Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future • Hacker News Board

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#141

Post by abandonliberty » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 6:43 PM UTC

rasengan0 wrote: post #45

We'll all take the red pill someday, but I swallowed the blue one already. I found the article enlightening, reminding me of the continued complacency and abject indifference in favor of convenience and other affordances of mindless empty rewards (yay, startups!) much like the Radiohead 1997 song, Fitter Happier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Computer I missed the whole Ai Weiwei media storm due to disinterest and…

Ai Weiwei Never Sorry is surprisingly enjoyable and it does a great job of giving some in-depth understanding of Chinese culture.

You can watch it a few minutes at a time. Ai Weiwei is a troll who has some degree of safety due to his and his father's fame.

His arrest was encouraged by a work of art whose title could be interpreted as, "fuck your mother Communist Party Central Committee" (NSFW) http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/379212-baidu-10-mythical-crea...

Less accessible, but still potentially informative and hilarious is his music video of his detention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACj86DKfWs

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#142

Post by handsomeransoms » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #97

sp4ke wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, we should use our skills in open source projects. I think decentralized technologies are the way to fix the problems with Internet. Speaking of Gmail, I also want to stop using Google services. I went back the good old times, just setup a mail server on a linux dedicated box and started sharing my new email address. It's going to be painful but there's no way around it. You can then setup POP or IMAP on…

I can reassure you it's not too late. If you wish to get involved in the decentralised web as a coder, could always participate in the technologies surrounding the Darknet Plan... http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/ Personally I believe the Darknet Plan is doomed to fail on a large scale unless they tackle the downsides of decentralisation, but that's just my personal opinion. There's plenty of work to do, I'm sure…

> With email, you're right that POP/IMAP on a dedicated box is preferable from a security standpoint.

This depends on your threat model, and I'd argue that this statement is untrue for the vast majority of people, even people who have the technical know-how required to run their own email server. Running an email server, keeping it up to date with the latest security patches, managing SSL certificates, blocking spam, blocking malware, and blocking phishing attempts are all things that Google is better at than you. Part of the reason for this is their access to incredible volumes of data, which lets them analyze trends and emerging threats across an relatively large subset of the email-using population.

The average user's threat model is much more along the lines of phishing, malware, or spam-related fraud. Google is incredibly good at protecting people from these threats (as is obvious when I compare the volume of spam, which often contains malware or phishing links, that I receive on my Gmail account against my other, non-Gmail accounts).

Of course, if your threat model is that you require protection from law enforcement or government surveillance, then Google may be a poor choice as they are legally obligated to turn over information about you that is requested by such entities. If that is your adversary, however, than you should have a lot more work to do to protect yourself than just quitting Gmail and setting up your own mail server.

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#143

Post by goodmachine » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

Intermernet wrote: post #71

"Your lunchtime is exactly 29 minutes. You are fired on the spot if you take a 31 minute lunch as that messes with the planning capabilities of the system." This is meant to describe "a large shipping warehouse in the US ... (think Amazon)" logistics system. Is this actually in any meaningful way true? If so, I'm disgusted, naive and disappointed.

Abusive work practices and tax avoidance are complementary pillars of the model. What a world we live in.

http://www.motherjones.com/print/161491

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#144

Post by kefka » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #106

csandreasen wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because Yandex is a Russian company - they share their info with the FSB. Ditto for QQ mentioned in the sibling comment and the Chinese MSS. Like throwawayaway said, pick your poison.

Yes, I know, that's why I don't have to 'pick my poison' I know that better options exist.

Ive always maintained to have servers in countries that do not get along with my government (USA).

I also have servers in locations that abide by privacy laws (EU), although I know many of them serve as puppets for the US.

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#145

Post by kefka » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 6:58 PM UTC

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #125

justincormack wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats an art project about raising awareness. Just turn the phone off.

... by removing the battery.

Some paranoid peoples claim there are batteries inside SOICs that still can provide data.

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#146

Post by ameasure » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 6:58 PM UTC

legohead wrote: post #140

sp4ke wrote: post #78

I have always been fascinated by computers and passionate about programming. I never taught I would ever feel ashamed of my passion ... that maybe I have been part of the decline of freedom and privacy, the same things I've always believed in and fought for . I've finished reading again 1984 a short time ago, and I felt sick reading this article and realizing we're making a monster. I stopped using Facebook a few mon…

We just don't have all the answers yet. We are at a strange era in human history. We have had privacy for eons, and now we may not. We can't even answer the question "do we need privacy?" If you were raised with no privacy, you wouldn't know the difference. Imagine living your whole life with cameras on you. You know if something bad happens, you have video evidence. Now imagine all those cameras are taken away. You…

Privacy, as it exists today, is entirely a modern invention. For most of human history people lived in small groups where everyone knew everyone else very well. It was not until industrialisation that we had mega cities where no one knows anyone.

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#147

Post by oconnore » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

ameasure wrote: post #146

legohead wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just don't have all the answers yet. We are at a strange era in human history. We have had privacy for eons, and now we may not. We can't even answer the question "do we need privacy?" If you were raised with no privacy, you wouldn't know the difference. Imagine living your whole life with cameras on you. You know if something bad happens, you have video evidence. Now imagine all those cameras are taken away. You…

Privacy, as it exists today, is entirely a modern invention. For most of human history people lived in small groups where everyone knew everyone else very well. It was not until industrialisation that we had mega cities where no one knows anyone.

You are selecting facts that are convenient for you.

You are correct that small groups were often tightly knit. But you are ignoring the persistence of modern surveillance: Your neighbor or clan-mate never followed you everywhere. Since the invention of shelter you always had privacy in your home with your family. You could always have a confidential conversation with a friend.

All of those things are more difficult now than they were ten years ago, or hundreds of years ago, or thousands of years ago.

Furthermore, you never had a statistical profile built on your behavior, where members of your society could predict your movements and desires.

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#148

Post by jodrellblank » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

maxmcd wrote: post #9

jodrellblank wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And goes on to show a piece of technology owned by Google. Who funded it and when is irrelevant to whether it belongs to google.

Really? Google owns a fighter jet. What kind of conclusions am I supposed to draw from that?

I don't understand your point.

I was arguing "the Boston dynamics robot is not Google technology because darpa funded it" with "it is fair to describe it as Google technology because Google own the technology".

You can draw whatever conclusions you like about the fighter jet for all I care. But if you start saying things like "they bought a fighter jet but they don't own it because someone else paid for the design" then I'll argue about your reasoning.

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#149

Post by narrator » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

The Pavlok is really disturbing but cool at the same time. It's such a perfect example of technology that could be used for good or evil.

Re: Ai Weiwei Is Living in Our Future

#150

Post by i0a » Fri, Jan 02, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

legohead wrote: post #140

sp4ke wrote: post #78

I have always been fascinated by computers and passionate about programming. I never taught I would ever feel ashamed of my passion ... that maybe I have been part of the decline of freedom and privacy, the same things I've always believed in and fought for . I've finished reading again 1984 a short time ago, and I felt sick reading this article and realizing we're making a monster. I stopped using Facebook a few mon…

We just don't have all the answers yet. We are at a strange era in human history. We have had privacy for eons, and now we may not. We can't even answer the question "do we need privacy?" If you were raised with no privacy, you wouldn't know the difference. Imagine living your whole life with cameras on you. You know if something bad happens, you have video evidence. Now imagine all those cameras are taken away. You…

1. The hypothetical situation you mention-- a world without privacy, where everyone is already used to it-- doesn't provide any substantial defense of the present violation of our existing privacy. Similarly, one could posit a scenario where everyone has lived their whole lives under a totalitarian regime, and felt scared if it was taken away. Such a scenario would not provide an argument for totalitarianism. (One could conceive of such hypothetical situations for any arbitrary state of events: e.g. racist societies, societies that have genital mutilation rituals, etc.)

2. "Do we need privacy?" is a more generalized question, which, in the current state of much of the first world, presupposes "should our privacy be stripped away?", before "Do we need privacy?" can even be fully answered. I personally have no desire to test it out.

3. To further critique and rephrase your statement: the real issue is not "Do we need privacy?", but "should we have privacy?", or, "should we continue to lose privacy?", or, finally, "Do we want to continue to give up our privacy?"