Bruce Schneier coined "feudal security" to describe the dominant Big Tech security model, in which you surrender your autonomy by moving into a warlord's fortress (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc) and in return get protection from the bandits that roam the badlands without.
1/
The historian Stephen Morillo pointed out that this is more like "manorialism" than "feudalism." As I wrote in January, digital manorialism works well (if the warlord wants the same thing as you) but fails badly (if they decide to sell you out).
Google wants to kill third party cookies to protect you from randos doing tracking and targeting - but it wants to retain the ability to nonconsensually track and target you on its own:
Facebook promises to defend you from the next Cambridge Analytica, but it threatens to sue academics who scrape its political ads to see whether it's really living up to its promises to fight paid political disinformation:
Apple has rolled out the most significant consumer privacy tech in decades, changing the defaults on Ios products so that if you don't give your explicit consent, no one is allowed to track you (surprise: no one gave consent!).
Apple is 100% committed to protecting its users from commercial surveillance. But it's also 100% committed to accessing the Chinese market and maintaining its Chinese manufacturing. Warlord Apple will defend you from ad-tech bandits, but not the People's Liberation Army.
6/
That's why Apple valiantly, laudably fought the FBI's demands to back-door its OS to gain access to the San Bernardino shooters' Iphones, but rolled over when the Chinese government ordered it to remove all working VPNs from the App Store.
It's why Apple took good, brave stands on human rights in the US, fighting gender and racial discrimination in important ways but continues to manufacture devices with Chinese contractors like Foxconn, one of the most egregious human-rights manufacturers in the world.
8/
Now, in an explosive @nytimes investigation, @jacknicas, @zhonggg and @daiwaka accuse Apple of giving the Chinese state effectively unfettered access to user-data, directly contradicting the claims of Apple CEO Tim Cook.
The Times reporters say that this data isn't just used to invade Chinese users' privacy, but also to fine-tune Chinese state censorship, helping guide government operatives' choices about which apps to censor and how.
10/
This has resulted in the removal of "tens of thousands of apps... foreign news outlets, gay dating services and encrypted messaging apps...tools for organizing pro-democracy protests and skirting internet restrictions, as well as apps about the Dalai Lama."
11/
This is true of all firms doing business in China. The choice to do business there is the choice to be complicit in ghastly human rights abuses. But there are two ways in which Apple's participation is different.
12/
First, there is its carefully cultivated "Cult of Mac" identity that paints it as an "ethical" company whose paternalistic controls are part of a commitment to serving its users.
13/
This has created a vast cyber-militia of Apple fans who consider themselves members of an oppressed religious minority and who lash out at anyone who crticizes the company as a "hater" (see, for example, the replies to this thread on Twitter).
14/
And second, Apple arrogates to itself more control over its users and their devices than its rivals, asserting the right to block Apple device owners from making their own choices about which software to run, where to get their devices repaired, and even which parts to use.
15/
Apple has distorted copyright, patent, trademark and import law to accomplish this control.
There's an the army of defenders who'll simp for Apple on this.
16/
They oscillating between claims it's all for the good of Apple customers, and claims that people who own Apple devices but don't want to use them according to Apple's corporate dictates "shouldn't have bought Apple products."
17/
The Apple version of the No True Scotsman fallacy is the most creepily cultish thing that Apple's self-appointed street-team do, especially in light of these latest China revelations.
18/
Apple acts on behalf of its customers when that means acting on its own behalf. Apple - like the other warlords - cares ultimately about its shareholders, and if its shareholders' interests diverge from its customers, the shareholders will always win.
19/
That's true of every tech firm, but only Apple has built an "ecosystem" - a great walled fortress that keeps the bandits out when Apple wants to, but once Apple lets them in, it keeps Apple's customers from escaping.
eof/
ETA - If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
"What Would Open Source Look Like If It Were Healthy?" That's the question @brainwane set out to answer in her @github talk earlier this week - a talk that considers #FLOSS in the broadest possible terms and still makes specific, concrete proposals.
Harihareswara starts with the obvious proposition that "open source" can't be healthy if the programmers who create it aren't healthy, and draws a link between basic income, child care and universal health care and the health of open source.
2/
She also points out that the "health" of open source has been systematically poisoned by harassment, misogyny and racism, and names people who were driven out of OSS because of their gender and race - as well as people like @aaronsw, hounded to death by the FBI.
3/
Last Jan, @NorthwellHealth was the subject of a viral @nytimes story about the thousands of patients it had sued over medical debt, in the midst of a pandemic. The publicity was so bad that the company abandoned its legal campaign of terror.
But not every bloated, financialized hospital chain got the message. The massive chain Community Health Systems has long been addicted to suing the shit out of its patients, and the pandemic didn't change that.
CHS's financial crimes are investigated in a must-read @CNN story by @caseytolan. While the company insists that it doesn't sue poor patients over their medical debts, Tolan debunks this claim, revealing the cruel and ugly lengths CHS has gone to during the pandemic.
3/
A truism in security is "attribution is hard." It's really hard to know who hacked you, first, because it's easy to deflect suspicion by leaving false clues, and second, because the bar for hacking even big, critical systems is so low.
1/
The ransomware epidemic has been raging for years now, and it's quite a tangle. It includes idiots who download (or pay for) some off-the-shelf malware and turn it loose on whatever systems they can find, who don't even know WHO they've hacked.
2/
It includes sophisticated crime-gangs with high degrees of specialization: tooling, payment processing, even "customer service" for victims who can't figure out how to buy cryptocurrency to pay their ransoms.
3/
This week on my podcast, the seventh and final part of my serialized reading of my 2020 @ozm book HOW TO DESTROY SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM, a book arguing that monopoly – not AI-based brainwashing – is the real way that tech controls our behavior.
I met @mala on 9/11/01, at a surreal dinner we pressed on with despite (or really, because of) the intense terror of the day. He was wearing a t-shirt from NTK, his seminal digital newsletter, bearing its slogan: "THEY STOLE OUR REVOLUTION. NOW WE'RE STEALING IT BACK"
1/
Online culture has its roots in a strange swirl of hobbyists, the military, corporate misfits fooling around with their employers' vast computer labs and students and academics dabbling in the early digital world.
2/
It was no garden of Eden. There was plenty of fighting and plenty of difference, but there was, despite it all, a sense of mission: a collegial urgency to build a commons that would be part of the digital world that everyone could use.
3/