4 ms·

Fair point, however just because the phone company/NSA has this information, IMHO that doesn't make unnecessarily intrusive apps OK with me.

xapata 10y ago
To each his own. In my view, the cat's out of the bag, so I might as well get a better product out of it.
- cowpig 10y ago
  :(
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Well, to me it's a problem. Here is an example of the kind of thing that is already happening: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161130/09293036157/brooklyn-prosecutor-forged-judges-signatures-wiretap-warrants-to-eavesdrop-love-interest.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161130/09293036157/brook... To me, if 1 is getting caught, it makes me question how many are not getting caught. Or are getting caught and let off the hook because the people around them won't hold them accountable. If we continue to allow this, we're just going to expand the amount of abuse. And yes I know Uber is tracking location not access to your phone's mic.
  - xapata 10y ago
    Abuse of power is a serious problem. It's hard to imagine that more regulation would stop bad actors like that judge, since he's already breaking the law. I can't think of a way to keep privacy technologically without sacrificing the modern conveniences I very much appreciate. Uber in particular has dramatically improved my lifestyle. Google Maps as well. Experiments like justin.tv show one solution to the problem. Justin Kan, during those 8 months he broadcast his life, would not have feared a secret wiretap. It might be a couple decades more, but I expect that eventually it'll be normal to wear a camera on your face. When everyone broadcasts, surveillance is meaningless.
- intended 10y ago
  by analogy: When your house is on fire, your normal response shouldnt be "well, lets burn the car too." The usual response is to stop the fire.
  - xapata 10y ago
    I don't equate loss of privacy to a house fire. To be a good analogy, burning my car would need to be beneficial in some way. I see what you're trying to get at, but I there's probably better way to make your point.

xapata 10y ago

To each his own. In my view, the cat's out of the bag, so I might as well get a better product out of it.

cowpig 10y ago
:(
wallace_f 10y ago
Well, to me it's a problem. Here is an example of the kind of thing that is already happening: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161130/09293036157/brooklyn-prosecutor-forged-judges-signatures-wiretap-warrants-to-eavesdrop-love-interest.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161130/09293036157/brook... To me, if 1 is getting caught, it makes me question how many are not getting caught. Or are getting caught and let off the hook because the people around them won't hold them accountable. If we continue to allow this, we're just going to expand the amount of abuse. And yes I know Uber is tracking location not access to your phone's mic.
- xapata 10y ago
  Abuse of power is a serious problem. It's hard to imagine that more regulation would stop bad actors like that judge, since he's already breaking the law. I can't think of a way to keep privacy technologically without sacrificing the modern conveniences I very much appreciate. Uber in particular has dramatically improved my lifestyle. Google Maps as well. Experiments like justin.tv show one solution to the problem. Justin Kan, during those 8 months he broadcast his life, would not have feared a secret wiretap. It might be a couple decades more, but I expect that eventually it'll be normal to wear a camera on your face. When everyone broadcasts, surveillance is meaningless.
intended 10y ago
by analogy: When your house is on fire, your normal response shouldnt be "well, lets burn the car too." The usual response is to stop the fire.
- xapata 10y ago
  I don't equate loss of privacy to a house fire. To be a good analogy, burning my car would need to be beneficial in some way. I see what you're trying to get at, but I there's probably better way to make your point.