|
ZurdoDev wrote: Or they are too polite to correct you.
With yet another example of fixing whut wasn't broke?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Same.
The other one I like to use is "cross all the i's and dot all the t's".
|
|
|
|
|
yacCarsten wrote: cross all the i's and dot all the t's".
I usually say that the other way round, so that the sort-of punchline is at the end.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with it. This has been going on for hundreds of years only long ago it was a poster on the sheriff's wall of those that were wanted.
It's hilarious how all of the sudden in the last few years "privacy" became such a big deal. No one wants anyone to know anything about them yet they post everything about themselves on the internet and they carry a tracking device in their pocket.
I heard the other day someone complaining about people being able to google them and find their address. And yet this was someone who is old enough to have been around when everyone's address was delivered door to door for free for everyone to see.
I have the Nextdoor app, basically facebook for neighborhoods, and all the time people are posting "Someone took a picture of my house. What should I do!!?"
Technology amplifies people's craziness. 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the problems as I see it is that said surveillance data (as it exists in its many forms) is kept and can be cross-referenced with other data, which can then reveal patterns that weren't observable before and that are frankly of nobody's business. Once you're merely aware of that, you might start changing your behavior, even if just subconsciously. Have you ever intentionally avoided using certain trigger words in a chat session or an email exchange, because you know the content is looked at by some algorithm trying to raise some red flags? Why should you alter your behavior, if you're a law-abiding citizen, if you claim to live in a free society?
To say nothing about this same data leaking and becoming available to people who have no justification in seeing it.
I was reading earlier this week (I forget where) about some NSA surveillance program that cost them $100M, but had only lead to a single investigation. Not a conviction, but a single investigation that was eventually dropped.
ZurdoDev wrote: It's hilarious how all of the sudden in the last few years "privacy" became such a big deal. No one wants anyone to know anything about them yet they post everything about themselves on the internet and they carry a tracking device in their pocket.
There's a distinction to be made. For most, no, it has not become such a big deal. Despite what people say, they're not serious about it; if they choose to post everything about themselves and carry tracking devices everywhere they go, then they clearly don't care. This is still, essentially, opt-in; they can't claim to not have a choice. People survived just fine before Facebook and before smart phones made their appearance. I don't do either. Personally it's the things I have no control over I object to. And you have to object to something, even if just in principle, or if you just keep thinking nothing's a big deal, then you're already on a very slippery slope and you may some day realize that things evolved so gradually you didn't see where it was all headed until you find yourself living in a 1984 scenario.
I'm no activist by any stretch and I have no time to go off on a crusade. But I still make conscious choices where I can (as you said - sharing crap on social media and carrying phones--that's a good place to start).
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Personally it's the things I have no control over I object to.
Which is most everything in life.
dandy72 wrote: you find yourself living in a 1984 scenario.
Technology won't get us there. Bad politicians and idiotic voters will do that.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Technology won't get us there. Bad politicians and idiotic voters will do that.
But you can't deny technology is the enabler. You don't get the sort of mass surveillance we're facing today without it. I wouldn't have worried too much about having a profile being built around me back in the 1800s. Or even the 1950s, when people were ratting out their commie neighbors.
But I agree, politicians (and those who vote them in) who allow it to happen on their watch need to take some blame--a lot of it. But they have little incentive to change anything, considering governments benefit from said surveillance. For one thing, it's great to help them determine who will keep them in power...
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: You don't get the sort of mass surveillance we're facing today without it.
True. But my imagination is not good enough to even come up with the dangers of people knowing what you like to eat or where you buy your clothes. Is yours?
dandy72 wrote: governments benefit from said surveillance.
How?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: But my imagination is not good enough to even come up with the dangers of people knowing what you like to eat or where you buy your clothes. Is yours?
It's not so much that there's anything inherently "dangerous" about it, in and of itself. It's that it's nobody's elephanting business but my own.
If I knew some guy was constantly following me and jotting down where I am, what I'm doing, who I'm talking to, etc, it wouldn't take long before I confronted the guy and told him to leave me alone. Even though there's nothing "dangerous" he could do with that information. It wouldn't bother you?
ZurdoDev wrote: dandy72 wrote: governments benefit from said surveillance.
How?
Let me spin that around: If it didn't, why do they bother?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: It wouldn't bother you?
No, it wouldn't bother me that the person knew what I was eating or buying.
dandy72 wrote: Let me spin that around: If it didn't, why do they bother?
I don't know. Which is why I asked you how they benefit.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: No, it wouldn't bother me that the person knew what I was eating or buying.
It starts there; next thing you know all of your habits are being tracked. Your car's black box says (and your phone can corroborate it) you're quite the speeder, citizen, it's just dumb luck you haven't yet been caught by a cop. Your daily donut shop stop goes against what your doctor's been telling you, your health premium's going up as a consequence.
ZurdoDev wrote: I don't know. Which is why I asked you how they benefit.
Ed Snowden has many stories he's shared with the rest of the world, and he's had to live in Russia ever since. I don't feel like I need to repeat what's public knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Your car's black box says (and your phone can corroborate it) you're quite the speeder
That has already been proposed but I see this as totally different than just tracking habits.
dandy72 wrote: Your daily donut shop stop goes against what your doctor's been telling you, your health premium's going up as a consequence.
Indirectly, that already happens. And quite frankly, that would be perfectly acceptable. Those creating a bigger risk in the pool of insured should pay more. Why not? Should I have to pay to subsidize your donut addiction?
And like I said, if things got bad enough that tracking was an actual danger then we have much bigger problems than tracking. Tracking will feel minimal under those circumstances and tracking will never be the causes of things getting to that point.
dandy72 wrote: I don't feel like I need to repeat what's public knowledge.
Never mind then. I thought you might be able to explain your position.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Never mind then. I thought you might be able to explain your position.
It's just that at this point I really feel like you're the one who needs to do his own research and inform yourself. But clearly, that's never going to be important enough for you to care. Carry on then. I wish you the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Dangers? Well, at least it may be annoying.
Like this coworker of mine who one day comes to tell me that he is worried about my lunch habits; the last two weeks I have eaten meats more times than I have eaten fish. Well, I guess his bookkeeping of my lunch menu is correct, but honestly, I prefer to enjoy my lunch without anyone, that be coworker or police, doing close bookkeeping of my menu choices.
Recently, when a pizza place in town was mentioned, I remarked that I hadn't been there for years. This coworker of mine immediately set out to correct me: But we were there... no, that more than two years ago, almost two months more, so you could say it is years ago - but then you remarked to the waitress that they had been doing some remodelling since your last visit. ...Jeez! What makes someone spend their mental capacity on remembering which comments I made to a waitress more that two years ago? What else does he remember from years back that he could hold against me if some reason pops up?
I was active in a singing group. The leader was very focused on our vocal quality - having fun and enjoying ourselves was secondary, or even lower. Pointing out details that we didn't do in a perfect way was far more essential than pointing out the success we made. I was constantly annoyed by this. Last fall, we were entertaining at a social event, mingeling with the guests afterwards, and I overheard our leader talking with one of the guests about how an earlier performance of ours hadn't been up to standards because I had made a mistake. That must have been at least five or six years earlier. Sure, I made that mistake, but repeating the story to strangers many years later was the last straw for me: I quit.
What is the worst possible takeover of power that you could possibly imagine that could happen in your lifetime? A fundamentalist Christian theocracy? A communist economoy? A dictatorship of vegans? A fascist regime? A Moslem state? All of the above?
In either case, you may safely assume that everything that is filed by the autorities, or filed by private interests that has come successfully through the power takeover, will be fully available to the new forces in power. Is there any "danger" of letting the police of a Christian or Moslem theocracy see all your grocery bills, see how much beer you drink, and which movies you have been streaming late at night? Is is OK if a military vegan rulership gets access to ten years of police drones hovering over your frequent outdoor grill parties? Is it OK if a fascist regime knows in detail how often you have visited your Jewish or Gipsy friends? Will all of these future rulers fully accept all of your intimate friendships without raising an eyebrow, regardless of sex and age of your partners? If the rules do not accept your current partner (wrong sex, age, race, kinship, ...), are you prepared to break up your family?
You may say: When I did those things, they were perfectly legal! There are a few problems with that: Interpretation of the law often is just one of many possible; new forces in power may read the laws differently. And we may introduce new laws: We have had several international cases related to war crimes: Even though some actions were not against the law when performed, we have later claimed that they are "crimes against humanity" (completely ignoring how culturally defined these "universal" laws are).
Some countries have given their laws an extended jurisdiction: Two people may perform identical acts in the same place at the same time. To one of them it is perfectly within the law, the other one may be severely puhished. In most cases, that An extreme case of that: I don't know if FGM is allowed (/not explicitly forbidden) in any country today; it certainly was the case a few years ago in several African countries. In Norway, it is "of course" forbidden. It is forbidden even if the operation is not performed in Norway. It is forbidden even if you are not a Norwegian citizen, and you are not living in Norway. If you have a daughter in an African country that was circumcized ten years ago, because all girls in your community were, and you come on a business trip to Norway for a couple of days, you may in principle be thrown in jail in Norway for not preventing something that was perfectly legal in your home country. (It hasn't happened yet, but the laws allow for it.)
You never know how terms like "indecency" is interpreted in the future. A beach photo of you may give you trouble. The child protoective services may come after you for not giving your kid enough protection, or for not allowing your kid enough freedom to gain experience, for the same thing! You are locking up your child in a mental cage! No, I am protecting him agaist the evil of the world!
In my bookshelf, I have the 1936 and 1984 collection of Norwegian laws, with the current laws available on the internet. Society, morals and legal practice have changed drastically over some 80 years, yet the three editions of the laws are remarkably similar. Lots of actions that could send you to jail in 1936 are OK today, but in 1936 you could do a lot of stuff that is forbidden today. But you won't see that from the laws; they may be near-identical! (In some cases - not all of them!)
So, even if it is OK that the authorities - and others - track every detail of your life today, don't trust it to last. It doesn't take a revolution or military takeover to change things, either. Morals change rapidly, and law enforcement is to a significant degree steered by moral interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: Well, at least it may be annoying.
Why are you annoyed that people track you?
Member 7989122 wrote: the police of a Christian or Moslem theocracy see all your grocery bills, see how much beer you drink, and which movies you have been streaming late at night? Is is OK if a military vegan rulership gets access to ten years of police drones hovering over your frequent outdoor grill parties
I would not care.
Member 7989122 wrote: Morals change rapidly
That IS the problem. Not tracking.
I appreciate tracking. What good is a coupon for something I don't ever buy? Give me targeted ads instead of random ones.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: I appreciate tracking. What good is a coupon for something I don't ever buy? Give me targeted ads instead of random ones.
OMG.
Let me guess, you're one of those surveyed who responded you'd give up your work password in exchange for a bar of chocolate?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Let me guess, you're one of those surveyed who responded you'd give up your work password in exchange for a bar of chocolate?
Why such a juvenile response?
Are you suggesting you'd rather see ads that are meaningless to you rather than ones that might actually be good for you?
When girl scouts knock on your door are you afraid someone is coming to take your guns away?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Why such a juvenile response?
I wasn't trying to be juvenile at all. If you're willing to trade your privacy for a miserable coupon, you clearly put as much value on it as those willing to trade a password for a chocolate bar. I was merely illustrating a point. The way you're describing your position, I'm not sure where you draw the distinction.
ZurdoDev wrote:
Are you suggesting you'd rather see ads that are meaningless to you rather than ones that might actually be good for you?
Oh, abso-f***ing-lutely. Advertisers don't care whether you need a product or not, they only want you to buy it, so what you want is ultimately irrelevant to them (ever heard of the idea of "creating the need"?). I'd rather get lost in a sea of anonymity, so they can't focus on me. I see no reason to try to make their lives easier. If I need a product, I'll seek it out--y'know...research...as opposed to believing what an ad is going to try to tell me. Given the lies advertisers tell you - I don't know where you get the idea that any ad may be "good for me". Ads exist only to sell you things. Ever heard of "a fool and his money..."? If that's not holding you (as a consumer) in contempt, I don't know what it.
Have you ever worked with someone who does advertising for a living? What a glorious bunch of people. My experience has never been a positive one. It seems like their lives revolve around manipulating people and controlling their thought process, and they take pleasure in it. The more egregious they get, the prouder they are of themselves. I find that repugnant.
ZurdoDev wrote: When girl scouts knock on your door are you afraid someone is coming to take your guns away?
I'm not sure why you're bringing this into this discussion. Canadian here. I don't have/need/want guns.  And no ad will change that.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: If you're willing to trade your privacy for a miserable coupon, you clearly put as much value on it as those willing to trade a password for a chocolate bar.
I believe that it is clear to you. 
dandy72 wrote: I'm not sure where you draw the distinction.
You don't know the difference between handing over your password and a targeted ad? 
A password actually protects important information. What I buy at the grocery store does not need to be protected. I would think anyone could understand that. And it is impossible to protect what I do out in public so why even bother trying.
dandy72 wrote: I'm not sure why you're bringing this into this discussion. Canadian here. I don't have/need/want guns.
First, I bring it in because you seem very paranoid. No one can do anything harmful by knowing that you bought lettuce on Thursday for $3.45. It's paranoid to think that problems can arise from that.
Secondly, I find it hilariously ironic that you care if someone watches what brand of toiler paper you buy because of what slippery slope it could lead to an over tyrannical government, yet you see no need for guns. I'm not laughing at you but that is so outlandishly hilarious. 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: You don't know the difference between handing over your password and a targeted ad?
Both are matters of not caring about the consequences of not safeguarding what is nobody else's business but your own.
ZurdoDev wrote: I bring it in because you seem very paranoid.
It's not about paranoia, it's about telling others to f*** off and stop rummaging through my trash.
ZurdoDev wrote: yet you see no need for guns
It's those who allow things to go too far and will then overreact that will suddenly feel the need for guns, not me. Makes sense?
Surely you realize it's not about collecting the petty details you keep bringing up. It's all about things to come. It starts here, and grows from there. Once society finds something to be benign and acceptable, the goalposts move, and the data collection moves on to the next bigger, juicier targets. I don't think that's paranoia.
"First they came for [xxx], and I did not speak out, because I was not a [xxx]". But you don't see the link, because it's all inconsequential, right?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Both are matters of not caring about the consequences of not safeguarding what is nobody else's business but your own.
They do share that one single thing in common. But nothing else.
dandy72 wrote: It's all about things to come.
Yes, I understand you think it is a slippery slope.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: They do share that one single thing in common. But nothing else.
Bingo. I just believe if I'm not okay with allowing one thing to happen, then why allow the other. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. Don't allow precedents to be established.
ZurdoDev wrote: Yes, I understand you think it is a slippery slope.
Yes. It's all about recognizing where things start. That's it.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: It's all about recognizing where things start. That's it.
Indeed. And we have different opinions on where that is.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. I hope you didn't take any of this as a personal attack, as that was not my intent, despite some words I may have used. I rather enjoyed this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Why are you annoyed that people track you?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
