Bonum Certa Men Certa

Technology: rights or responsibilities? - Part III

posted by Rianne Schestowitz on Oct 09, 2024

By Dr. Andy Farnell

Back to Part I

Back to Part II

Rights and security

Whereas cybersecurity has traditionally been limited to businesses and organisations, what I call "civic cybersecurity" is concerned with obtaining and keeping a safe and fair digital world for everyone. So let's venture the idea that "digital rights" is something that makes sense when we broaden the purview of cybersecurity to include ordinary and everyday living.

In the media, civic cybersecurity tends to focus on the dramatic, on stopping planes being hacked to fall from the sky and power grids from melting down. The latest offering in the UK is the very entertaining Nightsleeper, a kind of British "Mr. Robot".

Though I teach in an area where we consider nasty and disturbing stuff from drone swarms terrorising stadiums to autonomous vehicles carrying bombs, these sorts of worst-case fantasies rarely happen for pragmatic psychological reasons rather than questions of possibility. Elaborate kinetic violence requires extraordinary levels of organisation, long term commitment and fanatical malice. Most of the civilian horror we see is more spontaneous and makes use of commonplace weapons like knives and vehicles. Stuxnet style terror stunts, like hackjacking the London Eye and centrifuging tourists into low Earth orbit requires Tom and Jerry levels of improbability.

For defenders, constantly worrying about marginal "what-ifs?" is sapping and distracts from the everyday attacks that are already commonplace. Ironically some of these less dramatic attack surfaces are less obvious to those with over-active imaginations.

imaginations

Most of what we deal with in civil cybersecurity is teenagers getting cyberbullied into a suicidal state, or old people who've been robbed of their life savings. These crimes are almost always outside the practical capacity of the police and so are seldom dealt with. Their root lies in awful software and systems designed to put profit, spying and domination ahead of safety and human values. It's not just that code is insecure, but that the design, protocols and features of the applications are hostile to users.

life savings

For a long time a "techlash" has been brewing against the handful of massive companies and unelected power centres that presume to tell us how to live our lives, causing harm to individuals and society in their own self-interest. Head of US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Jen Easterly recently called-out BigTech for their criminally defective products and entitled "techno exceptionalism". The reality is that the accumulated negative impact of BigTech in its effects on health, wealth and happiness outweighs anything terrorists ever achieved on US or British soil - except indirectly by creating the money-pit of state surveillance and media circus of fear.

Let's take an seemingly innocuous example of being unable to obtain healthcare because your hospital only accepts Gmail addresses. This is a catastrophic failure of social security that has roots in bad technology and also insane policy. It is evil in it's sheer mundanity.

healthcare

email addresses

Or consider the betrayal of selling patient medical records to research companies (despite repeated opting-out) such that people no longer have confidence in their GP and avoid visits. These actions certainly cause deaths. Yet on the surface they seem inconsequential.

Or attacking the use of cash money and local economies so that small businesses and the rural poor are disadvantaged. This constant low-level technological violence is against the invisible fabric of society, not our visible symbols. It is the subversive craft that Yuri Bezmenov outlined following his defection in the 1970s. The cruel twist is to get our own people doing the dirty work so that Moscow and Beijing don't need to lift a finger. The truly poetic masterstroke is to have us dismantle our own society in the belief we are "building a better, more efficient world". I think our international enemies cheer every time our governments give a little more power to Microsoft, Amazon or Google.

These acts of social sabotage use technology which makes ordinary malice easy and convenient. Ordinary moral weakness, ignorance, greed and neglect, met by "convenient solutions", enable a witless many to have more impact than any dramatic spectacles perpetrated by a militant few. Planes flying into buildings are news, but hundreds of thousands of road deaths due to texting-and-driving is nothing to see or care about. What we confuse are "terror" and "sabotage". Whereas the terrorist likes to put on a show, the saboteur is happy if his corrosive work goes unnoticed.

Whatever uneducated and dishonest rationales might be offered, behind them is a devious policy decision in obvious contempt of basic rights. Surely each citizen has a right to be secure from capricious impositions? But who will champion and enforce such rights?

There is a clear conflict of interests around the idea that Microsoft, Amazon. Oracle or Meta can offer security to people whose very exploitation is their business model. BigTech cannot offer cybersecurity because BigTech is the cybersecurity problem. Who will protect people against the companies that want to take over their lives? Will we see organisations like CISA and the UK NCSC position themselves openly against BigTech? Will we ever see a (much needed) government warning against using Microsoft products?

But expensive open conflict is not a long-term solution. These problems need sorting out in law. So as a basis it seems much clearer if we re-frame such violations as a failure of responsibility. In the above case of a health provider it is a failure to ensure equality and universal healthcare. Unless of course their claim is that everybody is equally abused by technology and anyone who objects is free to choose dignity rather than life.

long-term solution

Shaming the NHS - who we cheered in weekly rituals banging pots and pans through the pandemic - for its betrayal of patient confidentiality, dignity and ancient Hippocratic Oaths suddenly doesn't feel so wrong or ungrateful. They should not be magically above the data protection laws that everybody else must observe. Now, instead of arguing over rights we should be able invoke the law. Can't deal with my email address? …get fined, go to jail and be forced to fix your system! Surely that's fairer than leaving the outliers to die?

So, framing problems around "responsibility" weighs heavier than any talk about "rights". Consider our responsibility to use cash money for the sake of societal bonds, to switch-off our phones when driving to protect pedestrians and other drivers, have the patience and social skills to speak to a human rather than a machine, take the stairs instead of the lift, use a stronger password, use paper and pencil instead of an "app"… these are all little things that add up to a better technological society with more long term security and resilience.

resilience

But not everybody can…

An objection sometimes levelled against a philosophy of humane responsibility is that it is "ableist". We hear; What about people who have discalcula and can't use money? What about those without legs to climb the stairs? Or people who have social anxiety and prefer robots to other people? What about folks who cannot remember a six digit number and were never taught to write with a pen?

Against this objection is the rather cruel and cavalier retort that society should not design itself around the needs of the lowest common factor. I won't make that, but what I personally hear from less-abled people is surprising agreement, that they experience being used as proxy justification insulting. Indeed I've heard anger when impositions ostensibly about accessibility are made in their name. This was identified many decades ago by disabilities groups as the "Does he take sugar?" phenomenon, and is now subject to a backlash against patronising UX in design. Technology that's inclusive must attend to both least and most able users, and put neither group in conflict with the other.

But perhaps more concerning is the irony that "convenient" technology causes debilitating human conditions. Technologically mediated isolation is a cause of social anxiety. Inactivity and easy motor transport is a cause of poor mobility. Calculators cause discalcula, etc. Being waited on hand and foot by computers and robots makes us scatterbrained and helpless. In its worst formulation this becomes an argument that; yes, technology is a crutch with which we must "limp before the lame", so as to become lame too.

Calculators

In reality almost the complete opposite is true. Digital technology harms the least able disproportionately more. I am exhausted hearing from older people how they cannot use their banking apps and just want to see a real human - but they shut the branch down and now it's a 10 mile drive in to the next town. People with poor education and learning difficulties are bewildered by the inhuman impositions of techno-bureaucracy. Sometimes they require a full-time helper/mentor just to navigate life and the social care system. People with poor eyesight and attention who are forced to use phone apps just give up. Systems are designed with dark patterns to confuse folks so they don't collect benefits or pay more for services than they should. These disproportionately harm poorer people with less education or additional needs.

poor education

Algorithms tuned for "efficiency" make this happen even if there is no direct human malice. Therefore the malice is deploying these algorithms in the first place. As coders we must question deeply what we are working on and refuse to participate in projects that raise controversial ethical questions.

And I say this coming from the UK where we actually have one of the best government web presences in the world, with high accessibility, bullet-proof availability, and plain English content. It is heartbreaking to see so much dedicated engineering go into something that underneath rests on a morally bankrupt ideology of gushing neophilia.

Our injury can often be traced to a failure of Law. The legal world has never really understood or kept pace with technology - which is praise not a criticism since Laws should be stable, steady and throughtful. However, most "cyberlaw" seems to have been written to protect those who are now the aggressors. For example the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990 (that now seems so naive and woolly as to be a crime in itself) defines misuse only in terms of "authorisation". Computers are misused in thousands of insidious ways to visit harms on peaceful, law-abiding citizens who just want to mind their own business.

failure of Law

As zero trust becomes the vogue security fad, explicit authorisation is practically dead as a concept in 2024. When was the last time you "authorised" BigTech to steal your personal information from your phone? As written, the 1990 Act is a charter for the powerful to abuse the helpless. It remains in place because of course there is a need to prevent violations of computing perimeters, but it now looks woefully inadequate, a speck in the landscape of digital harms that have evolved since that time. If reformed it will likely add nothing to redress the victims of daily corporate intrusion.

As we look around the world today we see that the unilateral imposition of digital technology on terms dictated by corporations and governments has led to a significant loss of basic rights, freedoms and psychological safety for the majority. That is not to say digital technology hasn't brought immense benefits, but one is not excused from inflicting injury by bundling it a priori with compensation (especially where there is no mutuality and the harms were unnecessary in the first place if you'd just been a little bit smarter).

inflicting injury

Much discussion of technology and security today is about balancing the needs of governments and business. Conspicuously missing from that discussion is any talk of "the people", the public, the hoi polloi. So "digital rights" might be a way of talking about the huge gap in that landscape, where ordinary folk are victims of " Police and thieves in the street", and whose voices are ignored.

ignored

So we must accept that not everyone can join in the "technological society". Not everybody should. Not everybody wants to even if they could, therefore any system that does not recognise those voices neither has nor deserves a future. "Responsibility" then is a much more complex tool than it first appears and does not easily fall to the ableist objection.

Responsibility

Other Recent Techrights' Posts

Nonfree Software in My Bank, by Richard Stallman
Updated 8 hours ago
Richard Stallman is Usually Right Because He Thinks "Outside the Box"
he is able to observe society (mores and norms) as somewhat of an outsider
 
Expect More Microsoft Layoffs
"Are more job cuts coming?"
Microsoft Behaving Like It's Running Out of Money to Pay Salaries
Does that seem like the behaviour expected from a company which claims it is "worth" trillions?
LWN Downtime Due to Linode, Not LLM Bots
"I’ve received an email letting me know that there is a potential for data loss."
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, July 28, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, July 28, 2025
Links 28/07/2025: Science, Health, and Conflicts
Links for the day
Gemini Links 28/07/2025: Healthy Self-Image With Autism and a "New Life"
Links for the day
Links 28/07/2025: COVID-19 Sped up Brain Aging, "Circumvention is More Popular Than Compliance"
Links for the day
LWN Has Been Down for a Long Time, Another Casualty of LLM Bots?
Time will tell. How much time though?
Slopfarms Versus 'Linux' (and Against People Who Write Real Articles About GNU/Linux)
LLM slop in slopfarms by Brian Fagioli and Redazione RHC
Gemini Links 28/07/2025: Bila Yarrudhanggalangdhuray and Running pkgsrc in a FreeBSD Jail
Links for the day
Microsoft Turns News Sites Into Spamfarms
Is the site The Register MS the next IDG?
The Register MS/The Register US
On Saturday I contacted them for a comment (before issuing criticism)
Hacking revelations at Vatican Jubilee of Digital Missionaries
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, July 27, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, July 27, 2025
The Week to Come
Planning ahead
LLM Slop Has Only Been a Boon for Misinformation Online
The very same companies that were supposed to maintain quality (again, not limited to Google with PageRank) are now actively participating in generating and spreading slop
When They Tell You It's Free, Does That Mean No Charges (If So, Who's Paying and Why)?
there's "no free lunch"
We're Going to Focus Less on the Molotov Cocktail-Throwing Microsofters and More on Patents
We can get back to focusing on what we wanted to focus on all along
Just Trying to Keep Web Sites Honest (Journalistic Integrity)
the latest articles in LinuxIac are real
Links 27/07/2025: Political Affairs, Data Breaches, Attacks on Freedom of the Press
Links for the day
Gemini Links 27/07/2025: Hot in Japan and Terminal Escape Codes
Links for the day
Links 27/07/2025: More Microsoft Layoffs Coming, Science and Hardware News
Links for the day
Links 27/07/2025: FSF Hackathon and "Hulk Hogan Was a Very Bad Man"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 27/07/2025: DAW Mixer Chains and Simple Software
Links for the day
The Register MS is Inventing or Giving Air Time to New Conspiracy Theories so as to Distort the Narrative As High-Profile Agencies Fall Prey to Microsoft Holes
But the problem is holes, i.e. Microsoft making bad products; the problem is Microsoft
Most Editors at The Register Are American, Including the Editor in Chief, a Decade-Long Microsoft Stenographer (Writing Prose to Sell Microsoft)
It's not easy to tell where the site is based (we tried) because it's hiding behind ClownFlare and CrimeFlare hasn't been well lately
Pushers of systemd Rewrite History (Richard Stallman Said UNIX "Was Portable and Seemed Fairly Clean")
Unlike systemd
"New Techrights" Soon Turns 2 (A Few Days Before the FSF Turns 40)
We have a lot more to say about LLM bots
When Silence Says So Much
Garrett, a 'secure' boot pusher, will need to defend himself in the UK High Court
The Register in Trouble
There is not much that can be done at this point
Trajectory of The Register: From News Site/s Into "B2B"... and Into Microsoft Salespeople
Something isn't right at The Register
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, July 26, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, July 26, 2025
Misinformation in Social Control Media
Social control media passes around all sorts of tropes
Slopwatch: Fake Linux 'Articles' and Slopfarms With "Linux" in Their Names/Domains
throwing bots at "Linux" to make some fake articles