Thoughts on Schluss, or why your anti-surveillance idea won't work.

Schluss is apparently a proposed technical solution to loss of privacy on the Internet. Lacking an equivalent to the "why your anti-spam idea won't work" checklist, I Wrote a Thing at HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=34141950

Too long to include the footnotes in the same post, hence:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34141955

Schluss's proposal: "What does it mean for users to be in full control over their data" https://schluss.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/What-does-it-mean-users-in-full-control-over-their-data-CONCEPT.pdf (PDF)

#privacy #SchlussOrg #WhyItWontWork #SurveillanceCapitalism #SurveillanceState #faang #DataAutonomy #InformationAutonomy

@openrisk@mastodon.green Thanks, that's one of the references I'd found earlier.

Another possible interpretation I'd had was at a personal level of having sovereignty over one's own data.

I've discussed that under a few terms, #AutonomyOfInformation #InformationAutonomy #CommunicationsAutonomy and #AutonomousCommunication (I keep using different terms and have trouble settling on one).

It mixes a set of factors, mostly in opposition to the monopoly elements of surveillance, censorship, propaganda, and manipulation. Those include:

• Privacy
• Freedom of, and from, association.
• Right to free speech.
• Right to accurate information
• Freedom from messaging. Effectively a "right to block".

Or as I'd put it in a comment to the link here:

• The right to speak, create, record, edit, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, or delete. Corresponds largely to current senses of “freedom of speech”.
• The right to withold or not divulge information, most commonly enccountered now as a “right to remain silent” in legal proceedings, and of confidentiality in records, but here a general right to privacy.
• The right to disclose only specific information in specific contexts or to specific parties: a right to confidentiality.
• The right to choose with whom, where, when, and how to interact — a right to free association.
• The right to remain unobserved and undisturbed; rights to privacy and solitude — freedom from association.
• The right to receive, or deny receipt of documents and, signals… A freedom to or from media or intrusion.
• The right to request, or transform, transmissions or documents in forms or formats most preferred to the recipent. Right of translation.
• The right to truth, accuracy, integrity, and completeness in documents and signals.
• The right to technical means of assuring privacy, confidentiality, and/or integrity. Rights to cryptographic encryption and/or authentication.
• The right to technical means of repudiation. Invalidation of authentication after a sufficient time period.

https://diaspora.glasswings.com/posts/622677903778013902fd002590d8e506

@woozle Kinda, though I'm headed on a somewhat different tack.

The left-hand side (LHS) terms on my toot are meant to describe a media monopolist or attacker's motives and actions. The RHS terms are the equivalent countering considerations of an individual.

In the case of fraud, a monopolist, propagandist, fraudster (term distinguishing actor from the action of "fraud"), etc., *utilises a communications channel to paint an inaccurate story of some thing (service, person, product, event, etc.).

As a general information consumer in this case, what you want is some right to integrity of claims. Trust, trustworthiness, validity, honesty, truthfulness, integrity, assurence, etc.

The story gets a bit more complicated when we consider where and when lies or mistruths might be valid or acceptable. Does someone have to be truthful in all dealings? No white lies? No little fibs Can police or prosecutors not lie to defendants or suspects? Can diplomats and politicians not lie in negotiations or campaigns?

In particular, the rights to lie or to receive truthful information intersect with rights to control narrative, to not be compelled to speak, and to not unilaterally cede advantage or power to another.

The lists aren't necessarily a good/bad. They're much more a "countering rights / actions" listing.

This is based on #AutonomyInCommunication / #CommunicationAutonomy #InformationAutonomy

See: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/622677903778013902fd002590d8e506

I'm looking for a set of corresponding antonyms. Some I have, some I don't.

"???" indicates uncertain or additional terms may be (better) suited.

Additions / modifications / criticisms sought.

• surveillance :: privacy
• censorship :: free speech ???
• manipulation :: autonomy ???
• distraction :: focus
• overload :: boundaries | limits | disconnect | unplugging ???
• fraud :: truth | trustworthiness ???
• search :: ???
• ??? :: encryption
• gatekeeper :: ???
• amplification :: filtering ???
• narrative control :: narrative choice
• agenda control :: agenda choice

Boosts appreciated.

#Privacy #Surveillance #Information #Monopoly #InformationAutonomy #AutonomyOfInformation