The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
There are fundamentalist Christians in this country that won't pull the window curtains (or have any curtains at all), because they try to live a life so moral that they have nothing to hide. Nevertheless, their bedroom windows do have curtains.
As the song goes: "Ain't nobody's business". No matter how moral the bedroom activities of these fundamentalists are, it is nobody's business how they do it. They don't want to be continously monitored in their bedroom. I extend that to my living room. And to my selection of dishes in the canteen. And my comments to the waitress. Of course you see and hear it then and there, but when you start to log it systematically, for correcting my actions or statements many years later, then you interfere with my life in ways I do not appreciate.
Maybe you have been living your entire life in on of the upper floors of a tall apartment building, so that noone can look in your window (both in the direct and the allegorical sense). You do your shopping where noone recognizes you. You go to the other side of the town for a night out, so none of your neighbours will talk about how drunk you get. Maybe you live your physical life more or less in loneliness. Noone talking behind your back, because they don't relate to you. Noone at work trying to correct your lifestyle to fit their ideals, because you are nothing but a humanoid coworker machine. Maybe noone cares about you enough to relate to you in neither positive or negative ways.
In smaller places you may not be able to hide in the crowd. Maybe you think it is OK being tagged as the village drunkard, or he who watches dubious movies, or he who mistreats his kids. You may be socially frozen out. People may avoid doing business with you. You may be hearing rumours that other kids are told not to play with your kids.
Yes, you can say "I do not care". What if you get in trouble with the police, say that you are suscpected of drunk driving? Surveillance cameras prove that you bought two sixpacks the day before. You claim that they are still in your fridge. But the cameras showed that you have bought twelve sixpacks the last two week, where did they go? That might be the wrong time to say: I don't care!
I would not care.
Maybe you don't realize the seriousness. What we are talking about, is that you may be breaking the laws, whether by a new interpretation or new laws. You may be thrown in jail for an extended period of time. Is that what you refer to as "I don't care"?
Or maybe you would like to help your son's soccer team who needs a standin coach, and you are qualified. But you are locked out: You have been watching movies that proves you to be unfit for any activity with kids. Maybe you become a world famous movie director, but then when you win a prize for one of your movies, a great movement protests against you earning the prize: Everybody says that your movies are worth the prize, but almost fifty years ago you had a love affair, one that would have been perfectly legal in lots of countries around the world, but not in yours. That love affair prevents your internationally acclaimed artistic work from receiving the prize it deserves from an art viewpoint. Still "I don't care"?
Your arguments are fine as long as all the authorities line up with you, fight for your interests. As long as all of your neighbours condone all sides of your lifestyle (or at least all of the influential ones). You may fight for the world to forever stay exactly as you like it best,
Member 7989122 wrote:
Morals change rapidly
That IS the problem.
- but I am afraid that you will be disappointed. Your morals is a very special case. There are millions of morals out there; the chance that yours will be the one to survive forever is epsilon squared. (I would guess that epsilon sqared in this case is negative.)
Maybe you are old enough to say "I'll be dead before anyone could possibly take over this country, so I don't care about the possibility of someone unfriendly to me being in charge. I am totally convinced that it couldn't possibly happen before my death." OK, you have the right to think that way. Younger people may want to consider changes in power structures as a possibilty.
Because you might be thrown in jail.
You might loose your job.
You might loose your friends.
You might loose your business.
Your neighbours might frown at you and tell their own kids not to play with yours.
You may be unable finding a plumber who wants to come to your house to fix that leak.
And so on.
The same argument holds for any totalitarian dictatorship tracking every one of the 24/7: For each individual case, it is nothing different from a neighbour (or whoever) watching your moves from the window. Whether it is just an old lady or a STASI agent, it is just watching you. Nothing to worry about.
Not the same as an old woman. And the US is not a dictatorship, unless the idiots vote for Bernie. And if we ever get to the point where there is an actual threat from the government, tracking will be the least of our worries.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
I appreciate tracking. What good is a coupon for something I don't ever buy? Give me targeted ads instead of random ones.
he he... I had one funny experience with Amazon ...
I have bought a number of DVD/BDs from Amazon. For a period, Amazon insisted heavily on suggesting to me "You might want to buy this movie" - gay porn movies. I fully accept homosexuals, and have a couple homosexual friends/coworkers, but I am definitely not gay myself. And I do not waste money on porn movies. So where did Amazon get this notion that I would like gay porn?
Sometimes, I collect a list of movies I would like to buy, and order them all in one batch. I had done that, receiving a dozen of movies from Amazon in a single batch. Obviously, I didn't play them all the night they arrived. In fact, one of them stayed on my shelf for about half a year before I found a good time to watch it. Then it dawned upon me why Amazon had labeled me as a watcher of gay porn: This movie was an Italian black-and-white "artsy" movie from the early 1960s, a story with mythological roots involving a couple demigods visiting humanity. As demigods rather than humans, they certainly was not fully dressed. They were male. Anyone who buys a 50+ year old b/w Italian art movie where you in some scenes can se an unclothed male demigod must be eager to buy gay porn movies, right?
So much for targeted ads. It took Amazon a couple of years to realize that in spite of their intense marketing, I had no interest in that sort of movies, so they quieted down.
Here in Norway, my friends laughed at Amazon's proposals when it was ongoing. In some social environments in the US, it could have caused me trouble, if some moralists had looked over my shoulder when I turned on the PC and connected to Amazon, noticing that "Based on your previous purchases, we think that this gay porn would also be in your taste". If I had been living in USAs bible belt when this was going on, I would have been careful that no super-moralistic bystander was watching when I opened the Amazon web site.
Even a rookie policeman has a far lower mis-identification rate than the best face recognition system.
Yes,the system should be used as you suggest - it raises a flag, and the officer on the spot decides whether the match is correct. In practice, what happens is that officers have an unwarranted faith in the system's infallibility, and will simply arrest anyone the system indicates may be a criminal.
If I happened to look similar to a wanted criminal, I might be arrested multiple times for no good reason. Can anyone spell "malicious arrest" and "defamation of character"?
Given certain countries' admission policies (I'm looking at you, USA!), I would not want even a mistaken arrest on my record. The additional hassle when travelling there would be extremely annoying.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
The tech in itself doesn't worry me. Viewed in isolation it's great, identify murders rapist, thieves drug traffickers etc and get them off the streets. Yah!
But when you look inconjuction with other technologies and at the laws that have been passed in the last twenty years, in which our rights have been slowly eroded (& will continue to erode). Who will they target once you get all the "bad" people off the streets, they are not going to dismantle the infrastructure, it'll be to much of an invested interest and so much power.
If the Chinese are using it, it most certainly is totalitarian abuse of power to monitor the enitre population.
If the US is doing exactly the same, it is for asserting the safety of the population.
If you had pointed out any such discrpancy in 1984, it would be newspeak.
If you point it out today, the respones is something like "Yeah, that is exactly the difference between totalitarianism and Freedom".
The issue with all of this stuff isn't about now, it's about the future. These types of technologies are going to get better and better, and they'll be incrementally implemented more and more and more over time. Eventually, it's going to get misused and misused badly by someone in power, and of course many, many times over in smaller ways along the way.
And there are always people in every country who believe that any measure is justified to achieve whatever goal they have. And that goal may be as laudable as protecting our security. But ultimately the systems they put into place to achieve that goal can become as dangerous as the thing they seek to protect us against when the folks in power start using it against us. The scarier part is when their interest is in protecting themselves. Consider a Nixon administration with the level of surveillance we have now, or what will likely be possible 50 years from now.
And by 'us' that means us collectively, or those questioning the government right to do this or that, or those opposing the party in power, or a company or organization that someone is power feels is not in the best interests of the country (which often translates to the interests of their political party or social view or themselves.)
And of course it really will hit the fan with something bad happens. Then those folks who have the 'by any means necessary' view of the world are often let off the leash (in a plausible deniability sort of way of course.) And the gains in latitude that they make in those situations are seldom pushed back all the way or even much at all after the crisis is over.
Everything is hunky dory until it's not. And ultimately, freedom is not free. That saying often means one particular thing, but it also means that, if you want to be free you cannot be perfectly safe.
And of course it really will hit the fan with something bad happens.
I am afraid not. That is an essential part of the problem. We might conmdemn "totalitarian" practices with great intensity, but when we introduce very similar practices ourselves, it is far from "the sh*t hitting the fan", but to "secure the safety of the people of our nation".
Or something like that. In other cases it may be to secure the pureness of the souls of our children, or something else which is extremely tied to our morals or our culture as of this year. In any case: We are extremely good at finding reasons/excuses/explanations for our use of the same practices that we not along ago condemned in other cultures. Quite often, it should have been "the sh*t hitting the fan", but history tells ut that it just doesn't happpen in cases where our "free, democratic" socieety adopts pratices from totalitarian societies. We change a tiny little detail, claiming that this detail makes all the difference: It really is just a minor thing that we never would have considered as significant if it was presented by that totalitarian regime, but as long as we were the ones coming up with this detail, we can use that minor difference to distinguish what we do, which is perfectly acceptable, from what those others do, which is totally condemnable.
You misunderstood. The point was, that it WILL just creep up and creep up and creep up. THEN, when something bad happens (another 911'ish event), suddenly all of these capabilities will lose a large chunk of any controls that might have been put on them, in the name of safety and security. Or, worst case, we have some sort of 70's style social unrest, and it will be completely opened up against the 'trouble makers'. It's always easier for the more paranoid folks who take the 'security at all costs' approach to argue for their way when something goes wrong.
The problem is that then these relaxed restrictions seldom get re-tightened after we finish cleaning the fan blades.
For the most part I have no qualms with data about me being obtained and used to verify fair use/behaviour/whatever, or allow me to use some service and the likes.
What I do have a problem with is those data being stored anywhere that's accessible through the internet. Nowadays, no database is secure from getting hacked, and the data it contains is therefore potentially available for abuse of any kind.
This problem gets real when data are obtained in large amounts: large amounts of data means large databases, and that makes it a high priority target for hackers. Not that any hacker may have interest in any of those records, but these data can be sold for a nice profit to those that have.
You might say that it's a good thing the police can use these databases to help them find identify criminals. And I would concur.
But, remember: the criminals typically have much better equipment and expertise on their hands than the police, they are not limited by legislation, and they have the option to obtain any data they want, provided it has been recorded somewhere. Therefore, for any criminal caught by the police with the help of such data, 10 innocent people are harmed by criminals using the very same data.
I say, better not have that data in the first place. The crimes being prevented by not having these data stored anywhere would easily outnumber the crimes being prevented by criminals getting caught.
Cyber criminalty wouldn't exist without cyber data. Less data means less crimes.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)