Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Google Ends Privacy
TaoPhoenix:
Most disturbing is the retention of private user generated message content, which has no value whatsoever for Google's marketing - but which is very valuable for fishing expeditions conducted by various parties. Can you say: criticize your employer or the government and later face repercussions - and then wonder how they knew? Especially since you only did so in an email sent to your best friend?
A simple information request made as a favor - or through a subpoena - would be sufficient. Big Brother doesn't exactly watch you. But he does record every single word you utter and log every thing you do for later recall - and evaluation.
It's called data mining. And it works.
Right now, these things have been perceived as fairly benevolent. Largely because egregious invasions of personal privacy have remained relatively rare - and were downplayed when reported.
But that's only because those who could most benefit from stripping privacy from all walks of personal life haven't felt sufficiently pushed against the proverbial wall to move on it. And the unfortunate truth is there's no guarantee they'll continue to feel that way in the future.
...
My biggest concern, with the heightened and heated level of rhetoric we're hearing in political circles, is the very real chance of us seeing our government switch into "wounded rhino mode." That's where the large and lumbering animal feels threatened, or becomes wounded, and lashes out with deadly and indiscriminate fury at anything and everything around it.
It's a very real concern...
Especially in an era where government sanctioned "shock & awe" is becoming the preferred response to everything: from a full-bore terrorist attack, all the way down to a local arrest for a minor felony.
No matter what town or city you're from in the USA, you'll see ninja-suited heavily armed police units responding any time an arrest is expected to be made. And that includes arrests for some of the most minor offenses imaginable.
Guess they need to do something to justify all the spending on "homeland security" training and equipment that's been used to militarize US local police forces in the last ten years.
The problem with tech like that is, once it's out there, it begs to be used. And often creates justification when justification can't be found.
So it goes. :-\
-40hz (January 28, 2012, 03:00 PM)
--- End quote ---
The Copyright-Terror brigade is already in Wounded Rhino mode. Let's briefly flashback to the '80's. It was a nice compromise, that assuming you didn't open an entire business selling bootlegs, you were left alone. Your buddy made you and 7 other people a copy of the kewl new tape, and you got a month's fun out of it. Yay.
Now look at this - the **AA have practically become our government. Pick all the industries that could benefit from foul play, and suddenly it's the media ones and the telcos hooking up to pwn government. And Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook *combined* can't do anything about it?!
TaoPhoenix:
Sorry to double post, this is a different topic.
I wanted to say that 40hz made a crucial point that "Big Brother doesn't (and doesn't need to) *Always Watch You*. They can pass three laws and collect all info forever, then go dig it up *when they feel like it*.
So all those services that try to "bury your history in fake searches" don't work, because a real data miner operative would sorta "triple-cubed sort" your data, so that after only a few clever transformations your real data falls out anyway.
tranglos:
I think a lot of these boil down to reasonable expectations for privacy and the like.
-Renegade (January 29, 2012, 07:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure about that. I've seen "expectation of privacy" bandied around on Slashdot for over 10 years now and used like it settles the score. I disagree. For one thing, expectation of privacy is highly sensitive to place, time, culture, etc. But laws are the same everywhere, and not just within a single country or state anymore. When Google does something, it affects everyone the same way. Ditto when ACTA gets passed. The only sensible thing one can say at that point is that there is no expectation of privacy at all, so as such the concept becomes meaningless.
For another thing, I don't think we could even agree on what it meant in the first place, back when it might have still applied. Again from my slashdot experience, there was a fairly common understanding that you have no expectation of privacy out on the street. I always thought it was silly. Downtown in a city of a million people, you have nothing *but* privacy! Everyone can see you, sure, but absolutely no-one knows who you are, what your name is, what you do or what you think. A small village is a different thing, to be sure. But I'm putting this forth as an example of how unstable the notion of "expectation of privacy" is. It sounds reasonable, but I think it only serves to obscure what might really be significant disagreements in how we understand privacy.
Renegade:
I think a lot of these boil down to reasonable expectations for privacy and the like.
-Renegade (January 29, 2012, 07:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure about that. I've seen "expectation of privacy" bandied around on Slashdot for over 10 years now and used like it settles the score. I disagree. For one thing, expectation of privacy is highly sensitive to place, time, culture, etc. But laws are the same everywhere, and not just within a single country or state anymore. When Google does something, it affects everyone the same way. Ditto when ACTA gets passed. There only sensible thing one can say at that point is that there is no expectation of privacy at all, so as such the concept becomes meaningless.
For another thing, I don't think we could even agree on what it meant in the first place, back when it might have still applied. Again from my slashdot experience, there was a fairly common understanding that you have no expectation of privacy out on the street. I always thought it was silly. Downtown in a city of a million people, you have nothing *but* privacy! Everyone can see you, sure, but absolutely no-one knows who you are, what your name is, what you do or what you think. A small village is a different thing, to be sure. But I'm putting this forth as an example of how unstable the notion of "expectation of privacy" is. It sounds reasonable, but I think it only serves to obscure what might really be significant disagreements in how we understand privacy.
-tranglos (January 29, 2012, 09:02 AM)
--- End quote ---
I would be happy with an absolute minimum of information gathered. i.e. If it is possible to not gather information, then don't. e.g. It is possible to remove "security" cameras in public places.
Fun Fact: Security cameras DO NOT decrease crime. That is just BS propaganda put out by the security industry. (I've done work in that sector and I've read the research.)
Sometimes it is necessary to gather information, but those cases are RARE.
Meh... Doesn't matter. It all just gets rammed down our throats (or up elsewhere) no matter what.
I believe that it's possible to run government and do business in non-evil ways, but it's kind of hard when you're surrounded by hordes of demons. So, in many ways it's kind of hard to blame businesses for getting swept up by the hordes.
Eóin:
Ah yes. Once again the "blame the victim" mindset reveals itself. And not for the first time.
Ok i guess if somebody is so stupid as to speak their mind in private, they obviously "deserve" whatever happens by way of payback. Any rational and even slightly moral adult couldn't help but reach any other judgement. :-\-40hz (January 28, 2012, 11:57 PM)
--- End quote ---
I said deserve to get caught, I didn't say people deserve any and all consequences thereafter. For example complaining about your employer to your friend over "private" email doesn't justify them firing you.
But relying on the likes of Google or Facebook to help keep you safe is plain naive. It's laws and regulations that have to step in and prevent such things being used against you, which in in Ireland at least they do. An employer would face unfair dismissal cases if they sacked you over something like that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version