4 ms·

It's not watching a place, it's watching a platform/utility with fine-grained categorization and structure of information. I'd compare it to holding the ebola

by aa0 13y ago

It's not watching a place, it's watching a platform/utility with fine-grained categorization and structure of information. I'd compare it to holding the ebola plague in a research facility without publicly providing the safety measures that we put in place to protect the virus from getting out. Do you know how many scientists would be up in arms? The only difference here is that we are dealing with computers which are usually publicly connected no matter what..and if the government has this information, who says hackers aren't going to be able to steal parts of the DB or query it? The very act of having this info, categorized, is just ghastly..and Orwellian.

diminoten 13y ago
Lots of stuff wrong with what you've written, and I don't have time to address everything, but I'll give you a short list: * You're begging the question by asserting it's the Ebola virus. The question is whether or not it's dangerous and by calling it a deadly virus you're asserting it is as a given. Logical fallacy. * I'd like to know where you got the information that the collected surveillance data is fully processed, even being used in its entirety, or that it's "fine grained". If you have information that hasn't yet been released, I recommend you be careful. See what happened to Snowden? * What do you mean "computers which are usually publicly connected no matter what"? Are you saying that when a computer is connected to a router, the data it transmits is public information? * What would hackers do with my location data, exactly? The fundamental problem that privacy solves is that the government would use your private data to cause you legal trouble. Hackers have no such luxury, and while they could steal your money or identity, that's a constant risk for the government, anyway. We already trust the US government with tons of our personal information, and yes, it could get hacked. It does get hacked, and yet somehow we're still here. * 1984 is fiction. It does not, in any way, shape, or form have any influence or predictive powers on the future outcome of events. It's a good story, but it's as useful as Harry Potter is at telling us how our society is going to transform.
- aa0 13y ago
  Lots of stuff wrong with what you've written: * I made an analogy, of course it isn't a virus - it's information that would have the possibility to wreak havoc if in the wrong hands. * Nothing has happened to Snowden yet other than being made an enemy of the state. The fact that he is alive is somewhat of a testament to how much he hasn't released. * Nothing of the sort, don't twist my words. Computers are notoriously hard to localize when connected to any network at all, local included. The CIA hacked the firmware of Iranian centrifuges through a massive widespread worm on _all_ computers that were later connected to the nuclear facilities network. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet) * Your location data is a tiny bit of the information that is stored. Phone records, internet usage by downloads and web sites visited, text messages, etc.. are all being logged by the NSA. * It's a work of excessive circumstance, it serves to show an extreme -- give you what would result once steps cross bounds, and don't recede.

by aa0 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

Lots of stuff wrong with what you've written, and I don't have time to address everything, but I'll give you a short list: * You're begging the question by asserting it's the Ebola virus. The question is whether or not it's dangerous and by calling it a deadly virus you're asserting it is as a given. Logical fallacy. * I'd like to know where you got the information that the collected surveillance data is fully processed, even being used in its entirety, or that it's "fine grained". If you have information that hasn't yet been released, I recommend you be careful. See what happened to Snowden? * What do you mean "computers which are usually publicly connected no matter what"? Are you saying that when a computer is connected to a router, the data it transmits is public information? * What would hackers do with my location data, exactly? The fundamental problem that privacy solves is that the government would use your private data to cause you legal trouble. Hackers have no such luxury, and while they could steal your money or identity, that's a constant risk for the government, anyway. We already trust the US government with tons of our personal information, and yes, it could get hacked. It does get hacked, and yet somehow we're still here. * 1984 is fiction. It does not, in any way, shape, or form have any influence or predictive powers on the future outcome of events. It's a good story, but it's as useful as Harry Potter is at telling us how our society is going to transform.

aa0 13y ago
Lots of stuff wrong with what you've written: * I made an analogy, of course it isn't a virus - it's information that would have the possibility to wreak havoc if in the wrong hands. * Nothing has happened to Snowden yet other than being made an enemy of the state. The fact that he is alive is somewhat of a testament to how much he hasn't released. * Nothing of the sort, don't twist my words. Computers are notoriously hard to localize when connected to any network at all, local included. The CIA hacked the firmware of Iranian centrifuges through a massive widespread worm on _all_ computers that were later connected to the nuclear facilities network. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet) * Your location data is a tiny bit of the information that is stored. Phone records, internet usage by downloads and web sites visited, text messages, etc.. are all being logged by the NSA. * It's a work of excessive circumstance, it serves to show an extreme -- give you what would result once steps cross bounds, and don't recede.