211–220 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you have an affair if you're politically and economically powerful?
Call up the local high end madam and ask for a "date".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but I was using CCTV to illustrate and conceptually link an already existing privacy debate that's been going on for quite a while.
> We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1]. If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here. The same pri…
> If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here.
If it was easily discernible without the internet whether the person had that genetic marker, legislating away the ability to determine it with the internet is destined to fail. The key here is whether the digital age makes it easier to expand and correlate on something already achievable through using your eyes interacting with someone.
For example, I don't believe we can usefully legislate away a company's ability to use information gleaned from the customer during your interaction with them for their own purposes. That's the equivalent of asking a fast food server to wear a blindfold. It will be worked around, because it's ridiculously limiting for little benefit. I think we CAN usefull legislate what passive information companies are allowed to share with outside entities, or require they track additional information that makes it easy for them to respond to requests for removal (such as timestamps for all information that carry through to linked info, so we can require removal specific past info and correlations derived from it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The naming and shaming is disgusting. There are people who are cheering on the hackers. They completely disregard the ramifications of this for the innocents involved (the family members and loved ones of the person who signed up) who now have to deal with all this publicly. Imagine any couple that went through a rough patch and reconciled. They've already moved past this, and now they have to live with the knowledge…
In life, you get to choose your actions, but you do not get to choose the consequences. Yes, some 'went through a rough patch' and 'already moved past this', and are now dealing with a world of pain. But ask yourself, what makes you the authority on how much pain they should have endured for their mistake? As fate would have it, whatever 'moving past' they did will now be really put to the test. This will give some c…
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_ston...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1]. If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here. The same pri…
I meant capabilities allowed for and accomplishable without digital help, which may have been unclear. > If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here. If it was easily discernible without the internet whether the person had that genetic marker,…
"I see you've been looking at this porno. Would you like lube with that?".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists. In the year 3000: "Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."
Once privacy disappears we can actually base our morality on data rather than wishful thinking. It's the transition period (i.e. now) where we have pretty arbitrary morals largely based on ancient religious texts, etc. and we're finally getting actual data on what people actually do that is the nasty part. E.g. we know that rich people have always obtained abortions, used illegal drugs, and had promiscuous sex, but p…
Take this AM hack; one of te first public casualties was a somewhat famous religious conservative, who had previously been in the news for committing multiple acts of incest/child molestation as a youth (the statute of limitations on which has long since expired). Despite abundant evidence of moral malfeasance and a blunt self-assessment as 'the biggest hypocrite ever', the guys followers are still lining up to defend his fundamental righteousness and condemn his detractors as being on an inferior moral plane. This is irrational, but people place a high value on their illusions and will expend real resources to perpetuate them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists. In the year 3000: "Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."
I don't think so, I think it's just a matter of us learning where our prior ideas of privacy and what should and can be expected are meeting with the new reality. We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1]. Additionally, I increasingly think our interpretation of privacy has been…
Some recent US court cases have reached the opposite conclusion, and decided that a right to privacy from video surveillance exists:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/federal-court-agrees-e...
Although perhaps your standard holds, and the argument would that constant warrantless surveillance would be illegal even if done by a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
indeed, a common story. i get the feeling the fbi did a lot of before-school visits to teenagers dicking around on irc in the mid 90s. they showed up to my place once. the guy said to contact him after i graduated if i was looking for work, lol. for what it's worth, they had binders and binders full of efnet logs.
I keep hearing this and it makes me realize I wasn't as cool as I thought I was in the 90s :P The FBI visited once, my dad freaked out and told me before he answered the door. Turns out someone was exposing themselves to kids on Halloween.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds more like 2020. By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves. Who wants to know? This is a question easily overlooked, but is crucial to observation (aka surveillance). Observation is done by an observer and done with intent. Without intent, we stop looking. I for one don't want to know or care for petty details about my neighbor…
Interesting thought: "By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves." By gotten over, did you mean we'll have given in to the fact that there will be an observer (albeit a benevolent one?) or that we'll have stopped caring about the intent of the observer?
The government has played the fear card to get all this surveillance going, and now fear of surveillance (and government) is what has the resistance going. To have fear be the primary driver of our common intentions is barbaric, and humanity is still barbaric at the grandest scale.
But by 3000, hopefully we'll have gotten over all of our fears. And if all Earthlings are just one tight-knit family, then surveillance of any kind would be just creepy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The naming and shaming is disgusting. There are people who are cheering on the hackers. They completely disregard the ramifications of this for the innocents involved (the family members and loved ones of the person who signed up) who now have to deal with all this publicly. Imagine any couple that went through a rough patch and reconciled. They've already moved past this, and now they have to live with the knowledge…
In life, you get to choose your actions, but you do not get to choose the consequences. Yes, some 'went through a rough patch' and 'already moved past this', and are now dealing with a world of pain. But ask yourself, what makes you the authority on how much pain they should have endured for their mistake? As fate would have it, whatever 'moving past' they did will now be really put to the test. This will give some c…
https://evan.atavist.com/my-wife-found-my-email-in-the-ashle...
Imagine being accused of adultery just because someone else preferred to sign up for an account with an email address that wasn't their own.