4 ms·

I just assume everything I do or say is recorded and stored forever on some redundant storage and can be easily searched if I'm ever notable enough to have infl

I just assume everything I do or say is recorded and stored forever on some redundant storage and can be easily searched if I'm ever notable enough to have influence. That shouldn't influence what you do or say though, because if a system like that is corrupt enough to destroy a person for their private conversations, it's not worth participating in or supporting in the first place.

grecy 3y ago
> can be easily searched if I'm ever notable enough to have influence Simply by voting, or working for a certain company, or or striking or joining a union, or seeking an abortion may very well be notable enough for them to label you a certain way so they can pin something on you - "Acting against state interests" or some such.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  > Simply by voting Please show me a instance where a judge approved a warrant to investigate the crime of voting.
  - virtue3 3y ago
    The whole problem with this shit is they don't always need a warrant. If you are a non-us citizen or you're deemed "a terrorist" they can do whatever. This complicates further with crap like the US spying on say Swedish residents and then forwarding information to Sweden. Technically; Sweden isn't spying on it's citizens, the US is. But it's the same result.
    - Forbo 3y ago
      Or they can just buy the data they want from whatever surveillance capitalism megacorp and not even have to bother collaborating with international orgs, regardless of citizenship/national origin/whatever.
  - knodi123 3y ago
    https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/11/crystal-mason-illegal-voting-texas/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/11/crystal-mason-illega...
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      I guess that’s a good point. Not everyone can vote so there absolutely should be investigations into people bypassing the law. I assumed “legal” voting from the original comment but I guess its not all legal.
      - knodi123 3y ago
        > so there absolutely should be investigations into people bypassing the law No, there really shouldn't have been an investigation. This was evil, wasteful, and above all, truly fucked up. She didn't "steal" a vote from anyone. She cast a provisional ballot, after asking permission. There doesn't need to be an investigation- just check the facts, and deal with her provisional ballot as necessary. At my college, we had a guy walk across the stage at the graduation ceremony for the school of engineering. But he wasn't in the school of engineering; he just found there ceremony to be at a more convenient time, and assumed it was all the same. They didn't call his name, and nothing came of it. Because it was an administrative issue. What they didn't do, was throw him in jail for trying to steal an engineering degree. Because there was zero chance of that happening, and he wasn't even trying to do that.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        That's not what is being debated here. We are debating whether judges regularly sign off on warrants for legally voting or voting for the wrong candidate.
        knodi123 3y ago
        Nobody said "regularly", or "legally" or "wrong candidate" until you, just now. Feels like goalpost moving. But if you think my example was pointless, feel free to ignore it. I answered the question that was asked, and now I'm done.
- CaptWillard 3y ago
  I'm with you for the most part, but your examples don't seem to represent the type of citizens that the IC has been targeting for at least the last decade. Still, we should never allow the government to do to our opponents what we wouldn't want done to our allies.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    So called white supremacists.
  - grecy 3y ago
    > type of citizens that the IC has been targeting for at least the last decade. The really crazy part is that none of us has any clue what type of citizens the IC has been targeting. I'd be willing to bet it's all of us.
_trampeltier 3y ago
Yes, I just found out, at least Samsung Android, my phone does OCR on every picture ond does store it somehow in a DB. When I search for something on my phone, pictures with a part of the search string pop up instantly. Even bad pictures from a monitor, every word is indexed. Of course .. I'm pretty sure, everything goes to Google / Samsung, you know, to help to make a better service.
- autoexec 3y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if your phone was sending a copy of every picture you take to third parties too. Roku, for example, takes multiple screenshots every second of whatever happens to be on the screen and sends them back to Roku who analyzes them to guess at what you're into and to identify the content. I one day discovered that my phone's Samsung keyboard (the default one that came with the device out of the box) was logging every key press and sending it to a third party whose privacy policy said that they used it for "market research" and to guess at things like the intelligence and education level of the user. I immediately installed a new keyboard. I went with AnySoftKeyboard and so far it's been great, although, understandably, the autocorrect isn't anything close to what it used to be.
  - _trampeltier 3y ago
    Yes I know. The keyboard was the first thing I changed.
- petabytes 3y ago
  Is that Google Photos? It does it by default if you back up images there, and can be disabled.
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Many people end up using Google Photos just because they have an android phone, it was never anything explicitly intentional. And it definitely does more than OCR, a buddy wanted to show me some pics from their weekend and typed "kyak" into the search bar and voila, there were their photos of them in a kyak.
godelski 3y ago
> That shouldn't influence what you do or say though It shouldn't, but I'm willing to bet it does. Even if you don't notice it. In the best(?) case it influences a small number of people you talk to, but that influences your conversations with them so indirectly influences you. But I'd also argue that such a system would also be equally powerful enough to convincingly fabricate evidence against you. They could still blackmail you, by identifying things you might be embarrassed about, but the ability to fabricate convincing evidence is still highly problematic. I do often wonder if the next big boom in "ad" technology will be homomorphic encryption. Where the data can be mined for the useful things like data to train ML models or target populations of people, but targeting individuals would be substantially harder.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
autoexec 3y ago
> I just assume everything I do or say is recorded and stored forever on some redundant storage and can be easily searched if I'm ever notable enough to have influence. That's the real problem with constant surveillance. Those in power can use it to find and silence anyone who they feel is a threat to them, or even anyone who they think might one day become a threat. I'm not sure that freedom and democracy can exist under conditions like that.
xk_id 3y ago
And yet, how the hell does so much serious crime still remain in the world?

grecy 3y ago

> can be easily searched if I'm ever notable enough to have influence Simply by voting, or working for a certain company, or or striking or joining a union, or seeking an abortion may very well be notable enough for them to label you a certain way so they can pin something on you - "Acting against state interests" or some such.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> Simply by voting Please show me a instance where a judge approved a warrant to investigate the crime of voting.
- virtue3 3y ago
  The whole problem with this shit is they don't always need a warrant. If you are a non-us citizen or you're deemed "a terrorist" they can do whatever. This complicates further with crap like the US spying on say Swedish residents and then forwarding information to Sweden. Technically; Sweden isn't spying on it's citizens, the US is. But it's the same result.
  - Forbo 3y ago
    Or they can just buy the data they want from whatever surveillance capitalism megacorp and not even have to bother collaborating with international orgs, regardless of citizenship/national origin/whatever.
- knodi123 3y ago
  https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/11/crystal-mason-illegal-voting-texas/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/11/crystal-mason-illega...
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    I guess that’s a good point. Not everyone can vote so there absolutely should be investigations into people bypassing the law. I assumed “legal” voting from the original comment but I guess its not all legal.
    - knodi123 3y ago
      > so there absolutely should be investigations into people bypassing the law No, there really shouldn't have been an investigation. This was evil, wasteful, and above all, truly fucked up. She didn't "steal" a vote from anyone. She cast a provisional ballot, after asking permission. There doesn't need to be an investigation- just check the facts, and deal with her provisional ballot as necessary. At my college, we had a guy walk across the stage at the graduation ceremony for the school of engineering. But he wasn't in the school of engineering; he just found there ceremony to be at a more convenient time, and assumed it was all the same. They didn't call his name, and nothing came of it. Because it was an administrative issue. What they didn't do, was throw him in jail for trying to steal an engineering degree. Because there was zero chance of that happening, and he wasn't even trying to do that.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        That's not what is being debated here. We are debating whether judges regularly sign off on warrants for legally voting or voting for the wrong candidate.
        knodi123 3y ago
        Nobody said "regularly", or "legally" or "wrong candidate" until you, just now. Feels like goalpost moving. But if you think my example was pointless, feel free to ignore it. I answered the question that was asked, and now I'm done.
CaptWillard 3y ago
I'm with you for the most part, but your examples don't seem to represent the type of citizens that the IC has been targeting for at least the last decade. Still, we should never allow the government to do to our opponents what we wouldn't want done to our allies.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  So called white supremacists.
- grecy 3y ago
  > type of citizens that the IC has been targeting for at least the last decade. The really crazy part is that none of us has any clue what type of citizens the IC has been targeting. I'd be willing to bet it's all of us.

_trampeltier 3y ago

Yes, I just found out, at least Samsung Android, my phone does OCR on every picture ond does store it somehow in a DB. When I search for something on my phone, pictures with a part of the search string pop up instantly. Even bad pictures from a monitor, every word is indexed. Of course .. I'm pretty sure, everything goes to Google / Samsung, you know, to help to make a better service.

autoexec 3y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if your phone was sending a copy of every picture you take to third parties too. Roku, for example, takes multiple screenshots every second of whatever happens to be on the screen and sends them back to Roku who analyzes them to guess at what you're into and to identify the content. I one day discovered that my phone's Samsung keyboard (the default one that came with the device out of the box) was logging every key press and sending it to a third party whose privacy policy said that they used it for "market research" and to guess at things like the intelligence and education level of the user. I immediately installed a new keyboard. I went with AnySoftKeyboard and so far it's been great, although, understandably, the autocorrect isn't anything close to what it used to be.
- _trampeltier 3y ago
  Yes I know. The keyboard was the first thing I changed.
petabytes 3y ago
Is that Google Photos? It does it by default if you back up images there, and can be disabled.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Many people end up using Google Photos just because they have an android phone, it was never anything explicitly intentional. And it definitely does more than OCR, a buddy wanted to show me some pics from their weekend and typed "kyak" into the search bar and voila, there were their photos of them in a kyak.

godelski 3y ago

> That shouldn't influence what you do or say though It shouldn't, but I'm willing to bet it does. Even if you don't notice it. In the best(?) case it influences a small number of people you talk to, but that influences your conversations with them so indirectly influences you. But I'd also argue that such a system would also be equally powerful enough to convincingly fabricate evidence against you. They could still blackmail you, by identifying things you might be embarrassed about, but the ability to fabricate convincing evidence is still highly problematic. I do often wonder if the next big boom in "ad" technology will be homomorphic encryption. Where the data can be mined for the useful things like data to train ML models or target populations of people, but targeting individuals would be substantially harder.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

autoexec 3y ago

> I just assume everything I do or say is recorded and stored forever on some redundant storage and can be easily searched if I'm ever notable enough to have influence. That's the real problem with constant surveillance. Those in power can use it to find and silence anyone who they feel is a threat to them, or even anyone who they think might one day become a threat. I'm not sure that freedom and democracy can exist under conditions like that.

xk_id 3y ago

And yet, how the hell does so much serious crime still remain in the world?