31–40 of 41 posts
Well, if there was ever any doubt that technology like Google Glass encourages creepy mass surveillance and that powerful new privacy laws are overdue, I guess there isn't any more. As far as I can see, the path this kind of technology leads us down is only likely to end one of two ways: 1. We develop a more open and forgiving society that acknowledges everyone has faults and treats everyone fairly as the person they…
Laws may help some, but I worry that as devices get smaller and computers are integrated into everything, they won't be able to protect us for long. Ubiquitous computing may (in the next decade or two) actually obsolete any expectation of privacy. We need to start acting as if every digital device nearby is reporting information about us, because most of those devices will soon have that capability. In that case, I h…
If there's a presumption of surveillance, and an effective means to compel production of any electronic records, the you end up with an effect similar to that which some people have noted concerning reviewing social networking pages as part of hiring practices (either public-facing content or by the reprehensible practice of requesting passwords).
As several people have noted: sure, if you want to go there, you'll discover that I'm a member of X, Y, and Z lawfully protected groups in terms of discrimination. In which case the onus is then put on the employer (preponderance of evidence) to show that a discriminatory hiring decision wasn't made, to say nothing of legal costs in defending against same.
I'm not entirely sanguine that this be the case -- there's a lot that can go wrong with legal procedure and protections. But laws do matter and can help.
Simply because something is technically possible doesn't mean it must happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wear corrective lenses. Every time I hear that I think of Pol Pot.
I'm not sure I grasp the connection.
Perhaps this fashion trend will resurface: http://news.discovery.com/history/art-history/venice-masks-1... In the 17th century, Brown said noblemen, patrician women, and other wealthy individuals began to wear masks and cloaks throughout the city. "This custom reached its apogee in the 18th century, as you can see in paintings by Pietro Longhi," Brown told Discovery News. She explained, "Masks and cloaks allowed one…
* http://www.refinery29.com/2014/01/60361/nametag
* http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/09/stalker-friendly-...
Personally, I think this is very scary, especially since they're planning to make it opt-out, so you're in the results, unless you sign up and opt-out. I'm guessing some legislation is necessary to prevent all out abuse of this sort of technology. There's obviously benefits to this sort of technology, but in my opinion, should be tightly controlled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I grasp the connection.
"During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who they believed were enemies of the state or spies or had the potential to undermine the new state. People who they perceived as intellectuals or even those who had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses, would also be killed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
That seems like the sort of determination that ought to be made by the wearer...
Well, if there was ever any doubt that technology like Google Glass encourages creepy mass surveillance and that powerful new privacy laws are overdue, I guess there isn't any more. As far as I can see, the path this kind of technology leads us down is only likely to end one of two ways: 1. We develop a more open and forgiving society that acknowledges everyone has faults and treats everyone fairly as the person they…
So it's not a matter of choosing between those two futures. "They" have already got their database about you. Do you want the same tools, or not?
"It’s much easier to meet interesting new people when we can simply look at someone, see their Facebook, review their LinkedIn page, or maybe even see their dating-site profile." How sad.
I'm still trying to figure out just what my reaction to that sentence was. It was some strange mixture of pathos, horror, and, contemplating a world in which such an idea has taken hold, how to unite people against such a thing.
Like any conference for the past few years already?