Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

#52 Jul 11 2016 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not much of a leap to imagine a future where merely talking about eliminating the minimum wage (for example) is an example of hate for poor people and minorities and should be flagged. Or perhaps anyone saying that abortion is murder gets them flagged. Or someone complaining about trans bathroom requirements. Or someone saying they disagree with *** marriage...

It's not hard to imagine a simple jump from where we are right now to something as basic as what you write on an online forum like this one being used as a data point to determine if you pass a background check to purchase a firearm, or get a government job, or *any* job.


You are taking this very personally.


The nuttier a conservative is, the less likely he is to work in government.


Again, you seem to be making this all about you.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#53 Jul 11 2016 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The nuttier a conservative is, the less likely he is to work in government.
If this was true, Congress would be a very different place.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Jul 11 2016 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
I find this worry about how the government might be monitoring you, silly. Living near Washington D.C. and Ft. Meade most of my life, my family knew about NSA in the years it was known as No Such Agency. Family friends worked for NSA, I knew former CIA agents who talked about J Edgar Hoover. Because of my family's being active in both the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-War movement, we always assume that there were FBI files on us. Never made us worry though. For us it was actually a matter of pride to think that someone went to all the trouble to create a file on us. You see we knew people on Nixon's Enemy list, in fact once while having lunch with my Dad, he said the one thing he regretted, was not being on Nixon's Enemy list.

Jonwin's Dad work for the FBI and he met Hoover and has a family photo of them at his dad's retirement with Hoover.

So if you thing government surveillance is bad, just don't do anything that would put you on their radar.

BTW the Former CIA agent met Hoover at a Transgender support group.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#55 Jul 11 2016 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
ElneClare wrote:
I find this worry about how the government might be monitoring you, silly.
I'm with ElneClare on this one.

At the moment I'm not so worried about the monitoring. No one is getting hauled off to jail if they viewed an IS website, or anything like that. Think I told this story once here before maybe, maybe not?, but my uncle works in military intelligence so they keep an eye on him and his family. We did some stuff a few years back that got him flagged. Basically, and I'm paraphrasing my admittedly limited knowledge here, having foreign nationals in the extended family is considered a security risk. My dad became a dual citizen (Canada), and I got married to a "foreign-looking woman" (They speculated she was Korean) outside of the country, where I suppose they didn't have access to the marriage paperwork. Basically what happened was my uncle had to call us up and get the story straight. My dad had to send them his birth certificate, and they looked into my wife more and got her information correct she is a U.S. citizen after all it turns out Smiley: rolleyes.

I mean, on one hand it was nice. They were paying attention to national security, and took the time to get the record straight of course, would have rather they got the information right initially, but hey at least they didn't bomb anyone over this Smiley: clown. It wasn't anything other than a bit of a laugh on our part and sending in some paperwork, so no real harm done there. On the other hand it's left me a little paranoid, because, well someone was watching us, and that doesn't really sit well with most people. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a bit disturbing.

I suppose my biggest fear about the data is a Snowden-like case. Only instead of a well-intentioned individual, it's someone with "not nice" motives who wants to use the information in a harmful manner, or someone like Clinton who is more careless with the information they're handling, and it gets stolen because of it. Obviously having the information means someone can steal it, or use it inappropriately, and that's a scary part. If that information is out there, it's probably only a matter of time before it happens. I mean, it happened in Snowden's case, and could happen again.

Of course our government could also go more 1984-ish on us, but that doesn't really seem like it's necessary. Large-scale data filtering is probably much more effective than extensive monitoring, and most people won't even be aware they're being "watched" because nothing will ever come from it, and no one will ever know outside of a computer program. I mean, like Alma has been saying, we're not really important enough to waste limited resources on. 1984-ish stuff isn't exactly cost-effective.

Personally I think if people really understood what was going on, and they were more transparent with what they were doing, a lot of the fears would go away. Obviously they can't do that, of course, so we're stuck with the present situation. Can't say my little encounter was horrible or anything, mixed bag if nothing else.

Though I suppose it was enough to get me to wear my little hat every time I go outside now.

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 8:34pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#56 Jul 11 2016 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Though I suppose it was enough to get me to wear my little hat every time I go outside now.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
That's a very nice hat.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#57 Jul 12 2016 at 3:06 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm pointing out that when you do have an entire half of our political landscape calling for using the no-fly list as a list to restrict firearms, then you also now need to look at the accuracy of the list itself.
You mean they weren't looking at the accuracy of the list before that? THAT would be the scary part about this.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#58 Jul 12 2016 at 6:21 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Again. It's not an either/or thing. I can simultaneously argue that we should be cautious about how we generate such "lists" *and* how we use the content of those lists later on. I'm not sure how you can keep failing to understand this. Both are two sides of the same coin. We need to ensure that the data that our government collects about us does not violate due process requirements *and* that whatever actions we take with the data that the government does have is restricted as much as possible.
There is no movement to actually fix the lists. These politicians have known about these errors for years, because the concern isn't the legitimacy of the no fly lists..


Gbaji wrote:
It's not a comparison or a competition, so scratch that last bit. Here's the thing. Do you think it's more or less likely that a police officer will go inside your house and assault your family at gun point if we've already passed legislation allowing officers to enter people's homes without a warrant or probable cause?

The answer, in case you are wondering, is "yes". So if we want to minimize the rate at which police barge into people's homes and assault them at gunpoint, we should restrict as much as possible the power of an officer to enter your home in the course of his duties.

In the same way, the odds that data collected by the government will be used in some abusive manner increases the more freely we allow the government to collect that data and the more power we give the government to use that data for. So, assuming we want to minimize the rate of government abuse we should minimize the amount of data the government can collect, and the purposes to which it can use what data it has.

I'm not sure why this is remotely controversial. I'm not expressing some new and radical idea here. It's been around for centuries.
You are suggesting something beyond stupid to be injected in our practices for the sole purpose of supporting your talking points. The point is your #5 will never happen or at least be supported by society. We can sit here with tin foil hats and think of various ways people of power and position will abuse their power and position, but they will never likely be accepted by society.

Gbaji wrote:
In this thread, we were specifically speaking about government being able to legally hack into your computer and collect data there. You keep missing this point, despite me repeating it several times. I'm using the fact that existing public data is already being used against people as a backdrop for the potential abuse if we just abandoned the idea of privacy entirely and just let the government rummage around through all our private papers, files, data, etc.

You've kinda forgotten what the topic was about. Go read the freaking title if you can't remember.


Gaji wrote:
And this is you continuing to not get it. I've already answered this question. Several times now.

A. It's not about browsing sites. It's about government hacking into our computers. It's even right in the paragraph you quoted.

B. It's not about looking through my private data for terrorist plots. It's about any of a host of other things they might want to use that private data for.


You haven't countered my point. "Expectation of privacy was nice while it lasted". You never had privacy to your network (phone or Internet) actions to begin with. Privacy is your diary in your room. Your network actions are available to your provider. Why "hack" into your system via a backdoor, when you can go in the front door? That's why the FBI requested assistance from Apple to open their phone before doing it themselves. The point being, you're ok with the people who's job to exploit you to have your information, but not the people who's job is to protect you.

Gbaji wrote:
I find it odd that someone who argues so strongly against profiling would fail to grasp that this private information would be used for exactly that.
So you're now against "show me your papers" and "stop and frisk?" That's great news! As I keep saying. You fail to differentiate passive vs active. Reacting to specific actions is completely different from targeting specific individuals.


Gbaji wrote:
If you'd read my entire post for comprehension instead of just responding to each individual sentence or paragraph as though it shares no context with the rest, you might just understand what I'm trying to say. It's seriously like you're just arguing against each section without having any kind of consistent point or position. Which I find a bit strange.
You're one to talk. Haven't you noticed me combining your responses into one quote? How many times have I said "read below". My last response actually had "read above".

Gbaji wrote:

Are you arguing that the government should have unlimited ability to hack into our computers just to collect data on all of us? Because that's what I'm arguing against, just in case you still haven't figured it out.
I'm stating that you don't understand what you're talking about (hence the constant use of the work hack). You're addressing a legitimate concern, but in a misrepresentation. So the confusion steams from me simultaneously stating that the government should be able to monitor while correcting your misunderstanding of how this stuff works.
#59 Jul 12 2016 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You speak out against it like I am doing now.
So you admit you're not doing anything productive.
gbaji wrote:
It's not hard to imagine a simple jump from where we are right now to something as basic as what you write on an online forum like this one being used as a data point to determine if you pass a background check to purchase a firearm, or get a government job, or *any* job.
It's also not hard to imagine the floor is made of lava, that also doesn't make it likely to actually happen no matter how hard you try to fear monger it into existence.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Jul 12 2016 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You speak out against it like I am doing now.
So you admit you're not doing anything productive.
gbaji wrote:
It's not hard to imagine a simple jump from where we are right now to something as basic as what you write on an online forum like this one being used as a data point to determine if you pass a background check to purchase a firearm, or get a government job, or *any* job.
It's also not hard to imagine the floor is made of lava, that also doesn't make it likely to actually happen no matter how hard you try to fear monger it into existence.


Things written non-anonymously on the Internet can and have been a factor in hiring decisions. This isn't really cuckoo-cloud-lander stuff. There are also politicians who (for a variety of bad reasons) want to heavily constrain online anonymity.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#61 Jul 12 2016 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Things written non-anonymously on the Internet can and have been a factor in hiring decisions.
That sounds less like Big Brother and more people being stupid by voluntarily giving out that information.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Jul 12 2016 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Things written non-anonymously on the Internet can and have been a factor in hiring decisions.
That sounds less like Big Brother and more people being stupid by voluntarily giving out that information.


Yes. Unless laws in the second part of my statement are passed. Because they are being debated. For the children, I'm sure. Don't want to allow petty bullying to be allowed Scot-free.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#63 Jul 12 2016 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
It's a scary bill that died in Congress which is probably not a kosher way to describe it considering the backstory.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Jul 12 2016 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Yes, that one specifically died. The one in CO. passed the house but died in the senate. The specific bill is irrelevant. There are some states in which similar laws were enacted. The point is, it's not "something that could never happen." Because it could. In fact it does, in certain jurisdictions, like in Missouri where it can be a class D felony. Which would exclude you from many jobs.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#65 Jul 12 2016 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
ElneClare wrote:
I find this worry about how the government might be monitoring you, silly. Living near Washington D.C. and Ft. Meade most of my life, my family knew about NSA in the years it was known as No Such Agency. Family friends worked for NSA, I knew former CIA agents who talked about J Edgar Hoover. Because of my family's being active in both the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-War movement, we always assume that there were FBI files on us. Never made us worry though. For us it was actually a matter of pride to think that someone went to all the trouble to create a file on us. You see we knew people on Nixon's Enemy list, in fact once while having lunch with my Dad, he said the one thing he regretted, was not being on Nixon's Enemy list.

Jonwin's Dad work for the FBI and he met Hoover and has a family photo of them at his dad's retirement with Hoover.

So if you thing government surveillance is bad, just don't do anything that would put you on their radar.

BTW the Former CIA agent met Hoover at a Transgender support group.


Variation of 'if you have nothing to hide' detected. And, o tempora o mores, sigh. Society changes. Everyone has something to hide. For example, being gay was considered mental illness not that long ago. They certainly had something to hide if they wanted to have a 'normal life'. McCarthyism may just be an empty phrase to you, but people's lives were directly affected by simply being arbitrarily red flagged; sounds familiar? Relatively normal life was denied to those people as well.

I never had to experience it, but, in the old country, the government had a similarly simple solution to those would not submit to the regime - a variant of a blacklist called, directly translated, wolf's ticket, which ensured undesirable would not be able to a find job, his family would be persecuted, or get any of the amenities readily granted to other citizens. All you had to do to avoid it, as you put it, is not to place yourself on the governments radar.

Do you think it is wise to let US government to get to this stage? Because we are getting closer.



____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#66 Jul 12 2016 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
someproteinguy wrote:


1984-ish stuff isn't exactly cost-effective.

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 8:34pm by someproteinguy


Huh? It used to be prohibitively expensive to put someone under 24/7 surveillance, and, as a result, it was left for rather big fish. These days it is cheap, really cheap, especially when compared to what it used to be. For ***** sake, most people already carry portable devices that can capture sound, video, location and other data. There are cameras on more and more intersections. So the 1984 framework is already in place.

This is not a tinfoil hat stuff. It was tinfoil hat stuff 20 years ago. Now it is already in place.

Least we can ******* do is see that the government is a little restrained. No we can't have that. Alma said so.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#67 Jul 12 2016 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts


...are you being intentionally dense? Are you an fledgling chatbot learning how to read, comprehend and respond to arguments? No? Pity. It would make more sense then.

Pay attention. The question is who has access to useful information. Do you think jilted bankers, doctors, lawyers have such access? No. Who has that access? Are they the NSA agents ( and whoever they pass it to )? By heavens, so they ******* are. What a coincidence. Therefore, it is not the jilted bankers, doctors, lawyers we are talking about. We are talking about NSA agents ( and whoever they pass information to ), who have no qualms about... repurposing said information for ends other than those originally intended. Do you understand the difference?

Quote:
You fail to differentiate passive vs active. You're not important enough to be targeted; however, when you start plotting terrorist attacks, that will change. Why? Because you (in the general sense) will always be monitored.


*shrug* But what about the dreaded lone wolves who just cannot be found?

Quote:
You haven't addressed the fact that Congress knew about this. Monitoring will not stop. You just believe what people say. I can't remember, do you so happen to be a Sanders supporter? You seem gullible enough.


Haven't I? Last time I checked when Wyden tried to get information from Clapper, he simply lied. Also, what someone said in the thread below about politicians covering their collective asses.

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 7:49pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#68 Jul 12 2016 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
The technology is there to help me. It is not there to bring about a more annoying version of 1984.
You really can't blame the government of surveillance when the technology is being voluntarily used by the people to make every second of their lives available to the world. But conspiracy theorists do love to cite 1984. Smiley: thumbsup

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 9:43am by lolgaxe


I can and I have. Do you know why? Because the two are not mutually exclusive. Sure, I do have this, lets call him friend, who.. shares ****************** As my wife has FB, she has a better idea where he is at ALL times. She does not know which Dunkin Donuts I have stopped at on the way to work. I do have a pet theory about the level of trust people in the US have about everything, but this is not the place for it. The users do have their share of the blame.

This does not let government off the hook. Over the few past years, between coica, sopa, FBI threatening apple to do what it wants or else, I can only see that power wants even more power. Personally, I do not like too much power in too few hands. But that is me.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#69 Jul 12 2016 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
FBI threatening apple to do what it wants or else...

...we'll get a 17 year old Russian kid to do it for us!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Jul 12 2016 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
FBI threatening apple to do what it wants or else...

...we'll get a 17 year old Russian kid to do it for us!


...no? Or we will take it anyway ( right now we are just playing nice ). I can only assume you were saying that in jest.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#71 Jul 12 2016 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was saying it in amusement for how that whole Apple-FBI thing worked out. FBI asks for help getting into terrorist's phone, Apple refuses and "blah, blah protecting your privacy", FBI gets some foreign guy to hack the phone and Apple is left a double loser: both refusing to help the FBI in a terrorism case and showing that vaunted Apple security leaving your iPhone secrets as safe as Jennifer Lawrence's nudes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Jul 12 2016 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
angrymnk wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


1984-ish stuff isn't exactly cost-effective.

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 8:34pm by someproteinguy


Huh? It used to be prohibitively expensive to put someone under 24/7 surveillance, and, as a result, it was left for rather big fish. These days it is cheap, really cheap, especially when compared to what it used to be. For ***** sake, most people already carry portable devices that can capture sound, video, location and other data. There are cameras on more and more intersections. So the 1984 framework is already in place.

This is not a tinfoil hat stuff. It was tinfoil hat stuff 20 years ago. Now it is already in place.

Least we can ******* do is see that the government is a little restrained. No we can't have that. Alma said so.
It's not hard to watch somebody, but it's hard to watch everybody. Somebody still has to watch the tapes, listen to the conversations, read the e-mails, etc. etc. The people you have doing those things need to be trained and loyal.

Mass surveillance will never be cost effective, or even possible, as long as we need people in the loop. We can train computers to hunt through databases for correlations, look for keywords in documents, things like that, but there's limits to what can be automated these days. No one is watching CCTV tapes 24/7. We have to whittle a potential list of candidates down to something very small so that you can have a human being look at it and actually do something useful with it. So long as that last step is difficult we'll never all be "watched", because we're not really worth the time.

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 5:55pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#73 Jul 12 2016 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


1984-ish stuff isn't exactly cost-effective.

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 8:34pm by someproteinguy


Huh? It used to be prohibitively expensive to put someone under 24/7 surveillance, and, as a result, it was left for rather big fish. These days it is cheap, really cheap, especially when compared to what it used to be. For ***** sake, most people already carry portable devices that can capture sound, video, location and other data. There are cameras on more and more intersections. So the 1984 framework is already in place.

This is not a tinfoil hat stuff. It was tinfoil hat stuff 20 years ago. Now it is already in place.

Least we can ******* do is see that the government is a little restrained. No we can't have that. Alma said so.
It's not hard to watch somebody, but it's hard to watch everybody. Somebody still has to watch the tapes, listen to the conversations, read the e-mails, etc. etc. The people you have doing those things need to be trained and loyal.

Mass surveillance will never be cost effective, or even possible, as long as we need people in the loop. We can train computers to hunt through databases for correlations, look for keywords in documents, things like that, but there's limits to what can be automated these days. No one is watching CCTV tapes 24/7. We have to whittle a potential list of candidates down to something very small so that you can have a human being look at it and actually do something useful with it. So long as that last step is difficult we'll never all be "watched", because we're not really worth the time.

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 5:55pm by someproteinguy


You are the most optimistic person I have ever met in my life.

Quote:
as long as we need people in the loop.


You got that part right.



Edited, Jul 12th 2016 9:28pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#74 Jul 12 2016 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Hey someone here needs to be positive. Smiley: cool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#75 Jul 12 2016 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I was saying it in amusement for how that whole Apple-FBI thing worked out. FBI asks for help getting into terrorist's phone, Apple refuses and "blah, blah protecting your privacy", FBI gets some foreign guy to hack the phone and Apple is left a double loser: both refusing to help the FBI in a terrorism case and showing that vaunted Apple security leaving your iPhone secrets as safe as Jennifer Lawrence's nudes.


Is that how it played out? It wasn't "FBI wants to create a precedent, digs up ancient law to create it, Apple fights back, DOJ gets involved, FBI loses PR war and says they could force Apple to hand all the **** over anyway, but in order to avoid potential black eye in court and a precedent it does not want to have, hires Cellebrite" instead?

Perspective. It is a wonderful thing.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#76 Jul 12 2016 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Is that how it played out?

Pretty much, yeah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 331 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (331)