6 ms·

At times I like to feel like 1984 didn't come true ever, and that our limited surveillence, in the grand scheme of things, is almost tolerable in comparison. Bu

by nv-vn 11y ago

At times I like to feel like 1984 didn't come true ever, and that our limited surveillence, in the grand scheme of things, is almost tolerable in comparison. But every time I see somethijg like this I change my mind. Everything here is about infiltrating the privacy of children and not about their safety. As soon as we get parents to accept this surveillence for their children, we know we're not far off from not just mass surveillance of metadata, but large scale surveillance of all Internet communication we conduct on a more-or-less personal level. If the current parents are okay with it, how much more will future parents allow now that the precedent is being set? How much intrusion will these children be willing to take once they're grown up?

PJules 11y ago
It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there. Until then its hard to imagine anything changing. Ofcourse Google and Facebook can stop being robotic slaves to advertising revenue and go the Wikipedia route. But that would be like expecting the big banks and rating agencies to do what was right at the peak of the subprime crisis. Its amazing to watch how some of the smartest people on the planet can get stuck on tracks they can't get of. Highly recommend Douglas Rushkoff on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87TSoqnZass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87TSoqnZass
- glasz 11y ago
  > It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there. that's a bunch of wishful thinking if not baloney. everybody's in that game. blackmail will be so inflationary that it won't work. the only difference to today will be much, much easier intrusion if not outright ban of privacy. now you don't tell me that won't happen. just look at the billions of sheep screwing around on facebook, uploading personal pictures to all kinds of clouds and using pictures of themselves on linked in and twitter, throwing their fingerprints into every database there is just to get a drivers license or take a flight somewhere, going along with secret courts, not objecting to international flight passenger records exchange, still believing the stories they're told about syria, lybia, iraq, iran, russia. still watching fox news et al, still voting for suckers like clinton, sanders, trump. everybody still believes at least some part of the charade. we got to where we are without anybody noticing or at least while ridiculing anybody who actually noticed and spoke out. this will go on and sheep will lose. sheep are sheep.
- reddytowns 11y ago
  I think we need a fundamental change of how the internet works to make it happen. Something like http://www.idni.org/tauchain http://www.idni.org/tauchain could do this. We need provable code, and the ability to communicate directly with each other rather than to rely on servers owned by third parties.
- Matt3o12_ 11y ago
  > Ofcourse Google and Facebook can stop being robotic slaves to advertising revenue and go the Wikipedia route. But that would be like expecting the big banks and rating agencies to do what was right at the peak of the subprime crisis The big companies are not the scariest parties. While I don't like what they are doing, Google, etc, kind of protect my data. What worries me most is what the government does with my data. They can do almost anything they want, track my every movement, see what I like and save it forever. While Google does the same, they need to protect that very careful because if this data is misused (and it gets publicized), they could lose billions (which they could not afford to do). If a government agency screws up, there is an "investigation", and, after a few weeks/months the media stops reporting. I'm not saying what either party does is good, but Google and Facebook are not as worrying to me as a government who will only use the data in my best interest and has a perfect track record of safeguarding my data.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    Uhhhhhh where do you think the government is getting that data?
    - Matt3o12_ 11y ago
      A better question is why are they allowed to get that data? I don't think google is serving them that data on a silver plate.
      - ethanbond 11y ago
        Of course they are, once they get a subpoena. Their systems could be engineered such that it's impossible to comply with such requests. But they're not. The reason they're not is... you guessed it: > Google and Facebook [being] robotic slaves to advertising revenues
- tehwebguy 11y ago
  If Trump's porn history isn't leaked soon we'll know this isn't going to happen
- falcolas 11y ago
  > It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there. That's happening now. Savy students with an eye on becoming a Judge have been sanitizing their online and public presence, making it very difficult to figure out what their stance is on any given topic. I imagine that prospective politicians are doing the same thing. Here's what the American Bar association has to say about social media: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2015/july-august/hazards_an_online_life_how_use_social_media_safely.html http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2015/july-au...
nicelynicely 11y ago
I firmly believe that at this point it is only the hackers who can stop it. Until these people experience having all their data publicly exposed there is nothing that will drive the point of privacy home. Unfortunately western hackers have been silenced already.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  > Unfortunately western hackers have been silenced already. Exactly. Does anyone believe the 10-year sentences in federal penitentiaries were really about breaking into some servers that didn't belong to them?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Or, in this case, the kids can stop it by not posting publicly. If anyone is upset here, it should be with parents for not teaching their kids.
coroutines 11y ago
It's scary seeing reality start to match 1984, but scarier still seeing new avenues of surveillance come to light that Orwell couldn't have predicted. Orwell didn't write about FitBits or Chromebooks.
glasz 11y ago
"limited surveillence" of course.
vijayr 11y ago
The thing with surveillance is that it creeps up one step at a time and very few people realize it at the beginning. By the time the masses wake up (and care) it will be too late. In the coming years, I wouldn't be surprised if more governments follow Kuwait's DNA style, even democratic ones :(
imgabe 11y ago
How much privacy should one expect to have when posting on a publicly accessible website?
- falcolas 11y ago
  We, as humans, aren't well equipped to properly measure the impact of posting a lot of little things which, individually, don't give a lot of information away (if any). "Big Data" projects and tools such as these allows agents to learn more about us than we have ever consciously given away. For example, if you post only about being sick, then about your craving for pickles, would you expect an agent to be able to identify that you're pregnant, and given your posting timeline, identify the due date with remarkable accuracy? Ad companies have been doing this with browsing behavior for awhile. The only way to avoid this particular threat is to not participate at all, something you will have a ridiculously hard time convincing a teenager of.
- tamana 11y ago
  None. Schools should be teaching students the dangers of posting publicly, not fostering and then exploiting the ignorance. What are we paying scholar for? To educate students!
- izacus 11y ago
  About as much as you get when you say something in public space like a park. While potentially "anyone" can hear you, it's not going to be used against you 10 years from now to label you a criminal.
cryoshon 11y ago
>and that our limited surveillence, in the grand scheme of things, is almost tolerable in comparison How is the surveillance we suffer under limited in any sense?

by nv-vn 11y ago

PJules 11y ago

It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there. Until then its hard to imagine anything changing. Ofcourse Google and Facebook can stop being robotic slaves to advertising revenue and go the Wikipedia route. But that would be like expecting the big banks and rating agencies to do what was right at the peak of the subprime crisis. Its amazing to watch how some of the smartest people on the planet can get stuck on tracks they can't get of. Highly recommend Douglas Rushkoff on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87TSoqnZass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87TSoqnZass

glasz 11y ago
> It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there. that's a bunch of wishful thinking if not baloney. everybody's in that game. blackmail will be so inflationary that it won't work. the only difference to today will be much, much easier intrusion if not outright ban of privacy. now you don't tell me that won't happen. just look at the billions of sheep screwing around on facebook, uploading personal pictures to all kinds of clouds and using pictures of themselves on linked in and twitter, throwing their fingerprints into every database there is just to get a drivers license or take a flight somewhere, going along with secret courts, not objecting to international flight passenger records exchange, still believing the stories they're told about syria, lybia, iraq, iran, russia. still watching fox news et al, still voting for suckers like clinton, sanders, trump. everybody still believes at least some part of the charade. we got to where we are without anybody noticing or at least while ridiculing anybody who actually noticed and spoke out. this will go on and sheep will lose. sheep are sheep.
reddytowns 11y ago
I think we need a fundamental change of how the internet works to make it happen. Something like http://www.idni.org/tauchain http://www.idni.org/tauchain could do this. We need provable code, and the ability to communicate directly with each other rather than to rely on servers owned by third parties.
Matt3o12_ 11y ago
> Ofcourse Google and Facebook can stop being robotic slaves to advertising revenue and go the Wikipedia route. But that would be like expecting the big banks and rating agencies to do what was right at the peak of the subprime crisis The big companies are not the scariest parties. While I don't like what they are doing, Google, etc, kind of protect my data. What worries me most is what the government does with my data. They can do almost anything they want, track my every movement, see what I like and save it forever. While Google does the same, they need to protect that very careful because if this data is misused (and it gets publicized), they could lose billions (which they could not afford to do). If a government agency screws up, there is an "investigation", and, after a few weeks/months the media stops reporting. I'm not saying what either party does is good, but Google and Facebook are not as worrying to me as a government who will only use the data in my best interest and has a perfect track record of safeguarding my data.
- ethanbond 11y ago
  Uhhhhhh where do you think the government is getting that data?
  - Matt3o12_ 11y ago
    A better question is why are they allowed to get that data? I don't think google is serving them that data on a silver plate.
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      Of course they are, once they get a subpoena. Their systems could be engineered such that it's impossible to comply with such requests. But they're not. The reason they're not is... you guessed it: > Google and Facebook [being] robotic slaves to advertising revenues
tehwebguy 11y ago
If Trump's porn history isn't leaked soon we'll know this isn't going to happen
falcolas 11y ago
> It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there. That's happening now. Savy students with an eye on becoming a Judge have been sanitizing their online and public presence, making it very difficult to figure out what their stance is on any given topic. I imagine that prospective politicians are doing the same thing. Here's what the American Bar association has to say about social media: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2015/july-august/hazards_an_online_life_how_use_social_media_safely.html http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2015/july-au...

nicelynicely 11y ago

I firmly believe that at this point it is only the hackers who can stop it. Until these people experience having all their data publicly exposed there is nothing that will drive the point of privacy home. Unfortunately western hackers have been silenced already.

jnbiche 11y ago
> Unfortunately western hackers have been silenced already. Exactly. Does anyone believe the 10-year sentences in federal penitentiaries were really about breaking into some servers that didn't belong to them?
MichaelGG 11y ago
Or, in this case, the kids can stop it by not posting publicly. If anyone is upset here, it should be with parents for not teaching their kids.

coroutines 11y ago

It's scary seeing reality start to match 1984, but scarier still seeing new avenues of surveillance come to light that Orwell couldn't have predicted. Orwell didn't write about FitBits or Chromebooks.

glasz 11y ago

"limited surveillence" of course.

vijayr 11y ago

The thing with surveillance is that it creeps up one step at a time and very few people realize it at the beginning. By the time the masses wake up (and care) it will be too late. In the coming years, I wouldn't be surprised if more governments follow Kuwait's DNA style, even democratic ones :(

imgabe 11y ago

How much privacy should one expect to have when posting on a publicly accessible website?

falcolas 11y ago
We, as humans, aren't well equipped to properly measure the impact of posting a lot of little things which, individually, don't give a lot of information away (if any). "Big Data" projects and tools such as these allows agents to learn more about us than we have ever consciously given away. For example, if you post only about being sick, then about your craving for pickles, would you expect an agent to be able to identify that you're pregnant, and given your posting timeline, identify the due date with remarkable accuracy? Ad companies have been doing this with browsing behavior for awhile. The only way to avoid this particular threat is to not participate at all, something you will have a ridiculously hard time convincing a teenager of.
tamana 11y ago
None. Schools should be teaching students the dangers of posting publicly, not fostering and then exploiting the ignorance. What are we paying scholar for? To educate students!
izacus 11y ago
About as much as you get when you say something in public space like a park. While potentially "anyone" can hear you, it's not going to be used against you 10 years from now to label you a criminal.

cryoshon 11y ago

>and that our limited surveillence, in the grand scheme of things, is almost tolerable in comparison How is the surveillance we suffer under limited in any sense?