soc.octade.net is a Fediverse instance that uses the ActivityPub protocol. In other words, users at this host can communicate with people that use software like Mastodon, Pleroma, Friendica, etc. all around the world.

This server runs the snac software and there is no automatic sign-up process.

Admin email
social@octade.net

Search results for tag #bigbrother

[?]DoomsdaysCW » 🌐
@DoomsdaysCW@kolektiva.social

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth."
- , 1984

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth."
- George Orwell
Image is of a careworn man with dark hair, and a slight smile.

Alt..."The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." - George Orwell Image is of a careworn man with dark hair, and a slight smile.

    [?]Script Kiddie » 🌐
    @scriptkiddie@anonsys.net

    Inside the growing to knock out

    source: theguardian.com/us-news/ng-int…

    Surveillance is becoming more common in modern . Many governments use cameras and digital systems to improve public safety and help solve . Supporters believe these technologies make communities safer and allow officers to respond more quickly to criminal activities.

    However, many people are worried about . Surveillance systems can collect large amounts of personal data, including information about where people travel and how they move through public spaces. Critics argue that innocent citizens should not be monitored without a clear reason or a legal warrant.

    Some activists protest against these systems through political campaigns, while others choose direct action by disabling surveillance cameras. This has started a wider debate about the balance between and . The also raises important ethical questions about , personal privacy, and the role of technology in . Finding the right between protecting society and protecting individual rights remains one of the biggest of the digital age.

    Location: Matrix

    [?]Nico » 🌐
    @Nico_devWeb@piaille.fr

    « We got essentially big brother on steroïds »
    peertube.stream/w/vNskmQDUNifA
    Très bonne présentation de l'inutilité, des dérives et des scandales de la surveillance technologique de masse aux USA.
    Pour les anglophone uniquement, pas de sous-titre malheureusement.

      Annelies boosted

      [?]Script Kiddie » 🌐
      @scriptkiddie@anonsys.net

      : Spider-Man: Brand New Day – A for the State?

      At first, : Brand New Day looks like another emotional . Peter Parker has lost everything. No one remembers him, not even MJ. He searches for his while trying to protect . The spends much of its time on , , and .

      But behind this personal story lies a political . The film presents mass surveillance as something necessary and even heroic. This is where the becomes much more interesting—and much more troubling.

      Spider-Man uses powerful surveillance to watch the city. He collects video from many security cameras. He scans every face to find criminals. Even the admit that this is probably . Still, the film treats these actions as acceptable because Spider-Man is one of the "good guys."

      This idea has a long in popular culture. The strongest comparison is George Orwell's 1984. imagined a where every citizen is watched. Surveillance is presented as a tool for , but it destroys . In Brand New Day, the situation is different because Spider-Man is a hero, not a dictator. Yet the basic question remains the same: Who watches the watchers? If one person can see everyone, who controls that person?

      The film never really asks this . Instead, it assumes that surveillance is good as long as the right people it. This is one of its biggest .

      Another interesting comparison is The Dark Knight. In Christopher Nolan's film, creates a machine that can monitor every mobile phone in Gotham. Lucius Fox calls it too dangerous because it gives one person unlimited power. Batman agrees. He uses the system only once to catch the and then destroys it immediately.

      Brand New Day takes a very different approach. Spider-Man's surveillance technology is not treated as a . Instead, it becomes a normal of fighting. The ethical debate that makes The Dark Knight so powerful is almost completely missing.

      The transcript also compares Spider-Man's work with modern surveillance technology. Peter Parker works closely with the Department of Damage Control and helps collect huge amounts of personal data. The review argues that this creates a positive image of a close relationship between institutions and powerful technology companies.

      This makes the film feel surprisingly modern. Today, governments and private companies collect enormous amounts of digital information. Cameras, facial recognition, smartphones and artificial make surveillance easier than ever before. The movie reflects this reality but rarely questions it.

      One of the most interesting contradictions is himself. He wants for his own life. He hides his identity and wants to escape public attention. At the same time, he watches everyone else and scans thousands of faces. The film never fully explores this contradiction.

      This creates an uncomfortable message. Privacy seems important for the hero but less important for ordinary citizens.

      The citizens themselves hardly have a voice. They mostly watch, cheer and accept Spider-Man's actions without . They never decide whether they want to live in such a . They simply the hero.

      As , Spider-Man: Brand New Day offers impressive visuals and emotional performances. However, its political ideas deserve much more attention. The film normalizes mass surveillance while presenting it as an act of kindness and . It replaces difficult ethical questions with emotional storytelling.

      Unlike 1984, it does not warn us about surveillance. Unlike The , it does not seriously question its use. Instead, it asks the to trust the hero completely.

      That may be the film's most surprising message. The greatest danger is not an government forcing surveillance on its people. The greater danger is that we willingly accept surveillance because it is carried out by someone we like.

      Spider-Man: Brand New Day succeeds as an emotional superhero . As a political film, however, it raises fascinating questions without giving convincing answers.

      Location: Matrix

        oheso boosted

        [?]River 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ [Any] » 🌐
        @riverpunk@defcon.social

        John Oliver just released an incredibly well researched episode about police surveillance technology. He goes thoroughly through all the details, while keeping things at a level that's accessible for regular people to understand.

        I highly recommend you share this with people who might not otherwise be fully aware of the current state of state surveillance.

        youtube.com/watch?v=lnBPhelCdWE

          muddle 🥣 boosted

          [?]MusiqueNow 🇵🇸 ✡️ [il/lui , he/him] » 🌐
          @MusiqueNow@masto.ai

          [?]AI6YR Ben » 🌐
          @ai6yr@m.ai6yr.org

          [?]AI6YR Ben » 🌐
          @ai6yr@m.ai6yr.org

          404 Media: How Cops Use Flock to Track People, Not Cars

          Jul 16, 2026 at 9:56 AM

          Cops have used Flock's FreeForm search feature to look for people with tattoos and wearing specific sport shirts, and searches sometimes include the target's race, according to data reviewed by 404 Media.

          404media.co/how-cops-use-flock

            muddle 🥣 boosted

            [?]AI6YR Ben » 🌐
            @ai6yr@m.ai6yr.org

            Lucky this driver was not a person of color, because this would more likely than not ended in jail, with physical abuse, or a tragedy involving firearms.

            How Flock Cameras Wrongly Tracked Me for Days Over ‘Stolen’ Plates and Sent Police After Me

            A simple error got magnified by Flock's nationwide surveillance camera network and ended with four cop cars boxing me in.

            thedrive.com/news/how-flock-ca

              [?]Script Kiddie » 🌐
              @scriptkiddie@anonsys.net

              The Circle: The Scariest Part Isn't Big Tech. It's Us.

              When The Circle hit theaters in 2017, many people saw it as another tech thriller. Today, it feels less like science fiction and more like tomorrow's news feed.

              The movie is based on Dave Eggers' bestselling novel, often called the 1984 of the digital age. Ironically, the film improves on the book in one important way. Instead of explaining every idea through endless dialogue, it lets us see them. The result is faster, smoother and much easier to watch. But it still feels more like an essay than a real story.

              Mae Holland lands her dream job at The Circle, a giant tech company that looks like a mix of Google, Apple, Meta and TikTok. The campus is bright, colorful and full of smiling people. Everyone talks about changing the world. That is the first warning sign.

              Modern tech companies rarely say they just want to build products or make money. They promise to make humanity better. The Circle sells exactly that dream. Soon Mae believes privacy is outdated. If you have nothing to hide, why keep secrets? She starts wearing a tiny camera that livestreams her entire life. Every second. Every conversation. Every emotion. Imagine if your entire life became one endless Twitch stream.

              This world feels like a strange combination of George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Control no longer comes through fear alone. It comes through convenience, entertainment and the promise of a better future. Looking at today's AI boom, smart homes and endless social media feeds, the movie suddenly feels much less fictional than it did a few years ago.

              One scene stands out. The Circle suggests that voting should happen through its own platform. If everyone already has an account, why not connect democracy directly to the app? It sounds efficient. Maybe even practical. The movie briefly asks whether democracy itself could become a product owned by a private company. That is one of its most interesting ideas.

              Sadly, it never explores that question.

              Instead, the ending takes the easy Hollywood route. Rather than challenging the system, it blames a few powerful executives. Once their private emails are exposed, the audience is expected to believe justice has been served. As if replacing a CEO could solve everything.

              But that misses the real problem.

              Systems survive because people are replaceable. Remove one tech billionaire and another one will take the job. The real issue is a business model built on collecting more data, measuring human behavior and turning attention into profit. It doesn't matter whether the CEO is friendly or arrogant. If the machine stays the same, the result stays the same.

              That idea feels even more relevant today. We often argue about individual tech leaders. But should we? The real question is why any company should have that much power in the first place. Whether it is Meta, Google, Apple or the next AI giant, the structure remains the same.

              The movie also lets us off the hook too easily. It is comforting to blame powerful corporations. Harder to admit that we help build this world ourselves. We accept the cookies. We install the apps. We trade privacy for convenience. We buy smart speakers, connect everything to the cloud and tell ourselves it is worth it because life becomes easier.

              That may be The Circle's biggest weakness. It criticizes Silicon Valley's worldview but forgets to criticize ours. Most people are not driven by ideology. They simply choose what is new, useful and comfortable. That is how surveillance becomes normal—not because anyone forces us, but because we quietly invite it into our homes.

              The movie offers only one alternative: rejecting technology completely and escaping into nature. But that feels just as unrealistic as total digital transparency. It presents two extremes while ignoring everything in between.

              Despite its flaws, The Circle remains a fascinating warning. Not because it predicts the future perfectly, but because so much of its future has already become our present.

              Why am I writing about such an old movie? Shouldn't we have much smarter, deeper movies about AI, surveillance and Big Tech by now? Or have we simply become so used to these technologies that we no longer notice what is happening? Has Silicon Valley slowly won us over with its own propaganda? If you know any newer movies or series that tackle these questions in a more thoughtful way, let me know in the comments. I'm always looking for the next great warning before it becomes reality.

              movie poster from the circle with the face of Emma Watson

              Alt...movie poster from the circle with the face of Emma Watson

              Location: Matrix

                [?]AI6YR Ben » 🌐
                @ai6yr@m.ai6yr.org

                The Guardian: ‘It’s dangerous and it’s going to erode trust’: redesign of US government websites stokes surveillance fears

                The National Design Studio, staffed by Doge veterans, installed visitor-tracking software on vital federal websites

                "...An opaque White House office staffed largely by veterans of Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) has quietly rebuilt some of the federal government’s most sensitive websites – for passport applications, voter registration, prescription-drug pricing and children’s savings – in ways critics say appear to violate federal law...."

                theguardian.com/us-news/2026/j

                ‘It’s dangerous and it’s going to erode trust’: redesign of US government websites stokes surveillance fears

The National Design Studio, staffed by Doge veterans, installed visitor-tracking software on vital federal websites

                Alt...‘It’s dangerous and it’s going to erode trust’: redesign of US government websites stokes surveillance fears The National Design Studio, staffed by Doge veterans, installed visitor-tracking software on vital federal websites

                  Lightfighter boosted

                  [?]Mark Wyner Won’t Comply :vm: » 🌐
                  @markwyner@mas.to

                  It’s interesting how many people think wanting privacy means you’re doing something nefarious. The fact is, privacy is about sharing what you want with whom you choose.

                  (I don’t recall who wrote the words I used in the graphic here or where I originally saw them. I just made it from my paraphrased version.)

                  Illustration of some eyes looking straight at you followed by text that reads “I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable. But because your judgment and intentions are.”

                  Alt...Illustration of some eyes looking straight at you followed by text that reads “I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable. But because your judgment and intentions are.”

                    [?]AI6YR Ben » 🌐
                    @ai6yr@m.ai6yr.org

                    "...The Federal Communications Commission wants to require telecommunications providers to collect vast amounts of personal information from every person who wants a phone number in the name of combatting scam and spam calls. ..."

                    eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/fccs

                      [?]Miguel Afonso Caetano 🦾 🌹 » 🌐
                      @remixtures@tldr.nettime.org

                      "A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

                      The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

                      VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

                      It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

                      express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/

                        [?]AI6YR Ben » 🌐
                        @ai6yr@m.ai6yr.org

                        Mission Local: Federal agencies ‘improperly’ accessed S.F. license-plate surveillance data, audit finds

                        Police say ICE, DHS didn’t directly access data, but unclear if it was shared regardless

                        missionlocal.org/2026/06/feder

                          [?]Miguel Afonso Caetano 🦾 🌹 » 🌐
                          @remixtures@tldr.nettime.org

                          ""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

                          Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

                          "A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

                          The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

                          theregister.com/personal-tech/

                            [?]Script Kiddie » 🌐
                            @scriptkiddie@anonsys.net

                            ‘BusPatrol’ Put in Tens of Thousands of . Now They Want to Give

                            source: 404media.co/buspatrol-put-ai-c…
                            without paywall: archive.is/20260526155324/404m…

                            is aware of the around cameras, and particularly of the concern that may gain access to the data, according to the BusPatrol documents ...

                            The danger here, aside from the misuse of data, is above all that children grow up with this and come to see it as normal to be constantly monitored by cameras. A society under constant surveillance develops differently. It is more conformist, less critical, and very keen on blending into the crowd unnoticed and not standing out. This is exactly what the ruling elite wants: a society that silently endures everything because it fears through the cameras.

                            Location: Matrix

                              [?]Thom Aster » 🌐
                              @thomaster@mastodon.social

                              The UK just announced they'll scan every photo on your phone to "protect children." The problem? "Proof of age" isn't defined. No legislation. No spec. No limits. This is surveillance infrastructure with no defined end state.

                              thomaster.substack.com/p/the-u

                                0 ★ 0 ↺

                                [?]OCTADE » 🌐
                                @octade@soc.octade.net

                                Ignerintz is strengf.
                                Slayberry is freedumb.


                                  6 ★ 6 ↺

                                  [?]OCTADE » 🌐
                                  @octade@soc.octade.net

                                  SILENCE IS DEAFENING
                                  "While the [age verification] bill moved through the legislature, the OSI, FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and Linux Foundation all sat it out — no testimony, no public analysis, no formal opposition on the record."
                                  Are the adults listening?

                                  California's computer age verification law is poison. The new California age verification law is a version of INGSOC's telescreen watching you. And the usual self-proclaimed software freedom fighters are AWOL as this attack on your freedom is executed.

                                  Don't listen to apologists who claim this isn't a big deal. It is a huge deal. This law is not about protecting children. The California law is a ruse for laying the foundation and precedent for mandatory remote control of all operating systems. They are using children as a shield for their true intentions. It's called a 'subterfuge' or a 'pretext' to hide the real rationale. And in politics subterfuge is very common. These politicians don't care about your children. They care about control and information is control. Compliance with California's new law is highly corrosive to free software and deadly to personal privacy.

                                  With the mandatory age verification API in place, legislators can later add more laws mandating retrieval of even more privacy-invasive information just to install and use any operating system. This is Big Brother's telescreen in your living room. And the Linux community is nearly silent on the matter, instead focused on artificial intelligence investment.

                                  Where were the software freedom organizations when California was mandating installation of in all free and open source operating systems? Did they oppose it? Or did they support it by silence? The California age verification law is the greatest threat to software freedom in recent history., striking right at the root of software installation for all users. Yet (((crickets))).

                                  Is silence really tacit support?

                                  "While the [age verification] bill moved through the legislature, the OSI, FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, and Linux Foundation all sat it out — no testimony, no public analysis, no formal opposition on the record."
                                  [https://boingboing.net/2026/03/02/californias-age-verification-law-could-regulate-every-linux-command.html]

                                  Where were they when this mandatory spyware infrastructure was being shoved down our throats? Where were the self-proclaimed software freedom fighters? Where were the calls to action? I didn't see any.

                                  Is silence golden ... or is gold buying silence?

                                  Let these organizations know that you oppose California's age verification spyware law and that you expect them to rally in defense of true software freedom--freedom from government oversight of your software systems. Parents--and not the spyware state--should protect their children. The government is neither your parent nor your god nor your savior and the people should send a clear message stating that.

                                  California, stay out of my operating system! And stay the hell away from children!

                                  @eff@mastodon.social
                                  @linuxfoundation@social.lfx.dev
                                  @fsf@hostux.social
                                  @osi@opensource.org
                                  @conservancy@sfconservancy.org

                                  CC: @laffer1@bsd.network @leo@twit.social @MichaelRoss@social.linux.pizza @rms@mastodon.xyz @thenewoil@mastodon.thenewoil.org @TechDesk@flipboard.social @remixtures@tldr.nettime.org

                                  A crowd of sillouettes of people stands in front of a giant telescreen depicting a single giant eye watching them.

                                  Alt...A crowd of sillouettes of people stands in front of a giant telescreen depicting a single giant eye watching them.