Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Government Privacy Technology Your Rights Online

A Day In the Life of Privacy 103

Posted by samzenpus
from the lets-see-what-you-got-going-on-over-there dept.
wiredmikey writes "Here's an interesting read on the state of privacy and how technology, along with government and social media have changed the idea, and reality of privacy forever. The article takes the reader through a typical day, and highlights many of the privacy issues that we face, from our mobile phones, Internet at local coffee shops, Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, all the way down to cars equipped with OnStar, public cameras, facial recognition technology and more. The author concludes everyday we make compromises in the face of Privacy, and none of us will ever have as much privacy as we want."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Day In the Life of Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • by StripedCow (776465) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @10:40AM (#37730440)

    If social networks would just fall under the same laws as telecom companies, then those companies would simply be prohibited to inspect the messages that their users send around (even if their services are "free", and even if those messages are intended for a group of people instead of just one person a time).

    Why aren't we just approaching the problem from this angle?

    • by Yaur (1069446) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @10:52AM (#37730528)
      Because telecom forms natural monopolies that require regulation and social networks offer services that you can choose not to use and thus require less regulation. The real problem is that not enough people care about privacy for an alternative with strong privacy protection (which would likely be a paid service) to be a viable business.
      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Social networks may not have high capital costs, but the barriers to entry are practically insurmountable because of the demand-side economies of scale.
        Monopoly or not, it's clear facebook are not under enough competitive pressure and need to have the shit regulated out them. At least my phone interoperates with every other phone on the planet. Would be nice if social networks did the same.

        • The barrier to entry is practically insurmountable due to the network effect. A social network is worthless without people already on it, and people won't join unless there are already people there. You need to either be the first to get to a market segment, or have a massive advertising budget, or some high-profile celebrity endorsements. It's doable - Facebook did manage to displace Myspace - but only barely so.
          • by optimism (2183618) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @07:01PM (#37733818)

            The barrier to entry is practically insurmountable due to the network effect.

            Not really.

            Facebook's temporary success was mostly due to the fact that they targeted college students. The college years are when most people start to form their lifelong "social networks". The 20's are when most people refine and petrify those networks.

            However...every year, rough 140,000,000 people are born on this planet. If you target this year's 140M new high school seniors, or 140M new college freshmen, with a new and better "social networking" service, they will jump on it, because their social connections are still in flux, and the social overlap across years at those ages is relatively small.

            If anything, the new HS seniors and college freshmen will pull older college freshmen and sophomores and juniors over to their new "social networking" service.

            The first mover advantage simply does not apply here. Facebook is doomed. The only question was whether Goldman Sachs could make a few $100M's off of Facebook before it disappears. And that is exactly what they did with their "special purpose investment vehicle" back in January of this year. Dumb money paid those $100M's for no promises. Restribution of the stupid wealth. The next 12 months is the end game.

      • social networks offer services that you can choose not to use

        Uhm, you can also choose not to use telecom services... or what am I missing?

        • I can choose other social networks that might offer more privacy, and it is as easy as changing my URL.

          With phone companies, I can either use the telco in my area, or not at all. Not the same thing.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Do you really think that if you don't go to Facebook.com anymore, they won't learn anything about you? If you think that is the case, you are severely lacking in grasping the reach companies like Facebook have.

          • by UpnAtom (551727)

            Yes you can choose other social networks that none of the people you want to socialise with use.

      • Those "natural" monopolies come from government protection of special interests. On the other hand, corruption is "natural". Everybody's looking for a cut. Including the people who vote for corrupt officials. What is needed is to eliminate the need for privacy, to not allow the info to used used against you. Part of the solution is to eliminate official secrecy. The state should not be permitted any more privacy than any other individual.

        • by Yaur (1069446)
          No.
          For wireline, they exist because you have to tear up the street to run cable and get easements on private property in order to run cable. It is in the public's best interest to minimize how much the roads get torn up and in the public's best interest to have a neutral arbiter between the needs of the individual property owner and the telecom provider providing service to the wider community.
          For wireless, service requires consuming part of the finite available frequency. Without regulation in each in
      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        Because telecom forms natural monopolies that require regulation and social networks offer services that you can choose not to use and thus require less regulation.

        All business sectors form "natural monopolies". That's the single biggest flaw in free market capitalism. Big companies get bigger and bad money pushes out the good. Then the process is accelerated when the biggest corporations gain political power.

        A bank with a capitalization requirement of 5% will make more profit than one with a requiremen

    • by CRCulver (715279)
      You pay directly for telecom services. What are you providing social networks to keep them in business? It is selling your activity on the network to advertisers. If you want to legislate a requirement for privacy on social networks, be prepared to start paying out of pocket for Facebook usage.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Why aren't we just approaching the problem from this angle?

      Because a free and unregulated market will always deliver the most profitable, more equitable, and most efficient outcomes all of the time and for every possible scenario you blasphemous heretic.

    • I read these types of comments all the time, people want secure social networks. I have created a secure social network, truefriender.com [truefriender.com] its very difficult to get people who don't care about privacy to use it. I challenge you to use it, try it out, and give me feedback. And maybe you can be the person who changes people's minds. (Well at least your friends anyway)
    • ...those companies would simply be prohibited to inspect the messages that their users send around...

      Simply impossible to enforce. Forget about it. They can collect and store what they want and nobody will ever know until there's a slip up.

  • What happened to privacy? *waves hands*

  • Giving it away (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DogDude (805747) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @10:53AM (#37730540) Homepage
    "My point is that everyday, all day, we make compromises in the face of privacy, and that, in reality, probably none of us have as much privacy as we want."

    Speak for yourself. I have a satisfying, fulfilling life without giving away my privacy for no apparent reason. The author chooses to make those compromises. Not everybody needs a MegaPixel2000AndroidiPhone. Not everybody feels the need to announce their current location to the world. Not everybody chooses to contribute to the banks by using credit for trivial purchases. The guy's just another lemming.
    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      Most of the problems listed by the author can be solved by using cash instead of credit or debit, disabling GPS in your phone, not getting OnStar in your car (or physically removing the module if you already have it), and not using services like Facebook or Twitter. Red-light and security cameras can be defeated with a post-it note and hoodie, respectively.

      • using cash instead of credit or debit,

        I used to think that was the case too, until I found out the way they caught Eliot Spitzer is by noticing he was making unusually large cash withdrawals. Basically, the only reason you have privacy is because no one cares about you. If someone wants to follow you around and figure out what you are doing, they can.

        Also, how does the post-it onte defeat red-light cameras?

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          Also, how does the post-it [note] defeat red-light cameras?

          Answering your last bit first, certain people in Arizona (angered over a speed camera company) have resorted to using Post-It Notes to disable cameras [thetruthaboutcars.com]. They're not doing any permanent damage and I don't believe anyone has been up on vandalism charges since they're not actually damaging the cameras - just disabling it in a fashion. (Europe has had way more cameras in places like the U.K., and solutions have ranged from putting a bag over the camera or silly string to slightly less friendly versions such as s

    • by finity (535067)
      We give away privacy to gain certain benefits. I work on code projects at coffee shops sometimes, instead of at home, despite the reduction in privacy. The benefit that I get is that I feel slightly more social, and I get to drink some good good espresso. Just because I choose to buy into the ridiculous game of corporate bs and use credit sensibly for all types of purchases does not make me a lemming. My fursuit does that just fine thankyou. Typed on my AndroidMegaCorp2000FancySchmantzPhone.
      • But you aren't complaining about your lack of privacy, either. The guy in the article wants all that stuff AND is complaining that he doesn't have privacy (really: don't sign up for the discount program if you don't want to be tracked). If you were complaining, you would look kind of dumb too.
    • "Not everybody chooses to contribute to the banks by using credit for trivial purchases."

      They should. Most offer either cash back or airline miles or something similar. You'd be foolish not to use it for everything you buy normally, since these bonuses don't apply to cash. Pay your bill completely at the end of the month, and you actually come out ahead over someone who just writes checks and uses cash.
      • by DogDude (805747)
        Another case of the tragedy of the commons... Don't think that the banks don't make back those rewards points somewhere else. Those cards cost the merchant significantly more to take than to regular credit cards or cash.
        • by swalve (1980968)
          Contrary to this popular opinion, it costs money for businesses to deal in cash.
        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          Another case of the tragedy of the commons... Don't think that the banks don't make back those rewards points somewhere else. Those cards cost the merchant significantly more to take than to regular credit cards or cash.

          Depends on the business. If you're a tiny 2-person Mom and Pop shop, handling cash is cheap and easy. But once you grow to a certain size and start handling large sums of cash daily, it gets expensive.

          Just think of it - you're closing up shop, and you need to deposit your cash somewhere, els

      • Not from a privacy standpoint you don't. If you use a credit or debit card for all of your purchases you are painting a very detailed picture for data miners. Once that information is cross-referenced with other financial and demographic data, one gets a pretty clear picture of who you are and what you do. And those collecting these data, whether it be advertisers or NSA/DHS, have only their self-interest in mind, and not your best interest.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Speak for yourself. I have a satisfying, fulfilling life without giving away my privacy for no apparent reason. The author chooses to make those compromises. .

      If you read the article you were probably logged by the hosting website AND twitter, linkedin, google and facebook.
      Giving away your privacy for no apparent reason you have done without knowing it.

    • It's not as simple as that. Not everyone is an introvert, the majority of people are naturally inclined to involve themselves with others via an online identity. It's pretty much a psychological imperative. Still, every time a privacy issue is raised on slashdot, we get a half dozen of these kinds of posts like yours. This being dismissive and condescending toward people who enjoy using social networks but also have misgivings about privacy.

      We realize that we are surrendering personal information in exchan

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Even without the internet, you already have no privacy.
    Everything you do in public with relation to transactions is recorded and inspected somewhere. (even if it is automatic)
    Even non-transactions can be recorded, such as CCTV.

    I remember a TV production was done about "disappearing" and there was someone who requested all the information held on him from pretty much every organization in existence.
    Packs of pages, probably 2000+ pages in each.
    Stuff from credit card purchases, dental records, hospital record

    • If you really, really want to vanish from society, learn how to live off the land and drop your whole life
      Maybe find a job in a random diner or bar, typically somewhere in the remote parts of town where you get cash by hand.


      Go even farther than that. See the movie 'Missing in America'
      Off the grid indeed.
  • I understand the point of the article perfectly. But I think the author is also missing a generational issue. A lot of people of younger generations simply don't really care. Personally I don't care that much. Sure, information about me can be used against me, but I have better things to do than being paranoid.

    I'm not trying to say what's wrong or right. But my guess is that all this tracking is not just an issue of ignorance. It's also that there are a lot of people out there who simply don't have a proble

    • And things are different now. It's mostly corporations who are tracking you, often in bulk, to sell you things. In other cases it's simply data that gets stored and sifted without human interaction.

      In the past, if you lived in a small town (hell, if you do today), you had very little privacy. Everybody knows what everybody is doing. We've gotten used to the illusion that anything we do in our homes is private. While the internet and communication have allowed us to do more stuff at home, they've also broug

      • It's mostly corporations who are tracking you, often in bulk, to sell you things.

        I honestly don't get why so many people hate this. Advertisements are annoying when they are not helpful. On the other hand, ads are great when they connect you to the product you've been looking for.

        I don't care to see Tampax or MLB ads. I'm not going to buy anything they are selling, so every one of those ads is annoying to me.
        On the other hand, an ad for Xbox or Cisco might actually help me learn more about something I was considering buying anyhow.

        What is the downside, exactly?

        • by Ltap (1572175)

          I honestly don't get why so many people hate this. Advertisements are annoying when they are not helpful. On the other hand, ads are great when they connect you to the product you've been looking for.

          First, the flawed premise of that is that you are looking for a product. I know that, in the majority of the time I spend online, I am most definitely not looking to buy or sell anything.

          Second, the other problem is that you are relying on advertisements to give you good information about what you want, more than proper research (for instance, technical specs) might. This is ridiculous, since advertisements by their nature tend to lie by omission about what they are advertising and overstate the positive

          • On points 1 & 2, you assume the decision is between ads and no ads. That's incorrect.

            My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.

            Also, I never said I buy based of what an ad says. I might not have realized, though, that a product that fits my needs exists without the ad. After knowing it does exist, I'll begin my normal process of looking into unbiased sources.

            Your 3rd point really doesn't bother me, and that's part of what I'm ge

            • by Ltap (1572175)

              My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.

              Actual decision? There's always the option to choose "no ads".

              • Do you take the all of the pennies out of the jar at the gas station, too?

                If you're talking about paying for member access, sure, you can do that on some sites.

                If you're talking about blocking ads (not ISP-injected ads, but website ads), you're being a bit of a dick online.

                I'm not going to go into a moral debate about "stealing" web content, but you must understand that the people running the website need to cover their costs & put food on the table. Website ads are kinda like a money jar on the counter

                • by Ltap (1572175)
                  You do realize that many ad plans are pay-per-click rather than pay-per-view, meaning that, unless you click madly on the ads, you won't get them any money? And, even if you do, you will only earn them pennies? Using a donate button (if one exists) is a far more convenient, efficient (they are getting most of the money, not Google) and effective way to fund sites you like and it ultimately gives people a choice rather than trying to force ads on them.

                  Ads are almost never a winning proposition for a site
            • My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.

              Fine. For me, relevant ads = no ads.

              When I'm browsing, it's mostly a goal-oriented activity. If there were a "relevant ads only" button, I'd click it, and be essentially ad-free.

              Hence the AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery, and related add-ons in my several browsers, and the fact that my router denies all access to a long list of Facebook domains (neatly circumventing the "like" button issues). The number of sites that can track me is quite limited, and the number that might be able to infer something about m

          • by swalve (1980968)
            Maybe nobody should be doing that, but it is ridiculous to think that they can't. The problem is that people got used to the idea that being relatively anonymous in society meant they had privacy. They are not the same thing.
        • by Crouty (912387)
          The downside, my friend, is that advertisement has one single goal: To manipulate you into spending money you wouldn't normally spend. There is no such thing as good advertising. (Sometimes ads can be slightly informative and/or entertaining but that is merely a side effect.)
    • Personally I don't care that much.

      I agree. I often ask exactly what terrible, bad dangerous thing might happen if someone knows I disliked the latest BSG episode & just went out last night for beer & pizza with Michelle.

      Stalker? There are many easier ways of stalking me, starting with just following my car or bike when I leave my house.

      Theft of items in my house when I'm gone? I, like most people, work a fairly normal schedule. It is a pretty safe bet that no one is home at 2pm.

      Identity theft? I've seen very few cases of this thro

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by moj0joj0 (1119977)

        So, really, what bad thing will happen?

        I once had very similar feelings about this issue.

        Nothing bad will happen, until it does. When the information is used and a horrible thing occurs, you'll kick yourself for not protecting your loved ones. It has happened to me and it will happen to many others.

        In my own experience, it wasn't "Big Brother" - it was a tech-savvy business partner and I spent half a year in jail, accused of a "capital" crime I didn't commit - then 4 years and ten's of thousands of dollars fighting for my freedom in courts.

        • Wow, the "Trust me, guy I don't know on the Internet. Some really bad thing happened to me that I'm not going to explain here" stance.

          It sounds to me like you didn't have ENOUGH info out there.

          If you actually want to help the unwashed like me, tell me how this actually happened.

      • The main concern I have is future employability. We've already reached the point where employers routinely google on candidates before offering a job - it's not that much of a stretch to see them contracting with data-mining firms to run more detailed background checks, correlating data to determine pseudonyms and checking if the candidate might have any embarassing hobbies or political views, has been writing posts badmouthing his former boss or has financial problems that could render him a security risk.
        • This is my main concern too. I would not want to miss out on a fantastic job opportunity because of a drunken, non-PC blog comment written one night and promptly forgotten about.
      • Stalker? There are many easier ways of stalking me, starting with just following my car or bike when I leave my house.

        Much of the point is trying to keep the stalker from finding out where you live. Harassing phone calls and emails can be very upsetting, but physical confrontation by a stalker is much worse.

        • So, I assume you think everyone that owns land is inviting stalkers since their name & address is public record?

          • I actually agreed with much of what you said a couple of posts up; I think a lot of the responses to privacy concerns, especially around Slashdot, are unrealistic, if not outright paranoiac; in particular, people tend to bring up the fear of political persecution, when in a relatively open society, going public is a better defense than going underground.

            But I can't go all the way to a position that privacy concerns are baseless. There are people who actually do have reason to worry about people finding out

            • I'll completely concede your points here. I do agree that there ARE some valid cases for SOME people to have to go private.

              Some of those, like people living in oppressive governments, need to understand that Facebook & Google+ are not the venues to use, though. Even if a social network came out that appeared to offer great privacy controls, the risks are too great that a government could compel them to release info, they are hacked, or make a security mistake that reveals life-threatening info.

      • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @02:48PM (#37732354)

        So, really, what bad thing will happen?

        Well, off the top of my head, when we reach the point that any commercial, professional or government contact you have can effectively dig up as much dirt on you as they feel like from any source they can find:

        • You will be unable to obtain insurance, or unable to obtain it at a reasonable price, because you fit some negative profile. In some cases, this will be unfairly expensive. In others, it will stop you performing daily activities such as driving where insurance is required by law. In others, it will literally hurt or kill you, because essential medical work will not be available to you.
        • You will be unable to obtain employment, or will only be able to obtain jobs that are not as good or under less favourable conditions. Sure, everyone has skeletons in the closet and corporate HR drones should realise that. Sure, there are laws protecting employees against unfair discrimination on various grounds. But these simply don't work. Men and women do not hold similar numbers of board positions at major companies or average the same salary for doing the same job. The US made a huge thing because it has a black president for the first time in a few centuries. Networking is already used (reasonably enough) to fill important jobs, but shows how easy it is for personal views to influence such decisions, which is a dangerous situation in a much more incomplete-data-driven recruitment culture.
        • Your quality of life will suffer because of the increasing numbers of unwanted distractions by advertisers, pollsters, political campaigners, etc. This already happens, of course, and we have things like anti-spam laws and opt-out lists for telesales calls and junk mail. But again, I refer you to the collective harassment that telemarketers continue to impose even on those who have actively opted out of everything they can as evidence of how utterly futile such measures are if you let the data out in the first place. This situation will only get worse until someone makes a serious political/legal attempt to change the entire culture, which seems unlikely in the immediate future given how many politicians and lawyers make an awful lot of money from businesses with at best shady advertising practices.
        • Your freedom will suffer if a government body with statutory powers decides to act against you because you appear to be someone like they don't like. This obviously has implications for law enforcement and security services, particularly in a future where perhaps the government and its henchmen are not themselves quite as ethical about crushing political opposition as you might like. But that's not the only problem: something as simple as being flagged up as a risk by your tax authorities (even if you've actually done everything correctly) can lead to months of wasted time and money clearing your name, denial of essential benefits at a time in your life when you rely on them for everyday needs, etc.

        So sure, maybe you don't mind a bit of junk mail. You'll be fine as long as you also don't mind crazy people turning up on your door step several times per month asking you to sign up to their political party/donate to their charity/buy their dubiously sourced goods, tax inspectors inviting themselves into your life for six months and wasting dozens or hundreds of hours of your free time to comply with their demands, though at least you'll have a lot more free time in future because you won't be able to get a full-time job as a tax evasion suspect anyway, and even if you did you wouldn't be able to get paid because no bank will give you an account without a credit rating, which you no longer have, even if that account offers no loan or credit facilities anyway, and you can't complain because no phone company will let you sign up for a calling plan without a credit check and photo ID, which in turn you can't get because you couldn't afford the statutory motor insurance after three of your friends got DUI'd last year and so when go

        • My name & address are already public record (as are everyone that owns land), so anything about people showing up on my doorstep is irrelevant.

          Also, using things like credit history is already being done. People are unable to get jobs or insurance because of a score that is only based on how much money they borrow & how much they pay off (not how much they have, btw).

          Since credit history is asked for (and can be refused, with the result of paying higher insurance or not getting the job), this isn't

          • My name & address are already public record (as are everyone that owns land), so anything about people showing up on my doorstep is irrelevant.

            You've mentioned this a couple of times. But I know you only as Aqualung812; I doubt that your pseudonym appears on that public record of land ownership. It may be the case that I could link the one to the other with some datamining, but that isn't a given.

          • Since credit history is asked for (and can be refused, with the result of paying higher insurance or not getting the job), this isn't a social networking issue.

            Today, I doubt you would be penalised for/refused something like health or motor insurance just because several of your Facebook friends posted pictures of themselves getting very drunk at a party with you in the background. Do you really believe either that the insurers won't act on that sort of information when they can or that the technology for them to do so isn't a matter of years if not months away?

            How do you want people to make decisions regarding your health/employment?

            How about objectively based on data I provide them, in context, where all relevant details are asked for

            • How about objectively based on data I provide them, in context, where all relevant details are asked for and supplied?

              Me too. So, let's agree that they can't use credit history, Facebook postings, or anything outside of what you said in the job selection process.

              We can't do that? Well, then let's combat their data with some of our own.

              Again, the point is that they are already using bad data that isn't related to social networking to make decisions. I'd welcome them using data I control rather than (or in addition to) data that a bunch of banks control.

              • For what it's worth, I think we probably agree on your main point, which seems to be that if there's going to be bad/incomplete data out there that presents the wrong impression, the most effective (only?) way to counter that is to overwhelm it with correct/complete/positive data that sets the record straight.

                I'm just going a little further, in that I don't believe it really is inevitable that privacy as we know it is going to die out. The loss of privacy in the past few years has been enabled by a combinat

      • They might know you're at work at 2PM, but would they know where you live (from the picture your neighbor posted)? Would they know you just bought a Macbook Pro (you bragged about it on FB)? And could they guess your alarm PIN (birth year, courtesy of Google)?

        • So, it is easier for someone that wants to steal a laptop to go on the Internet, locate someone that bragged about a Macbook on Facebook, guess their alarm PIN (mine isn't my birth year) without guessing wrong, etc...
          --OR--
          Go to a upper-middle class neighborhood, find a house without an alarm, wait for both cars to leave the garage, and see what we find.

    • But I think the author is also missing a generational issue. A lot of people of younger generations simply don't really care.

      Others have observed that. About a decade ago, when phones started getting GPS capability, I asked some of the teenagers around Stanford (college students and high schoolers around the horse barn) how they'd feel if others could tell where they were. I thought they'd hate it. Most of them liked the idea. "I could see where my boyfriend is!" . "I wouldn't have to text so much to tell my friends where I am".

      In 2005, Helio launched, as a phone brand aimed at the 16-25 crowd. They were the first to integrat

  • The problem is that personal information is just too valuable for companies not to get a hard-on over how much their advertiser customers will pay for it, and they push and trick and deceive and play all sorts of games with TOS so that people don't realize they're being fleeced.

    So exploiting personal information becomes lucrative and profitable, and not much is sacred except the almighty dollar.

    With everyone universally doing it, everyone that doesn't is put at a competitive disadvantage, so the good guys g

    • by PPH (736903)

      So exploiting personal information becomes lucrative and profitable, and not much is sacred except the almighty dollar.

      This information craze seems to have the same feeling as the tulip bulb mania in 17th century Holland. In the final analysis, the only value this information has about people is its ability to generate sales or other financial transactions. And in my case, and for most of my friends, targeted advertising is all but useless. We don't buy cars/TV sets/iPhones just because we received tweets, junk mail or spam. We buy stuff when we need it or when we want it. And we aren't fooled by marketing attempts at gene

  • Sometime between 2015 and 2020 - or whenever the general public wakes up about privacy issues and casual privacy intrusions - every business model built around little more than gathering lots and lots of intrusive data about people will crash at the same time. I call this the POPPING OF THE UNPRIVACY BUBBLE... Ordinary people wake up and start protesting all the little privacy intrusions that hundreds of companies have - gradually, slowboiling-style - slipped into our lives. Ordinary people start to par
  • So when do these technological advances trickle down to regular users?

    From the article:

    AugmentedID will let you take a picture of someone with your phone, and the app will search its database for a matching face. It seems like this is only a small step away from being able to search Facebook and other Social Media for matching photos,...

    Who cares about searching through social media? I'd just like an app that would find all the variously-named, varying-resolution dupes of the porn images on my computer.

  • "and none of us will ever have as much privacy as we want." Oh yes we can, but it cant be done from a talk back on slashdot. We can take back what we lost,no business has a higher right to invade our privacy in the name of profits. Personally idon't think my fellow Americans have the balls, your too lazy,you expect everyone to get it done for you. And you just don't give a shit unless it personally affects YOU. And BTW i do write all my politicians with my complaints and wishes
  • Sorry, but legislation that is pending in various parts of the world, including the United States, can go far to remedy this situation. There are also counter-measures that can be implemented by individuals, to a certain extent.

    The combination of the two has the potential to make this not a problem anymore. Whether it will is another question, but using the word "forever" is simply not warranted.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...