Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.wired.com/story/gps-ankle-tags-uk-privacy-illegal/

"The way the UK government has been tagging migrants with GPS trackers is illegal, the country’s #privacy regulator ruled on Friday, in a rebuke to officials who have been experimenting with migrant-surveillance tech in both the UK and the US."

"“Having access to a person’s 24/7 movements is highly intrusive, as it is likely to reveal a lot of information about them, including the potential to infer sensitive information such as their religion, sexuality, or health status,” said John Edwards, the UK information commissioner, in a statement. “Lack of clarity on how this information will be used can also inadvertently inhibit people’s movements and freedom to take part in day-to-day activities.”"

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/ghanas-president-must-refuse-sign-anti-lgbtq-bill

"After three years of political discussions, MPs in Ghana's Parliament voted to pass the country’s draconian Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill on February 28th. The bill now heads to Ghana’s President Nana Akufo-Addo to be signed into law.

President Nana Akufo-Addo must protect the human rights of all people in Ghana and refuse to provide assent to the bill."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/yes-we-flew-plane-over-san-francisco-fight-proposition-eheres-why

"Prop E guts these protective measures designed to bring communities into the conversation about public safety. If Prop E passes on March 5, then the SFPD can unilaterally use any technology they want for a full year without the Board’s approval, without publishing an official policy about how they’d use the technology, and without allowing community members to voice their concerns."

#privacy

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/28/justin-trudeau-rightly-points-out-that-internet-porn-licenses-are-a-dumb-fucking-idea-but-he-still-supports-internet-censorship-bill/ As @mmasnick points out here, it's certainly a concerning one.

I haven't looked too deeply into it, but what I've seen so far doesn't bode well for free expression (or privacy). Even more chilling seeing other's opinions of it.

It also feels disproportionate compared to what it is they're likely looking to deal with.

https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-urges-substantial-amendments-to-the-online-harms-act/
"This is a massive bill that we need to examine in greater detail. Our preliminary read raises several serious concerns. While the CCLA endorses the declared purposes of upholding public safety, protecting children, and supporting marginalized communities, our initial assessment reveals that the bill includes overbroad violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights, and liberty."

Canadian Civil Liberties Association comments on why the new bill is bad. #canada

Watching Russia reminds me a lot of watching Game of Thrones, and not in a good way.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/eff-dc-circuit-us-governments-forced-disclosure-visa-applicants-social-media

"EFF recently filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit urging the court to reverse a lower court decision upholding a State Department rule that forces visa applicants to the United States to disclose their social media identifiers as part of the application process. If upheld, the district court ruling has severe implications for free speech and privacy not just for visa applicants, but also the people in their social media networks—millions, if not billions of people, given that the “Disclosure Requirement” applies to 14.7 million visa applicants annually."

#FirstAmendment #privacy

While they correctly note that correlation does not imply causation (for instance, it is likely there is a third factor at play, perhaps a psychological one), there actually is a study which contradicts "criminals using more porn": https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01540933

https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/porn-does-not-incite-violence/ Interesting article with the Woodhull Freedom Foundation.

As a nit though, I have to point out, that if something involves a "taboo", then there's a good chance that that also got coded as "violence" by this methodology (even though that is not typically what comes to mind when someone says something is "violent"). That is what critics often point out. This is mainly for #3.

Well, these "I hate porn" people are extremely disingenuous, they're often (perhaps, paranoidly) pulling things out of their asses, or misrepresenting science... a lot... (more uncommonly) to try to come to a censorious position.

Also, censorship is about the most harmful thing that could be done, and it's not useful, and that is what they're about. They're not even remotely reasonable.

I don't really want to talk about specific people there, unless I have to. They're not worth it.

"DeFascist" I didn't know about that nickname.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/27/britain-reputation-rule-of-law-labour-three-pledges Cannabis is not the only unjust law I would like to see struck from British law, but yes, legalizing that would be good.

https://reclaimthenet.org/avast-anti-virus-company-is-fined-for-tracking-and-selling-user-data

"Avast, a well-known cybersecurity firm, has been confronted with a $16.5 million penalty from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)."

"Contrary to the firm’s promise of guarding consumer data against tracking on the web, the FTC claimed that they’ve been acting against their word. They’ve allegedly been gathering and marketing user browsing data unbeknownst to the users, and additionally misleading them."

#privacy