How are you doing on this front, Americans?
Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise. We all retain experts, one way or another, to research and report on the technical details, and our analysis isn't at all limited to the loudest voice.
Governments regulate airplane safety, but the politicians aren't aeronautical engineers and pilots. It doesn't just regulate but operates entire militaries, soup-to-nuts, with incredibly advanced technology, complex situations, and high stakes, yet it is civilians who are in charge (in the U.S. and most advanced countries) - the likely next U.S. Secretary of Defense will be the first ex-military officer since 1951.
That's not the same. It's one thing to have advisors, it's another to be so far out of your league that it's not even debatable nor discussable for you. So you try (ideally) to put people in their best positions to make the best decisions, and hope you have critically thoughtful people. But at some point they don't even know what questions to ask any more.
Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants. Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above" security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance: Well, you get my point.
These bad decisions come about because the interested parties have access "loudest voice" and can spin the conversation. Such has always been the case, but now we are getting to an age where a preponderance of decisions require some sort of technical understanding.
I'm certain sometime in our past the leaders went from being the ones who could yell the scariest to the ones who could write. In this age we will be better served, IMHO, if we require our leaders to have some numeracy and some technical literacy.
I disagree with these claims. Ironically, do you know anything about them, or are you repeating what has been said with the 'loudest voices'? For example, I actually do know a little about the F-35, which I assume you are referring to, and though there are reasons to criticize it most in the U.S. military (and in others) desperately want it.
Also, what about other things I mentioned such as airplane safety? Food safety? Public health? These are unqualified successes, though of course flawed.
Problems and flaws are the nature of every human enterprise and institution; there is no solution that won't result in them. But we still accomplish a heck of a lot. Sure, more numeracy and technical literacy would be great, but the idea that our government can't function has little foundation - it's just someone yelling loudly.
Fair point: I only know what I read in the paper.
airplane safety? Food safety? Public health?
That's the funny thing about transition- sometimes you don't see it coming. And it's hard to argue with the fallacy of the consequent: we are here, therefore it's the right answer.
But I'll try to articulate it from something small and (hopefully) that we can relate to and leave aside public health questions like climate change and so on. Again, this isn't the world-beater issue, but it's just an illustration of why I think that we should try to have more scientifically literate people in our government.
When I go to a gas station, there is a sign that says things like "don't smoke, discharge static electricity, fill portable tanks on the ground" and such with is all good advice. But they also have one that says "turn off your cell phone." Now, one of the stations I use that has this sign actually has a television atop the pump. But the kicker is, the whole gas-station-blowing-up thing was an urban legend. The original story was in the '90s, circulated via email, and was about a BP station in Britain blowing up because of someone using a cell phone. I have a tendency to check up on these things (IIRC "snopes" wasn't "snopes" back then; I think they changed their name or else the site I relied upon went out and snopes came in) and found that yes, the story was bullshit and there was no truth to it.
Nevertheless, it became a regulation to turn off your cell phone. Even though they don't cause sparks. And there's a TV set atop the pump.
more numeracy and technical literacy would be great
Agreed.
but the idea that our government can't function has little foundation
Maybe that's why nobody said it.
it's just someone yelling loudly.
Um, yeah, ok.
Gas stations put up signs because there is little cost to them if the advice is unnecessary, and a high cost if it is necessary. These signs do not indicate a "regulation". (Usually, when they do, they don't merely tell you not to do X, but specifically reference the fact that it is illegal to do the particular prohibited thing.)
I wouldn't stand for this in a politician, so I can't be surprised when people say they don't trust I.T. professionals.
Hey guys - this is going to make a bunch of your apps work poorly or not at all, but it protects you from something you aren't informed enough or smart enough to be scared of in the first place. Please support me?
Oh, and by the way, it'll make your phone cost more money.
Furthermore, I am not sure that any of those are necessarily a given. I'm not advocating for breaking apps or an abrupt shift to no location services, I'm not dismissing your average end-user's needs/desires or insulting their intelligence. I'm hypothesizing that there might be ways to get non-GPS location services out of the hands of a few big players. It theoretically wouldn't make your phone cost more money, but it might take the time-money-effort of people who build the systems (maybe open-source?). I'm trying to appeal to the people who build the systems and brainstorm ways to do that, not really rally the end-users to this particular cause.
The people that "build the systems" are paid for by those corporations who make money by tracking you. Who exactly do you think is going to: A. Fund this new decentralized non-tracking utopia. B. Convince users already embedded in existing systems to switch to something less functional in order to not be tracked?
EVERY project that's tried what you're describing has failed miserably because end-users just don't care. Can you cite even ONE example of a competing system that has focused on privacy that has garnered what can be considered even a modicum of success against an already entrenched player?
We return to my issue: does it being difficult and yet to be achieved mean that the people that are aware of potential drawbacks of the status quo should lay down and give up? That seems to be your implication.
So... the 2 hours a day I'm not with a family member or coworker or friend I can't be tracked? And to do so I literally have to disable everything on my phone manually (no more bluetooth streaming in the car, manually turn off the wifi on my phone every time I leave the house, somehow magically prevent the cell towers from tracking me).
If you cannot get the general populous to agree and actively vote for privacy, you're fighting a battle that's already been lost.
At least in Germany there is hardly anybody who says something like that about Snowden. There are mostly two opinions about Snowden in Germany:
1. He is a hero - the opinion of the minority
2. They hardly care (but also have nothing negative to say about Snowden) - the opinion of the majority
But there is hardly any opinion that he is a traitor (or even should be hanged - death penalty is a red line in Germany) - quite the opposite.
As I outlined in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13272352 in Germany many people don't consider the government as "us", but as "them" (those who rule "us"). So I don't believe that there would be large hatred in the German population (in opposite to the politicians) if Snowden betrayed the German government instead.
So where's the public outcry to jail the traitor? Just live with it, Germany's mileage varies drastically from the US, and the main reason is experience with the Nazis and the GDR. We know something you absolutely do not, and the world us asking Germany to learn from it, instead of the other way around, at its own peril.
edit, just as a bonus, though I think the Spiegel isn't really that great: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/index-2013-45.html
This and variations of that exist aplenty.
In the US? All over the place. Fox News on pretty much a weekly basis. It was all over the campaign trail this last election as well.
> If the two prevailing mindsets were he's a hero and I don't care, then the he's a hero would be making a lot more noise, and the "I don't care" would probably give them half-hearted support just because they don't have a horse in the race and could therefore be easily convinced.
Then what are the prevailing mindsets in Germany? And how much more noise would people be making, what is a "lot"? Can you quantify it? Or are you just making up stuff that sounds reasonable to you, which has no connection with the truth on the ground here?
I outlined them above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13271448
> And how much more noise would people be making, what is a "lot"?
At the heyday of the Snowden revelations there was a large outcry. When talking about opinions in Germany one always has to distinguish between the opinion of the citizens and the opinion of the government (these are often very different). Of course the German government has a very USA-bootlicking opinion about the Snowden question.
The fact that in Germany there (mostly) is free speech does not imply that the government is interested in your opinion. Take a nasty English joke about lawyers and replace "lawyer" by "politician" and you get the whole mentality quite well.
I know, and it matches my experience. But the user tw04 seems to disagree with more than flimsy reasoning.
> Take a nasty English joke about lawyers and replace "lawyer" by "politician" and you get the whole mentality quite well.
I wish I could find it now, but Sebastian Haffner mentioned this in one of his books... the German tendency to consider politics as something dirty the private person better keep out of, while both despising and admiring those nasty politicians. I think that sarcasm is a form of cowardice. The way I see it, either you're a responsible citizen or you're not, politics is way too important to leave it to professional politicians. But that's neither here nor there.. one thing is sure, if I had a cent for every time an American or right-wing European tells me some nonsense about Germany, I could buy HN a pretty stylesheet.
The whole topic is a lot more complicated. It's rather hard to found a party: 2009 before the parliamentary elections I have been was sometimes at the regular meeting of the at that time new-founded Piratenpartei. Many attendees were paying for the election posters themselves (you can only get aids (Wahlkostenhilfe) when you already got many votes in a previous election - a chicken-and-egg problem) and were (in my opinion) working really hard alongside their regular job.
Also for most parliaments in Germany there is a so-called 5% barrier. That means that if you don't get at least 5% of the votes, you will get no seats in the parliament (except perhaps direct mandates - but for these you need a relative majority of votes in your district, which is even harder - nearly impossible for a new party). The 5% barrier means that you will need a program that attracts many voters.
There were many demands to give him asylum. Here some German articles about this topic (if you want to know what happens in Germany you will not get around understanding articles that are written in German):
The reactions in Germany after the Snowden revelations:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Snowden&ol...
[TLDR: They were very positive towards Snowden]
Fears that Germany would extradict Snowden if he came to Germany
> http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/antrag-auf-asyl-warum-deu...
USA threatens Germany if they give asylum to Snowden:
> http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/snowden-asyl-usa-solle...
> https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Asyl-fuer-Snowden-US...
A very recent (22th of November 2016) article about whether Snowden could nevertheless get asylum in Germany
> https://www.vice.com/de/article/so-bekommt-edward-snowden-do...
Another article from 2rd of May 2016 on occasion of that there was a live link with Snowden on the re:public. This article [even its headline] nicely brings across the completely different opinion that the German government and many German citizen have in the whole Snowden question:
> http://www.rp-online.de/digitales/internet/edward-snowden-au...
I think Snowden is smart enough to know that the only place he's safe right now is Moscow, Russia. Even if Germany or any other country offers him asylum, the US machine does not care. They'll find a way to get him, either while enroute, or as soon as he lands.
Some reports:
About freedom: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/turkey
About education: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
Not really:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/22/most-young-a...
Views are even better abroad.
Tracking people is a technological thing, but the power to do anything with that information is a legal and social thing.
The information's out there, and it'll never go away. What we need to do is work to steer the societal expectations that one's location is private, important, protected by law, not divulgable by the phone company except under penalty of law, not sellable for marketing purposes, etc.
This is a social problem. We fix it with laws.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? Positioning technologies in general are decentralized. You don't have to rely on the GPS L1 signal, most receivers support GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo outside of the box. You don't need to use WiFi positioning, Bluetooth ranging, or cellular positioning. These tools just give you finer granularity for your current position, minimizing Dilution of Precision.
It's the liberals standard reply: vote with your wallet. This way of thinking sometimes reduce democracy to economics.
What an odd thing to say.
While I'm honestly not that familiar with CGI-TA/UTDOA, the CGI is referring to the Cell Global Identity, which you can think of as a unique identity for every cell in existence (tower + direction + frequency IIRC). This might cover a very large area (a rural cell site might be 10+ km's away), or very small area (like an in building wireless system). The carrier tends to have a database of the location of each CGI, along with GPS coordinates of where the cell is located.
So, what happens, is by standard your CGI (or technology equivalent, because different technology use slightly different terminology), get's included in most messaging the cell network sends internally. While not perfect, this can be used to make guesses about your current location.
This is actually important for the cellular network, because if you have millions of devices, every message you send to the wrong location costs you money. So whenever your radio active (on a phone call, downloading a web page, your email in the background), all of the data for these services is sent to the cell servicing you. There isn't enough radio bandwidth to deliver this somewhere else or to a wide area.
It also get's used when you're radio inactive, to keep track of how to page you. Paging, is when the network needs to notify your UE (User Equipment), that it needs to do something (incoming call, sms, or data). Again, from an efficiency perspective, I don't want to page Vancouver when you're in Toronto.
So one of the way's the network does this, is even when you go radio idle, it remember's the cell you were last connected to. Because when the network wants to page you, it thinks the best location is the same location it saw you last. Now I don't remember UMTS as well as I should, but in LTE there are a few gotcha's. When the device is idle, it only needs to re-register every 1.5 hours, which means the device will also talk to the network every 1.5 hours to say, I'm still registered, don't clean up your resources, which will include the CGI. There is also a rule, that say's when you exit your tracking area list, you must notify the network to register with the new tracking area you can currently be paged at.
The Tracking Area, is a way to group cell's together into usually a relatively small area, but will be based on what the engineering group at your operator has decided. And you can have multiple of these assigned to the device. The idea basically is, you can make small movements around the network, but don't need to update the network for every cell change when idle. The network paging algorithm, will then page your last registered cell, followed by the tracking area list (and possibly some other heuristic features), to find your device and deliver your call.
From a privacy point of view, you can then imagine what this allows, was your phone near your girlfriends all night, or your own residence. However, if your local store is close enough, it might not be able to tell if you walked over to the corner store, especially if the CGI doesn't change (1.5 hour re-registration timer), someone might think you were just sitting at home if each registration is at the same location.
So, while this is all public standard, it's definitely difficult to articulate in terms, even technologists can follow, because cellular technology is it's own complicated piece of technology. This is why I believe it generally get's distilled down to the if you don't like it don't use it argument, because it's too difficult to articulate accurately, and in the end the cell network tracks the relative position of your phone in order to just service you as a customer. Even some of what I just said is likely slightly wrong / miss-leading / only applied to the network I worked on, as I haven't read all these standards recently.
And the CGI/TAI is generally the type of historical information that might be available from your operator, however, if you're the active target of an investigation, they can basically just ping (page) the device and wake it up to see where it is slightly more accurately. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to test whether the messages used by e911 GPS tracking gave a notification on the handset or not, but that's another way, at least in LTE, where you can ask the phone for it's current GPS coordinates.
I honestly don't know what the middle ground is, or how to have a truly informed public. I'm honestly not even sure how to have an informed discussion about this with technologists, as I think there is quite a lot of miss-information floating around. I suspect it's something easy to complain about, or make assumptions, like the cell network has perfect GPS style coordinates on every device every minute of every day, which is simply untrue. What it can be used for, is catching a criminal in a lie. I didn't even see my girlfriend that night, I was at home in bed. If a record say's otherwise, it can focus the investigation because the investigators found a discrepancy in the story.
Could this be used to catch a politician in a lie, or blackmail someone, I'm sure it certainly could. Does that actually happen, I have no idea, and I suspect if it does it's far more limited that most people would imagine. However, perhaps I have a poor imagination, but having worked many times with these records (including plotting), I highly suspect most people have nothing to worry about.
Are there exceptions, absolutely. So if your a criminal, I'd say don't use your phone to commit the crime, or if your worried that a state actor wants to track you down for something your working on, also, don't use your phone.
And just in closing, personally, I'm far more afraid of the carriers trying to make money off my data and personal information, and interfere with my service to achieve their profit margin, than I am of any state collecting my CGI and network signalling and being able to use that information in a meanginful way.
I would throw Google, Apple, ShopperTrak (first result for in-store location analytics), etc. into the "far more afraid of [than] any state" bucket. I am of the impression that those are groups that, through the use of location services which most people with smartphones have enabled, can collect the sort of minute-by-minute, down to the meter, location information that is of value/a potential concern to privacy.