Shortly after Colombian presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay was shot at a political rally in June, hundreds of videos of the attack flooded social media. Some of these turned out to be deepfakes made with artificial intelligence, forcing police and prosecutors to spend hours checking and debunking them during the investigation. A teenager was eventually charged.
Increasing adoption of AI is transforming Latin America’s justice system by helping tackle case backlogs and improve access to justice for victims. But it is also exposing deep vulnerabilities through its rampant misuse, bias, and weak oversight as regulators struggle to keep up with the pace of innovation.
Law enforcement doesn’t yet “have the capacity to look at these judicial matters beyond just asking whether a piece of evidence is real or not,” Lucia Camacho, public policy coordinator of Derechos Digitales, a digital rights group, told Rest of World. This may prevent victims from accessing robust legal frameworks and judges with knowledge of the technology, she said.
Justice systems across the world are struggling to address harms from deepfakes that are increasingly used for financial scams, in elections, and to spread nonconsensual sexual imagery. There are currently over 1,300 initiatives in 80 countries and international organizations to regulate AI, but not all of these are laws and nor do they all cover deepfakes, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
AI tools are speeding up courts across Latin America, but judges and prosecutors are struggling with crimes involving deepfakes, bias, and weak legal frameworks.
Neo-fascist fight clubs, which are a global locus of neo-nazism, have caught the eye of western intelligence agencies that consider them a burgeoning national security threat, according to experts and government documents reviewed by the Guardian.
“Active clubs”, pseudo mixed martial arts gangs preaching a strain of far-right activism inspired by the teachings of Adolf Hitler, are well known to be moving across borders. But the revelation that official security services are keeping watch over them, the same kind of agencies known to surveil proscribed terrorist organizations like the Islamic State, shows how active clubs are an evolving and quickly growing threat.
“Intelligence agencies want to be aware of extremist networks that exist in their countries,” said Joshua Fisher-Birch, a terrorism analyst at the Counter Extremism Project, about active clubs, “their potential for current or future violence, and what links they may have to other movements and individuals, both domestically and internationally.”
The U.S. State Department said Saturday that it has “credible reports” that Hamas could violate the ceasefire with an attack on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
To secure Washington’s access to El Salvador’s most notorious prison, the secretary of state made an extraordinary offer to President Nayib Bukele.
...
The deal would give Bukele possession of individuals who threatened to expose the alleged deals his government made with MS-13 to help achieve El Salvador’s historic drop in violence, officials said. For the Salvadoran president, a return of the informants was viewed as critical to preserving his tough-on-crime reputation. It was also a key step in hindering an ongoing U.S. investigation into his government’s relationship with MS-13, a gang famous for displays of excessive violence in the United States and elsewhere.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
State senator Samuel Douglass, 26, and wife, Brianna, both made comments in Young Republicans Telegram group
A Vermont state lawmaker has resigned over racist and antisemitic chat messages that circulated within the Young Republican political group, another substantial consequence in a scandal that on Friday saw the New York state Young Republicans’ charter revoked.
State senator Samuel Douglass, the only elected official known to have taken part in the leaked group chat exposed by Politico, resigned Friday over his participation.
In a statement posted online, the 26-year-old Douglass said he was “deeply sorry for the offense” caused by his comments. He added that his decision to step down, effective Monday, “will upset many, and delight others, but in this political climate I must keep my family safe”.
Countries are falling short on reducing emissions, but British data scientist Hannah Ritchie looks at the numbers and sees the world making real gains on climate change.
Lewica nie istnieje Fałszywa polaryzacja narzuconej ideologii jako propaganda w obronie istniejącego porządku Peter Joseph – 10 października 2025
Wprowadzenie Współczesny dyskurs polityczny jest obsesyjnie skupiony na dualizmach. Lewica i prawica. Liberałowie i konserwatyści. Kapitaliści i socjaliści. Republikanie i Demokraci – i tak bez końca. Te przeciwstawne kategorie kształtują nie tylko sposób, w jaki ludzie postrzegają siebie i innych, lecz także to, jak rozumieją życie polityczne jako takie – jako nieustanny konflikt pomiędzy dwoma siłami, uwięzionymi w wiecznej walce. Taka narracja grupowa jest przekonująca i wydaje się naturalna. Jednak po bliższym przyjrzeniu się, cała ta konstrukcja się rozpada. Twarda prawda jest taka, że „lewica” nie istnieje – przynajmniej nie jako spójna kategoria orientacji politycznej. Jest raczej konstruktem relacyjnym – retorycznym substytutem oporu wobec tego, co w danym momencie stanowi dominujący porządek. Jej treść zmienia się wraz z okolicznościami, jej moralne postulaty ewoluują, a rzekoma tożsamość nie jest określona przez to, czym jest, lecz przez to, czemu się sprzeciwia. Tymczasem „prawica” utrzymuje ciągłość jako obrońca istniejącego porządku. Nieustannie pochłania, neutralizuje i redefiniuje przestrzeń debaty, tak by nawet opór – czyli „lewica” – pozostawał funkcjonalnie konserwatywny. W ten sposób iluzja polaryzacji staje się narzędziem propagandy: zarządzanym dialogiem pozornego sporu, który zapewnia, że strukturalna władza pozostaje nienaruszona.
1. Pochodzenie Idea podziału na lewicę i prawicę narodziła się podczas rewolucji francuskiej w 1789 roku, w trakcie obrad Zgromadzenia Narodowego. Ci, którzy siedzieli po lewej stronie sali, opowiadali się za zmianami społeczno-politycznymi – takimi jak likwidacja monarchii, przywilejów arystokratycznych i władzy Kościoła. Ci po prawej stronie wspierali zachowanie monarchii i Kościoła, a więc utrzymanie tradycyjnego porządku społecznego. To ustawienie sali stworzyło wygodną metaforę wizualną. Z biegiem czasu „lewica” stała się synonimem zmiany i reformy, a „prawica” – stabilności i tradycji. Jednak te słowa były czysto pozycyjne, nie ideologiczne. Nie istniała żadna „istota lewicowości” – był to jedynie relacyjny kierunek sprzeciwu, odzwierciedlający układ sił w danym momencie. Gdyby monarchia zwyciężyła, ci sami rewolucjoniści zostaliby zapamiętani jedynie jako mała, radykalna frakcja – utopiści albo terroryści. A więc „lewica” nie była doktryną – była po prostu kierunkiem oporu.
2. Pozycyjna natura tożsamości politycznej Każde społeczeństwo w danym momencie ma dominujący sposób organizacji – polityczny, ekonomiczny i kulturowy – który definiuje, co uznaje się za „normalne”. Ci, którzy tego porządku bronią, nazywani są konserwatystami lub prawicą. Ci, którzy dążą do jego przekształcenia – postępowymi lub lewicą. Relacja ta jest więc całkowicie kontekstowa. Rewolucjoniści francuscy z 1789 roku byli „lewicą”, bo sprzeciwiali się monarchii. Sto lat później klasyczni liberałowie, którzy popierali wolny rynek, sekularyzm i rządy przedstawicielskie, również byli „lewicą” swoich czasów, ponieważ przeciwstawiali się feudalnym hierarchiom i władzy Kościoła. Jednak w XX wieku, gdy wolny rynek stał się nową ortodoksją, neoliberałowie broniący deregulowanego kapitalizmu stali się „prawicą”. Ta sama ideologia – indywidualizm i własność prywatna – przemieszczała się po osi politycznej, w zależności od tego, kto sprawował władzę. Te pozycje są ruchome, nie stałe. Dlatego mówienie o „trwałej lewicy” to pomylenie kierunku krytyki z tożsamością. Podobnie w czasach Abrahama Lincolna w USA bardziej postępowi reformatorzy znajdowali się w Partii Republikańskiej, która dążyła do zniesienia niewolnictwa. Z kolei establishment konserwatywny reprezentowała Partia Demokratyczna, broniąca niewolnictwa jako części tradycyjnego porządku społecznego i gospodarczego. Dziś role obu partii w kwestiach tradycji i postępu w dużej mierze się odwróciły – choć, nawet „postęp” ma dziś mocno ograniczony charakter, ponieważ dominująca myśl konserwatywna wciąż kontroluje obie strony polityki.
3. Semantyka kontroli Trwałość podziału na lewicę i prawicę nie jest przypadkiem. To rodzaj broni w rękach tradycjonalistów, którzy sprzeciwiają się zmianom. Innymi słowy – to językowa technologia kontroli: sposób na kierowanie społecznym niezadowoleniem w przewidywalne, nieszkodliwe kanały. Przypisując myśleniu politycznemu jedną oś – lewica/prawica – elity władzy upraszczają złożoność rzeczywistości i czynią sprzeciw zrozumiałym tylko w ramach logiki systemu, który ów sprzeciw utrwala. Jeśli można ustalić granice debaty w ramach kulturowo oczekiwanej siatki pojęć (lewa–prawa), to można również kontrolować myślenie, zawężając definicje „ekstremów”. To właśnie ma na celu system: ograniczyć wszelkie ruchy w stronę głębokich, radykalnych zmian. Podział lewica/prawica działa jak płot semantyczny, utrzymujący dyskurs w bezpiecznych granicach istniejącego porządku. Zjawisko to jest dodatkowo wzmacniane przez samą naturę narzuconej tożsamości grupowej. Współcześnie często słyszymy, jak politycy i opinia publiczna krytykują enigmatyczny byt zwany „lewicą”, traktując go jak realnie zorganizowaną grupę. Kiedy polityk przypisuje temu „lewemu obozowi” jakieś negatywne cechy – np. „skłonność do przemocy” – uruchamia to instynktowną wrogość grupową, w której każdy, kto ma choćby zbliżone poglądy, automatycznie zostaje utożsamiony z agresją i staje się wrogiem. To niezwykle wygodne dla konserwatywnego establishmentu – można bowiem zrzucać winę za wszystkie problemy społeczne na „lewicę”, wzbudzając strach i nieufność wśród obywateli. W efekcie ludzie zaczynają unikać postępowych idei nie z powodu ich treści, lecz z powodu propagandowych skojarzeń. To stara strategia – znana choćby z epoki McCarthy’ego. W latach 40. film To wspaniałe życie (It’s a Wonderful Life), opowiadający o wspólnocie i solidarności, był przez FBI uznawany za… komunistyczną propagandę. W ten sposób granice debaty publicznej są nie tylko utrzymywane przez siłę tradycji, ale też pilnowane przez systemową podejrzliwość wobec wszystkiego, co naprawdę postępowe.
Joseph kończy tę część stwierdzeniem, że taki system spełnia trzy funkcje ideologiczne: 1. Symuluje różnorodność – ludzie wierzą, że mają wybór, podczas gdy obie strony akceptują te same fundamenty (własność prywatna, praca najemna, nacjonalizm, akumulacja kapitału). 2. Personalizuje problemy systemowe – konflikt wydaje się kwestią gustu czy moralności jednostki, a nie struktury władzy. 3. Moralizuje różnice – „lewica” i „prawica” stają się emocjonalnymi tożsamościami, a nie kategoriami analitycznymi. Ludzie bronią symboli zamiast idei, polityk i systemów.
4. Historyczna zmienność pojęcia „lewica” Aby wzmocnić tezę o nieuchwytnej naturze pojęcia „lewicy”, warto spojrzeć na historię – która pokazuje, jak bardzo niekonsekwentne i niejednorodne było to pojęcie na przestrzeni epok. • XVIII wiek: „Lewica” oznaczała antymonarchiczny republikanizm – jak u jakobinów i radykałów rewolucji francuskiej. • XIX wiek: zaczęła obejmować liberałów, socjalistów i wczesne ruchy robotnicze – dziwne połączenie grup, które łączyło właściwie tylko jedno: sprzeciw wobec arystokracji. • XX wiek: „Lewica” rozpadła się na reformistyczną socjaldemokrację, rewolucyjny komunizm oraz – po 1968 roku – ruchy kulturowe skupione na tożsamości, ekologii i seksualności. • XXI wiek: termin obejmuje dziś wszystko – od technokratycznego progresywizmu i humanitaryzmu NGO-sów po anarchistyczną pomoc wzajemną i marksistowski antyimperializm – czyli zjawiska, które mają ze sobą niewiele wspólnego poza dystansem wobec „prawicy”. Ta nieustanna metamorfoza znaczenia pokazuje, że „lewica” nie jest żadnym spójnym światopoglądem, lecz ruchomym znakiem, etykietą przyczepianą do każdej kolejnej formy sprzeciwu. Tym samym to samo słowo potrafiło oznaczać zarówno socjaldemokratów broniących kapitalizmu, jak i rewolucjonistów dążących do jego obalenia. Jeśli więc „lewica” może oznaczać jednocześnie umiarkowaną reformę w ramach systemu i całkowitą likwidację systemu, to nie znaczy nic konkretnego. W najlepszym razie opisuje intencję zmiany, a nie jej kierunek czy treść. To tylko puste miejsce – ruchomy punkt odniesienia dla kolejnej formy oporu, jaka akurat pojawi się na scenie.
5. „Prawica” jako grawitacja strukturalna W przeciwieństwie do lewicy, prawica wykazuje ciągłość – nie z powodu moralnej wyższości czy ideologicznej spójności, lecz dlatego, że jest zakotwiczona w tym, co istnieje. Jej istotą jest utrzymanie aktualnej normy i hierarchii. Ponieważ współczesne społeczeństwa są zorganizowane wokół deterministycznego systemu rynkowego, „domem metafizycznym” prawicy staje się właśnie ta stabilność hierarchii. W monarchiach prawica broniła królów; w kapitalizmie – rynku; w teokracjach – wiary. Jej lojalność nie dotyczy więc żadnej konkretnej doktryny, lecz samego porządku jako takiego. To tłumaczy, dlaczego prawica (czyli establishment) tak skutecznie wchłania i modyfikuje swoich przeciwników: • ruch robotniczy staje się „odpowiedzialnym związkowcem”, • feminizm przekształca się w „kapitalizm równych szans”, • ekologizm – w „zielony wzrost”. System ma zdolność trawienia krytyki i przetwarzania jej na własne innowacje. To dlatego Noam Chomsky stwierdził kiedyś, że w USA nie istnieje żadna realna „lewica” – są tylko różne odmiany konserwatyzmu: umiarkowany i skrajny. Z tej perspektywy cały proces ujawnia genialny trik systemu: osłabia prawdziwą opozycję, przekształcając ją w zarządzaną adaptację. Powstaje swoista równowaga cybernetyczna, w której nic fundamentalnego się nie zmienia. Największy paradoks polega na tym, że mechanizm kontroli staje się społecznie akceptowalny, a nawet pożądany – przez tych samych ludzi, których ma kontrolować.
6. Jak opozycja wzmacnia władzę Każdy system władzy potrzebuje iluzji konfliktu, by zachować legitymację. Spektakl dwóch przeciwnych obozów – „lewicy” i „prawicy” – doskonale spełnia tę funkcję. Pozwala przekształcić społeczne niezadowolenie w rytualizowaną rywalizację, której wyniki są z góry przesądzone. Dlatego kapitalizm kwitnie na polaryzacji. System potrzebuje nieustannej debaty o tym, jak rozdzielać bogactwo, a nie czym bogactwo właściwie jest. Potrzebuje sporu o to, kto powinien rządzić, a nie po co w ogóle istnieje władza. Framując każdą kwestię jako wybór pomiędzy „lewicą” a „prawicą”, system zabezpiecza się przed krytyką samej swojej natury. Wybory stają się teatrem. Każda partia oskarża drugą o korupcję lub ekstremizm, podczas gdy obie służą tym samym finansowym i instytucjonalnym interesom. „Lewica” staje się w tym układzie moralną maską systemu – fałszywym sumieniem, które utrzymuje maszynerię w ruchu. To symetryczna iluzja – obie strony wydają się równorzędne, choć w rzeczywistości są elementami tej samej gry. Historia konfliktu „kapitalizm kontra komunizm” to klasyczny przykład tego mechanizmu. Jeśli uznać Karla Marksa za „ideologicznego twórcę socjalizmu i komunizmu”, warto zauważyć, że urodził się po wynalezieniu samego podziału lewica–prawica. A jednak komunizm stał się symbolem „lewicowości”, co Joseph uznaje za największą manipulację binarną w historii – służącą utrwaleniu zachodniej hegemonii kapitalistycznej. W jego filmie Zeitgeist: Requiem pojawia się archiwalne nagranie byłego prezydenta USA, Richarda Nixona, który mówi: „…trzeba przebić się przez tę hipokryzję ludzi, którzy widzą niebezpieczeństwo tylko po prawej stronie, a nie dostrzegają go po lewej!” Dla Josepha to przykład pełnego przyjęcia propagandowego schematu, w który wierzą niemal wszyscy politycy. Łączenie komunizmu – jako zjawiska historycznie złożonego i zróżnicowanego – z jedną stroną osi politycznej to strategiczna wygoda systemu. Taka narracja prowadzi do absurdalnych porównań typu: „Owszem, naziści byli skrajnie prawicowi, nietolerancyjni i brutalni, ale przecież ci komuniści po lewej też byli bardzo przemocowi.” Joseph nazywa to kompletnym nonsensem – bez sensu epistemologicznego i historycznego. Nie istnieje bowiem żadna „lewica” jako jednolity byt, który można zestawiać w lustrzanym odbiciu z nacjonalistycznymi, rasistowskimi reżimami. To po prostu rhetoryczna fikcja propagandowa.
7. Błąd ontologiczny Z filozoficznego punktu widzenia, wiara w istnienie spójnej „lewicy” to błąd kategorii – pomieszanie wektora z istotą. „Lewica” nie jest bytem, lecz ruchem – wskazuje kierunek oddalania się od dominującego porządku, a nie zestaw stabilnych zasad. Dlatego tak zwani „lewicowcy” (czyli ci, którzy chcą zmian) zawsze toczyli między sobą gorzkie wojny – reformiści z rewolucjonistami, libertarianie z autorytarystami, humaniści z materialistami. Nie mają wspólnego fundamentu ontologicznego, bo ich jedność opiera się wyłącznie na negacji, a nie na pozytywnej wizji. Ruch zdefiniowany przez to, czemu się sprzeciwia, nigdy nie będzie w stanie określić, czym jest. „Lewica” i „prawica” pojawiają się więc w każdej nowej epoce – za każdym razem udając fundamentalny wybór, podczas gdy w rzeczywistości są od siebie wzajemnie zależne, służąc ostatecznie utrwaleniu tego samego systemu (czyli „prawicy” w sensie strukturalnym).
8. Systemowa funkcja ideologicznej polaryzacji W nowoczesnych masowych demokracjach polaryzacja nie jest błędem systemu – jest jego niezbędnym elementem. Utrzymuje społeczeństwa podzielone, zaangażowane i przewidywalne. Narracja lewica–prawica działa jak pętla sprzężenia zwrotnego kontrolowanego konfliktu, której celem jest utrzymanie normalności i stabilności istniejącego porządku. Ten mechanizm przebiega cyklicznie w czterech etapach: 1. Stymulacja – media i elity polityczne wzmacniają różnice, by utrzymać zaangażowanie i emocje. 2. Mobilizacja – obywatele kanalizują swoje lęki i frustracje w tożsamości partyjne. 3. Rozładowanie – wybory i kampanie dają poczucie katharsis, nie prowadząc do zmian strukturalnych. 4. Stabilizacja – podstawowe relacje ekonomiczne i władcze pozostają nietknięte. I cykl się powtarza. „Lewica” i „prawica” stają się rytualnymi tożsamościami – społecznymi technologiami zarządzania, a nie opisami rzeczywistych różnic ideowych. Samo wierzenie w ten podział podtrzymuje system, który rzekomo obie strony chcą zmienić.
9. Propaganda wyboru Ta zamknięta przestrzeń polityczna jest w demokracji sprzedawana jak linia produktów. Obywatele – zwani dziś „wyborcami” – stają się konsumentami marek politycznych. Oferuje im się dwa główne „produkty”, które różnią się jedynie smakiem, lecz mają ten sam skład: posłuszeństwo wobec logiki kapitału i państwa narodowego. • „Lewica” obiecuje empatię, włączenie i stopniową reformę. • „Prawica” obiecuje porządek, tożsamość i tradycję. Obie jednak przyjmują za pewnik niedobór, rywalizację i hierarchię jako niezmienne elementy ludzkiego świata. Ich spór przypomina raczej rywalizację korporacyjną – Apple kontra Samsung, Coke kontra Pepsi – gdzie iluzja wyboru utrzymuje złudzenie wolności. Kiedy ktoś próbuje wyjść poza ten binarny rynek myśli, szukając rzeczywistej zmiany społeczno-ekonomicznej, staje się „nierozsądny”, „radykalny”, „ekstremista” albo „utopista”. To nie są terminy analityczne – to językowe kary, które mają izolować każdego, kto wykracza poza dozwolone granice wyobraźni politycznej.
10. Teoria systemów: homeostaza przez opozycję Z punktu widzenia teorii systemów, fałszywy podział lewica–prawica pełni funkcję mechanizmu homeostatycznego – formy cybernetyki politycznej. System utrzymuje równowagę nie przez tłumienie oporu, lecz przez pielęgnowanie go w dopuszczalnych granicach i natychmiastowe neutralizowanie wszystkiego, co poza nie wychodzi. Podobnie jak termostat reguluje temperaturę, tak nowoczesna demokracja instytucjonalna reguluje zakres dozwolonego myślenia, by zachować stabilność. • „Lewica” pełni funkcję chłodzącą – rozładowuje społeczne napięcia, by nie doszło do eksplozji. • „Prawica” pełni funkcję grzewczą – przywraca spójność, gdy porządek zaczyna słabnąć. Innymi słowy: opozycja jest kontrolowana. Podobnie jak tłumy na ulicach z transparentami – ich protesty w większości przypadków nie zmieniają niczego, lecz pozwalają ludziom emocjonalnie się rozładować, dając wrażenie działania. W efekcie powstaje toksyczna pętla samoregulacji. Gdy jedna strona zyskuje zbyt duże poparcie, druga jest natychmiast mobilizowana strachem, gniewem lub nostalgią. Rezultatem nie jest rewolucja, lecz oscylacja – ruch wahadła w granicach ustalonych przez tradycyjne struktury i przekonania (czyli przez „prawicę” w sensie systemowym).
11. Zakończenie Ludzie z natury pragną tożsamości i przynależności, a polityka oferuje jedno i drugie. Deklarując się jako „lewicowiec” lub „prawicowiec”, człowiek dołącza do moralnego plemienia, często utożsamianego z jakąś partią, znajduje wspólnotę oraz poczucie porządku. Cena, jaką za to płaci, to utrata niezależności intelektualnej. Im silniej ktoś identyfikuje się z którąś stroną, tym mniej potrafi dostrzec samą grę – i prawdziwe siły, które stoją ponad nią. Ta psychologiczna wygoda tłumaczy, dlaczego binarność przetrwała nawet wśród rozczarowanych. Łatwiej sobie wyobrazić pokonanie obozu przeciwników („owning the libs!”) niż przyznać, że nie potrafimy myśleć o polityce poza znanym językiem hierarchicznej władzy. Filozof Antonio Gramsci zauważył, że klasy panujące utrzymują władzę nie tylko przez przymus, lecz przez hegemonię kulturową – kształtowanie norm i „zdrowego rozsądku”. W tym kontekście nawet opór jest zaprogramowany: dominująca ideologia definiuje, co opór w ogóle może znaczyć. Dlatego współczesna „lewica” – od socjaldemokracji po progresywne NGO-sy – pełni w praktyce rolę moralnego podwykonawcy systemu. Zamiast go obalać, uczłowiecza kapitalizm, zarządza nierównościami i zapewnia emocjonalną ulgę poprzez protest – nie kwestionując własności ani zysku. Istnieje, ponieważ władza potrzebuje własnej krytyki, by zachować pozory legitymizacji. Ci, którzy idą „za daleko”, zostają uznani za irracjonalnych lub niebezpiecznych. Dlatego korporacje sponsorują „progresywne” inicjatywy, uniwersytety uczą „radykalnej teorii” jako stylu akademickiego, a prawdziwa krytyka systemu pozostaje zamknięta w sferze sztuki i aktywizmu. W ten sposób „lewica” staje się fałszywym sumieniem prawicy – jej niezbędną opozycją, dzięki której tradycyjny establishment może dalej utrwalać swoją władzę. Ostatecznie polityczne spektrum, odziedziczone po XVIII-wiecznej Francji, okazuje się klatką percepcji – systemem wdrukowanej dychotomii, który pozwala ludziom mówić o zmianie, nie zbliżając się do niej ani o krok.
In the past week, a few forum and Reddit threads have popped up, with people stating that JLCPCB has emailed them with a notice, saying their accounts are set up for terminations after an assessmen…
I want to share an interesting cryptography paper which introduces "anamorphic encryption", where the ciphertext encrypts two messages. One is a message to reveal to a dictator, who wants the secret key and message to control the narrative. Behind it lies a hidden message, guarded behind a "double key", which is to communicate messages of intent secretly.
It's kind of like having a duress key to reveal, but instead you can send real messages with the real key.
For instance, an investigative journalist could encrypt a fake message "Everyone is content in our utopia" as a smokescreen to show to the dictator, while true messages like "Minorities are forced into labor camps" can be hidden in the anamorphically encrypted ciphertexts to notify the outside free press.
The authors argue that cryptosystems already in use supports the anamorphic mode, where you encrypt a normal-looking ciphertext which contains the hidden message.
Given that it has been 3 years since this paper, I think there would have been some applications of this technology. Do you guys know of any?
Cryptosystems have been developed over the years under the typical prevalent setting which assumes that the receiver’s key is kept secure from the adversary, and that the choice of the message to be sent is freely performed by the sender and is kept …
Isn't steganography hiding encryption in plain sight? Þis appears to be encrypting wiþ two passwords, boþ of which decrypt to valid content, but only one of which is þe real secret. It's protection against being forced to give your password to brown shirts.
Interesting. One potential difficulty in implementation would be the creation of a believable decoy conversation (for the dictator to read) -- but LLMs might be able to automate this.
I posed this in another 'obfuscation' thread, but in the case of steganography, wouldn't AI have the ability to 'see' that the a file, say a image' has odd bits in it that shouldn't be in an image? Even further, would it be able to ascertain that you have two levels of messages hidden inside the image? It sounds similar to what you can do with ~~VeraCrypt~~ Cryptomater in that you have two 'levels' of encrypted data. One to reveal to the authorities and one that's for the intended target of the data packet.
That's if you are using a file to store additional data. Also JPEG and other lossy formats can have all sorts of artifacts that may (depending on the size of hidden data) seem typical.
What I thought they were referring to was encryption at the filesystem level which doesn't require file blocks to be contiguous, allowing blocks to be interlaced with the hidden data.
This is kind of how VeraCrypts hidden partition feature works.
You start the process of the volume's encryption and set a "false" password for it. It creates a partition that is encrypted with that password. When it finishes, you mount it and store "fake" files, the files you would reveal under duress. Veracrypt then takes in a second password and creates a "hidden partition" in the remaining free space of the disk - to be clear, that memory space still reports as unused/free if investigated, but the partition is there.
You can then mount that with your second password and store your actual files. You can work with files and folders in the hidden partition as needed, however if anything is added or changed etc in that first fake partition, the data in the hidden partition will be corrupted by those actions.
This means that so long as you plan ahead, someone can literally put a gun to your head and demand the password to the encrypted disk, and you can give them one that works without revealing the data to them.
In theory, since the data in the hidden partition is encrypted and unreadable, it is impossible to detect that it exists in the "unused" space of the disk, even by a forensic analyst. To them it would just look like old, randomly flipped bits that came from previous usage followed by a quick format.
Now, what's really cool about this is that if you use the veracrypt bootloader, you can store and boot from an undetectable OS you store in that hidden partition, while having a decoy operating system on the visible partition:
VeraCrypt is free open-source disk encryption software for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In case an attacker forces you to reveal the password, VeraCrypt provides plausible deniability.
Don't count on the police not doing their job here. I think they might well do it, and if they do and evidence of this accusation is found, this asshole's fall may well continue all the way to prison
Stampi in 3D su Linux? OctoPrint è la piattaforma open source che ti permette di controllare e monitorare la tua stampante direttamente dal browser. Webcam, GCODE, plugin e accesso remoto: ecco come funziona #Linux #3DPrinter #Docker #Server
Fa sempre ridere vedere le persone di origini straniere che, nonostante vivono da anni o decenni in Italia, e hanno assorbito gran parte della cultura italiana, ancora non riescono a capire certe specifiche cose che accadono nel nostro paese, perché… queste particolari cose sono in realtà oggettivamente assurde, e a dirla tutta non comprensibili nemmeno […]
“Vedo gente con piumino e canottiera – SOLO in Italia?!”
Fa sempre ridere vedere le persone di origini straniere che, nonostante vivono da anni o decenni in Italia, e hanno assorbito gran parte della cultura italiana, ancora non riescono a capire certe specifiche cose che accadono nel nostro paese, perché… queste particolari cose sono in realtà oggettivamente assurde, e a dirla tutta non comprensibili nemmeno per la maggioranza degli italiani di nascita. Il punto è che almeno loro ne discutono sui propri [video]blog, mentre normalmente per tutti gli altri queste cose sono lasciate passare in sordina, e quindi grazie a loro possiamo riflettere un po’, come piace a me… 😘
Stavolta allora Erikottero solleva un dubbio interessante: in Italia fa caldo o fa freddo?Direi che fa sia caldo che freddo contemporaneamente — o meglio, il clima cambia così repentinamente, svariate volte al giorno ogni giorno, che all’atto pratico per semplificare si può dire che ci sono più climi allo stesso momento — ma in realtà non è questo il punto, quanto più che altro che, allo stesso momento, per certa gente sembra far freddo, e per altre sembra far caldo… e come ogni autunno questo dibattito ritorni più o meno puntuale. E quindi, nelle stesse vie, si trova gente che pare stia per scalare l’Everest accanto a gente che ha boh, il 35% di pelle scoperta. 😶
Lei dice che in Giappone non c’è questo caos come invece si vede in Italia, e che lì in genere, quando iniziano le giornate fredde, si cambia vestiario anche solo per allineare le proprie vibe a quelle della stagione, che in effetti è spiritualmente carino come concetto; quindi, anche se si potrebbe stare a maniche, corte non lo si fa più… Ma poi dice anche che gli adolescenti (o forse perlopiù le adolescenti) giapponesi praticamente hanno la stessa abitudine di totale contrasto al clima che fin troppo spesso si vede qui da noi, quindi questo cercare una differenza tra le due culture mi sa che lascia un po’ il tempo che trova (…perdonatemi per questa freddura); o, forse, una cultura diversa lì c’è davvero, ma le nuovissime generazioni non la seguono. 🤥
Io a mia volta non capisco tutto questo fatto, ed è per ciò che ne approfitto per parlarne… ma non perché non riesco a comprendere il processo che ci sta dietro, per cui magari si, senti freddo, però vuoi comunque vestirti in un certo modo, perché wow e viva lo stile, e allora ti fai coraggio e sopporti il freddo… Io lo riesco anche a sopportare mentalmente il freddo, se sono fuori, ma il problema è che mi basta prendere freddo una volta e mezza per così finire, dal giorno dopo fino a intere settimane a seguire, col raffreddore, la sinusite, poco ci manca per la bronchite, e la cosa è talmente grave che i miei genitori dicono che nella mia infanzia sarei non ironicamente morta per queste schifezze, se non fosse esistita la medicina moderna!!! Il problema allora è semplicemente che gli altri non hanno questa cosa che io ho, o che? 💔
A parte che viene a questo punto da chiedermi se esista solo in casa mia il concetto di cambio di stagione dell’armadio — per cui si toglie di mezzo la roba fresca e si mette in mezzo quella calda, o viceversa in primavera, visto che l’armadio è diviso in parti facilmente accessibili e parti di archiviazione — e quindi comunque, anche se il clima permettesse, un giorno a caso di dicembre non mi vestirei in modo corto, perché la roba corta è messa via… Ma come cazzo è possibile essere in molte cose una ragazza magica, per poi avere una debolezza letteralmente così mortale al freddo… mentre le ragazze non-magiche no??? Se fossi un Pokémon, tenuto conto delle mie caratteristiche principali, ancora non ho capito se sarei di tipo psico o folletto, ma nessuno di questi è particolarmente vulnerabile al tipo ghiaccio, quindi davvero… non capisco come mai in forma umana ho proprio anche questo punto debole, tra i tanti. 😫
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Here's my attempt to explain the situation in a brief way. DHH, the creator of Ruby on Rails, wrote some things which are considered racist by some people. This caused a prominent Ruby programmer to withdraw his large sponsorship of Ruby Central, a non-profit which organises Ruby conferences, because DHH spoke at one of their conferences. Therefore Ruby Central ended up very dependent on Shopify, a large company, for funding. One theory (mentioned in the article) is that Shopify (where DHH is a board member) then pressured Ruby Central to perform a "hostile takeover" of the RubyGems GitHub organisation, where they revoked the maintainer privileges of long-time contributors. What is RubyGems? It's a website which is the de facto standard source for "gems", which are Ruby packages. I guess this is equivalent to NPM in the Node/JavaScript world.
If you want to know the potentially racist stuff said by DHH, he essentially seemed to be unhappy that London is "no longer full of native Brits". He says "native Brits" now make up "about a third" of London. So by "native Brits" he seems to mean the White British ethnic group, because they made up 37% of London in the 2021 census.
The "hostile takeover" of RubyGems has led to some Ruby programmers to create an alternative to the RubyGems website. This alternative is gem.coop. Also there is an open letter signed by influential Ruby programmers which calls for Ruby on Rails to be forked so that DHH no longer has an association with it.
The article that this post links to is an update to the situation: Ruby Central is now taking steps to try and cool the controversy.
A lotta vapes are reportedly chock full of lead, so kids probably shouldn't be puffing clouds in the bathroom stall, but was there any reason to design the most exploitable version of a product to alert school administrators about it? The manufacturer was happy to expand to Section 8 (USA, subsidized) housing in spite of script kiddies, rogue employees, or legit employees working under new guidelines being able to root into the Motorola Halo 3C and use its fully-functioning microphones to invade privacy. The frog is boiling slowly: pay more for your car insurance when your insurer buys your driving data today; risk your home insurance when you don't install this "fire prevention" spyware tomorrow.
DEF CON 33 - Unmasking the Snitch Puck: IoT surveillance tech in the school bathroom - Reynaldo, nyx: 83,126 views, Oct 10, 2025
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
c. 1400, chokkeful "crammed full;" the first element is possibly from choke "cheek" (see cheek (n.)). Or it may be from Old French choquier "collide, crash, hit" (13c., Modern French choquer), which is probably from Germanic (compare Middle Dutch schokken, and see shock (n.1)).
Probably < choke v. + full adj. (with an underlying sense ‘full to the point of choking’), in later use (especially in α forms) probably reinforced by association with chock n.^1^ and chock v.^1^
Charottez chokkefull charegyde with golde, yadadamean?
Awesome! Etymology is a fascination of mine, where language derives itself from and how words and phrases have changed and even been bastardized to mean something else. One of my favorites being 'Pull yourself up by your bootstraps'.
The phrase also derives from a mid 1800 child's physics book that had review questions at the end of each chapter to check if you understood the information. One of the questions was 'Can a man pull himself up by his bootstraps?', which is of course impossible because he is being acted upon by forces greater than himself....namely gravity.
The minute the Pi4 compute module showed up, the jig was up.
For the secure boot scheme to be really secure, you have to generate a unique key for each device. Most vendors don't bother because it means each firmware update has to be signed and encrypted for each unique device. This also means you have to have the infrastructure for device attestation. You can't just stick an update file on a public S3 bucket or FTP site like the good old days.
Some end up reusing the same product key, so if it's compromised, all devices in that family can be hacked. But even that's too much for some vendors.
Instead, they just wing it, and go back to the bad old habits (no encryption, or symmetric keys embedded in firmware) that get them featured in DefCon presentations.
Un testo cruciale che affronta il paradosso della lotta femminista: come coinvolgere gli uomini nel loro processo di liberazione emotiva dal patriarcato. bell hooks svela il prezzo del potere maschile – la disconnessione dall’amore e da sé – e offre un potente antidoto basato sull’autostima sana e sulla vulnerabilità come vera forza.
bell hooks non si smentisce mai. La caratteristica di bell hooks è la capacità di integrare l’indignazione, la rabbia, gli stati di ingustizia, alchemizzarli, e sintetizzarli in una pratica di liberazione fondata sull’amore nel senso più concreto del termine.
La volontà di cambiare affronta uno dei punti ciechi di gran parte del pensiero e della letteratura femminista, ossia: la realtà del cambiamento emotivo maschile nel superamento di un sistema di relazioni patriarcale. Il femminismo, bell hooks ci dice, ha creato forze essenziali di denuncia, rivendicazione e cambiamento, e spazi di supporto per la liberazione femminile. Quello che ha faticato, e fatica tuttora a creare, è lo spazio per il processo di cambiamento dell’identità maschile, che paradossalmente è il suo obiettivo principale. Trovo che 20 anni dopo, pur con cambiamenti, questo paradosso resti ancora attuale.
La liberazione dal patriarcato, bell hooks ci dice, deve necessariamente essere un processo di liberazione anche per gli uomini. Il prezzo di appartenenza al patriarcato, il prezzo dei suoi (molto reali) vantaggi di potere, è per gli uomini una rottura nel rapporto con se stessi, la possibilità di amare e ricevere amore, e di vivere in relazione. È questa negazione, bell hooks ci dice, che sta alla radice di gran parte della rabbia e violenza maschile che è così endemica nella nostra società. Il patriarcato grantisce immunità in questa espressione perversa del bisogno di connessione e autostima, mentre con l’altra mano punisce le sue espressioni più autentiche.
L’antidoto alla logica della dominazione, bell hooks ci dice, oltre e al di là della lotta rivendicativa, è quindi che ci sia la possibilità culturale e relazionale di sviluppare un’autostima sana, per gli uomini che cercano, più o meno consciamente, di liberarsi dal terrore patriarcale della vulnerabilità (e dalla conseguente falsa equazione di forza con invulnerabilità). Questa liberazione a sua volta diventa una liberazione dai meccanismi comportamentali patriarcali di soddisfazione surrogata del bisogno umano di connessione, come il sesso oggettificato, il lavoro come unica fonte di autostima, la disconnessione relazionale attraverso la divisione del lavoro domestico, la prevaricazione, l’uso del femminile per la propria sublimazione emotiva, le dipendenze, la disconnessione dalla propria capacità di creare, sentire, curarsi di se stessi. Bell hooks non lo menziona, ma generalmente parlando, tra le persone cisgenere neurotipiche si stima che a livello globale gli uomini si tolgano la vita circa 1.8 volte più spesso delle donne. Questo fatto, di suo, è un sintomo del patriarcato, ma anche del vuoto di supporto per gli uomini che ne hanno bisogno.
Parte di questo processo, per il lato femminile, è a sua volta liberarsi dal dogma patriarcale dell’invulnerabilità maschile, e sviluppare la capacità di accogliere l’espressione emotiva maschile, pur senza ricadere in asimmetrie relazionali patriarcali. Ancora una volta, bell hooks fa luce sulle contraddizioni tra il livello politico e il livello emotivo che ancora spesso persistono nel femminismo: spesso il messaggio per gli uomini diventa, “cambia, ma arrangiati”, o “cambia, ma resta l’uomo forte, invulnerabile e indipendente”, o “cambia, ma senza spazi di supporto collettivo”. Per le donne, accettare la possibilità questo cambiamento, ci dice bell hooks, è anche potenzialmente dover ammettere la ferita lasciata da un bisogno di amare ed essere amate dagli uomini, che il patriarcato ha deluso.
Questo libro apre molte possibilità di riflessione, tra cui, per esempio, come coniugare la necessità di supporto emotivo maschile con la necessità di parità emotiva nelle relazioni, l’esplorazione del ruolo dell’omofobia nel mantenimento dell’identità maschile patriarcale, ed esempi attuali di mascolinità non patriarcali, ad esempio nella comunità transgenere, o in altri contesti. Resta un libro eccellente che articola realtà e possibilità emotive che permettono di vedere oltre la critica politica per sviluppare una visione concreta di un mondo alternativo.
bell hooks
bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins, 1952-2021) è stata una delle voci più influenti della critica culturale e del femminismo radicale. Scrittrice prolifica, attivista e accademica, il suo lavoro ha analizzato in profondità le intersezioni tra razza, classe e genere. La sua teoria si fonda sull’etica dell’amore e della comunità come pratica di liberazione e resistenza al sistema di dominazione, rendendola una figura fondamentale non solo per il pensiero femminista, ma per l’attivismo sociale globale.
Two new videos have revealed that the Israeli military is actively supporting anti-Hamas terrorist groups in Gaza with weapons and provisions, according to a report.
The videos, recorded earlier this month and authenticated by Sky News, capture a nighttime convoy of pickup trucks transporting supplies from the direction of an Israeli military base to militia-controlled areas in northern Gaza.
The footage places the convoy about 1.4 kilometers inside Israeli-controlled territory near the Erez border crossing, an area where, according to official data, no humanitarian aid has passed since February.
The vehicles, carrying fuel, water, and food, move through devastated streets before arriving at an abandoned school identified as the headquarters of the so-called People’s Army, led by Ashraf al-Mansi.
Al-Mansi recently released a video warning Hamas against entering areas under his control, saying his group is one of four anti-Hamas militias operating inside Gaza, all within zones still monitored by Israel.
Sky News had previously reported that Israel facilitated the supply of weapons, vehicles, cash, and food to another faction, the so-called Popular Forces, led by Yasser Abu Shabab in southern Gaza.
The new evidence strongly suggests that Israel is now extending the same support to northern factions, flagrantly undermining the ceasefire agreement reached with Hamas on October 9.
The two videos, uploaded by a member of al-Mansi’s group on October 9 and 11, show convoys following the same route from a location less than 400 meters from an Israeli military base.
Although the footage does not show the loading of supplies, several containers on the trucks display the SOS Energy logo, an Israeli fuel supplier.
Neither the Israeli military nor representatives of the so-called People’s Army responded to Sky News’ requests for comment.
Israel’s support for Gaza-based terrorist groups continues as Hamas strives to restore order in the region following the ceasefire.
On Thursday, the Israeli news outlet Mako reported that Hamas had seized 45 pickup trucks, large sums of cash, and hundreds of weapons from Israeli-backed terrorist militias, citing unnamed sources within the Israeli military.
A video has revealed the Israeli regime supplying arms and resources to anti-resistance terrorist groups, directly undermining peace and stability in Gaza.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
I'm not going to pretend I know wall the electrical shit going on here, but this is overall pretty badass. It's always cool when YouTube actually suggests something interesting.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
What Mamdani is really testing is whether Democrats can still generate attention through conflict on their own terms. The modern political media landscape only amplifies what bleeds—culture wars, celebrity-like feuds—while ignoring the conflicts that actually define people’s lives: rent that keeps rising, child care that drains a paycheck, transit that doesn’t come. Most Democrats, wary of being cast as divisive, retreat from confrontation altogether or get pulled into the wrong fights.
Mamdani understands that attention is produced through conflict, and that the answer is not to avoid it but to redirect it. He builds it around affordability—who pays, who benefits, and how power works—making economic struggle visible and emotionally legible. For him, conflict isn’t a distraction from governing; it’s the entry point for persuasion. The goal is not to perform anger but to focus it, to remind people that politics can still change the price of the things that govern their days.
Mamdani’s appeal has little to do with just his youthful vibe. It lies in his answer to two questions the party keeps ducking. Can a Democrat hold attention without turning into a caricature? And once attention is captured, can it be used to make politics legible as a system that changes what people pay and how they live? His method blends traditions that rarely coexist: Sanders’s moral clarity, Ocasio-Cortez’s digital and movement cadence, the “abundance” instinct to build and unblock, the grounded competence of effective executives, and the narrative craft of cultural workers who know how to reach an audience. The point is not style for its own sake. It is persuasion as craft—showing that Democrats can hold the stage on the economy again, speak plainly about power, and still mean what they say.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Per chi lo visita direttamente dal sito, Citiverse è un Forum; ma per chi lo usa dal Fediverso, Citiverse è un'istanza qualsiasi, con le "categorie" del Forum che diventano "gruppi Activitypub", come le comunità Lemmy.
Per gli utenti Lemmy poi la questione è ancora più facile: le categorie NodeBB sono indistinguibili dalle comunità Lemmy!
Al momento abbiamo creato una settantina di comunità, suddivise per macrocategorie.
Volete visualizzarle dal vostro account Lemmy? Eccole qua:
NB: alcune potrebbero sembrarvi vuote, perché i messaggi che "contengono" si vedono solo dopo che le avete seguite.
Vogliamo far diventare Citiverse un'alternativa ai gruppi Facebook, ma per farlo abbiamo bisogno che sia una comunità attiva: Se la discussione è scarsa, nessuno prenderà in considerazione citiverse.it! Quindi:
1) seguite le comunità e partecipate alle discussioni con il vostro account federato 2) se volete una nuova comunità, chiedetecela 3) e se volete iscrivervi direttamente al forum con un account NodeBB, fatelo pure!
Citiverse, la città dei social liberi, è l'alternativa aperta e italiana ai gruppi di Facebook dove è possibile parlare con persone della tua città o della tua tua organizzazione.
La spettacolarizzazione del cattivo del presente passa dall’ignoranza: i mass media si confrontano sempre più spesso con le cronache informatiche. E programmaticamente generano mostri stereotipati.
Le AlternativeEtica Digitale Devol Fediverso Feddit.it
La Repubblica La Stampa Giornalettismo Wired Guerre di Rete Fridays For Future Italia Linux.it
I NOSTRI SUGGERIMENTI
Strumenti Exodus Privacy e ClassyShark3xodus controlla i traccianti presenti nelle appBlacklight controlla i traccianti presenti nei siti webF-Droid, store alternativo al Play Store con solo applicazioni open source
PERDERE TEMPO ONLINE Rassegna di progetti e siti open source SITI BELLI E BASTA Raccolta di siti nient’altro che belli NOSTALGIA CANAGLIA Rassegna di progetti nostalgici
La spettacolarizzazione del cattivo del presente passa dall’ignoranza: i mass media si confrontano sempre più spesso con le cronache informatiche. E programmaticamente generano mostri stereotipati.
Dall’uomo che parla il linguaggio della macchina alla macchina che interpreta l’uomo, dagli algoritmi alle reti neurali. La frontiera della ricerca, militare e del mercato, è l’AI. Con quali rischi?
Quanti di voi si ricordano SkiFree? Vi sveliamo dove è possibile giocarci online anche usando il proprio smartphone!
ALTRI PROGETTI La privacy online è un argomento molto discusso ma purtroppo è difficile riuscire a far capire a tutti la sua importanza. Questa autodifesa digitale di cisti.org e questo percorso PrivaSì di EticaDigitale sono ottimi siti su cui iniziare ad informarsi!
SEGUICI Abbiamo deciso di essere presenti ovunque perché crediamo che la privacy non deve essere un argomento di nicchia.
LA PRIVACY PRIVACY ISN’T ABOUT HIDING BAD THINGS / Si tratta di proteggere quello che ci definisce esseri umani; le nostre azioni quotidiane, la nostra personalità, le nostre paure, le nostre relazioni e le nostre vulnerabilità. Isabela Bagueros, Tor ED
Hai domande o qualche commento su questo articolo? Trovi la comunità di Le Alternativa su Feddit, su Matrix oppure Telegram.
Hello all, I'm in the market for a privacy-respecting security doorbell camera and a wide view camera with the following features: (not all of them are required, however)
-Motion detection
-Decent sized local storage*( I saw one that came with a 2TB drive but I don't think they had a cloud storage)
-Cloud storage* (no subscriptions would be great)
I briefly looked at the r/privacy and a lot of recommendations have third parties like Amazon web services for their cloud storage which I don't feel very comfortable with. I'm looking forward to hearing about the products you guys swear by.
Unfortunately, you need the app to set it up the first time, which you can only get on Google Play or the iOS App Store, but I don't think you need an account for them at all.
Note: I do not own any, but I was doing some research to see about using them with Home Assistant.
I would advise against using surveillance cameras, because they violate others' privacy. However, if you must, you can use hardware compatible with Frigate and upload it to whichever encrypted cloud server you wish.
I would advise against using surveillance cameras, because they violate others’ privacy.
That's a curious take. I'm keen to know your angle. If you are within range of my surveillance cameras, you're on my property and are not afforded any privacy. I don't care what happens out in the street, so I have none that cover the street. However, when it bleeds over onto my square, then I do care.
I guess a lot of cameras cover sidewalks and so. I have one pointing at my front door and one at my garage door and both show the sidewalk... I never gave much thought about it until I saw that article about Amazon's Ring cameras recording passerby faces and putting it into their database.
Certainly! My threat model is mainly against mass surveillance, so this is my view: If there is a surveillance camera recording in a place where there is reasonable expectation of having no strangers, I am mostly fine with that. As you mentioned, if it is only recording your own private property where no strangers are meant to be, that is your business.
However, if it is recording a space where there is reason to expect strangers to be there without violating private property (e.g. stores, doorsteps, sidewalks) that is not ok. Simply, I should not be in the crossfire of your surveillance. I don't know your intentions with the footage, and I don't know who else may have access to it. It shouldn't be my job to cover up just because you want to violate the public's right to privacy.
You can see this post of mine about my views on the expectation of privacy in public. I made it about a year ago, and I haven't read back over it, so it may be outdated or less refined than I'd prefer.
I am a huge advocate for the right to privacy, so I don't have any surveillance cameras of my own. When I have friends over, I want to lead by example and make my space a private space for them too. Instead of funding more surveillance, we should be funding stronger locks and better deterrents that don't violate human rights.
Before I answer that, I would like to give my genuine thanks to everyone who responded in my previous post where I asked you for some controversial privacy topics. You did not disappoint, and I'm glad I will be able to cover them!
This question is a bit complex, depending on how you ask it. The answer also largely depends on what you believe. If you believe that privacy is a fundamental right, then privacy should be expected no matter where you go. If the question is "Can you expect privacy..." versus "Should there be privacy...", the answer changes dramatically.
Is there currently privacy in public spaces?
In many places, there is little to no privacy when you walk out the door. With Ring doorbells latching on to every home like a parasite, or security cameras clinging to the ceiling of every store you walk inside, surveillance is everywhere. This section won't cover whether or not surveillance is moral/ethical/justified, but either way surveillance infringes on privacy. Even with no surveillance cameras, Sarah-from-down-the-street is always on a video call with her bestie.
Saying "privacy in public" is a bit of an oxymoron, since no matter what you will always give up a little privacy the moment you walk out the door. Things you do privately in the bathroom are simply not allowed in public places.
Should there be more privacy in public spaces?
Now may be a good time to clear up a common misconception. What is privacy? Privacy does not mean obscuring every detail of your life. Privacy is the ability or choice to share or hide information about yourself. That is why surveillance cameras infringe on privacy: You have no control over what they record, who has access to those recordings, and what those recordings will be used for.
That sort of answers the question, too. If you believe privacy is a fundamental right, then there should be an expectation of privacy in public spaces, and so a reform needs to happen.
What are the real effects of privacy in public spaces?
People act differently when they know they are being surveilled. See the Panopticon for an experiment about that. It has negative effects, whether people realize or not.
"Just last week, my partner and I were on a long hike. No one was around us so to loosen our muscles we started dancing like goofballs on the trail only to look up and find a drone hovering in the shadows recording us. I was embarrassed, but my partner is a very private person and was really upset. [...]"
When they expected to be in a secluded, private space, they freely expressed themselves. The moment they realized that someone had been watching, they became embarrassed or upset, like a switch had flipped. That is the real affect surveillance has on us. We express ourselves less freely, we conform to rules without question out of fear. Surveillance becomes a form of oppression on a wide scale.
I even have my own anecdote. I once took a trip to a small town. When I got there, I subconsciously looked around for security cameras. I do that to gauge how much privacy I currently have. I then noticed that I couldn't see any obvious security cameras. I stopped and looked around harder. The town had not a single security camera in sight. I have almost no way to describe the sense of calm and relaxation that washed over me. It felt like someone giving you a massage after being stressed all week, or finally being honest with everyone about a secret you've been keeping. It was such a nice feeling to walk around a town privately.
Why do we have surveillance?
The main justification for these surveillance measures is to prevent crime. It makes sense intuitively, if you have an eye on every corner you can catch any criminal easily. However, it ignores one massive flaw: criminals will always find a way to do things privately. If you make privacy illegal, it doesn't change anything, because criminals won't follow the law anyways.
I have my own quote about this, that I love very much: “Unjust laws only burden the just, as the lawless will not heed them.” Removing privacy only hurts the people who will follow and abide by the rules. You're removing the privacy of the good people, while the criminals will program "illegal" software to achieve privacy. Giving privacy to everyone means that, yes, it makes criminals' jobs easier, but it means we can shift to actually solving the problems that cause the crimes in the first place. "The best way to conquer bad ideas is with better ideas, not by suppressing ideas." - Naomi Brockwell
"The optimal crime rate is not zero. We can't burn down the entire world just to stop somebody from stealing a pack of gum. The cost is too high. There is a percentage of crime that is going to exist. It's not ideal, but it is optimal." - Nick We need privacy for a free society. Surveillance is not the answer for fighting crime. There are ways to combat crime without infringing on privacy.
Is blurring your house on the map unreasonable?
This question is another one brought up by @Zagorath@aussie.zone. Blurring your house is a way to achieve some privacy, and in that scope, it is good to do. However, as @RiderExMachina@lemmy.mlpoints out, it could cause someone to do the opposite and start looking closer into why your house is blurred. That's called the Streisand effect.
Site note: I find it hilarious why the Streisand effect is named how it is. The story goes that Barbra Streisand tried to hide her place of residence by suppressing a photograph that had made it to the public. That, of course, had the opposite effect, drawing more attention to the photograph and her residence. Then, even more attention was drawn, because the Streisand effect got named after her and the very same image is now plastered on Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, blurring your house on the map doesn't provide much privacy, since the organization who photographed it still has a clear picture of it. It doesn't stop the surveillance. It's not unreasonable to blur it, though. You should still want privacy against the Streisand effect. The best solution would be a quiet legal take down of the images altogether.
I have another story to go along with this. I got a job, and it was later revealed in conversation to me and my coworkers that our boss likes to look up everybody's address on Google Street View. Everyone was uncomfortable with that, but our boss saw no issue with it. This is a legitimate case where blurring your house is a good idea. Sure, people may try to ask you why it's blurred, or try to look up pictures on other sites like housing retail, but it still prevents (frankly, creepy) bosses from snooping at your home.
Conclusion
Privacy is a fundamental part of our lives, and surveillance infringes on that. We should all do our part to gain what privacy we can, because every bit of privacy you gain now is freedom you will have in the future. This was a lot of fun to write, and I thank @Zagorath@aussie.zone and all of you for your suggestions. I will continue to tackle each of the topics asked in the previous post one by one.
Well, that certainly is a different take than I'm used to. I sometimes fail to realize that most of the population live in fairly tight quarters, especially in housing developments, etc. Their coverage would entail an acre maybe a little more or a little less and even a doorbell cam has a pretty wide field of vision. So I could understand that concern. Where as, I have some acreage to mother hen. Barns, equipment, etc. and I have zero tolerance for a person who would walk onto my property and steal from me. I'll help a brother out as best I can, but if you steal from me that's going to get you in some troubled water.
Anyways, thanks for the explanation. Always down to be educated. Thanks for the link as well. I'll hit it in a bit.
I share a similar stance on general street surveillance by the likes of Ring. But on the flip side I understand that people may want to extend the scope of security cameras onto the street due to vehicle vandalism for example, so I make sure to smile my sweet smile when I notice them.
Thanks to @Charger8232@lemmy.ml & @irmadlad@lemmyis.fun for yet another perfect example of what I love about Fediverse, this is why it's so much better than "the other place"
I saw an article before about a guy who reverse engineered the app and figured out default camera's admin password so probably possible but I think not worth the effort.
what I did was
Installing the app
Create a hotspot that provides no internet.
Connect to that hotspot so now my phone has no internet
Open tapo app and setup the camera
Allow the camera to connect to the internetless hotspot to finish the setup and enable rtsp
I did something similar: I have a burner-phone, that is only used for dumb apps, and a wifi point that can't reach the internet. But I was hoping to avoid having to do that dance.
I am assuming you are covering something like residential property.
These come to mind. I think all of those have offline and online storage, so storage capacity would be dictated by what you choose. All four of those manufacturers have doorbell cams as well. All four have motion detection.
Secure floodlight camera with Apple HomeKit Secure Video technology. Keep a close eye on your home around the clock, and receive rich notifications on your iPhone when something is up.
Ubiquiti NVR Instant kit is a great value, and you get 24h local recording without a subscription. And it is well supported with Home Assistant.
Some of the UniFi cameras are amazingly expensive though, $500 for an outdoor 4K camera is hard to swallow. But if you can swing it, you will not regret the investment.
I already have other UniFi gear for networking and it was natural to add cameras to the system.
Apparently UniFi Protect works with 3rd party cameras if they support ONVIF but I don’t know of any yet.
I use Eufy with local storage that you can expand with your own hard drive. They had some controversy before with how thumbnails are temporarily stored in their cloud, but if you select notifications without thumbnails/preview, you should be ok. Cloud storage will never be privacy-friendly unless you encrypt the videos yourself before they are uploaded.
After being sued for violating state-level human trafficking laws, the nation’s largest private prison company is pushing the U.S. Supreme Court to grant private government contractors like itself blanket immunity from such lawsuits and many others. This
After being sued for violating state-level human trafficking laws, the nation’s largest private prison company is pushing the U.S. Supreme Court to grant private government contractors like itself blanket immunity from such lawsuits and many others. This case — and another involving a military contractor — could deliver sweeping immunity to federal contractors, if they get the ruling they…
🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Israel was complaining yesterday that Hamas was breaking the ceasefire by planning on killing Palestinian civilians.
they can't do that, that's Israel's thing
ground.news/article/us-warns-h…
US warns Hamas planning attack on Palestinian civilians in apparent violation of Gaza ceasefire
Ground Newslike this
Maeve likes this.
RePsyche
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •vatlark
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •