> And to anyone who says “I have nothing to hide” To anyone saying that, they need to stop quoting Nazi propaganda. Term is coined by (but not originating from) Goebbels. Note: The origin is from a fictional dystopia.
Thank you. A great way to address the sentiment.
I mean I get why people say it. But we have to also be honest with ourselves. If it is something (strongly) pushed by societies that we utterly despise (be the Nazis, the dystopian writing of Sinclair (origin), or Voldemort's puppet state), it probably doesn't align with the beliefs of a free society.
The phrase is too frequently used by societies that we consider to not be free, being pervasive enough that a single use in literature would tell you that the characters live in an oppressive regime. Yet somehow we can make that connection but don't make it when actual politicians and citizens repeat it.
Personally I feel sickened that the phrase is so pervasive in our society (goes beyond the US). Just as I'd be if people were constantly saying "Work will set you free."
An arrest of the sort we are talking about is a form of extra-judicial punishment that should be forbidden by any just system of law. In fact, I am constantly surprised at the things that are allowed, and even encouraged, in our judicial system, and how many individuals apparently believe the system is fine the way it is. Saying that we should continue to allow people to be fired for an arrest is to further support t…
This a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I don't think the existing system is fine. Fix the judicial system itself, don't offload that responsibility onto businesses. If arresting a person is so easy as to be able to ruin their life (and I agree that it is), there should be a higher bar to arresting people than . If a system is conceived in which a business is able to fire and quickly rehire someone who was wrong…
Yes, I agree that the justice system itself is the root cause. However, I think it's also okay to "paper over the problem", and to support that I would directly appeal to the jury-trial system. The government is taking people away from work to perform a government service, and they (rightly) forbid business from firing someone during that time. In the same way, arresting someone also conscripts a person, against their will, to do government service. The service, in this case, is very similar to jury service in that the arrestee's role is to help justice be done by the government. The only difference is that a juror is picked by a computer (and then a lawyer) but an arrestee is picked by a cop.
In that case you should be safe to go out and do some mischief! Or... image recognition in CCTV's might recognize your face and couple it with the fact that you're not carrying your mobile.
Face recognition (even by humans), particularly with CCTV data, has a very high rate of false positives. You might be able to make the case that the fact that your phone wasn't there is evidence that the image isn't really you.
Except that footage of someone recognized as you walking out of your own apartment might be hard to refute.
Plus I only see face recognition (and CCTV quality) getting better over time. Unfortunately.
You should know how these things work. When you contact your representative with an opinion, they just add one to their tally of how many voters expressed the same opinion. The totals for how many voters expressed which opinions are what carries the most sway with them. Whether or not those tallies are in alignment with the general public is not relevant. So, when you contact them, you'll get a canned response tellin…
You have just described my experience to me. > Whether or not those tallies are in alignment with the general public is not relevant. Is this not grossly pathological?
I am not claiming this is the way it should work, only that this is the way it does work.
The silver lining in that cloud is that it means that expressing your opinion to your representative is something that really does make a difference. On a practical level, if you don't tell them, they won't know.
>buy this information indirectly... Which means what? If you aren't actually getting user information, then simply put you aren't buying user information. Anything else is twisting words to distort their meanings.
> That is their business: they sell their ability to know everything about you to anyone willing to pay for that information. Google has information about you. Incredibly detailed, intimate information about you. Harvested by collecting and correlating all of your usage of their products and services. Anyone can pay Google to use that knowledge in pursuit of other services, like targeted ads. No, you do not get acces…
Yes, Google collects user data and uses it for ad targeting. That's a more fair telling of the situation. If this concerns you, you may opt-out of the process.
It's a shame google maps is so much better than the alternatives, but it's probably somewhat related to the amount of data they collect.
But think about that for a second. Apple spends something like 1 billion dollars a year on Apple Maps. There is no strategic reason for them to do maps. They aren't making money from it. They are anonymising the statistics they gather. They chose to spend this insane amount of money doing something completely foreign to them just so their customers don't have to use Google Maps. Let that sink in. It's incredible. As…
Apple's motivation to grow Apple Maps is the same as Google's motivation to grow their maps product-- commoditize the complement.
They both spend lots of money on maps in the hope that users will use those maps on each corporations platform. The difference is Apple makes money selling the device and services, Google makes money selling your attention to advertisers.
The real driving force for Apple to spend that money was Google restricting features in their iOS app.
> That is their business: they sell their ability to know everything about you to anyone willing to pay for that information. Google has information about you. Incredibly detailed, intimate information about you. Harvested by collecting and correlating all of your usage of their products and services. Anyone can pay Google to use that knowledge in pursuit of other services, like targeted ads. No, you do not get acces…
Yes, Google collects user data and uses it for ad targeting. That's a more fair telling of the situation. If this concerns you, you may opt-out of the process.
I cannot opt out of my friends and family sharing that information which includes me, like address books. I cannot easily and effectively opt out of browser tracking. Opting out is not a reasonable option.
But think about that for a second. Apple spends something like 1 billion dollars a year on Apple Maps. There is no strategic reason for them to do maps. They aren't making money from it. They are anonymising the statistics they gather. They chose to spend this insane amount of money doing something completely foreign to them just so their customers don't have to use Google Maps. Let that sink in. It's incredible. As…
Apple's motivation to grow Apple Maps is the same as Google's motivation to grow their maps product-- commoditize the complement. They both spend lots of money on maps in the hope that users will use those maps on each corporations platform. The difference is Apple makes money selling the device and services, Google makes money selling your attention to advertisers. The real driving force for Apple to spend that mone…
Commoditising the complement is a compatible thesis to my aforementioned point.
Also, it was leaked somewhere that Google was willing to give iOS all the features as long as Apple would allow all the user tracking. I can't speak to how reliable that is, but it wouldn't surprise me.
You buy this information indirectly any time you use any of Google's targeted advertising services. And yes, anyone can buy into it.
>buy this information indirectly... Which means what? If you aren't actually getting user information, then simply put you aren't buying user information. Anything else is twisting words to distort their meanings.
You know exactly what it means and maybe you're moving into semantic disagreement. Google does not sell the raw user information itself to its paying customers but it does sell it indirectly by giving them access to excellent targeting tools based on all those things it knows about you, me and X and Y individuals. Maybe im not being perfectly precise but to me that fits the bill for buying information indirectly.