191–200 of 329 posts
Wishing privacy on the internet is like wishing no turmoil while shagging during a massive religious events of paranoid gunned puritans. If privacy is such a problem for some it is not a technological problem, it is a political problem. If so, people concerned should make their revolution in an appropriate place: the real world, and let internet stay a public media. PS noticed another fun topic there are blacklisted…
Wishing privacy on the internet is like wishing no turmoil while shagging during a massive religious events of paranoid gunned puritans. If privacy is such a problem for some it is not a technological problem, it is a political problem. If so, people concerned should make their revolution in an appropriate place: the real world, and let internet stay a public media. PS noticed another fun topic there are blacklisted…
I would start with two:
-salary : thieves, kidnappers (do you really trust that everyone in law enforcement is trustworthy they can cooperate with thieves)
check your contract, you might get even fired because you leaked your salary, and it is your duty to keep it secret and explaining that some hacker did that does not matter
-contacts : maybe someone will be stalking your friend and he might get access to your friend because you were hacked. You also should not share your friends mails and numbers without their consent.
They might be at least angry at you because you shared their contact info. ------------------ Maybe you guys have better or more ideas.
But nothing to hide applies to hermit on top of the mountain. If someone thinks otherwise he is an as*le because he does not think about people around him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because information is power and power tends to be abused over the longer term, all fig-leaves about 'improving the world' to the contrary. This sounds more like a uncompromising proclamation instead of thorough analysis.
It's simply an observation made over history, it's not a proclamation and there is no analysis involved. Anybody that has been following the applications of information technology from the earliest of times would most likely come to that same conclusion. The ancients had it as 'power corrupts', the abuses are plentiful and that every company that engages in these practices (and the government agencies as well) do thi…
Well, then logical thing would be not to give anyone any power, ever.
My point is, if you take general principles and blindly apply it with "no analysis involved", you're likely to get to a pretty ridiculous state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which sector is building startup after startup for data mining, tracking, building profiles? You talk about it like it's necessarily a bad thing, by default, for everyone. Why?
Most people are not persons of interest and nothing particularly bad will happen to them if various entities have access to their private info. Still, they might have their identity stolen, get scammed (e.g. Dell) or pranked (e.g. swatting, disconnecting utilities) or have their house broken into if they have bad luck. They might pay a premium on insurance for having the wrong friends on FB or get fired for holding c…
Don't you see any logical problems with this line of reasoning?
It pains me to see that power-hungry people used most techies as useful idiots to implement their own goals - how many politicians with dirty hands are now getting on board of prime tech companies? They finally understood what technology can offer to them. It seems like the end game is who is going to control everything - those types can finally see the time when technology is sufficiently advanced to control every a…
It's not that they aren't trying, or that we are not letting them. The problem is that technology is very "stubborn", "subordinating" only to those it chooses to, and those are always almost impossible to predict. No elite was ever successful on that kind of coup.
Why don't privacy proponents don't go all in and just ask to get rid of the Internet? Surely, privacy is easier to maintain when communication is inefficient. Perhaps that's because privacy is actually an archaic and backward idea that maintains all of our problems alive. I can't think of a less progressive (more conservative) idea than privacy. The next most important revolution in human history will be our transiti…
How do we get to a completely transparent society without massive collateral damage? I understand the rationale for the goal but the transition is so very difficult. I wish more thought was being put into it.
Considering that we need to get to a transparent society, contributions to the privacy movement only ensures that the transition will be even more difficult and violent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Potentially criminal groupls: everybody. While this may be true, certain crimes are seen as worse than others. And, as un-PC as it may sound, certain demographics are many times more likely to commit certain crimes. Homicide: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6227a1.htm Also, some government monitoring can be "for your own good": Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss…
Government monitoring "for your own good" is pretty scary. We already have situations where people are attacked by the government or its agents because they did something that only harms themselves. For example [1]. Mass surveillance, if left unchecked, will eventually expand for whatever purposes the government wishes. Power is easy to incrementally grow (or in the case of the NSA, they simply ignore the laws) and v…
That's one of my favorite author quotes. The greatest evil in this world is done by those who can see their own work and tell themselves that it is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simply an observation made over history, it's not a proclamation and there is no analysis involved. Anybody that has been following the applications of information technology from the earliest of times would most likely come to that same conclusion. The ancients had it as 'power corrupts', the abuses are plentiful and that every company that engages in these practices (and the government agencies as well) do thi…
> The ancients had it as 'power corrupts' Well, then logical thing would be not to give anyone any power, ever. My point is, if you take general principles and blindly apply it with "no analysis involved", you're likely to get to a pretty ridiculous state.
Just like any other tool such insights can be (and are) abused but it need not be like that.
The conclusion to reach is not to give anyone any power ever, clearly that's not feasible. The conclusion you're supposed to reach is that you can give power to people but you'll need oversight in place. Effectively you'll end up with checks and balances, pretty much the way most governments are set up.
And what history tells us - again - is that this isn't always sufficient to prevent abuses and our newspapers and other media seem to tell us that our current set of checks and balances have outlived their usefulness in the information age.
This flows from 'power corrupts' because it appears that those placed in power have - surprise - again abused their privileges.
Think of it as a warning beamed down from historical times to our present day that does not need more embellishment and is all the more powerful for its brevity, it is something so inherent in human nature that we need to be vigilant of it at all times, no matter who we end up placing trust in.