• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    IMHO, as someone that works in security / privacy, I tend not to view it as a binary thing. It depends on where you live, what you’re protesting, what you look like, who you are, etc.

    Are you in Russia or China and are protesting the government? Yeah, I might leave that thing at home. Are you a white lady in San Francisco marching with a pink knit cat hat during brunch hours, then you’re probably well on the other side of the risk spectrum. You might actually be introducing more risk by having less immediate access to communication or a camera.

    IMHO, it’s nuanced.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The problem is that the people doing the surveillance are hardly going around honestly telling people what’s their surveillance profile.

      For example in the UK that “pink knit cat hat white lady” would very likely be under surveillance if she was a member of the Green Party and participated in demonstrations. In fact, recently a number of cases came out where in the 80s and 90s the police had infiltrated Ecologist groups and even left some of the women in those groups pregnant with the children of men they late found out were undercover agents.

      Further, the lower the barrier to entry to surveillance the lower the “threat profile” needed to end up under surveillance: if the authorities have already have well established and commonly used processes backed by ultra-broad surveillance court (or whatever those courts are called in your country) orders to just get from the mobile network providers all the phone numbers that connect to specific cell towers during a specific time period (such as the ones nearer a demonstration during that demonstratiom), pink knit cat lady is going to end up in the list just as easilly as baclava-wearing hard-core anarchist looking to break stuff.

      They might not hack the pink knit cat hat lady’s mobile to install eavesdropping software, but she’s still in the list for every demonstration she attended carrying her phone and for the authorities finding out those who were at multiple demonstration and cross-searching with other databases to resolve those numbers to actual identities is pretty easy unless those people jumped through hops to keep those things disconnected (which, funny enough, smart anarchists are more likely to have done than your average pink knit cat hat lady)

      • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I agree with your point, but balaclava is the hat, baclava is the delicious Greek pastry.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        We take on risk every time we decide to wake up and start the day.

        I live in a place where I’m considerably more likely to get hit by a car while walking than thrown in jail as a political prisoner. That doesn’t mean I’m never going to go for a walk. I’m going to live life.

        Leaving my phone at home seems pretty silly when the risk is very low in my nation and I do riskier things while cooking dinner.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Oh, in day to day usage I agree with you: we’re all one little uninteresting datapoint in a whole lot of datapoints and there are plenty of other ways in which we are tracked.

          However if you’re part of a Political Party or Movement and/or attend demonstrations, it’s probably wiser to leave the phone at home, if only because that makes you stand out as a much more interesting datapoint than average.