21–30 of 31 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine all the other political applications...
As I alluded to in my other post, I could only imagine the TSA getting a hold of this and integrating it into the scanners. I mean, that would be a great use for catching fleeing criminals, but of course, it's all too easy to use against normal people too as they've shown with less-advanced technologies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fervently disagree. Having 'nothing to hide' most certainly means not caring whether someone is watching or monitoring you for a specific purpose. Should we let an irrational need for privacy stop major advancements in science and technology? I don't want to get too political here, but I'd like to point out I was part of a very effective stem cell cure to Parkinson's Disease (multiple years, no signs of deteriorati…
You don't have nothing to hide. You just haven't realized that there's something you want hidden about your life.
This is exactly why I don't tag photos of myself and remove tags when a friend does it. I have no idea why people are zealous about tagging people in photos, if it's a friend you already know the name, if it isn't then do you need to know?
Example: I want to photoshop a picture of my friend onto a dog; I could either load all pictures with him tagged in it, or laboriously go through all of my pictures from a given weekend, hoping that the picture I'm looking for is there.
Result: http://i.imgur.com/C6mrd.jpg
This technology will theoretically enable fb to approximate your geographical location at a given time: [link redacted]
One solution is to spam photos of yourself with false timestamps and geodata.
This is exactly why I don't tag photos of myself and remove tags when a friend does it. I have no idea why people are zealous about tagging people in photos, if it's a friend you already know the name, if it isn't then do you need to know?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but "nothing to hide" is not a valid reason to enact this sort of measurement. Even if a person has a clean record, someone will find a way to indict that person of a crime, and that usually happens when laws change over time. The notion of a "terrorist" and "enemy combatant" have changed over time since 9/11. A person such as yourself traveling a lot is already going to be suspect - imagine if one day you had…
I fervently disagree. Having 'nothing to hide' most certainly means not caring whether someone is watching or monitoring you for a specific purpose. Should we let an irrational need for privacy stop major advancements in science and technology? I don't want to get too political here, but I'd like to point out I was part of a very effective stem cell cure to Parkinson's Disease (multiple years, no signs of deteriorati…
Almost 0 is not zero. If you're monitoring 300 million people, and the chance of a false positive is, say 0.001% per person per day, that's still 3,000 false positives every day. The false positive signal far outweighs the signal from the "real" dangerous people, making the system pointless and useless. Even if it works 100% of the time on the intended targets, human operators will become too fatigued from dealing with the false positives to deal with them effectively.
This is exactly why I don't tag photos of myself and remove tags when a friend does it. I have no idea why people are zealous about tagging people in photos, if it's a friend you already know the name, if it isn't then do you need to know?
Personally, I blocked the ability to tag me in any photos. I don't have to remove myself because no one but me can tag me in the first place.
This is really amazing. With so much feedback data, they could really fine-tune this. Imagine all the other practical applications...
Part of me thinks it's indeed very cool, but part of me can't help but wonder when I'll walk into a store at the mall and hear "Welcome back, Artmageddon!" as some unseen Kinect-style camera looks up my face in some database shared by a whole network of advertisers.
