Ukraine Tracks Protesters Through Cellphones
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
And poor security forces are the guys who are ordered to wipe "protesters" to keep Ukraine whole body and not becoming Sudan with Russian winter. I can only pray they succeed. Winters are harsh in Kiev.
I mostly forgot about it until I saw this article. Anyone here care to explain if this is true?
Of course this doesn't mean that they can't track turned off phones, it's still technically possible (while the battery is there).
To a sane government, this information wouldn't be of much use. To a crazed paranoid government going on purges and witchhunts, this could be all the information they 'need' to find somebody suspect.
Of course if you pull the battery, they would also notice the phone dropping off the network (though it would be unclear what the cause was). To a crazed government, the difference might not be too important.
If you are ever in the sort of situation where any of this might become a concern, I recommend leaving the phone at home, sitting comfortably on your couch, turned on with the TV on. Of course this precludes using the phone in an emergency, so 'burner' phones with removable batteries may become valued.
Puts a bit more focus on the reach available to anyone via my reliance on tech to "always be reachable". Good when my friends/family/customers need me but horrible when in the hands of bad actors.
This is interesting though and something I think we should consider if we Americans ever get the courage to stand up to our government for it's abuses of power. It semi-happened with Occupy but they were barking up the wrong tree. You can only force a private bank/companies hand with the power of government. They can stand out their all day and do whatever, but it would be easier if a law or resolution were passed.
How do you know if someone at a protest is a 'plant' whose job is too incite violence so as to show the protest as negative regardless of their stated goals.
I was thinking of a system maybe, that would definitely be reputation based, but one where you could verify someones identity while still maintaining a certain level of privacy. Maybe something similar to how bitcoin works. Everybody could have a public key that anyone at the protest could scan if needed and say 'ya this person's legit, they have XXX amount of reputation, we are connected by XX people, etc' or 'woah, who are you? you have -XXX reputation and no one here knows you'... but this idea needs to be developed further...
When i put my 'evil' cap on and think how I would use the data if I had all the data in the world and I wanted to stop people protesting me, I would use those kinds of cellphone SMS messages to intimidate people in the area and I would want them to be divided by those who want to achieve revolution nonviolently and those who would easily engage in violence if given the opportunity. Taking it a step further, I would use that system the NSA made that tracks internet browsing history especially for porn, to threaten people that their data might be 'leaked' if they continue to protest. Or perhaps sent messages and calls can be 'rerouted' to different people to cause confusion in their communications. Or perhaps I'd use a few 'if-then' simulations to put the right police officer in front of the right protestor so that violence would be most likely to occur. evil cap off.
The rest of the world seems to be taking the lead in standing up to corruption, but when America catches up, I want us to lead by example of how it should efficiently and safely be done.
When a country we don't agree politically with does it = bad.
Likewise protesters attacking police with Molotov cocktails, charging their lines with farm equipment and torching police vehicles would elicit a fairly strong reaction from any Western government, yet the Ukrainian government is demonized...
Occasionally we find that professional, full-time newsrooms produce better content than the blogosphere. Producing that content took a staff of educated, full-time professionals with families and mortgages. I don't find it particularly offensive that people who regularly consume their output are expected to help fund their salaries so they can keep producing.
Why should moving to digital mean reducing the price versus print?
Perhaps the NY Times should keep the margin difference as profit, helping to restore their financial condition from the recent disaster it has been, so they don't have to go crawling to Carlos Slim again. Building up their financial position would assist in their independence as a news source.
Perhaps the NY Times should put that margin back into the business, and create more / better content, thus more than justifying the price staying the same.
Either way, the argument in favor of reducing prices just because of cheaper distribution, is not inherently a good one.
Just like any good software company, the NYTimes should be thinking about their price strategy in a more complex way than cost plus. And I'm sure they are.
I think the NYTimes is one of the best bargains out there, and lucky for those who don't pay the benefits spillover to other journalism, especially the blog/twitter world.
javascript:%20window.location%20=%20window.location.protocol%20+%20'//'%20+%20window.location.hostname%20+%20window.location.pathname%20+%20'?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes';
PS: Support journalism if you have the money to do so!
PS: Maybe I don't like their journalism and prefer straight to the point content.
Repeat whenever you get the 10-article notice.
Edit: it should go without saying, but... if you find yourself doing this often, consider purchasing a subscription so this service can remain online.