PRIVACY IS DEAD. IDEOLOGY OF RADICAL TRANSPARENCY.

Share Button

12289602_1069552079761936_7858305713008886986_n

“In its first five years of existence” public “, from 2005 to 2010, Facebook has steadily eroded the privacy of its users. Facebook propaganda ideology of transparency, indeed, the radical transparency: be transparent towards us free machines. but we have already challenged the assumption that “you can not be on Facebook without being your authentic self”: the authentic self is a dangerous concept. authenticity is a process, you become yourself with others that contribute to our personal growth, not a fact established once and for all. But that Facebook is a blind belief, an applied religion that does not listen to reason. We have already seen how the online behavioral overlap between networks and affinity involves untold anguish for everyday life, when no real danger. But it is a dogma of Facebook, and on the other hand is also a precise commercial needs: it is necessary for user data are public, that privacy is shaded up to be a relic of the past, to encourage the widespread advertising. Advertisers must be able to verify, without offending anyone’s privacy that their advertisements have been placed only on user pages that match the consumer profile required for their product. Everything is always, of course, for our benefit of users. At least, this is the official position of the company, a mission expressed with great force in press releases, interviews, presentations. And if I wanted to be totally transparent? And not because I have something to hide (as we all have a lot to hide), but because I do not want everyone to know the same things about me at the same time. They are more jagged and complex and contradictory than might tell my Facebook profile. I want to inject chaos, discordance between the data which should define me, upsetting the tables. And then, trivially, if tonight I do not want to go out with you, I could tell you “I’m tired,” without providing further explanation, without you offended, or worse you feel teased and betrayed when, tomorrow, you will find on Facebook wall of a friend who shared last night I was not home, but to dance with other friends. Social life is more complex than it allows us the radical transparency, unless we give up a large part of what makes us different from the others, and therefore interesting and desirable, and there uniformiamo to a group that thinks the same way . In any case, the personal data of social networking services, including Facebook, are found on the cloud, in the data clouds, certainly not under our watchful eye as the diary of confidences than once. Until recently, all the data entered on Facebook were forever, non-erasable by users, and instantly became a “non-exclusive property” of Facebook, which could be sold to other companies. Of course, the issue of copyright is ridiculous, because it makes no sense to think that Facebook aspects only to earn selling our ridiculous picture of low resolution holidays, or our post ungrammatical like pieces worthy of the Pulitzer Prize. We are not artists defrauded and exploited. However, the mining performed for profiling purposes, the material that accumulates in the data center to form the Big Data, is a serious problem. Nothing is free, especially not in the web 2.0, where the price to pay for the “gratuity” of the service, which “will always be so,” as stated in the homepage of Facebook, is the collection, indexing and exploitation of user profile data , and especially of their mutual relations. Waiting to monetize. What about privacy? The current online sociality is based on the absence of privacy, or the ability to scan email, photos, blogs, texts, everything to extract keywords and propose contextual advertising and targeted, based on exchanges considered “private, confidential”. Google, Facebook, social networking make it clear that there is neither public nor private spheres, governed by technocracies and in particular by private technocracies driven by profit. Privacy, ie confidentiality, it is literally “the right to be alone” (right to be alone). For this, the protection of the “common policy” in a social network is an oxymoron: the goal of a network is to circulate, in this case the information, and when the information is the identity of persons who make up the network, l ‘ idea of staying alone is clearly inconsistent. The only way is to disconnect from the network. Privacy is an illusion; It exists only when we realize that has been violated. After Echelon <a> 37 </a> is clear that we are talking about something that does not exist, or has not existed for a long time. Moreover, the problem highlighted by the pervasive surveillance is not so much the lack of privacy, since the continuous profiling, ie the control and monitoring over a long time. Each user has a fingerprint, identity, yet only time and personnel. Being part of a network is to be connected and leave traces of their passage. It also happens with the phone: if you cast my cell phone, because I am afraid to be controlled, with the new cell will tend to make the same calls to the same people, that is, to rebuild my social network. If there is a user profile that behaves that way, identification is automatic: it’s me <a> 38 </a>. In social networks it happens something even more disturbing, because they usually do not hide the lists of members of a group for non members, not too limit your ability to become a part of that group. It is not difficult to generate identifiers on a group level, group fingerprints, for example a list of all the Facebook groups that an individual user belongs. Support the free movement of knowledge has nothing to do with this kind of sharing, automatic and forced, whatever. This is not the sharing of copyleft, knowledge freed from the shackles of patents, trademarks, of non-disclosure agreements; nor is it the knowledge in the public domain (public domain): published does not mean the public, but managed by a private company, Facebook note. Are several ongoing studies on systems of Mass De-anonymizing & Re-Identification, de-anonymization algorithms and mass re-identification on social networks. All you need is a social network of modest size in a complete way (relations between nodes must be known) to be able to use this information to re-identify, and give a name and a real name to users who also belong to another network bigger. For example, knowing comprehensively the relationship between a few thousand users who share photos on Flickr, if a portion of these users also have a Facebook account, you can use this overlap between the networks to de-anonymize a huge number of profiles the wider network <a> 40 </a>. simplest methods but equally effective, requiring much lower mathematical knowledge, but a good ability to build Web sites and malicious code programming, are the browser history stealing and hijacking systems. The personal touch and group can be derived from data stored by our browser, especially if you never delete the history of websites visited, cookies, a login on our social networks. To get this data, you converge users to a website owl, promising some fabulous prize or free pornography, that always works. The hidden code (javascript or similar) deals with downloading, storing and cross browser data used, the browsing history, passwords, cookies, your version, everything. The de-anonymization process is even more efficient with the help of LSO (Local Shared Object): a kind of supercookies flash / flex, centralized collection of data on the server, usually by non-erasable <browser. As regards the already mentioned socialbots, a recent experiment conducted by researchers at the University of Vancouver shows that online social networks are highly insecure especially for weak ring via: humans, that for them popular tend to behave in a more and more mechanical and therefore easily imitated by machines. Thus online social networks can infiltrate, for example to spread disinformation and propaganda. Similar campaigns are most effective when infiltrates an online social network on a large scale. The socialbotssono programs that mimic the behavior of real users; in the attack of Canadian researchers, these programs begin to create fake profiles and send friend requests, responding adaptively to the actual user feedback. Within eight weeks, the socialbots managed to infiltrate the 80% of the targets, depending on the users’ privacy settings, implant themselves firmly as nodes of a trusted online network. When a socialbot you gain confidence, can like the human counterpart, access to protected data; In this way, the data of the users are even more exposed than a fully public access, for the simple fact that users deem those programs their friends, and not pieces of code programmed to accumulate their data. If proof were needed, similar results show that the much touted Facebook’s security systems, known as the immune system, are ineffective in countering malicious infiltration large scale. The Zuckerberg answers relating to continuous improvements to ensure the online safety do not touch the crucial point in question, or the identity, in this case declined as authenticity. To give confidence to a friend online, as offline, I must first recognize that it is he, that is, to authenticate his identity. But at the time in online social networks are not the users to manage the authenticity of their identity: they are algorithms systems managed by the companies that provide these services for free. The result is the paradox to which we are all accustomed to us that access to ourselves, to our email, our Facebook page, Twitter, etc. we have to prove ourselves, through login and password. The widespread authentication systems, such as Facebook Connect, Google Friend Connect, but also OpenID, tend to move the authentication problem, acting as a global guarantee for us against third parties. You are that you, ask us a new service that we want to access online?  Allow us to verify this by checking your details of the Facebook profile, where you’re supposed to always tell the truth. Authenticate means providing authenticity, that is, literally, make sure that “the same” (autos) is “authoritative”, and that this authority comes from inside (entos <intus), and not by a third out there. Autos-entos, I myself am authoritative myself. My identity to me and I have built me manage it. Which of course implies that I am able to make sense of my identity and to communicate in an understandable way, or that users are independent and competent in the use of digital tools. The facilities at you step on my browser, at least, should only affix their visa, do not ask for unnecessary information profilarmi. As a stamp on the back of the hand to a concert I am not asked me my identity card, nor who are my friends, my tastes and preferences, my emotional situation, and in general all the data available to services that manage our online identity. The idea that someone can authenticate from outside is based on the theft of my personal data (which happens regularly when we compile the registration form at a service). The strong ideological postulate that should be defended is that authentication, understood as identity verification, the process is too important to be left in the hands of someone else (machines, institutions, companies …) which should take care to ensure our navigation “authenticated”, and actually drooling for profilarci hoping to sell some useless personal gadgets, or to sell to the highest bidder right, if for some reason we were ‘interesting’: police services, authoritarian governments. Instead we enthusiastically complicit in profiling more accurate, in the name of radical transparency, through which social engineering is available to an immense field of experimentation.”

One reason for crypto-anarchists is to defend against surveillance of computer networks communication. Crypto-anarchists seek to protect anti-government mass surveillance, such as PRISM, Tempora, preservation of delletelecomunicazioni data, the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Room 641A, the FRA and so on. Crypto-anarchists consider the development and the use of encryption to be the main defense against such problems, as opposed to political action. A second concern is the avoidance of censorship, especially censorship of the Internet, on the basis of freedom of expression. The programs used by crypto-anarchists often make it possible to both publish and read information from the Internet or other computer networks anonymously. For example, Tor, I2P, freenet and many similar networks allow anonymous web pages “hidden” accessible only by users of these programs, and projects as Bitmessage allow anonymous messaging system intended to be a replacement for email. This helps whistleblowers and political opposition in repressive countries to disseminate their information. A third reason is to build and participate in counter economy. Cryptocurrencies as Bitcoin and services such as the Silk Road and Black Market Reloaded allowed to trade in goods and services with little interference of law. In addition, the technical challenge in developing these cryptographic systems is enormous, affecting some programmers to join the projects. The Revolution is made through man, but man must forge day by day, his revolutionary spirit ….. I am not Christ nor a philanthropist, I am the opposite of a Christ; I fight for the things in which I believe with all the weapons available to me and I try to leave died the other, instead of leaving me to crucify or anywhere else. That. What we took is just a small part of cò belongs to us We seek a society in which neither the poor nor the rich are not inactive them overworked it stressed the concept of workers brings depressed workers, in a word, in which everyone can live under the same conditions by managing their lives without waste. and with the full consciousness that harm to a person is a danger for everyone, THAT WORD IS CALLED … ANARCHY

Share Button

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.