Privacy Concerns Moving Into The Mainstream 235
Realistic_Dragon writes "The BBC today ran a thoughtful radio article (website, transcript, real audio) on the issues of privacy vs practicality in our modern society. An ideal primer for those that haven't given these things much thought before, with a balanced treatment of the subject and very few technical errors to drive one up the wall.
Listening to the narrator's acerbic comments in reply to those that advocate the innocent have nothing to fear mantra is worth the download alone. Is this the kind of image that is presented in the media in the rest of the world, or are they still running with the 'big brother is your friend' party line?"
Do people care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do people care? (Score:2, Insightful)
One major issue is that as population centers get more densely populated, people feel less safe and are desperate to find a security blanket and for most, they are happy with the cops having a good security system to keep them safe. The problem with that is the cops don't make much use of the system and they may end up being worse than not
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Score:2, Insightful)
and a side note, you mentioned how drug/alcohol use was at an all-time high. These things free you from control, look at all the past/present independent artists. It's very hard to control people o
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Corporations) (Score:2, Insightful)
Since corporations are government constructed, and not created within a free market, you cannot blame capitalism for this.
FDR and Wilson, two of the most anti-capitalistic Presidents in U.S. History, were key players in the creation of the modern corporation.
You're proposing making more government
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Score:2)
While I agree with everything else you said, this is not quite the way I see it.
People in general are quite happy to act like cattle (or consumers, if you wish) without any active controlling by the corporations.
However, the corporations are trying, very hard, to control the legislators, who in their greed go along. It's sad that the people, who are supposed to represent the people
Public Pizza (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Score:4, Informative)
Minor nitpicks...
The teenage pregnancy (and abortion) rates in the United States are actually significantly lower now than they have been in the past two decades. (CDC release [cdc.gov].) Teen pregnancy fell steeply throughout the 1990s, and continues to decline. Teen pregnancy is still higher in the United States than in other developed countries, but I suspect that that can be largely attributed to the deliberate policy of restricting information about and access to birth control techniques.
Use of most illegal drugs (including marijuana and cocaine) is actually falling. Use of alcohol among young people has also declined. (CDC summaries [cdc.gov].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, the most recent stats I can find from the National Health Service (NHS) seem to indicate that teen pregnancy rates are declining in the UK, and have been since 1998 [nhsinherts.nhs.uk]. Teen pregnancy rates in the UK, while the highest in Western Europe, still remain well below the rate in the United States.
The most recent NHS data [doh.gov.uk] that I could find seem to indicate that alcohol and
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Score:2)
And in other news, studies report that kids in the post-privacy age are 99.4% more likely to lie on government surveys than they were ten years ago!
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Score:2, Interesting)
This one really struck home for me.
I'm nineteen years old, so I pretty recently finished my K-12 years. And boy did I have a hard time at it. My teachers, especially
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fat, dumb & happy... (Score:2)
That doesn't sound very smart of them.
Re:Do people care? EFF wants to monitor you too. (Score:2)
Look here [eff.org] and see for yourself: "Figuring out what is popular can be accomplished through a mix of anonymously monitoring what people are sharing."
Even if we believed in "anonymous monitoring" there would then be no way to detect when people are cheating through download bots, etc...
Re:Do people care? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a step toward wide public attention, when the mainstream press starts to pick up on a new issue. After being reported by BBC (or NY Times, The Atlantic, etc.), smaller media outlets are much more likely to report on the topic. It filters down. The hard work is done - learning and then describing the major points of a complex thing in simple terms. A small paper can't afford to do this. Outlets in other media s
But (Score:4, Interesting)
CCTV cameras? They can't be serious, how much damage do CCTV cameras do? How much damage would have been done if the shops can't see who's stealing stuff? Privacy is important, but if CCTV cameras are a problem, then don't go into shops. If camera phones are a problem to you, don't go out in public. They can't invade your privacy unless you let them.
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
If you commit a crime then make sure you give your mobile phone to someone else - that way you can "prove" you weren't in the area.
Nice except (Score:2)
You got two kind of people, dumb criminals and those who are never caught. Innocents? Wich planet have you been living on?
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:3, Informative)
Really? [slashdot.org]
Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)
Public space is part of a city/town/country, where we live.
That country is made up of the people that run it: citizens, who own it, and create its laws.
That's why Britain has a parliament and the US is a democracy/republic built by the people, for the people.
Public space is *ours* to control, maintain, and pass laws for.
We are not hostages in our own country, who should stay home to avoid such things.
Re:But (Score:2)
Would you rather you home or your workpalce broken into?
Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)
In a fairly well-publicised case in the UK, a man was caught by camera using a cash machine within a time when someone used a cloned card. The police showed the film on TV so they could eliminate the man from their enquiries.
However, people who saw it assumed that he was guilty, and he lost his job and suffered a great deal of indignity before the mess was sorted out. He was just a guy legitimately using a cash machine.
One of the main problems is that people assume that cameras are infallible; relying on the output of a camera without _accurate_ context is a big problem.
"They can't invade your privacy unless you let them."
[sigh]
I have a camera across the road from my house. Despite that camera being there, I've been burgled once already. Apparently nobody staffs the camera and checking up I found it's actually placed and operated in contravention with the Data Protection Act. Now someone paid for the camera to be installed, but it's deterrent value has been slashed to nothing. I'd rather than they used the money for some useful social ordering than following a bandwagon like putting CCTV everywhere. It encourages laziness of the institutional kind.
As for invading your privacy unless you let them; if you don't know about the invasion, then you can hardly consent. I was told by the installers of the camera that a guy had been caught in his front room committing an illegal act. If true, then that's a huge invasion of privacy that could be justified by saying that the illegal act was more important than privacy. However, the end should never justify the means because that's the path to a police state.
sorry - practicality always wins... (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone thinks that they need this software 'blah', then they are going to install it, no matter what the 282 page EULA says.
BBC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:5, Informative)
It can be quite entertaining, especially when the politicians try to dodge the questions in the normal way (usually by answering the question they'd rather have been asked) and the interviewer tells them bluntly that they didn't actually answer the question, then ask it again!
Re:BBC (Score:2)
Always brightens up my day to hear Blunkett flustered, or some hapless PR flak being dismantled on air.
Re:BBC (Score:4, Interesting)
I loved the interview with the saudi bod (ambasador? minister?) the other morning. After he sniffily said he was there to talk about Iraq, not the diplomatic immunity squabble, the interviewer politely said `yes I know' and asked him aboput the diplomatic immunity thing again. You could hear the guy's blood pressure going up. He was clearly not used to being actually expected to say something meaningful.
Re:BBC (Score:2, Funny)
The one that I loved the other day was listening to Eddie Mair on PM interviewing the Sudanese Ambassador to the UK, Dr Hasan Abdin.
In the interview, Dr Abdin continually denied there was any humanitarian disaster happening in the Darfur region of Sudan, any government arming of the Janjaweed and so on.
Eddie then calmly said to the Ambassador: "Mr Ambassador, do you sleep well at night?".
Priceless; I've never heard such a pompous arsehole deflated in such spectacular form before. In fact, I think we n
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a brilliant start to the day to hear an arrogant politician be reduced to a mumbling fool. This kind of programme is all-too-rare, and is sorely needed to keep politicians in check, easily my favourite part of the radio schedule.
Re:BBC (Score:2)
It was shown in a satirical programme (The Day Today, which features fake news, much like The Onion) unedited. And quite rightly.
Sadly this [bbc.co.uk] is a dead link.
Full text of the relevant part (Score:2)
You stated in your statement that the Leader of the Opposition had said that I (that is, you) personally told Mr Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately, and that when Mr Lewis objected as it was an operational matter, "I threatened to INSTRUCT HIM to do it".
Derek Lewis says "Howard had CERTAINLY told me that the Governor of Parkhurst should be suspended, and had threatened to overrule me". Are you saying Mr Lewis is ly
Re:BBC vs. US "News" Media (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:2)
Re:BBC (Score:5, Informative)
Although from the outside it might seem confusing, the BBC is actually far more independent and objective than most commercial broadcasters.
I know this will not go down well with a lot of Americans, who probably conflate the BBC and the old Soviet Russia-era news services in their minds.
Re:BBC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:2)
It's still ironic that BBC has a antiauthoritarian streak to them. Authority is decidedly in their interest. If you ever watch Yes, Minister a BBC sitcom they have a episode where the minister is able to influence the BBC by some back slapping and veiled threats. I would be surprised if there was some truth to that happening. But
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is this another habit of democracy?
Re:BBC (Score:3, Informative)
Because the level of BBC funding is not really subject to government control. There's a flat-rate levy on television ownership (the TV licence), and the BBC gets everything raised from the that, and nothing from any other government source. The licence fee is set by Parliament, but mainly all they do is put it up by in line with inflation every now and then.
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
So in principle Parlaiment could "blackmail" the BBC for increased control, though that would probably unleash a firestorm of protest. That's what I meant by a "habit of democracy", a concept I've been thinking about a lot lately. Our (American) recent experience with election shennanigans has me wondering how stable democracies really are -- how much do they dep
Re:BBC (Score:2, Insightful)
They forget the most important part... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They forget the most important part... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They forget the most important part... (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to learn from History.
Re:They forget the most important part... (Score:2)
--
relieving us of work (Score:2)
At the executive level, you implement technology to improve profitability. Eliminating low-level jobs, only to require more high-level jobs doesn't make economic sense, unless
Re:They forget the most important part... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They forget the most important part... (Score:2)
Re:They forget the most important part... (Score:2)
You mean like unemployment? It's nice having the extra free time, it's just the relative poverty that becomes a problem...
Moving into the mainstream? (Score:5, Funny)
"You have zero privacy"... (Score:5, Interesting)
The response of Scott McNealy, boss of Sun Microsystems and one of the most outspoken figures of Silicon Valley, to the challenge from
electronic devices was famously blunt. "You have zero privacy," he said. "Get over it."
Much as this is the unpopular stance to take here, I think we do have zero privacy, and hopefully more people can learn what this means for them.
What has alwauys comforted me in the past, however, is that to exchange informatation about my purchases, my bank details, my crimial record and my health records would be rediculously complicated with vastly different systems of data storage being used.
Mibby I'm just sticking my head in the sand, but there's a difference between being watched and having data stored about me, and it being available to different people beyond it's intended purpose.
That's why I opposed the RIPA extensions act [hmso.gov.uk].
Sorry, got OT there...
Re:"You have zero privacy"... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how the whole system works, by only pushing so far into people's privacy. I see it the same way too, and if it were black & white then Scott McNealy would be right - with all the ways we can be tracked, the potential is there for having NO privacy. My phone company knows when I make calls and when I receive them, and who to & who from. My ISP knows when I'm online, the IPs I make contact with, and I bet if they wanted they could tell what I'm transferring. My electricity and gas suppliers know when I'm at home, and cameras in stores & on roads can know where I am much of the time.
But for most purposes, none of this information is used outside its intended purposes. Not every random-joe gets to look up my phone details, nor trace all my movements, or see what I'm downloading. It's a little of my privacy stripped away in pieces for each separate institution that needs it, which does total up to a technical complete-lack-of-privacy... but it still works because they don't all get together to analyse my particular movements in life. The complete loss of privacy is only a potential one.
Besides, any business with even five separate departments trying to all communicate with each other about what they're doing has logistics problems keeping together, heaven help the hundreds of institutions that keep info on me if they tried to organise themselves enough to get any sane information from what they have on me.
Re:"You have zero privacy"... (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously you're not familiar with Acxiom.
Re:"You have zero privacy"... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"You have zero privacy"... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government suddenly decided they didn't like you, they could grab your file and furtle about until they dug up some dirt.
But why would your government decide they don't like you? Remember the Paddington Train Crash ... Pam Warren was particularly effective in criticising the Government and they set the [bbc.co.uk]
Further education necessary! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's something that we do need to safeguard. I think it's
important to recognise that privacy, rather like trust and confidence -
once you've lost it, it's very, very difficult, if not possible, ever to
regain. It's something we need to work hard not to lose in the first
place.
CAIRNCROSS: One of the most powerful symbols
of intrusion into privacy has been the ability of the authorities to watch
over us. In that sense, George Orwell's Big Brother is alive and well,
and gleefully acquiring all the latest gadgetry. There are close-circuit
television cameras on almost every street corner, speed cameras, and
cameras that monitor people entering London's congestion charging
zone. Caoilfhionn Gallagher is a lawyer with Liberty, a campaigning
group on civil liberties, and follows the latest monitoring technologies.
What are her current concerns?
They talk as if most people care. Most people ignore the traffic cameras, the red-light cameras, the bank cameras, the whatever cameras... They openly hand over their address and telephone number to anyone who asks (in person, on the telephone, or over the Internet). These are the people that tell you that you are paranoid when you suggest to them that they might want to keep that information more private than they already are.
HARKIN: In Scandinavia and in Japan, you
have services whereby young people can pass along street corners and
they can be automatically hooked up via location based tracking to
someone who meets their personal profile for the purposes of dating or
finding a friend.
And people want this? Can't people make up their mind for themselves?
CRAWFORD: We can track a mobile phone even
if it's not in use. As long as the phone is on, we can track it every
minute of the day - in rural countryside, in cities. And, for example, in
London we can track it right down to if somebody was in, for example,
Earl's Court Exhibition Centre, we can know they're in that building.
In rural countryside, it's a little bit wide - I mean we'd know what hill
they're on.
CAIRNCROSS: Now that's wonderful if you're a
parent worrying about your child. But another usage is for companies
to track their employees. And I think you suggest it is a way of making
sure that your employee is secure if they are late returning to the office,
but you and I know that what employers really want to know is is the
guy in the pub or is he doing what he's supposed to be doing.
Back to the "save the children" thing. Let's stop appealing to the paranoid, careless parent who wants everyone else to know where his kid is and let's pay attention to the fact that it is intrusive and basically unnecessary.
CRAWFORD: Well what we're doing is we're
actually sending messages on a regular basis to phones to make sure
they continue to consent. The employee would then receive messages
saying that that phone is being tracked. He needs to know that that
phone would have to be the company's property, so really you know
another way of looking at it is saying the company has a right to know
where their property is. Obviously this is tracking which is during
office hours, and it's all been approved by the Information
Commissioner who's studied it very closely.
And when you say no? They fire you, right? In this day and age people can't just say, "oh well, I don't need a job w/a company that tracks me, I can find one in a single day somewhere else." Unfortunately for most it doesn't seem to work that way.
This is the same stuff rehashed as always. We need to better educate the public to remind them that this sort of intrusion is not a necessary part of their lives no matter how much the government and third parties want to make it be.
Re:Further education necessary! (Score:4, Interesting)
And people want this? Can't people make up their mind for themselves?
Sure they can. But if you are in "dating mode" (or whatever), why shouldn't you be willing to broadcast the fact? Apparently, this is happening anonymously via bluetooth, mostly. Why shouldn't you go into a singles bar or use any of the other ways of communicating the fact that you are available, interested in someone who wants to go with you to a concert, need someone to eat dinner with or whatever. You are the one who chooses to make this information public, and you get matches only from other people with the same stated interest (although not necessarily the same goal) as yourself. This is not the system choosing for you, this is an attempt to link people who are broadcasting something similar.
According to the media, this has also gone to the point of people broadcasting "willing to have sex". If two people are both interested, they find out who owns the other (bluetooth-enabled, mostly) phone by arranging to meet somewhere. I assume this is something every male geek out there has dreamt about.
It is up to you to choose to broadcast your intent to do something. I can't see what is so wrong about this, or why this stops you "making up you mind for yourself". You still get to see the girl/guy/whatever before you are dragged off to meet their family, you know.
Next time you pass a gorgeous girl, ponder what might happen if she actually _had_ the same interests as you instead of you coming across as a complete jerk trying to pick her up with some old pick-up-line.
No, I am not using these services. I just think you are judging a service without knowing enough about it.
Nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
How do people reconcile that with the privacy provisions in the U.S. constitution? Obviously they wouldn't have put them in there if they had thought there was nothing to worry about. I don't think the writers of the constitution were given to empty aphorisms.
Re:Nothing to hide (Score:2, Informative)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The new bill of rights. [sdbillofrights.org]
Re:Nothing to hide (Score:5, Interesting)
Constitution magical? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Constitution magical? (Score:2)
Few are suggesting that the Constitution is infallible. Most are suggesting that if the Constitution, the document which created our system of government, says something, we should at least look at why they wrote it that way.
It was written by men. Smart men, true, but still just men. It's great to have a common root for our legal/government practices, and to kee
Re:Constitution magical? (Score:2)
If we dropped some of the stigma around the Constitution, it could be _changed_, and become yet another plaything for the short-term, short-sighted, bigoted political agendas of the moment.
Furthermore, it's not the "the Constitution from 225 years ago". The Amendments from 1804 (12th, electoral college), 1865-1870 (13th-15th ending slavery and gran
Re:Constitution magical? (Score:2)
What the founders planned aside, when the "law of the land" cannot be changed for fear of violating these expressed principles, it means that you need to consider more closely either the proposed law, or the principles. And indeed, as is healthy, we regularly consider these principles with reguard to the laws... but seldom find a need to change our expressed
Re:Constitution magical? (Score:2)
Because if it can be changed to help us, it can also be changed (more easily) to hurt us... horribly. THAT is why the constitution must not change.
Re:Constitution magical? (Score:2)
The innocent should not fear? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
BBC (Score:5, Informative)
Is this the kind of image that is presented in the media in the rest of the world, or are they still running with the 'big brother is your friend' party line?"
Quote from Douglas Adams in Wired [yoz.com].The ease of technology (Score:5, Interesting)
The government being able to thermal image a 'warrant'-ed drug house is OK. Using it whenever is not. To go further into the paranoia realm, some states in the US still have arcane laws on the books like '2 unwed people shall not engage in sexual activities' OR '2 unwed people shall not co-habitate'. With advanced thermal/spectral imaging law enforcement can 'snoop' and arrest said people.
If I choose to give my personal information away (or walk in public where cameras are present), that is OK. If I am on my own property and no one has a warrant for illegal activity monitoring, it is privacy invasion and the invaders should be arrested/fined/flogged with a noodle.
Time for more tin foil...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Proxy servers? (Score:2)
The ones I'm looking at are findnot.com and anonymize.net but I know there have to be more out
Brin just published a related piece (Score:5, Informative)
Bottom line executive summary: Privacy is dead; get over it. Instead of trying to hide everything we do, we should insist that every citizen has the same access to surveillance technologies that the government does. He offers the Rodney King tapes and the Abu Gharib prison photos as ways in which saturation surveillance has advanced the cause of justice and the empowerment of the citizenry.
Worth a read, in any event.
It is about the design of society (Score:5, Interesting)
Now private life is constantly being eroded and it is time to stop. I want to DESIGN my society so that when I choose to interact in public and in particular with the state then the state should be able to demand that I authenticate my entitlement to do so, however this does not require that i identify myself. This is what technology can bring. We can have both. A completely accurate entitlements system that does not require the revelation of identity to the organs of the state (except in order to establish the entitlement).
My health care records can be kept on a big central database but they should not be able to link that with my social security records. It is _I_ who provides them with that link when I authenticate my entitlement to free health care because of my social security status. Further that big database needs to know _nothing_ about my identity specifics other than they are the file 61272123. I know that the records for 61272123 are mine but the state does not need to know. Similarly the state can know that medical procedure 2453/CD/2321 for file 61272123 received an entitlement token, MPET23/5T from the Social security entitlement system and that is all it needs to know.
Technology of the kind that all the centralists love can completely enable their utopian vision of eliminating fraud for public services etc etc, but it can be done without even having to compromise my right to privacy, and it doesn't even need law it can be done technically. there are logistical issues for this vision, but they are not an order of magnitude different to the ones that exist for the current idea of "biometric id cards".
The fundamental thing is for us to decide what we want. And what I want is to be able to walk out of my house without having to carry a card that enables the state to prove _who_ I am because until I choose to enter the public sphere about which I spoke earlier, the state can just fuck righ off out of my private life.
On the flip side, it is up to me to price the value of my privacy wrt to banking, mobile phone etc and decide whether using these services (or specialised privacy enhanced version at a premium) is currently worth the cost. the examples of how this can be implemented are many and varied _already_ technology can only make them more effective.
As for preventition of terrorism, crime, even fraud, I am all for it, but not at the expense of designing a state that is built around knowing every facet of my life. I want the privacy. It should be _my_ choice as to when I leave my mark in public (so to speak) not the state's.
Sorry for the rant.
Explain this topic to a lay person (Score:5, Insightful)
I challenge you, try to explain this topic to a non-technical person. In their terms, not yours. It's really hard.
Try this analogy:
True this is only one aspect of the privacy issue, but you don't want to over-challenge yourself. See how it works.
Big Brother is your friend (Score:3)
More seriously, few people dispute that CCTV in public places (for example) has helped in solving some crimes and deterring some others. Being afraid to go out at night, or use a mobile phone in public, is a much greater curtailment of liberty than almost anything the government might dream up. I don't see why we shouldn't trade one form of liberty for another.
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:5, Insightful)
As it should be. Most Western countries are part of "The Free World", not police states. Supposedly.
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:2, Insightful)
It was the parent which was trollish, if anything.
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:5, Insightful)
And my life isn't worth squat if I'm not free. You aren't a patriot. You're a coward.
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:5, Insightful)
What about when it's made compulsory to carry it with you whenever you leave the house?
Governmental agencies are always looking for methods of tracking/controlling people. Their job would be sooo much easier if we were all obedient little drones who moved in predictable cycles (ok, most of us are, but that's another argument). Right now their favourite trick is to claim that its all "To protect you from the evil terrorist scum lurking among us."
Heretic, Parlimentarian, Unionist, Nazi, Sexual Deviant, Communist, Terrorist - the name that is put on the bogeyman used to scare us into submission changes. That's all. The rest is still the same.
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:2)
-Marilyn Manson
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:2)
You'll also have the right to vote for one of two corparate-sponsored presidents who can only be told apart by the sponsor's logos.
You have the right to shut up and behave
Oh, and you have the right to be declared an E
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no need to violate privacy any more than it already is in order to stop terrorism, nor to do it in unreasonable ways.
All of the "anti-terrorism" privacy arguments tend to hinge on how xxxx communication method "could be used to plan terrorism", "could be used to set up terrorist actions", yadda yadda yadda.
All of which is totally irrelevant if the terrorists a) can't get the weapons, or b) can't then use them in public to kill people.
a) doesn't require anything other than voluntary breaches of privacy which the vast majority would consider reasonable. b) doesn't breach privacy at all, since a public act by definition can't be subject to privacy.
The whole basis of using criminals' plans to "target" law enforcement is a shaky one. Law enforcement needs to be everywhere, all the time - otherwise criminals will inevitably learn the prediction strategies and work around them.
Re:The Privacy Jihad (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no need to violate privacy any more than it already is in order to stop terrorism, nor to do it in unreasonable ways.
and
Law enforcement needs to be everywhere, all the time - otherwise criminals will inevitably learn the prediction strategies and work around them.
seem contradictory. I'm not sure of your point here.
Ben Franklin... (Score:2)
Re:media coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:media coverage (Score:2)
I was trying to make a wry comment in response to the poster's question about whether media outlets were covering privacy concerns as a topic. Given that most are now owned by huge mega-conglomerate multi-nationals or are independently large corporations in their own right.
By the -1 mod I'm guessing my comments are just being taken as a being a smart-alec though...
Re:Part of the grid...I don't mind. (Score:3, Insightful)
The harm of this omnipresent surveillance is not to those who could be surveilled in person (most of those are fairly well-to-do, and could avoid the manual surveillance if they wish). It is to Average Joe, who only knows that billboard
Re:Part of the grid...I don't mind. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your assumption here is that no-one will want to use this info unless you're doing something bad, right? That's kinda wrong. Think stalkers, think terrorists ("lets see how many casualties we can acheive by monitoring who goes into that building"), think the petty-minded official who you annoyed once and now he's out to make your life hell.
Even as far as breaking the law goes... to quote Terry Pratchett, probably the only way to avoid breaking a law is to spend all your time locked in a dark cellar with
Re:Part of the grid...I don't mind. (Score:2)
The people who do know what makes you tick are the retailers, WallMart can tell you what you will be spending your money on better than you know yourself. They also have a file which knows where you are going to retire, what healthcare might be sold to you and what
Re:Anyone converted it to something Linux-friendly (Score:2, Informative)
Though I don't see what's wrong with Realplayer 8. I have it installed and I don't find it intrusive in any way.
Re:Anyone converted it to something Linux-friendly (Score:2)
Funny how my post was modded off-topic. Just goes to show you that IQ and mod points are the same polarity...
Re:This fucking pisses me off (Score:2)
When people remove themselves from the electoral roll its harder to get credit...
Virtually impossible, I've been led to understand. In fairness, however, the Electoral Commission recently established *two* Electoral Roles: one full list that can be used by mailing list companies, and a restricted list for voters with privacy concerns. The second list probably won't help voters concerned about their disappearance from the list during the Poll Tax debacle... ;)
Re:This fucking pisses me off (Score:2)
Only if you don't already appear in Experian's database and you've changed address in the past 3 years. The change has to be confirmed with the electoral roll for which there is a £1000 fine for not submitting your details.
I went to court a couple of times over the non-submission of my details to the electoral register simply because I pointed out that it's used a list for marketers. The non-listing version appeared afterwards.
The amount of d
Re:This fucking pisses me off (Score:2)
>> "Virtually impossible, I've been led to understand."
> Only if you don't already appear in Experian's database and you've changed address in the past 3 years.
Daft me; when I discussed this with a credit reference geek it was in the context of having moved house more times than I care to remember ;)
Re:No Tech is safe (Score:2)
Suddenly, the number of people who are Bill Gates is larger than the size of his fortune....