|
|
That is true. I would eliminate the media from people's personal lives until someone has been found guilty and not before. Start making the media pay obscene amounts of money for false claims and you will see an improvement. Eliminating surveillance is just dumb in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. It always leads to t-y+r-a-n+n-y and o-p+p-r+e-s+s-i+o-n. The dark side of the issue is when those who want to protect f-r+e+e-d+o+m, are apprehended by this mechanism, and then labeled as ???? and reported by the media as another foiled attempt to further reinforce the mechanism to the viewing audience.
Perhaps on the light side, someone in nyc will get caught buying a 64oz Coke.
|
|
|
|
|
The core problem I see here is that we gradually hand over a fundamental freedom - that of expression - to the limited responsibility of private companies.
|
|
|
|
|
Corporations have always been spying on people, whether thru mail-in rebates, polls, or the census. The technology has just improved so much that we're upset that we don't see it when it happens, and it's happening all the time. Personally, I don't care just as long as innocents don't end up in jail (for an extended period of time - mistakes will always happen).
If they wish to read people's email about this and that, who cares, as long as they don't publicize it. Yes, I don't like FB sharing my sites' likes with any of my freinds, so I disabled social ads and partner sites. If I was paranoid, I'd opt out completely. However, if they wish to take my info to target specific advertising to me in a private way that no one else can see, then I'm fine with that, as long as it's some algorithm, and not a person, that determines that I like whips and chains.  However, if something stands out as a potential threat (i.e., purchased a few machine guns instead of whips and chains), then arresting someone without actual proof of intent to harm is a problem. Snooping and wiretrapping is how the government determines intent to harm. Detaining people for extended periods of time without any legal consultation and quick due process would also be illegal (i.e., Gitmo). That is what we need to make sure doesn't happen. Stopping them completely from snooping is not going to work because bad things are always going to happen and people will cry foul when the government didn't stop it.
In the end, there's no perfect solution. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carnivore and ECHELON are the ones they allowed us to know about.
|
|
|
|
|
I would totally agree with this, IF the posts were not public. However, if your posts are public, I'm totally ok with Facebook/The Police/The gov't/E.T. scanning them (after all, this is why they were public in the first place, for other people to see it, right?)
But if my posts are not public, then I'd have a problem with this kind of thing.
And anyway, whoever posts on Facebook that he's going to drink and drive / kill his boss / throw himself off a window / etc, deserves to get caught by the police, IMO
I don't agree with people listening on my phone, as I don't agree with companies (Google, I'm looking at you), listening on stuff they shouldn't be listening on.
Disclaimer: I have no Facebook, so I don't really care about this particular case . The point in principle still stands though
Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: Even though you do not have Facebook things like this should worry you. It is a precedence that gets set and can run away like a giant snowball down a cliff.
They do. That's why I replied. The disclaimer was more like tongue-in-cheek addressed to Facebook
Collin Jasnoch wrote: You mentioned google. What if google jumps on board and has sophisticated logic to hand over your searches because based on what you searched they determine you are about to commit a crime?
I'd probably stop using it. Hell, I'm thinking about it even now, and I love Google.
Collin Jasnoch wrote: It is a chat monitoring system as well. Chats are not suppose to be public....
Sooooo.. Yeah. its basically like listening in on your phone convos.
Which I don't agree with, and I've said it.
I do agree with what you've said. I just said I would only be ok with this if the data mined was public, and not private
Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine the furious flames of pure internet rage that would descend on google if they did this in gmail (or do they?). Somehow people seem to think it's OK if Facebook does it though.
I'm curious how this will mix with European laws when we get around to fixing the "digital communication is technically not protected by Privacy Of Communication and Correspondence"-loophole.
|
|
|
|
|
gmail is supposed to be point-to-point, as is all email. One sender, one recipient.
Farcebook is one-to-many: one sender, anyone can read it - and most people post there because they want to be heard by the largest audience possible.
Privacy is irrelevant in this case as there is never an intention to keep farcebook posts private. In theory, anyone with a fat enough pipe could read and monitor every farcebook post. Farcebook doing it themselves is the sensible, and even in a way the responsible thing to do. Otherwise people could be very annoyed if a group planned an atrocity on farcebook and it wasn't spotted - the info was in the public domain after all.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
That only applies if it's actually a public post. And even then, just because it's public doesn't mean it's public. See the outrage about CCTV+facial recognition being used to track where people go, and a similar thing with traffic cams and license plates. Also the difference between just looking at someone in passing, and following them around and camping outside their house.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmail do scan your mails as they state in their FAQ's page
"No, but automatic scanning and filtering technology is at the heart of Gmail. Gmail scans and processes all messages using fully automated systems in order to do useful and innovative stuff like filter spam, detect viruses and malware, show relevant ads, and develop and deliver new features across your Google experience. Priority Inbox, spell checking, forwarding, auto-responding, automatic saving and sorting, and converting URLs to clickable links are just a few of the many features that use this kind of automatic processing."
FAQ about Gmail, Security & Privacy[^]
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provençale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pate, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam - Monty Python Spam Sketch
|
|
|
|
|
I knew they did it for ads (the Stasi-level of that is not that high compared to the Facebook Robocop), but the second thing you highlighted looks like a nice loophole they could use to do anything they wanted with the scans and just say "new feature"..
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Crime  Dont let tom jump on your couch.
|
|
|
|
|
"We are turning Digg back into a startup", read a post on Betaworks’ company blog. “Low budget, small team, fast cycles"
|
|
|
|
|
Never really used Digg, but I did like the associated talk show Diggnation. Was quite funny sometimes
|
|
|
|
|
WikiLeaks claims court victory against Visa.
Apparently, this means Wikileaks can receive payments, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can send payments to WikiLeaks. In effect, that means they have only won half the battle so far. And they still have the other payment methods to consider (Mastercard, PayPal, Bank of America, and Western Union). Still, this sets a positive precedence.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been programming for over 30 years from machines that seem puny today (Z80 and 6502 based) to the latest kit using languages that range from BASIC, assembly language, C, C++ through Tcl, Perl, Lisp, ML, occam to arc, Ruby, Go and more. The following is a list of things I've learnt. A zero-based list, naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
If you’re a front-end developer mostly focused on HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, then you’re probably always on the look out for ways to be more productive. In this post we’ll share some tools and other resources for front-end developers that you might find useful to include in your workflow. 16 ways to make coding the web easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Who needs JavaScript? The expanding capabilities of HTML and CSS make it easier than ever to create rich user experiences for the Web. Mark Pilgrim captures this in Dive into HTML5 when he advises, "Scripting is here to stay, but should be avoided where more convenient declarative markup can be used." Today, declarative markup can be used to accomplish more than ever. Show the Mozilla crew what you can do with no JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
It is as if, back in 2009 and early 2010, the memo went out: use Silverlight for everything. Then, later in 2010, the memo went out: use HTML for everything; but too late for the current generation of server admin products. Welcome to the framework of the month club.
|
|
|
|
|
At first you were frustrated a lot, and far less productive. Your browser history was essentially a full index to the online Vim documentation; your Nano and Pico-using friends thought you were insane; your Emacs using friends begged you to change your mind; you paid actual money for a laminated copy of a Vim cheat sheet for easy reference. Even after weeks of training, you still kept reaching for your mouse out of habit, then stopped with the realization that you'll have to hit the web yet again to learn the proper way to perform some mundane task that you never even had to think about before.... Editing source code alone now seemed an insufficient usage of Vim...
|
|
|
|
|
When you submit your app into the Store, there will no doubt be other apps in your category that will compete for people’s attention. Being able to crisply showcase the differentiation points in your offerings and staying focused on delivering the core scenarios that you are best at are crucial to a successful Metro style app that will stand out from the crowd. You gotta have a gimmick!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
