Gateway ’s Post

Officially debuting the work we are developing! Read more about our architecture in the blog post below #LFGateway #GvM #DecentralizedCompute

This is what we've been working on lately. #Blockchain #Privacy #PrivateCompute #DataAssets

Luminate is providing a $1.5 million grant to a consortium led by Privacy International.   Global conflict is often driving significant – and harmful – tech innovation at the expense of human rights. The line between 'defence' and 'civilian' tech is increasingly blurred, with governments and tech companies collaborating in ways that raise serious ethical concerns. This project will support strategic interventions and partnerships to scrutinise and challenge these.   Over two years, this project aims to build a trans-regional and cross-sectoral coalition to challenge the spread of repressive technology and its misuse by governments.    Privacy International will coordinate civil society organisations, academics, and investigative journalists to better understand and address the convergence between civilian and military technology. By mobilising a diverse cluster of organisations, this project aims to conduct targeted research and advocacy, develop governance frameworks, and build collective capacity to demand accountability from tech companies and government   "Our hope is that this project can help disrupt the way in which war and conflict tend to dictate the design of technology in our societies," says Luminate's Isadora Mota do Amaral. "This is a crucial exercise in field-building, ecosystem development, and collective learning. Building civil society's strength on these issue is an essential goal of itself."   Visit privacyinternational.org to learn more about the impactful work of Privacy International and its partners.

Published by Lawrence Lessig on January 1st, 2000. "Every age has its potential regulator, its threat to liberty. Our founders feared a newly empowered federal government; the Constitution is written against that fear. John Stuart Mill worried about the regulation by social norms in nineteenth-century England; his book On Liberty is written against that regulation. Many of the progressives in the twentieth century worried about the injustices of the market. The reforms of the market, and the safety nets that surround it, were erected in response. Ours is the age of cyberspace. It, too, has a regulator. This regulator, too, threatens liberty. But so obsessed are we with the idea that liberty means "freedom from government" that we don't even see the regulation in this new space. We therefore don't see the threat to liberty that this regulation presents. This regulator is code--the software and hardware that make cyberspace as it is. This code, or architecture, sets the terms on which life in cyberspace is experienced. It determines how easy it is to protect privacy, or how easy it is to censor speech. It determines whether access to information is general or whether information is zoned. It affects who sees what, or what is monitored. In a host of ways that one cannot begin to see unless one begins to understand the nature of this code, the code of cyberspace regulates. This regulation is changing. The code of cyberspace is changing. And as this code changes, the character of cyberspace will change as well. Cyberspace will change from a place that protects anonymity, free speech, and individual control, to a place that makes anonymity harder, speech less free, and individual control the province of individual experts only." It's worth finishing the read at Harvard Magazine.

The End of Anonymity Online? 🤔 In today’s Space Between Ideas, we tackle a hot topic: Jordan Peterson’s stance against online anonymity. Peterson suggests that all internet activity should be tied to a government ID for accountability. But what would this mean for our online freedom and security? We’ll explore: - The Need for Anonymity: How it allows freedom but can enable negative behaviors. - Transparency vs. Privacy: Is there a middle ground? - Digital Ethics and Values: How would removing anonymity reshape our approach to truth, morality, and societal trust? Join Blaine Gates as he delves into the implications of a more transparent internet, drawing insights from philosophy, psychology, and societal norms. ➡️ Full video discussion: https://lnkd.in/dwadWC3Q ➡️ Explore more: https://lnkd.in/dJCcrT8P #InternetFreedom #Transparency #JordanPeterson #DigitalEthics #PhilosophyOfInternet #SpaceBetweenIdeas

It's amazing to me that this kind of pessimistic, ad hominem critique of technological progress continues to find an audience (link in comments). You don't have to agree with every line of the e/acc manifesto to believe that technological progress is, on balance, good for society. You also don't have to subscribe to the cynical, embittered worldview that technology is an outgrowth of morally bankrupt authoritarian billionaires to believe that we can better align the benefits of technology to societal values. But between these two opposite extremes, I think it's very clear -- indisputably clear -- that society should hew closer to societal optimism about technology and adopt values that promote individual agency to build new technology to solve important human needs and societal challenges. This is particularly important for privacy professionals. There's a natural pull in privacy towards skepticism and safetyism. Because modern privacy practices were partially created in response to data-centric business models in big tech, it's tempting to think of those companies as "the enemy." "We should deprioritize technological progress to increase privacy" is a losing argument and a dead end. The alternative -- an optimistic, positive view of privacy -- is going to win the day. Privacy will only become a widely-held societal value through a positive vision that aligns technical progress and human dignity. We work in this space to expand the possibilities frontier and change the tradeoffs of the last decade between privacy and technology. We can have a world with MORE technological progress and MORE privacy. Technology and privacy are allies and complements, and the highest and best use of the collective brainpower of privacy professionals is to strengthen that alliance.

“Technology and privacy are allies and complements, and the highest and best use of the collective brainpower of privacy professionals is to strengthen that alliance.” #privacy #privacyengineering

“Privacy Preemption and States’ Rights” by DALL-E 3 6:10 pm PDT, Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Please illustrate this article. ChatGPT An abstract digital collage representing themes of privacy, government, and state rights in America. The foreground shows a ghostly, digital hand reaching out, symbolizing personal data and privacy. Behind it, there's a silhouette of the United States Capitol, representing federal government, slightly blurred and overlaid with binary code to indicate digital information. On the right, a bold silhouette of the California state bear, symbolizing state rights and defiance, stands strong. The background is a mix of digital grids and ethereal colors, blending modern technology with traditional American symbolism, creating a sense of complexity and evolution in privacy laws. The overall feel is sophisticated, thought-provoking, and slightly futuristic. Here is an illustration that captures the themes of your article, blending elements of privacy, government, state rights, and the evolution of privacy laws in America. https://lnkd.in/gmjHnJBY

I recently had to explain the post-Brexit years of tech policy to some non-UK people, who (as per usual) were looking at me like "WTF?". So I lightly rewrote a recent blog post into a more narrative explanatory briefing of what, exactly, TF has happened here since 2016. https://lnkd.in/etH-kCBC