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
Just like a house with an unlocked door does. Capacity does not equal permission.
I don't understand what it is about technology that makes people suddenly not understand this.
Not really. You know quite well whether or not you have permission to use a network or not.
Honestly, autoconnect is stupid from a security standpoint (can you really trust that network?) and it's a form of trespassing, because, once again, capability and permission are two very separate things. I never use autoconnect, and if it went away, I would not be all that terribly saddened.
Not to mention that your argument is just a fallacious appeal to emotion.
I am similarly perplexed by the way that people seem to think morality just doesn't matter once technology becomes involved. This discussion is reminding me a lot of piracy threads, where people who normally accept the principal that you pay someone in exchange for their labor ceases to apply when you are downloading data.
"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
Stop making me agree with you. You're upsetting the natural order.
"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 agree.
While some of these issues are novel or more widespread, it's not like any of this technology is so novel as to be entirely unprecedented. What's old becomes new and all that - but we've already got good frameworks to deal with a lot of these issues with just minor tweaking.
On this particular issue, I say make all Google Glass type devices require a conspicuous light / indicator when recording, make it a crime to tamper with the indicator, and call it a day.
EDIT - maybe throw standard one / two party consent requirements on it, and publishing consent for non-public figures.
"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
Then don't make arguments that rely on a weak predicate remaining unspoken. Our society is built on a "permission denied except when explicitly granted" model - it's on you to show why that doesn't hold here.
Greetings, new associate #3742! Welcome to the OmniCorp family. Today begins your adventure of a life-long commitment to the betterment of OmniCorp -- the betterment of yourself! A career with OmniCorp is not just a job, it's a way of life. You and your fellow associates represent the best of OmniCorp wherever you go. As such, we take this opportunity to remind you...
It's classical technological defeatism / digital determinism. If you present the issue as inevitable, then a lot of those thorny moral questions go away.
paxprank.org | paxcommunity.net | Steam | XBL
My argument is that by opening your network you are implicitly granting permission to use it. If you don't want other people accessing it... don't make it public? Or at least don't act surprised if people do?
Yes. Again, capacity (I can access) is different from permission (I am allowed to access).
Not directed at me, but I would say that if you own something, your expectation is that people will not just come and make use of it without your permission, even if that use does not deprive you of your use, because it isn't theirs to use. If I came home and found that people had made use of my pool or were sitting on my lawn while I was out, then even if they were gone before I got home I still think I would have a legitimate grievance, because I own the pool and the lawn. I don't think I should need to erect a fence with a lock that they cannot open, and which is high enough for them not to scale it, before I can claim that I have been wronged by their use.
"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
If I am having a barbeque in a public park and invited many friends, does the fact that it is in a public space make it acceptable for you to walk over and take an extra hamburger, even if no one notices you do it, because there is a big crowd of invited people?
"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
There is no fence, there is no lock. Building a fence is marking your network as hidden, adding a lock is not marking it as open
I have no fence around my front yard. So you think you are free to lounge on it?
"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
"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
And as I have pointed out repeatedly, you haven't backed that argument up at all, especially in light of the fact that it runs counter to the way that our society is set up, where permission is denied initially, and it is incumbent on the user to get express permission. Why should it be any different with private networks?
paxprank.org | paxcommunity.net | Steam | XBL
paxprank.org | paxcommunity.net | Steam | XBL
If you don't have anything there signifying that it's a private event for you and your friends then yeah, people are going to think it's just free food. That's where this gets back to "well, you deserved it" territory. If the event is so big it isn't clearly just a group of friends then it's your problem to make sure no one unwanted gets through. Pretty easy.
. . . What world do you live in where people just give out free food randomly, without explicitly stating that they are doing so? I think this example is a really clear demonstration of hedgie's capacity/permission dichotomy.
"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
Because capability is permission for computers. I don't email the webmaster to ask if I can use a website, I just go there. If their site is misconfigured and inadvertently allows everyone access when only some should, that's not my fault. There's a button, click it. This isn't circumventing any security or protections or anything like that. The network is literally blasting out "HEY HEY IM HERE AND IM OPEN, COME USE ME"
You think someone's gonna just drop money burgers on you? Burgers THEY could use?
Well there ain't people like that.
There's just people like SKFM.
Sign up saying "BURGERS --->" - open network
Just you and some friends and a BBQ - hidden network
You and some friends and a sign saying "private party" - secured network
What would you say in my picnic scenario? Is it my fault because I don't have security guards?
"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
If there is a large gathering of people all eating tons of food and ZERO money is being exchanged then I will flat out assume there is free food being given away in this PUBLIC place that isn't marked as a PRIVATE event. This is nothing more than you not wanting to send a clear message and then be pissy at people who misinterpret it even though there's no way they should have know what it really was to begin with. You hold the event. You hold the responsibility.
That is just you declaring this by fiat. I have private property (internet bandwidth or hamburgers). It is sitting out there in a public place. Do you have a right to just use it without permission, even thought it belongs to me and not you?
"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
The widespread social acceptance of being recorded...or of recording others.
No, but if you had a sign up saying "hey burgers here" then sure. Again keep in mind that there are two things here - the lack of any security, and the public broadcasting of its openness. Try to crack a secure network? Yeah that's bad. Try to specifically locate an open network that's not advertising itself? Also not very good. Using an open network that is literally advertising itself as such? Why not? If there were no security options at all then yeah, that's a problem; but there are. Yes, if they default to open/broadcasting then that's a problem, but anyone who's changed the SSID can very easily either set a password or remove broadcasting at the same time by you know, typing in the box below that says "password"
This is really incredible to me. People have picnics in parks all the time. They rarely say "Hey, this is private." They are just people gathering together. If you saw an ipod sitting on a bench, would you think it was fair game? What if you saw someone put it down before getting a drink of water?
"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 is already easily done and often even acceptable.
I mean shit there were people freaking out that someone would get recorded at a parade.
Bad news. If you've been to a public parade in the last decade you've been recorded.
Being in a parade is different from walking into a doctor's office.
The purpose of a parade is to be public, and to garner attention.
Okay we are clearly talking about two different sizes of event here. You're alluding to a small get together and you're initial post sounded a lot larger than that. If it's a handful of people then fucking of course no one is going to take your food. Jesus.
Edit: This is just like the horseshit rape comparison from before. Totally being played in order to push your point past the point it's even related to mine.
Edit2: Which is to say my point has NEVER been about theft in any capacity. This is about the privacy concern re: Glass.
Guess what isn't a computer, though?
You.
You are a reasoning, thinking individual. The computer is solely a tool, incapable of doing anything without the input, in some form, of a user. Stop trying to use the computer to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions.
By the way, we recently had an individual try your argument in court.
He's currently a guest of the US government.