Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Privacy in the world of [Google Glass] and wearable computing . . . and wifi, apparently
Posts
We already are, right? It used to be that a google search brought up everyone's facebook. Now most people have their pages as private as possible.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I've NEVER gotten having your online persona tied into your real name / real world personal.
Walled gardens people - online and real life should be separate and disconnected. EDIT - or at least not trivial to connect.
The first rule I learned was never use your real name or tell anyone where you live online.
It will only happen if we let it, either through action or apathy. Evgeny Morozov, who is one of the few people really discussing this point, points out a lot of the issues in this piece.
Shh. Nobody mentioned banning it from strip clubs. Don't fucking ruin this for me.
I guess that part of the danger here is we are literally pitting Google against privacy right now. For Glass to work, you need to have the largest possible database of images to recognize. That is fundamentally opposed to any notion that people who are captured by Glass or otherwise have images that Google can recognize should be excluded from Glass's searches. Forget facebook. Do you have a picture up on your employer bio? A college department's home page? It only takes one image with your name on the internet, and you could be caught up in Glass's searches.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I'm doing Movember for Men's Health! Donate if you can - thanks.
There will come a time when everyone who has ever posted in the [NY/NJ] thread will be thoroughly unemployable social pariahs obsessed with buttz.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
Google has been pitted against privacy from day one - take a look at their lobbying efforts in Europe currently for a great example of that.
I think in such environments learning should change to focus on things you can't just easily google, which would require abandoning a lot of rote memorization
I've thought about this sort of thing for a long time, and I am cautiously optimistic that in fact the only rational outcome over time is the converse of what you describe, and I'm all for it.
In other words, we as a society will be forced to evolve away from some of our collective bullshit and recognize that it doesn't matter if a female executive at a company was dancing at a club. It may take a generation, but youth will grow up fully understanding how clips, soundbites, and quotes can be taken out of context, and they'll understand it broadly and deeply in a way that even the current generation of YouTube and Facebook does not. Most people today seem to carry a subconscious association that "video footage" is "evidence of something nasty," especially if the news anchor or headline tell you that it is. Video footage is powerful, more powerful than what someone says or does or how well they've performed, etc. When it becomes ubiquitous, it loses that power. Not that we won't still believe in video as truth as long as it appears undoctored. But, how would we ever elect a President in a world where everyone's lives are video archived? The only options would be 1) only elect from a micro-subset of insane people who have maintained their entire lives according to some strict "on-air" personailty, or 2) acknowledge that everyone is human, and that we've all said and done crap we regret or that we've learned and moved on from, and that the best President ever might be someone who said and did things 20 years ago that look ugly in the public eye, or who went dancing in a club last weekend. Society will be forced to learn to attempt to evaluate whether a person is truly a nasty individual based on more than one little clip, and to more rationally place a single clip of video into context as part of a person's life and what it really means (or doesn't mean) about who they are now and what they are tasked with now. I frequently find myself wishing mroe people did that right now, and I'm convinced the only way they ever will is by getting seriously desensitized to "OMG look what we caught on tape!".
I think it is already starting. We're already wrestling with whether or not an employer should have your Facebook account. We're still in an age where politicians and executives are old enough that there isn't a lifetime of status updates, forum posts, and iPhone snapshots of them out on the Internet, but that's going to change soon, Google Glass or not. I'm sure at first we'll just lash out at more and more at our potential leaders and public figures as we get to see each of them being as human as ourselves, but over time I have to hope that this sort of scrutiny will become marginalized and recognized for just how worthwhile it is or isn't in the grand scheme of things. I don't want our 50th President to be the one guy left who never used social media and never did anything silly when cameras were around.
At the same time, I don't mind so much that, at least to some extent, ubiquitous video will force people to be honest and be moral all the time. It will inevitably eliminate a lot of phony. People should be allowed to let loose and not worry, but they also shouldn't do anything they'd be ashamed of.
I think it works from two ends: 1) We learn to accept that all men have pretty much the same thing down there, and it isn't that big of a deal if someone took a photo of yours. They aren't doing anything to you that isn't analagous to what they could have done with the naked eye. 2) We continue to attack violations when they occur, such as sites policing what people upload and responding to requests to remove things. Technology in this arena will likely continue to improve dramatically. I expect I'll get a text if a member resembling my member shows up on any site.
Thank you, Cracked, for showing us the end of this long, dark road.
Things like consumer level facial recognition are not far off. Hell the government has tech that can tell someone's nationality at a high rate of success based solely on their body language and gait.
Then, nobody will have to worry about being recognised.
I'm doing Movember for Men's Health! Donate if you can - thanks.
Certain levels of cryptography are illegal and blanketed banned in the US, because the govt doesnt have the power to crack it yet. This only eases as they have the ability to crack it. the terms "freely available" "useful" and "succeeded" are so generic that it's pretty hard to come up with a real example. Cryptography is freely available to those with enough resources for their own computer equipment, which scales up as their equipment scales, etc. It's useful for security and privacy, and it's been successful as you cant buy a commercial product that extends past said point. You could build your own, and it isnt an issue until you share it, make it known, or get into trouble, which really is like a condition of alot of illegal things.
Personally I would love it if privacy completely died tomorrow and society just caught up. But it isnt going to happen when important things are tied to privacy. If you only go halfway, you only open a ton of avenues for abuse of newly public information that can be used to get private information.
Its also going to be a generational shift. People who've grown up on facebook are going to give two fucks whats on yours in 20 years when they're doing the hiring.
What if they just install a normal camera and run it through the same service.
Glass doesn't change anything about this.
Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
True, but "let it" assumes it is wrong. Privacy has subjective, not objective value. What you call defeatism may just be evolution.
I'm not saying that our current principle of valuing privacy is wrong or that surrendering it is good, I just don't believe that any of our principles have objective value - they all have context, and if your context changes significantly, then maybe a different set of values are OK too.
This is precisely the tl;dr version of what I was saying.
Why? Not arguing, you're free to have your opinion, I'm just curious. What does privacy offer you outside of your home?
All too often "privacy" is a term people use to keep the stupid shit they don't want others to find out about under wraps, and in that regard, hell yes I want that type of privacy eradicated. There should be nowhere to hide. For anyone. Not saying this is what you were talking about, though.
Privacy regarding identity theft is not a privacy issue. It's a shitty humans issue. In a perfect world privacy isn't necessary, and this is coming from a pretty quiet, private person.
That ban is an anachronism left over from 30 years ago. The need to let people use credit cards online pretty much killed it.
Go to Gmail.com
See that httpS:// that's 128bit TLS.
Either the NSA has a quantum computer; so encryption of any strength is meaningless(I'd bet here), or they don't and 128-bit is safe till the universe dies.
I agree.
I mean, it's all find and good if some people are comfortable saying 'we all look the same down there, film away - my wang needs more exposure'. Be an exhibitionist - I don't care.
I still consider it an invasion of my privacy if people are filming me in a setting with an expectation of privacy like a bathroom or locker room. As far as I can tell, the law is firmly on my side.
Why?
Everyone has stupid shit shit they don't want others to find out about. By 2030 we'll only be able to elect Amish to high office because of it
The onion has us covered, as always
The ability to do shit outside your home and not assume you are being recorded? This is an assumption you make RIGHT NOW.
Have you never had a conversation with someone you didn't want everyone to know about? Did it ever occur outside a home? Cause you have. We have long lived under the idea that there what is outside the home can still be private.
There's alot of things people want to keep private for perfectly legitimate reasons. Like, say, what's going on with you and your boyfriend these days. There should be plenty of places to "hide". The opposing idea is incredibly radical and crazy.
"Privacy" is usually just a fuzzy emotional term used as a means towards some ulterior end. It's a protection against threats that we ought to have better protections from to begin with. And, the idea of it is being largely eliminated on its own. The kind of stuff a young adult considers normal with respect to savings/coupon cards, credit cards, social media, baby monitors, cybernannying, GPS, RFID, mobile phones, biometrics, web site registration, etc. would likely make someone from decades ago declare that privacy has already been completely eliminated. I don't expect the trend is going to reverse. Kids grow up with a video monitor pointed at their crib, keyloggers on their computer, Mom texting them requesting up-to-the-minute updates on where they are and what they are doing, and they complain about it all on facebook, twitter, etc. How do you think they'll care for their children? I already know someone who puts GPS trackers in their kids' shoes. They have a legitimate kidnapping risk situation going on, but still. I'm thinking my grandkids will one day be tracked and recorded by their parents in real-time all day and they'll grow up thinking it's normal. Where does privacy survive?
Again that privacy is already mostly an illusion. People don't do things like this simply because it's not worth the effort. I don't look up strangers facebooks for shit and giggles because I don't care and it's a lot of work. But the question is when it becomes as easy as looking at someone, facially recognizing them and looking up what the were doing last night in a few seconds will it become more common.
I'd say somewhat but not as much as people say. I already consider 90% of social media masturbatory. Very few people care what you post on facebook or tweet you're talkin to yourself most of the time unless you're a celebrity. For every boss who cares about your drunk facebook pictures there's about a million people, both who know you and don't know you who simply couldn't care less.
Depending on where you live, this includes getting an abortion, going to various religious ceremonies, patronising gay bars and attending political rallies.
I'm doing Movember for Men's Health! Donate if you can - thanks.
Exactly, because everyone does it. We shouldn't be looking at elected officials as being AmishGood anyway, though i don't think anyone is... Anything people did as kids is just that, something silly you did as a child. Stupid things that adults do should be public knowledge at every level. Not saying advertise it, but if someone goes looking it should take zero effort. In your house? Sure, no one should know you're currently masturbating or engaging in x act that is legal but grossly abnormal. But in public? Nope, sorry, that's the "risk" you took when you walked out your door.
If you do something in public then you are likely affecting other people in some way. And anything that affects anyone other than yourself should be something anyone can know about.
Good? If he bans you because you posted a bunch of photos of you getting nasty drunk and harassing other patrons, he's got a right to keep you out. And if he keeps you out for personal or political reasons, well, you recorded that with your glass, right? So you can sue for discrimination. Or whatever.
An assumption you make wrongly.
People keep conflating two distinct concepts. Privacy and being recorded. People can record you, and not be invading your privacy. It happens every time you walk into a store now. It probably happens at your work place.
We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where gay, lesbian and transgendered people are beaten to death because of how they were born. We live in a world where children are bullied into suicide. We live in a world where criminals target people because they think they have money. We live in a world where people aren't hired because of recreation activities and what groups they identify with. We live in a world we sihks are murdered by morons who can't even get their religion right.
Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
You start by looking at the moral aspects of the matter, for starters. I am quite comfortable in saying that if you are putting a keylogger on your child's computer, then there's been a failure in parenting. You even show hints of that, with how you quickly you justified the conduct of your acquaintance.
Even fi they do it with the fastest tools possible screening every customer is going to be tedious and ultimately pointless. Places that do it will be running themselves out of business very quickly
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
This post doesn't even make sense as a response to my post. You are suggesting that conversations are even more private then I was.
And I would argue that you are horribly mistaken, as laws like HIPAA can attest to.