Fighting For Privacy With Art and Words

HomeSkillet writes contributes this link to an interesting NYT feature on the recent works of privacy activist, wearables pioneer and artist Steve Mann. Mann has been mentioned here a few times before, but in light of current moves to scan, monitor and track your every move by subtle and unsubtle means, it's never been more relevant. Can anyone suggest a non-registration source for this story?

Comments

Frost Pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Frost Pissed

Re:Frost Pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

damn, that shit hurtz

SP

[Anonymous Coward]

Second Post :-)

Malda

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a goddamn disgrace to the internet. Your shit-ass website is full of cornholing nigger fags who are actually SS agents. They are out to get you. You and your Jewish lover, Hemos. You see CmdrTaco, you are the bane of all of our existences, a no-talent fuck who runs a website and tries to make a living off of it. Get a job like the rest of us you stinky indian kike. Why don't you get your ass off that cock and go do something productive you big dumb piece of shit?

Re:Malda

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not jealous, are we?

Re:Malda

[Anonymous Coward]

Ind Aed Gnaught, Friend. Do You Reave?

Kill All Muslims. Exterminate Islam. Vengeance !

[Anonymous Coward]

Our precious dad cry out for vengeance:

1. Kill all Muslims.
2. Kill all Mohammedans.
3. Kill all Arabs.
4. Kill all Towel Heads.
5. Kill all Camel Jockeys.
6. Kill all Dune Coons.
7. Kill all Islam.
8. Nuke their countries to hell.
9. Nuke them again.
10. Death to Islam.

I menstruate on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I piss on Mohammed.

Re:Kill All Muslims. Exterminate Islam. Vengeance

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget:

1. Sand niggers
2. Bum bandits
3. Barney
4. Shirt lifters
5. Bill Gates
6. Corn holers

Re:Kill All Muslims. Exterminate Islam. Vengeance

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot fecal-feelers

Re:Kill All Muslims. Exterminate Islam. Vengeance

[Anonymous Coward]

And fudge packers

(fuck do I hate that time delay bull shit reply fucking crapping shit)

no reg req'd at archives

[sTeF]

check this link:
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/science/phys ical/25CYBO.html

Re:no reg req'd at archives

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic that the NY Times (with their registration policy) is running a story on privacy?

Re:no reg req'd at archives

[Anonymous Coward]

no ;)

Story ...

[AftanGustur]

http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/science/phy sical/25CYBO.html

Re:Story ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How come this got modded up to 4, yet the post before didn't get modded up at all? That's injustive for you. That's just plain fucking unfair. FUCK YOU MODS!!!

Non-registration..

[popeyethesailor]

I dont mind registering, but i would love to see future links pointingto a more readable format like this.

Karmawhoringly yours,

Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Zeio]

Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most. The art highlighted in these article is a relevant and valuable expression of things that have come and are to come.

The article's spiked chair being useable by cardholders/citizens only and the other link to the wearable camera is an allusion to the underpinnings of fascism.

I get worried about the direction the US government is taking towards us. Half my company is foreigners, and good ones at that. The plausibility that they will become suspect or deported is minimal, but given some of the new legislation in the mill, it is possible to deport resident aliens if they contributed to an organization that terrorizes or makes threats. That could conceivably include Greenpeace.

Expatriate resident aliens are the best people, most of the time. They are not eligible for welfare, must take care of themselves, do no vote and pay taxes. I would fight to defend the rights of my friends at work.

The advent of the Orwellian era is near, I urge everyone to go to the EFF (www.eff.org) as soon as possible and write the senators and congressmen. And if you are from the EU or Canada or some other place, write them too. I'm still in shock about Skylarov not even getting a semblance of habeas corpus, and is being tried on laws that do not apply to him or what he did. And now the SSSCA and the Anti-Terrorism (Implement Fascism) bills by Adolph Ashcroft.

I am hurt by what happened September 11th. Black ops, special ops and "surgical" retaliation is a good thing. But suspending the rights of people who aren't even Arabic, and coining new criteria for "cyber-terrorism," proposing national ID cards and indiscriminately deporting people is NOT a smart thing to do. And developing legislation with such broad and far reaching wording is dangerous to everyone the world over.

The brain drain will begin, where mega corps of the US will have expatriates arrested for violating something inane. Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid. And possible the greatest nation for development with the soundest fiscal policy will become and intellectual pariah.

Remember, stay moderate. Don't jump to conclusions about things, and make sure to check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.

- Z

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[reflector]

But suspending the rights of people who aren't even Arabic,

While I agree with the rest of your post, don't make it into a racial issue. If you really believe in freedom, you believe in the freedom of all people, and that laws apply to all people equally. While today *some* Arabs may be our "enemies" (and Afgans aren't Arabs, BTW), yesterday Russians were the enemies and tomorrow it may be the Chinese.

The track records on terrorism of nations should be recognized, with regard to allowing entrance or immigration, but once here people need to be equal under the law.

Re: Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Zeio]

I agree, the 'not even Arabic' thing in retrospect seemed exclusive of a group of people who in general I have no gripe with so long as they are law abiding.

I mentioned surgical / black ops, etc, because I know full well that the Afghans in general are not the problem here, its militant factions. Collateral damage towards the Afghan people is killing allies for all intents.

I am for middle ground solutions. Now, there would be a merit to temporarily instituting martial law, possibly interning a bunch of "suspects" and processing them quickly. The 48 hours the government has to hold people should be plenty. Extended internment, such as REX84/RX84, or the Japanese in WWII, was an interesting miscarriage of justice. If people who are not citizens or citizens who are interned on racial profiling, which, while wrong, has some merits, they must be handled quickly and if they are found to be innocent, they must be compensated.

Martial law and temporary internment are temporary. They may be wrong, annoying, or seem unfair. If a job NEEDS to get done, and mob rule must prevail, then lets be fair. On the other hand, horribly vague and far reaching legislation is more dangerous over the long term.

People want to do things right now without any ramifications. If law enforcement has to be "ugly," then it should be ugly in front of the public eye and subject to criticism. This highly furtive and secretive approach the government is taking internally with legislation and other such things make me more nervous than anything else.

Sorry for making it seem like Arabians were the exception. One of the guys at work is Turkish, and he is a good guy, and I had a Orthodox Egyptian roommate in college, and he was a good guy.

Thanks for the input.

- Z

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Rogerborg]

• developing legislation with such broad and far reaching wording is dangerous to everyone the world over

Yup. I've been told to stop over reacting, that this legislation isn't even going to be used much because, hey, the USA are the good guys, and we need it to defend Freedom and such.

I, on the other hand, think that it's not enough to just say that you're the good guys. You actually have to act like it as well. Even at the height of the Soviet Union's crackdown on samizdat, the oppression was all being done in the name of the greater good of the people, as represented by the state. Let's not take one single step in that direction.

Why pass laws that effects 300 million people if you're truly only proposing to use them against 50 people or so? There must be ways to save Freedom without giving up freedoms.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Pogue Mahone]

While today *some* Arabs may be our "enemies" (and Afgans aren't Arabs, BTW), yesterday Russians were the enemies and tomorrow it may be the Chinese.

That sounds even more like Orwell's 1984 than I'd like to think. (Hint: Oceania is in a permanent state of war with,... well, ... someone.)

Now lets see who profits from this disaster....

The US Govt of course:
1. They get a nice recession to knock down pay - can't let the proles get too rich now. Didn't you notice that Bush's little recession wasn't getting deep enough before this.
2. They get an excuse to bring in a whole load of privacy-invading surveillance legislation. Gotta get rid of that nasty encryption.
3. They get a nice little war to use up some of that munitions stockpile that's been gathering since Desert Storm blew over. Keeps the defence industry moguls sweet, too.
4. And if course it diverts attention from a whole load of other controversial stuff (SSSCA, DMCA, Dmitry Sklyarov, etc.) and adds a stack of points to Bush's popularity ratings.

Now, who else could benefit from this? Well, err... Ideas, anyone?

Sorry, I'm at just about my most paraniod at the moment. I don't really believe this. Or do I?

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Now, who else could benefit from this? Well, err... Ideas, anyone?

Israelis. With the attention drawn away from them they can finally massacre Palestinians.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

... without being noticed, because they've been doing that for decades.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"The advent of the Orwellian era is near"

If you mean we only passed it about 15 years ago then you are right on. For those who are unawre Eric Blair (a.k.a. George Orwell) chose the date 1984 because it reverses the 48 in 1948 ... the year it was written. By 1984 it had become clear to many that Blair's horrifying predictions had been realized and then surpassed! Sadly, a large majority of Americans (especially) are so blinded by the light of Big Brother that they label those who can clearly see 'fanatics', 'nut cases', or 'green part members.' (8^} on that last one.)

I'll just scratch the surface with a single example. Sadman Insane (sadhamm Huseinn for the phonetically challenged) was a friend of the US Government who wasn't such a bad guy, until the day when he was suddenly always a murderous dictator who must be stopped. Of course, even though it was well within our power to oust him, we never did. Instead the US government explained to us 'proles' that they couldn't quite get to him. Of course the reality was that we were afraid that, if we killed him, *ANOTHER* Sadman Insane would take his place and we would have to check his ego as well. I assure you I could go on ad-infinitum with myriad diferring examples, but I won't. At this point, you either get it, or you never will.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[IainMH]

Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most.

Indeed. As Kryten said:
"Most of mans most popular persuits have been about being on his own - golf, fishing, and the all time number one"

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't really believe this. Or do I?"

Sure you do. The `war on drugs` was pretty good cover - it gave an excuse for arbitrary search/arrest/imprisonment (with subsequent loss of voting rights). It allowed wiretaps and surveillance, extradition of non-us citizens for crimes commited outside the us (read `mr nice` by Howard Marks for details). It allowed military operations in other countries. It allowed echelon and carnivore.

But it just didnt go far enough.

As someone else has already said:

"The government loves to use incidents like the WTC attack as an excuse to restrict freedom. The feds "need" to take away some of our rights in order that they can "fight terrorism" more easily. Who the fuck said fighting
terrorism was supposed to be easy? We have rights that are (should be) inviolable, and if that makes the government's job harder, tough shit. Look for a new job"

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[jbridge21]

You just don't get it, do you...

We are at war with the Arabs, we always have been at war with the Arabs, and we always will be at war with the Arabs.

[Humor-impaired moderators, please don't touch this one.]

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[dgroskind]

Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid.

Not to worry. The British have had limited detention without trial to fight terrorism since 1974 and it has had no known effect upon foreigners seeking admission to Britian. The laws are disproportionately applied to Irish visitors without reducing the number Irish citizens coming to Britian to work or visit.

Terrorism is a threat to resident aliens as much as anyone else. A resident alien, like an American citizen, has to decide whether the possibilities of a terrorist attack outweigh the new restrictions and hassles.

If a resident alien is willing to stay in America despite the risk to life and limb posed by terrorism, he may find the additional risk from anti-terrorist measures a reasonable price to pay.

check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.

Never mind the art. Check out the anti-terrorism laws in other countries where terrorism has been endemic for decades. Hundreds of resident aliens were killed in the attack on September 11. They have as much reason as anyone else to be clamouring for clampdown.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Pogue Mahone]

ROFL
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[jason000042]

You forgot "Kyoto Protocol", new oil drilling, etc. Hopefully, at the very least, Bush v2 will realize that the Next Big Threat won't be stopped with the National Missile Defense... He'll probably keep it going anyway though.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Reality Master 101]

I find these two excerpts from your post terribly amusing:

Anti-Terrorism (Implement Fascism) bills by Adolph Ashcroft. [...] Remember, stay moderate. Don't jump to conclusions about things,

Maybe you should take your own advice. Cynicism and paranoia is NOT logic and facts.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Zwack]

"The track records on terrorism of nations should be recognized, with regard to allowing entrance or immigration, but once here people need to be equal under the law."

Nicely said, So when are you going to stop Irish, and Spanish visitors from coming to the USA? After all, ETA (the Basque seperatist movement) are Terrorists, and so are the IRA.

And when is the US Government going to really do something about not funding Terrorists? Are they going to seize the assets of Noraid?

How about the CIA? They've been involved with Terrorists once or twice...

I don't Seriously expect the US government to be impartial about their "War on Terrorism" but I'm just so surprised at some of the convenient blanks in the collective memory.

Z.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Reality Master 101]

Of course, even though it was well within our power to oust him, we never did. Instead the US government explained to us 'proles' that they couldn't quite get to him.

What utter bullcrap. Link me to a statement by the government that said we "couldn't quite get to him". Apparently, you weren't paying attention when we fought the gulf war. The purpose of the gulf war to prevent Saddam Hussein from seizing a great majority of the world's oil by seizing Kuwait, and then moving into Saudi Arabia (you'll notice that Saudi Arabia asked us to come in and defend them).

The goal of the gulf war was ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, and if you read the UN resolution authorizing force, that's exactly what it said. I find it extremely ironic that the US is criticized for actually following the UN authorization, rather than going hog-wild and taking over the country.

The Gulf War was never about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. No one would cry if we did get rid of him, and we tried a couple of times, but that's not what the mission was about. And lest you fill yourself with oh-so-righteous indignation and say, "SO!! You admit that it was all about oil???" Of course it was all about oil. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.

To steal a quote: "at this point, you either get it, or you never will."

Maybe you should consider that many other of your cynical and paranoid "facts" are also untrue.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"What utter bullcrap. Link me to a statement by the government that said we "couldn't quite get to him"."

"No one would cry if we did get rid of him, and we tried a couple of times"

"Maybe you should consider that many other of your cynical and paranoid "facts" are also untrue."

Or maybe I should consider the source when you make such a statement. Let's see how your logic works ... It is utter bullcrap to suggest that we couldn't get to Sadman, then you say later in the post that we tried a couple of times. So it is your reasoning that we tried to get him and couldn't. Hmmm ... I have to believe you are either stupid or woefully ignorant of the capabilities the US government. And for the record, you wouldn't know the difference between a fact and a reasonable conclusion drawn from empirical evidence if they turned out to be the same. 8^}

That being said, I hope you get to retain your status as a Prole, because you are in for a very rude awakening if you ever have to wake up one day and have some idea what you are talking about.

Cheers!

Zero__Kelvin

Re: Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry for making it seem like Arabians were the exception. One of the guys at work is Turkish, and he is a good guy, and I had a Orthodox Egyptian roommate in college, and he was a good guy."

Gee - really? Say, do you know any gays or blacks? I was thinking of making blanket generalisations about them, but i think i`d better wait for at least a few facts first.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[andymac]

...proposing national ID cards ...

Now, let's not be naive here, (y)our government has more than enough information on you to whip up a little card with your photo, DOB, SSN(SIN), blood type, yadda yadda yadda, and mail it to you without you having to do anything...(I'm Canadian and the same applies to me as well). I agree that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and hastily implement ill-thought-out plans, but on the idea of national ID cards, you're already there: simply apply duct tape to the edges of your existing cards to make one big one.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

I, on the other hand, think that it's not enough to just say that you're the good guys. You actually have to act like it as well.

And just yesterday you were advocating theft. Go figure.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Reality Master 101]

Let's see how your logic works ... It is utter bullcrap to suggest that we couldn't get to Sadman, then you say later in the post that we tried a couple of times. So it is your reasoning that we tried to get him and couldn't.

No, I said the purpose of the mission was not getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That doesn't mean we didn't lob a few missiles in his direction.

That being said, I hope you get to retain your status as a Prole, because you are in for a very rude awakening if you ever have to wake up one day and have some idea what you are talking about.

I notice that you can't refute one thing I said, other than to attack semantics. But you "just know" that your world view is correct, regardless of the facts, right? After all, the most cynical position must be the most "realistic" position.

Cynicism/Paranoia != Logic/Facts.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[youreanidiot]

I'll just scratch the surface with a single example. Sadman Insane (sadhamm Huseinn for the phonetically challenged) was a friend of the US Government who wasn't such a bad guy, until the day when he was suddenly always a murderous dictator who must be stopped.

Hehe, I usually don't get into all of this conspiracy theory type crap.

But, I do think it's funny that so many Americans, even the whacky conspiracy theory people that think The Government is behind it all, fall so easily into thinking that every foreign power we come up against is genuinely crazy. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that every "enemy" of The United States is "insane". Hitler was insane, Saddam Hussein is insane, Osama Bin Laden is insane, Milsovec (sp) was insane. In WWII, the Japanese were not only insane, but usually dipicted in political cartoons as gorillas. Insane gorillas. Doesn't get much worse than that.

People never seem to think about much of anything. They just pick a view and then run with it. Never reconsidering, never thinking. For instance.. everyone attributes every bad thing that happens as being the personal responsibility of George Doubleya, or whatever insulting names people come up with for whatever president is presently president. But, do you really think he is just sitting, isolated in some little room somewhere drawing up the plans for the demise of cryptography? No. Of course not. It's just stupid. Maybe he personally penned the details of the DMCA on his lunch break? No. It's all just business, and none of it so complicated. And I think Jesse Ventura illustrated the uselessness of any one political figure when he became elected governor. On his first day someone asked him if he was worried that with very little experience he would be able to handle the responsibilities of his job, and he replied "That's what I have all these people here to help me for". Elected representatives are usually just that. Representatives. They are speakers, and they usually have character. They are no more important to the business of government than Ronald Mcdonald is to the decision making process of wether to bring back the McRib sandwich at McDonalds. Just a happy face.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Glock27]

Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most. The art highlighted in these article is a relevant and valuable expression of things that have come and are to come.

The article's spiked chair being useable by cardholders/citizens only and the other link to the wearable camera is an allusion to the underpinnings of fascism.

Not necessarily fascism, but totalitarianism of some sort. The communists weren't fascists, but the Lubyanka KGB headquarters wasn't a pleasant place in the old days. There are frightening possibilities in "totalitarian democracy".

I get worried about the direction the US government is taking towards us.

I agree. In my greviously undermoderated earlier post on the subject ;-) I expressed similar concerns about the inevitable knee-jerk response to recent events. Lawmakers don't have any tools besides passing laws, and laws are generally permanent (on a related topic, there should at least be a period where an existing law must be removed from the books in order to enact a new one - maybe even two should be removed for awhile).

Half my company is foreigners, and good ones at that. The plausibility that they will become suspect or deported is minimal, but given some of the new legislation in the mill, it is possible to deport resident aliens if they contributed to an organization that terrorizes or makes threats.

That isn't a bad thing necessarily...what organizations do you support that "terrorize or make threats"?

That could conceivably include Greenpeace.

You say that like its a bad thing! ;-)

OK, I do see your point about being deported for supporting Greenpeace being a bit unexpected...but Greenpeace has supported things like tree spiking in the past. I suspect a logger minus an arm from a failed chain saw blade would be inclined to class such actions as "terrorist", and I find it hard to disagree. Let's not have a double standard where such acts are concerned...

Expatriate resident aliens are the best people, most of the time. They are not eligible for welfare, must take care of themselves, do no vote and pay taxes. I would fight to defend the rights of my friends at work.

Personally, I'm not too happy with the powers that be importing cheap foreign labor to compete with me, in order to maintain high profit margins and high executive wages and perks. Isn't it great that the H1-B limits were increased so much last year? Of course, now the economy is tanking and many 'information workers' are out of work. Gee, I bet those low-paid H1-B folk are doing better than average at job retention...as in fact you apparently confirmed (at least in your case) with your "Half my company is foreigners" comment earlier. Just let me know when H1-B limitations are relaxed for CEOs...

The advent of the Orwellian era is near, I urge everyone to go to the EFF (www.eff.org) as soon as possible and write the senators and congressmen. And if you are from the EU or Canada or some other place, write them too. I'm still in shock about Skylarov not even getting a semblance of habeas corpus, and is being tried on laws that do not apply to him or what he did. And now the SSSCA and the Anti-Terrorism (Implement Fascism) bills by Adolph Ashcroft.

I am hurt by what happened September 11th. Black ops, special ops and "surgical" retaliation is a good thing. But suspending the rights of people who aren't even Arabic, and coining new criteria for "cyber-terrorism," proposing national ID cards and indiscriminately deporting people is NOT a smart thing to do. And developing legislation with such broad and far reaching wording is dangerous to everyone the world over.

I generally agree with all of this...if anything I think it should be made clear that all changes to Constitutional freedoms will be temporary until the present heightened threat of terrorism is ended, i.e. its an "emergency" measure.

The brain drain will begin, where mega corps of the US will have expatriates arrested for violating something inane. Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid. And possible the greatest nation for development with the soundest fiscal policy will become and intellectual pariah.

Since even after such laws America will still be more free than 90% of the world, I somehow doubt this will happen anytime soon. Regardless, I'm sure we'll somehow muddle through with just the intellectual horsepower available in the US. :-)

Remember, stay moderate. Don't jump to conclusions about things, and make sure to check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.

"What's to come" only if we let it.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Ben Franklin--

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson--

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Wow, well that was a lot longer than originally intended. Congratulations if you made it this far... ;-)

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[reflector]

Nicely said, So when are you going to stop Irish, and Spanish visitors from coming to the USA? After all, ETA (the Basque seperatist movement) are Terrorists, and so are the IRA.

I'm not going to stop them. But hopefully the govt will. And the IRA and Basque terrorists have no anti-US agenda that I know of.

And when is the US Government going to really do something about not funding Terrorists? Are they going to seize the assets of Noraid?

How about the CIA? They've been involved with Terrorists once or twice...

People seem to be waking up a tiny bit about some of the far-reaching consequences of US foreign policy. Karma is not just an abstract concept, it's for real.

I don't Seriously expect the US government to be impartial about their "War on Terrorism" but I'm just so surprised at some of the convenient blanks in the collective memory.

I'm not at all surprised. Most Americans seem to want to think that we are the good guys and they're the bad guys, and don't want to look any deeper than that. Bush encourages this attitude with his "make no mistake about it, this is a war of Good vs. Evil". And this is a dangerous situation. Democracy needs education to thrive. It needs people who are willing to think, and who can make intelligent, informed choices; not mindless drones that will go along with whatever view is presented to them in 15-second sound bytes that get past their low attention span filters.

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"But, I do think it's funny that so many Americans, even the whacky conspiracy theory people that think The Government is behind it all, fall so easily into thinking that every foreign power we come up against is genuinely crazy."

Frankly, aside from the words you are putting in my mouth, I don't think you understood a word I said. I never implied that 'every government is crazy.' What I am now explicitly saying is our government is fucked. Other governments mileage may vary. I personally take offense to any government who advocates, and even calls out for genocide. Call me crazy once again, but I THINK YOU SHOULD TOO. And if you stop to think, like you seem to be accusing me of *NOT* doing, it will become quite clear to you that it is true.

Now, for those who like to label those who can see 'conspiracy theorists', ever hear of a 'documentary' called reefer madness? It is a government backed (funded) 'documentary' from the 1920's, and the opening line is "You thought Cocaine and Heroine were bad, there's a new drug on the block ... Marijuana!". It goes on to show people smoking joints, (which at the time were half to one-tenth of the potency of the average joint today due in large part to government hybrid studies) and intentionally killing people and then laughing. The US Government *STILL* grows the best weed in the land. This *IS* documented *FACT* (just for you Masterbaiter 101.) When people find all this out, what do they usually say? "Thank god our government doesn't lie to it's people like *THAT* anymore!

So what happens when all the data is presented, and it is shown that the textile industry just spent millions (a lot at the time) re-tooling for pulp just prior to *HEMPs* potential 'over-throwing' of the US textile industry, and that the 'documentary' was made, by what I am sure was some kind of cosmic coincidence ... at the exact right time to pass a law against it, voted in by so many 'well informed' Americans? Simple ... faced with realizing they have been lied to all their life or going into denial ... what do they shout? *CONSPIRACY THEORIST*. Plaeas people, I wish we lived in a democracy too, but we live in an Oligarchy, so why not wake up and face it?

(Note HEMP, not Mary-Jane ... that was never what the government objected to, and in fact our forefathers smoked it and grew it ... nodoby smokes HEMP ... ALL FACTS THERE masterbaiter 101)

Finally, I am the last person to tell someone that writing their representative is going to do shit. In fact writing Ronald McDonald would be more effective, because if we could all convince McDonald's, at least we would have *ONE* corporation on our side. Hopefully this clarifies a few of your misconceptions.

And by the way, Masterbaiter 101, I like your handle. It shows you have a grasp of the very simple, so I am certain you know your own mind well 8^}

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"No, I said the purpose of the mission was not getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That doesn't mean we didn't lob a few missiles in his direction."

Interesting. What I quoted, and what you 'said' are different. I guess when you type things, it isn't *YOU* 'saying' it, eh?

"I notice that you can't refute one thing I said"

You're right there. I can't refute one thing you said, because I am too busy blasting a major hole in *EVERYTHING* you said. And by the way, I have no idea what the value of Cynicism divided by Paronia is, but I think I agree with you that it is not equal to the value yielded by the division of Logic with Facts 8^}

Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[reflector]

1. They get a nice recession to knock down pay - can't let the proles get too rich now. Didn't you notice that Bush's little recession wasn't getting deep enough before this.

There's a lot of things about this mess that bother me, but this isn't one of them. Bush is no more to blame for the recession than Clinton is to be credited for the high economic growth of the late 90's.

Re: Fighting for Privacy on the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this offtopic?

It was a direct reply to someone who commented on the orginal post by the same person.

Moderators, you are so dumb, you can't even read the thread before knee jerk moderating.

Lack of privacy?

[digitalunity]

Oh well. You should have no expectation of privacy:
1. At work
2. At school(limited privacy(lockers for example)
3. Outdoors

If I get mugged, I want those cameras there.
If my car gets stolen, I want my spankin new OBD-III car to tell me where it's at(and turn itself off).
I just want new technology to be for the people; not used against us.

Any of you conspiracy theorists would be terrified if you had access to the NCIC database. Get over it.

digitalunity

Re:Lack of privacy?

[tomknight]

My problem is that even though I (mostly) trust my current government (UK), I can't guarantee that the next one will be trustworthy. I have nothing I should need to hide, but what if a future government decides that my religeous group is one that needs to be monitored in some way?

A Dutch collegue mentioned that in Holland all people are required to register with the authorities wen they move into a new area. Now, this is all very good when trying to cut down on benefits fruad and all that, but it didn't do the Jewish communities much good when the German forces marched in....

No, I'm not suggesting that this is liely to happen, but I think we should think about how much ionformation we want other people to have about us. Remember, the phrase "knowledge is power"? How much power do you want the next government to have over you?

Given the recent MORI opinion poll where an alarming number of (UK) people were not only pro ID cards, but also saw nothing wrong with having Religeon and DNA data (!!) on these cards, this is certainly a hot topic. And yes, an ID card is just the first step....

Tom

Re:Lack of privacy?

[digitalunity]

Absolutely. I agree %100. My state of religious interest is of no consequence or right to the government. In a supposedly free county(USA), the government(city, county, state, and federal) should have zero interest whatsoever in the citizens religion of choice.

As for ID cards, well, that's a touchy subject for me. Anything that is allowed to be on my drivers license I would agree to put favorably on a national ID card. In the USA, each State issues their own driver's license. Why? No freakin' idea. I think a national ID card should also substitute for my drivers license.

I believe that when you are convicted of a felony, you should be required to make a DNA submission to a national archive for testing in previously unsolved cases, as well as kept on record for when you get out.

Many criminals are repeat offenders. Having their DNA on file would just help catch them more often.

digitalunity

Re:Lack of privacy?

[Matthias Wiesmann]

In switzerland, this is also the case. When you change cantons (the subdivisions of switzerland) you have to notify the authorities. This means than moving from one city to the other implies a lot of annoying paperwork. Carrying you ID card is also mandatory.

Honnestly I don't feel that my privacy is so much threatened. The difference lies first in the policy of the state (here there are serious laws about privacy) and in what information is gathered, and how it could be used and the legal background (I have more obligations, but the are IMHO better laws to protect me).

A state needs to gather information, the problem is it should require some work. Face it, a lot can be learnt simply by watching what you do, but it requires a lot of resources (a guy trailing you). The problem is not what information can be found out (low tech surveillance can find a lot out), but how difficult it is - this is where the issue with technology lies. Having access to sensitive information a no cost is the problem.

• Where you live, the state needs to know this simply for taxing. I would be asthonished that a modern states has no idea where it's citizen live.
• Unique identifier, while it makes sense that the state assigns you one, this number should only be used by the state, and not other organisations.
• Your religion, ethnic group, etc... I don't see why the state should know this, nor any other organisation. This was one the first bad things with the Jews, I think there was some code to mark jews in official documents - bad.
• Who you are - this seems quite natural around here, also think that the information on the card is a problem only if the card is checked. This implies police-people, so it's work to collect acutal data. Having a security officer checking I am who I'm supposed to be while bording a aircraft makes sense. I would be worried if there started to be bar-code scanner in certain places, say the entrances of restaurants, or subways. This would be very bad. For the moment, corporation seem to do much more intrusive stuff.
• Your DNA, this is linked to your medical record and should be treated as such, nobody except you doctor should have access to this.

Also remember that laws are very important. What is the penalty for breaching privacy? Most european countries have a much stricter approach than the US. And it's pointless to make a distinction betweeen corporation and state, once the info is gathered, it's to late. Strong corporation will have access to state information, and the state will be able to access corporate information.

Re:Lack of privacy?

[tomknight]

I know it's very sad to reply to your own posting, but.....

There's a Register article which sums up my thoughrs quite nicely, this tilme on the subject of face-recognition software. The main story is about Visionics capitalising on the WTC attack. Excerpt below:

The danger of face recognition technology is not so much how it might be used today, but how, one day in the future, it could be exploited to search for just about any sort of unfashionable person.

We simply don't know what sort of government we'll have in 20 - 50 - 70 years' time. If today we should permit these tools to catalogue our faces because we trust the government we have at the moment, our descendants may well curse us if a Fascist regime ever comes to power.

It's a mistake to put the basic tools of mass oppression into the hands of any government simply because we have, at the moment, laws protecting us from its abuse.

Laws change; governments rise and fall. If we should hold fast now, a repressive future regime would have a hard time making a sudden power play for this sort of technology. However, if, thanks to our current state of doubt and insecurity, we allow it to become an everyday feature, we may not even notice its abuse until it's too late to stop without mass civil commotion.

We owe our children and grandchildren better. We owe them the right to be free men and women, to accept the risks of living in an essentially and eternally dangerous world, to come and go as they please without justifying themselves to underpaid nitwits and without submitting to a biometric scan to enter a restaurant, attend the cinema, watch a ball game, or meet friends at the airport.

We owe them their essential humanity.

Tom.

Re:Lack of privacy?

[digitalunity]

MODERATORS: This isn't a troll. It's a discenting opinion. If you have to look that up, maybe you shouldn't be modding my post.

digitalunity

Want my address, lets see if you'll put your...

[Anonymous Coward]

...money where your mouth is. I'm jewish, but hell, I'll be Muslim for one day is I get the job of pummelling the life out of you. e-mail me at: suggestions@aipac.org

this was a very important article to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I think of this article
By: Karma Whoring fag.

This article is important to me because it is about freedom. Freedom is important because of the statue of liberty and the declaration of independence and twelve million dead German Nazis.

The man in the article was funny because he had a beard and big goggles. He went to MIT. It said so on his shirt.

I did not read all the words. I did not read any.

I think privacy is important because I like porn. A lot. I do not want anyone to know my porn. The statue of liberty protects my porn.

He is an important artist. Because he wears his goggles in public and makes people react to him and he likes privacy.

In conclusion I think this article was very important I hope timothy likes me.

Please mod me up.

Re:this was a very important article to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been funnier if you`d steered away from pointless homophobia.

Re:this was a very important article to me.

[youreanidiot]

Would have been funnier if you`d steered away from pointless homophobia.

I thought it was pretty funny anyway.

[i]"HomeSkillet writes contributes this link"[/i]

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole new method of karma whoring...

In the words of Keanu Reeves..."whoa."

Love the chair

[maddman75]

I love his chair and the analogies it represents. It points out the idiocy of buying something that you can only use under certain circumstances.

For the SSSCA, maybe a book that you buy that is chained to a desk. Its your book, bought and paid for. But you can only read it at the desk. If you try to take the chain off you go to prison as a terrorist. Because we all know only terrorists would want to read a book anywhere but a desk.

These laws are madness, I can only pray that they are rejected by our leaders.

Re:Love the chair

[youreanidiot]

I love his chair and the analogies it represents. It points out the idiocy of buying something that you can only use under certain circumstances.

Yes, I agree. I think all end user agreements should be done away with. Especially those that limit who can drive a car, and how. I think when you buy the car, it's yours, and you can do what you please with it. Just like with a chair. You bought the chair, and you can install spikes and a card reader in it if you please. Like an airplane. You bought it, and no one owns the skies, so why do you need a license? Everyone should be able to fly freely I think, the sky belongs to everyone. I wish the world would stop being so lame.

Re:Love the chair

[ebyrob]

A set of rules made and enforced to bring order to a creation of the government (roads) is very different than giving corportations license to write new law.

By your arguement if I take a knife and stab someone I've broken the "license agreement" on that knife. Ridiculous. I've broken a totally different law that has little to do with knife manufacture.

Car manufacturers have no say in the rules of the road and that's the way it should stay. (refer to the corvair...)

For similar reasons I feel software manufacturers and movie manufacturers shouldn't have much say in "rules of copyright". Giving them free reign to write laws enforced by the government seems foolish.

Re:Love the chair

[youreanidiot]

A set of rules made and enforced to bring order to a creation of the government (roads) is very different than giving corportations license to write new law.

Yeah.. I figured you'd say that. That's why I threw in the airplane/sky one too.

Re:Love the chair

[youreanidiot]

By your arguement if I take a knife and stab someone I've broken the "license agreement" on that knife. Ridiculous. I've broken a totally different law that has little to do with knife manufacture.

I meant to include this also..

But, as a knife manufacture I would like to be able to include a user agreement along with my knives. Of course any violations you made in relation to my agreement would only probably be punishable by you not being able to use my brand of knives any more. Which would be pretty unimportant considering you would be in jail for killing someone anyway. But who cares?

Re:Love the chair

[ebyrob]

The point is, a license agreement isn't required, never has been. These "rules" are part and parsel to the world we live in. Perhaps part of the problem is the sue-happy mentality in this country.

No knife vendor should be held liable for who I stab, license or no license. Further, no license should protect a vendor from negligence. The biggest problem right now is the lack of judges in their right mind, the distinction should not be a difficult one.

The "agreements" you(and so many others) propose, requiring contract signing for every purchase of any good, are ridiculous. I've already paid for the software with my money, do I need to do it with my freedom as well?

What ices the cake for me, is that it's my tax dollar that pays to enforce these rediculous, agreements that don't even conform to established contract law. Clicking a button is not the same as having your legal team go over and then signing a document after careful consideration. Heck, I give away fewer of my rights buying a house, then I would if I clicked that little grey button. (Keep in mind the rational extreme of licensing is slavery and/or indentured servitude)

Oh, and of course, what if I were to install the software out of the box without clicking the button? Am I free then to do as I wish and post the sucker on the internet, or sell it without paying royalties? If the "license" were the copy protection, I'd be breaking no law.

your rights [online]

[Anonymous Coward]

i just love how extremist paranoid freedom lovers attempt to define the protagonist.

reality mediator

[pangloss]

along with thad, steve is one of the best known wearables pioneers. one of my favorite examples to show to people new to wearables is steve's condomwoman sequence:

in particular, the before & after photos =)

Re:reality mediator

[pallex]

On the downside, he looks *absolutely ridiculous*! Or is this some post-modern thing?

Re:reality mediator

[univgeek]

Have read of a mucho better one in HHGTG...
When you see anything dangerous, it goes black :-)

Re:reality mediator

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, all the tech is pretty neat, but social conditioning is a bitch. How long till someone starts selling "cool" versions?

Ubiquitous Vision

[hackman]

I work in the Computer Vision and Robotics Research lab at UCSD. We have done research in many of the areas mentioned in the article, and are beginning some wearable computing starting with a PC-104 & i-glasses setup that another Grad student is working on. Wearables are cool stuff, we're already seeing phones, pagers, pdas, and watches unified.. next is more interfaces to the REAL world like he sums his article with.

But on to my main point. We've been operating for some time towards a concept we call Ubiquitous Vision, which means that basically we will eventually be able to look at any space (indoors/out), from any perspective and resolution using a distributed network of a variety of types of visual sensors, including mobile ones. The decreasing size and cost of these sensors makes this approach possible, and also is interesting from a user's perspective because of the freedom to choose the view of the scene.

We do get quite a few comments related to the potential impacts of such kinds of surveillance to people's everyday lives. Like he mentions in the article, as long as this kind of surveillance is possible for everyone - not just a select few (corporations, government, etc..) then there exists some kind of natural balancing mechanism. What's scary would be if only some specific organizations had access to the information and everyone else was prohibited from using it or doing their own surveillance.

However it seems essential to mention a point made before by people more intelligent than myself. It isn't the technology that is at fault for comprimising your privacy. It is the people who use it that need to be responsible, and the people who feel it is being used irresponsibly that should speak up, as many of you /.'ers do already. But rather than blatantly rejecting any form of surveillance as I typically see on here and other forums, maybe appropriate questions should be asked about why/how/who has access to the data being taken. These are the issues at the heart of the problem.

I personally think soon we will begin to see high-profile social organizations responsible for regulating the use of surveillance and making policy to protect us. EFF comes to mind. With the increased media attention now, I think we are on a collision course with this issue on a national/global scale. More to come, and it's going to be a very interesting and complex debate.

Just my $.02
Brett

Scary Tech

[dragons_flight]

Does this kind of technology scare anyone else?

Having glasses that let others see through his eyes and can modify what he sees to provide information or block nuisances seems nice enough at first glance. I can imagine alot of neat uses for this tech and can even imagine it becoming somewhat common, if made portable and high quality enough. But what about ways this might be exploited in the future?

Once it's common, what's to stop a hacker or the government from breaking in to look through my eyes. Now, that's a scary thought. How about a worse one? Programmers and their backers designing these things to filter out aspects of the world because they are politically unpopular or show competitor's products? Or how about inserting ads into other parts of life? I wouldn't want to look at walls in my own house and be shown advertisements.

So long as the user is truly in control I suppose it's okay, but who knows what a greedy corporation might try to do with his tech.

Re:Scary Tech

[Diabolical]

As far as i see it this kind of technology is trivial.... Dr. Mann states in his article that he can grant or take away access to directly write to his retina...

The technology can be entirely personal.. besides if you don't want the tech don't wear/use it.

Just my 2c

Re:Scary Tech

[Rogerborg]

• Does this kind of technology scare anyone else?

It didn't, until I read this passage:

• "Having 30,000 people inside my head drove me a little crazy, maybe," Dr. Mann said. "So I had to limit the number of people who had write- permission on my retina."

There's phrase I don't ever want to hear applied to myself. Write permission on my retina. Shudder.

I'd pass over your "corporate control" concerns, but thinking about the DMCA and the moves to get (largely futile) mandatory copy control in all electronic devices, the ultimate goal has to be to remove the pesky analogue transmission step altogether and put content straight from copy protected digital hardware right into Joe Consumer's brain. You'd have to go straight past the retina and wire it right into the optic nerve.

Copy control right to your brain. It's unthinkable - today. I wonder if it will be unthinkable in ten, twenty or fifty years?

Re:Scary Tech

[Nater]

I wouldn't want to look at walls in my own house and be shown advertisements.

Unless the glasses are surgically implanted onto your face, it's really not that big a deal.

Re:Scary Tech

[Astin]

It's possible to limit access to the glasses. Whether it's by providing a list of allowed people or simply disconnecting from anything but a local network. Of course, you can always take the glasses off.

When I was taking one of Prof. Mann's courses, I was tempted to try and hack his glasses and display a starfield simulation while throwing PVC pellets at him :).

Re:Scary Tech

[4of12]

Unless the glasses are surgically implanted onto your face, it's really not that big a deal.

Kinda like Clockwork Orange and the scene where "rehabilitation" is done by forcing the eyes open while visual and audio environment is provided.

It's almost that bad already with these Expletive above-the-urinal advertisements!

Re:Scary Tech

[Tackhead]

> There's [a] phrase I don't ever want to hear applied to myself. Write permission on my retina. Shudder.

*shrug*

Depends on your perspective. I like it.

When I watch TV, I grant my TV write permission on my retina for the content. I continue to grant it write permission on my retina, but deny write permission to my eardrum, during the ads.

The reason I like the phrase? Because it confirms that I am the one controlling who has write permission. When I cease to be the one in control of who gets to [advertise|communicate|amuse] me, I have a problem.

But the use of the phrase reminds me that - at least for now - I have some say in the matter.

You violated the DMCA!

[www.sorehands.com]

By giving a link to the article, it bypasses a technical means of control to content.

This type of camera is illegal in many states. As part of it, you may be required to wear a sign that says, "By being in my presences you assent to being recorded." Of course this would be in a font that only an eagle can read.

Re:You violated the DMCA!

[digitalunity]

Cameras yes. Audio, not always. Many states are of the single party consent variety which mean that for a conversation, only 1 party is required to give consent to be recorded.

digitalunity

Re:You violated the DMCA!

[youreanidiot]

Cameras yes. Audio, not always. Many states are of the single party consent variety which mean that for a conversation, only 1 party is required to give consent to be recorded.

Oh good. You learned something from the Monica Lewinksy scandal. Hehe.

Important! Angry Cable Caller wanted...

[Anonymous Coward]

You god damn cocksucking fucking whores, you got all these fucking numbers in the phone book, and they're all fucking busy. Well, you're gonna hear from me, ANYWAY! I'm a working man, I pay your cocksucking FUCKING bill, why in the name of jesus god damn motherfucking christ can you not supply me the god damn motherfucking cock sucking fucking service? I wanna watch TV. Jesus fucking christ! What n' the fuck do you want for fuck alllll!!!!

If *anybody* has that MP3, *please* *please* post a link to it. (And I don't mean the stupid copy with the jackass radio announcers talking over it...I mean the original calls).

NY Times games?

[dragons_flight]

Can anyone suggest a non-registration source for this story?

So do you guys take bets on when the first archives link will appear?

Or maybe you just like throwing Karma to the horde?

Now we all know it would be trivially easy to replace each "http://www.nytimes.com/" with "http://archives.nytimes.com/" automatically when it's submitted, but apparently /. staff enjoy watching posters trip over themselves to be the first to get it in.

Re:NY Times games? slashdot-user foobar

[Anonymous Coward]

login: slashdot-user
pwd: foobar

Use this NYTimes.

They like to have logins to charge for ads, they can show how many users they have.

If we all loging 10000 times on the same account, they'll get the point =)

Careful with those archive links...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could be accused of breaking in, and we all know what that means!

That reminds me...

[Anonymous Coward]

For an insight into why face recognition software is a threat to non-terrorists please take a look at this article.

privacy options

[Anonymous Coward]

im hesitant to admit this, but was fortunate to be able to log in to the nyt article using the generic cypherpunks id. the archives are also a useful privacy shield, and maybe /. posting ALL nyt articles at least one day later is best. just as posting as an anonymous coward helps protect my privacy, the widespread use of cypherpunks as ids do too. what is interesting is that i doubt that im able to "really" be anonymous in the current techno/sociological climate - but at least i am trying to exercise the option... (would i fight for this? yes, especially if i can do so anonymously.)

at least the spiked chair didnt take a picture of your a$$ assuming you agreed to the sit-license, but remind me not to get within steve manns FOV.

Re:privacy options

[youreanidiot]

im hesitant to admit this, but was fortunate to be able to log in to the nyt article using the generic cypherpunks id. the archives are also a useful privacy shield, and maybe /. posting ALL nyt articles at least one day later is best. just as posting as an anonymous coward helps protect my privacy

And what's great about being anonymous is that no one cares what you say either. For the most part, people on slashdot browse at 1 I think. So even in this supposedly "everyone is equal", and "we appreciate privacy" environment, people can appreciate the accountability that comes with putting a name to a face, so to speak.

Re:privacy options

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting - aparently YOU cared, at least enough to type a comment and possibly present an opinion (with your screen-name). and you are correct, i normally browse at +4 or so.

the fact that "most" would discount an anonymous comment (just as /. does) merely means that those who "should" care (like moderators, policemen, and the very people who "request" your identity) might find a needle in the haystack. what to DO about that needle (opinion, idea, or action) should NOT depend upon an identity. an identity can work both for and against you. the NYT is modelled after newspapers (a very one-way communication medium, which i appreciate exactly for that reason). unless i determine a "need" to registering for the NYT, id prefer to read it anonymously... wouldnt you?

a soft duress

[Anonymous Coward]

Would anyone more enlightened than I know what (where) in the world Redes
is?

University King Juan Carlos of Madrid

[Anonymous Coward]

This it is the forum of the subjet of Networks that distributes in the third course of the degrees of Technical Engineering in Computer science of Systems and Technical Engineering in Computer science of Management of the University King Juan Carlos of Madrid. ( from Google translation )

keep taking pictures acceptable--carry a camera

[mj6798]

It seems likely that cameras will end up being restricted in many "public" places for "security reasons". There actually is a slight argument to be made that they might help in the preparation of terrorist attacks. But more importantly, neither the government nor businesses find it particularly desirable if their operations are being recorded by citizens. Another instance of this is that in many jurisdictions, you are not permitted to record your interaction with the police, while the police is permitted to record (and presumably use as they find convenient) their interaction with you.

This isn't some grand conspiracy (if it were, it would be easy to do something about it). But look at it from the point of view of the people who get to make the rules. If they forbid picture taking, little happens. If they allow it, they are in trouble if something bad happens, or at least they risk exposing their organization to embarrassment if the pictures are used for something negative.

I think it's important to document our life in pictures for many reasons, and that's why it's important to keep cameras acceptable whereever we go. What can you do about it? Carry a camera, the unobtrusive snapshooting kind, and snap away. Don't dress up like an alien or be in-your-face or antagonistic--that only upsets people and raises valid concerns. But do use your camera: take pictures of your girlfriend picking out a new dress, pictures of your family waving good-bye at the airport, pictures of having lunch at the mall, pictures of furniture that you may want to buy (to show your family), etc.

Re:keep taking pictures acceptable--carry a camera

[Rogerborg]

• in many jurisdictions, you are not permitted to record your interaction with the police, while the police is permitted to record (and presumably use as they find convenient) their interaction with you.

I thought we chewed this over and decided that it meant that you can't use as evidence an event that you've recorded without informing the other party that you're doing so. If you tell them you're doing it, it's fine to do so.

On the other hand, that's still a steaming pile of horse puckey, and I agree with your point that it's flat out wrong. because it only applies to Joe Public. Freddy Fed can do it without any problems at all.

Re:keep taking pictures acceptable--carry a camera

[erroneus]

Then you weren't paying attention. The issue was that police required that such video be stopped. The police party was cleary aware of the recording.

Re:keep taking pictures acceptable--carry a camera

[Nicolas MONNET]

What's the way to hide from view for a terrorist? Disguise as a japanese tourist!!!

Let's arrest all japanese tourists! It worked well during WWII.

Re:keep taking pictures acceptable--carry a camera

[Rogerborg]

• Then you weren't paying attention. The issue was that police required that such video be stopped

Got a reference?

The irony ...

[purplemonkeydan]

Anyone else see the irony of a story on a privacy activist on a site that requires mandatory registration?

Re:The irony ...

[groomed]

No, coz there isn't any. Privacy is not anonymity.

And if it's anonymity you want, get off the Internet. Hide in a crowd, instead. You won't have any privacy tho'.

Re:The irony ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So use a fake registration...

Try: cypherpunks64/cypherpunks

or pick your favorite base-2 number, it'll most likely work...

Howto detect one-way mirrors in changing rooms?

[Tyndareos]

I was really shocked to read that in some stores there might be one-way mirrors in changing rooms with camera's behind them. Is there an easy way to detect these? Are there simple rules-of-thumb that might indicate a one-way mirror instead of a normal one?

Re:Howto detect one-way mirrors in changing rooms?

[RotHorseKid]

I do not know how to distinguish one-way-mirrors from normal ones, but you do not have to. Just always take a big piece of clothing with you to the changing room and hang it in front of the mirror.
There's usually plenty of mirrors outside changing rooms in stores, so theres still a chance to evaluate your new looks w/o being filmed in your underwear.

--
Nobody writes jokes in base 13. --DNA

Re:Howto detect one-way mirrors in changing rooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put your hands around your eyes and press up against the mirror, you will be able to see through it.

Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst terrorist attacks in recorded history happened only two weeks ago, and you folks are discussing the recent works of privacy activist, wearables pioneer and artist Steve Mann? My *god*, people, GET SOME BLOODY PRIORITIES!!!

I'm shocked that the deaths of so many innocent people mean so little to you fucking nerds.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[erroneus]

The worst terrorist attacks in recorded history happened only two weeks ago, and you folks are discussing the recent works of privacy activist, wearables pioneer and artist Steve Mann? My *god*, people, GET SOME BLOODY PRIORITIES!!!

I'm shocked that the deaths of so many innocent people mean so little to you fucking nerds.

Priorities?

We are not to be defeated. A proper amount of mourning has been observed. It has been fair and respectful and now proper respect is being paid to the living, to recovery and most importantly to damage control to prevent the situation from becoming worse. Within hours of the 9-11 events, politicians were proposing new law to restrict our freedoms. To turn a blind eye to those who would too far change our way of life for a reason of additional mourning would be an expression of misplaced priorities.

I do not speak for everyone though I invite the support of those who agree with me. The price of a few lives unwillingly taken does not outweigh the way of life earned by so many who fought and died willingly for the freedoms and the way of life we have taken for granted today. Yet somehow, people feel an acceptable exchange for the lives of the unwillingly taken would be equal to restriction upon our very lives and our very way of life. But I am unaffected directly by the tragedy of 9-11 so I would pose the question directly to any of the families or friends of those who died on that day.

If those innocent lives could have been spared, would it be worth changing our way of life forever? If you could restrict your privacy, freedom of travel, freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice, would it be a fair exchange to have their lives back?

It makes me wonder if we no longer value the lives already given in the name of the lifestyle we have been living until recently. So I think it's important to maintain a clear perspective on the events going on in all arenas and not allow yourself to wear the blinders of mourning for too long. The time for mourning is done. The alternative to this is to remain cowed under the fear of attack not only from foreign enemies but from those [lazy asses] who would legislate our freedoms away so that it would make their jobs more 'convenient' to execute; those who would sooner 'control' the world using a television remote control rather than actually WORK for a living and represent the interests of the people as their position was intended. I am all for protecting and securing the safety of all people everywhere. But I am not for doing so by way of restricting our rights and freedoms. I am for doing so by way of increased vigilance and a more agressive stance against those who would attack our freedoms and way of life. (The government should get off it's lazy asses and work on ways to secure our freedoms while at the same time securing our lives and our safety.)

Priorities indeed. If you don't think your rights and freedoms are worth protecting, then I invite you to voluntarily enslave yourself to me now. I could use a little help cleaning up around here anyway.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[erroneus]

The worst terrorist attacks in recorded history happened only two weeks ago, and you folks are discussing the recent works of privacy activist, wearables pioneer and artist Steve Mann? My *god*, people, GET SOME BLOODY PRIORITIES!!!

I'm shocked that the deaths of so many innocent people mean so little to you fucking nerds.

Priorities?

We are not to be defeated. A proper amount of mourning has been observed. It has been fair and respectful and now proper respect is being paid to the living, to recovery and most importantly to damage control to prevent the situation from becoming worse. Within hours of the 9-11 events, politicians were proposing new law to restrict our freedoms. To turn a blind eye to those who would too far change our way of life for a reason of additional mourning would be an expression of misplaced priorities.

I do not speak for everyone though I invite the support of those who agree with me. The price of a few lives unwillingly taken does not outweigh the way of life earned by so many who fought and died willingly for the freedoms and the way of life we have taken for granted today. Yet somehow, people feel an acceptable exchange for the lives of the unwillingly taken would be equal to restriction upon our very lives and our very way of life. But I am unaffected directly by the tragedy of 9-11 so I would pose the question directly to any of the families or friends of those who died on that day.

If those innocent lives could have been spared, would it be worth changing our way of life forever? If you could restrict your privacy, freedom of travel, freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice, would it be a fair exchange to have their lives back?

It makes me wonder if we no longer value the lives already given in the name of the lifestyle we have been living until recently. So I think it's important to maintain a clear perspective on the events going on in all arenas and no allow yourself to wear the blinders of mourning for too long. The time for mourning is done. The alternative to this is to remain cowed under the fear of attack not only from foreign enemies but from those [lazy asses] who would legislate our freedoms away so that it would make their jobs more 'convenient' to execute; those who would sooner 'control' the world using a television remote control rather than actually WORK for a living. I am all for protecting and securing the safety of all people everywhere. But I am not for doing so by way of restricting our rights and freedoms. I am for doing so by way of increased vigilance and a more agressive stance against those who would attack our freedoms and way of life. (The government should get off it's lazy asses and work on ways to secure our freedoms while at the same time securing our lives and our safety.)

Priorities indeed. If you don't think your rights and freedoms are worth protecting, then I invite you to voluntarily enslave yourself to me now. I could use a little help cleaning up around here anyway.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and many of us are shocked that people can be so incredibly blind and complacent...
<whipping out the ClueBat>

1) Around 5,000 are dead. Close to 200 million are still alive and about to find out what life was like in Germany back in 1933.

2) A number of government agencies are using this attack as an excuse to shove legislation through which they've been trying (and failing) for years to get.

3) Giving up privacy and other basic rights is shitting on the memories of the tens of thousands of Americans who died to protect the rights your government is now trying so hard to take away.

4) Once you lose your right to do anything -- especially when you lose it to "intelligence" or "security" legislation -- you don't get it back until the next revolution.

Pull your head out of your ass and replace it with that little vigil candle. Now open your eyes and look at what your government is trying to do. There are some good reasons the US has (had?) a civilian police force, and that it and the military are/were to be kept separate.

Reconsider your own priorities, you fucking sheep. If you want to be coddled, and you don't care that you have no more freedoms as long as your government promises you no terrorist attacks, you can still go to China.

My name is BadDoggie, user 145310, and I wanted to post normally, but I modded a few good responses on this thread already.

woof.

The attack was a horror and an outrage, not a tragedy. Look up "tragedy".
The tragedy is that all the people who didn't die are giving up so much in the desperate but misguided hope that another horror won't happen again.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[BadDoggie]

WTF happened? I posted Anon and it still undid my moderation!

woof.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[junkpunch]

It's easy to want it all and not do anything about it, isn't it?

I am all for protecting and securing the safety of all people everywhere. But I am not for doing so by way of restricting our rights and freedoms

I'm all for living in a fantasy world as well. What you suggest above is not possible. Securing the safety of people requires resticting rights and freedoms. Don't think so? Come up with a solution yourself.

Take, for instance, the metal detectors in an airport. Do you think they should be removed? This is obviously an invasion of privacy, and possibly illegal search and seizure, is it not?

How about encypted email? Is this part of the American "way of life"? How did you communicate 10 years ago? Did people encrypt their paper mail? Make up secret languages to talk over the phone? Did we have less freedom 10 years ago than we have today?

You asked a question of the families above. Let me ask you a question:

You were told that in 1 month, there was going to be a nuclear attack on the US which would kill 100 million people. The only way to stop it would be to allow the goverment to intercept all phone calls, mail and email. Would you be for allowing the goverment to do that?

Well? 100 million is only 1/3 of the population, so you would be restricting freedoms for 2/3 of the population. I'm guessing you would let the 100 million people die.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to log out completely, otherwise it still counts as responding to a previously modded story. Just checking the "post anon" box just means other Slashdotters don't know who posted it, the server still does.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shocked that the deaths of so many innocent people mean so little to you fucking nerds.

If they had been telecommuting, they wouldn't have died. They could have learned something from Slashdot users.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[esper]

As regards your question...

There is a significant difference between temporarily curtailing freedoms in order to counteract a specific event and restricting them on an ongoing basis, just in case something might happen someday.

One month of totalitarianism to save millions of people, just like rationing during World War 2, would be unpleasant and distasteful, but justifiable.

Open-ended laws which expand government power without a well-defined terminating condition which do not address an imminent threat, however, are not acceptable.

Note that I am not talking about numbers here, although they have a place as well. (Should 300 million people give up their rights for 10 years in order to save 1 life? I would say no.) My point is that heightened airport security for a couple months is tolerable, but it must not be permanent[1]. Long-term restrictions on crypto, which prevent lawful citizens from securely going about their lawful business, are not acceptable unless overbearing evidence is presented to demonstrate that lives would actually be saved, and even then, it would, IMO, be questionable. Laws which would permanently raise petty vandalism (web site defacement) to be a more heinous crime than multiple murder are an atrocity.

[1] Bush's 'until every terrorist in the world has been dealt with' is the same as permanent. Even if that goal could be attained, we would have no way of knowing that the mission is complete.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[erroneus]

I'm not going to respond to much except to remind you that the IRS was supposed to be a temporary measure to fund a war effort.

Its a thin line between

[pallex]

fighting for privacy, and wearing a silly hat!

*BSD is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *SD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in th recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

But it might be profitable

[King Of Chat]

If nobody else has already linked this article. It's scarey that info gets leaked to big corps who could use it for anything.

while we're at it

[beanerspace]

As long as we're giving artist chances to exploit the slaughter of 6,000, while others selflessly put themselves at risk in hopes of a miracle, let's think of some other art forms that have yet to be employed:

Interpretive dance - imagine the havoc this would wreak on any form of motion/gps detection/tracking

Finger Painting - for all you Gulliani haters out there, I'm painting you a message with one of my fingers ... can't hear it ? here ... let me turn it up for you ...

Origami - oooh but hey, let's go one step further, instead of paper, let's use body parts as described in the linked article

Opera - as a recovering wagnerian baritone, it would be easy to enter a subway train, and threaten to continue bellowing until passengers meet my demands.

Certainly, we've got to be careful not to let our civil liberties become victims of the recent terrorist attacks. However, art forms that attract attention to the performer I think are more a narcissistic mockery of the madness than anything else.

BTW, yes, I have an undergrad degree in the liberal arts, so there is a sense of ascetics with this nerd ...

... so let's have some fun ... can you think of some others ? Let's hear'm

Re:while we're at it

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFL. You forgot them commie-pinkos at Art-for-Change.

Re:while we're at it

[Howie]

I didn't see anything in the article to suggest this thing was knocked up in two weeks. Do you really believe that prior to the 11th, there were no cameras or surveillance, and everything was dandy?

A quick look at the Austin Museum of Art site confirms that the exhibition was opened July 21st, and actually closed last week. If anything you can complain about the NYT running the story, but not the original exhibit.

Re:while we're at it

[pallex]

`Suicide bombing art show`

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/a rt s/newsid_1564000/1564188.stm

help help, I can't find the ascii goatsecx!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a woody and I need the ASCII goatsecx image!

VERY IMPORTANT: Mori poll was dodgey

[SomethingOrOther]

THE MORI POLL WAS NOT IMPARTIAL! Mori carred out a telephone poll!
Surely anyone who cares about there privicy would tell a cold-caller to piss off! Hardley suprising the results were dubious!
Not only that but questions were asked about terrorist attacks before questions about ID cards were asked! Talk about loaded questions.
Hardly suprising when you find the survey was sponsored by Rupert Murdochs News Of The Screws!

For more info read the Regester article
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/21849.html
It links to the Mori site.
Please tell everyone about how dogey this poll was. We cannot have people beliving this crap

Re:VERY IMPORTANT: Mori poll was dodgey

[tomknight]

Yep, I read the Register article too.... but I've also looked at a previous MORI poll, which sadly says nmuch the same thing. Yes, it would be nice to think that this was indeed just a blip, but I'm not so sure.

I do see your point about people who give information to cold callers no necessarily being the sort who care about privacy. Having said that, MORI aren't really supposed to let the survey sponsor make a difference.

One of my problems is that I do believe that the "average" person doesn't give a toss about ID cards, they sincerely think that "Only people who have something to hide" should be worried. The best things to do are educate and fight.

Tom.

Re:VERY IMPORTANT: Mori poll was dodgey

[pallex]

Hmmm... mori or a website....mori....website...

its a tricky one, isnt it?

freedumb?

[Anonymous Coward]

We could put it here, but only because we think you shouldn't have to "register", to get good inf.. but we could be wrong. I believe the NYT strives to provide a fair amount of real inf. (as does /.), & should be compensated, if only by getting your email address.

have you even seen these guise? just whoreabull.

our worst enemIEs are plotting against US, on network tv, & buy manipulating our "leaders".

BOYCOT WHITES WITH BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blue-eyed white blondes are the reason why the Holocaust happened, the most terrible unique event in history and the only genocide ever to happen.

Hitler wanted only blonde whites with blue eyes to live and kill all other (superior) people.

So these blue-eyed white blondes are GUILTY of the Holocaust happening.

Re:BOYCOT WHITES WITH BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of Jews with blonde hair and blue eyes. Did they holocaust themselves?

Re:BOYCOT WHITES WITH BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews are a seperate (superior) race to white people.

Re:BOYCOT WHITES WITH BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES!

[Anonymous Coward]

fucktard.

H4sIAI8qsjsAA3POKMosLsnMS1RwTC/NzEktSlRPUUhKLSlJLV IoLs8sSc5QyE1VSM5IzCwqBgDjmk5ZLAAAAA==

Re:Important! Angry Cable Caller wanted...

[Trollificus]

Damn, I'm tempted to look up the local cable support number and record my own version.
You sir, have inspired me. Now I must go and take a shit in the bird bath.

Um...

[benrd]

Dr. Mann fights technology with technology, wearing computers on his body and cameras in his glasses so he can "shoot back" by recording everything he sees. The billboards and advertisements posted on every public surface are a form of "attention theft," he says, so he has invented technology that replaces these messages with whatever he would like to see. When he is wearing his "eyetap" glasses, which project an image onto the retina of his eye, a condom ad in a bathroom becomes a picture of a waterfall.

"If the eye is the window of the soul," he argues, "then that window needs a shade. If the brain is a computer, then the eye is an open port, an unsecured opening against hackers."

A wireless connection provides a constant Internet link. With his wearable computer, Dr. Mann can see and hear things invisible to his visitor.

Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like something out of Snow Crash? While reading that article, I kept wondering if "Bruce Schechter" is actually a pseudonym for "Neal Stephenson". I wonder how long it'll be before long-range retinal scanners become the norm.

Re:Um...

[ZaMoose]

I'm quite surprised that you're the first one to mention this. The first thing I thought of upon reading this article was "Holy crap, this guy's a Gargoyle!".

Anyone know Stephenson's position on making Snow Crash or Diamond Age into movies? While I'd hate for SC to be made into a bad movie, I would love to see it come to the screen in a good form. Maybe Ridley Scott (think Blade Runner, not Gladiator) could direct it. ILM do the special effects. Only question is casting: who would play Hiro? YT and Raven you could find anywhere, but a half-Nipponese, half-African American actor? I don't know many of those off the top of my head...

Sure would be dandy, though, if the local Papa John's would employ the Deliverator. Maybe then I'd get my freaking pizza on time.

Acts: Perfect Privacy is possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the new algorithm for symmetric cryptography. The procedure has no strange "S-Boxes" of magic numbers. Everybody can verify that the algorithm is indeed secure.

The publication is freely available. Not patented, and no export laws because it was created outside USA.

Your girlfriend at the mall or the furniture store

[Jin Wicked]

I don't know about legal issues, but most stores will try to confiscate your camera or kick you out if they catch you taking pictures.

I found this out recently when trying to take pictures at the mall on a photo outing... we had to switch to a discreet point-and-click and even then we ended up getting caught twice and followed around by the security guard. Most stores, for whatever reason, really dislike photos being taken, but the mall in particular. I've shot photos in grocery stores and Wal-Mart, which is a bit easier due to the size and being able to duck away from employees... but they'll still ask you to stop if they find you.

Places where I have been able to take pictures include Barnes & Noble and Starbucks; at B&N they look at you odd or just don't care, and Starbucks, as well as most restaurants/coffee shops, don't seem to mind as long as you refrain from disturbing the other customers. We usually sit at a booth against a wall, that way no "innocents" get stuck in the shots that could come back and complain about being stuck on the internet later.

We also took photos at a Pier 1 imports, where the employees actually spent more time asking questions about what we were doing, mostly because they were curious. It seems to be much, much easier to take pictures in a "stand-alone" store or a strip centre than the actual mall. There's a big taboo on the mall... not sure why, unless it's just to make you spend $5.00 on those crappy photo booths. But if you do attempt to drag your camera into JC Penny, be prepared to put up a fight with the clerks when they try to take it away. :)

Sorry for rambling, but it's very seldom a topic I actually know about is posted on here. ;)

Rule of thumb nail

[Anonymous Coward]

Place your thumb nail against the mirror, if there is a gap between the real one & the reflection, its a real mirror.

Gareth
I really can't be arsed to think of a sig.

Re:Rule of thumb nail

[ytouquet]

Place your thumb nail against the mirror, if there is a gap between the real one & the reflection, its a real mirror.

Not by a long shot, but nice try!

If you've decided to do anything particularly illegal or embarrassing in the presence of a mirror which passes the so-called Thumb Nail Test, you should consider for a moment that that Test proves absolutely nothing regarding the transparency of the mirror.

BTW, if you mean its a real mirror in the sense that it's not a hallucination, you could be correct, but that's as far as it goes.

if anything you can ?

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting quote from someone who's tagline says exhorts freedom over conformity:
If anything you can complain about the ...

This guy (I'm assuming a guy because I only know of one woman capable of singing Wagnerian Baritone roles) "CAN" complain about anything he wants. Including wanna-be-artists.

Re:if anything you can ?

[Howie]

fair point :) substitute 'might logically' for 'can'.

The part of his (sounds like a fair assumption) complaint I was picking at was the 'profiting from the death of 6000' aspect, when the thing was made at least 2 months ahead of those deaths, so it obviously was not made to do that.

Re:if anything you can ?

[beanerspace]

Nah, I don't think Howie was trying to limit my speech. He was just making a good point that this "Martin" guy had been wearing his 'wares well before September 11th.

Whether or not it can be considered "performance" or "living" or "body" art is still debatable.

I saw this in the matrix

[Karmageddon]

except, he's saying he wants the blue pill?

New Platform for Advertising

[mikeboone]

I figure that this will work like most other technology these days.

The camera-glasses and associated computer equipment will be expensive. Companies will offset these expenses just like in the early days of the internet...with ads. Don't expect to see that pretty waterfall while you're in the john, what you'll be seeing is an animated ad for condoms, maybe with sound..arranged by the company that got you the glasses for cheap!

And once the companies decide that ads are being ignored, they'll go to a pay-per-view model. Just make sure your subscription doesn't run out while you're driving.

And come to think of it, what a great platform for subliminal advertising! You can insist to no visual ads, but paragraph 85(s) of the licensing agreement will subject you to ads beamed directly to your brain!

non-registration source - you hypocrites!

[bobalu]

Why is it you guys don't want to acknowledge the NY Times for the article and abide by THEIR "license" agreement? I mean the license issues (re:GPL) are so important to Linux you spend hours arguing about minutia, but you feel free to skate around the NY Times quite reasonable (and free) requests. How hypocritical is that?

Re:non-registration source - you hypocrites!

[WNight]

Until you learn the difference between a group, Slashdot, and its individual members, you deserve to be ignored and down-moded.

In case you meant this seriously, let me point out a few differences between the two, that could explain people's differing opinions.

1) The GPL license lets you use and view content as you wish, unlike the NYT's license.

2) The GPL is, for many, an intermediate step to getting rid of, or significantly weakening copyright law. As such, the only violations that matter are those of entities that wish to tighten or prolong undue control.

3) Privacy. The goal isn't to avoid banners at the NYT, it's to avoid the need to register so they know who views which stories, and can build profiling databases. The GPL can be complied with anonymously.

4) Ownership. The NYT is big-media, they are part of an industry that seeks to control what people think by controlling what they hear. It is important to read what they say, if only to know what disinformation is being sown. The GPL is essentially about lack of ownership and freedom of use.

5) There's a difference between creative and factual content. Nobody NEEDS creative content, but people require factual content. (Few people are reposting the NYT content, just enabling people to read it.)

But, above all, remember that Slashdot is not a singular entity. Some members love MS and own much stock, others think BG is the anti-christ and strive to harm his business interests in any way possible. This is NOT a contradiction, different people have different views.

Steve Mann

[Leif_Bloomquist]

One of my co-op students last year went to work for Steve Mann. He said it was a very strange experience - Mann had him come in to work at 11 pm, say, and work until 7 the next morning. Then two days later he would change it to 9-5.

Mann sometimes puts on ALL his gear and wanders around downtown Toronto. I saw him once, and talked to him for a bit. Also a very strange experience - he was acting as though nothing was unusual about what he was doing.

Re:Steve Mann

[Astin]

Well, he has been doing it for 20 some-odd years now, he's used to it, even if most of the world isn't.

Amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

This post got rated 5, despite the fact that it's just a link, and for that matter a link that's identical to the post above it which was only rated 2.

Gotta love karma.

tech flesh

[datatrash]

another artist who has been doing the same sort of things probably for a much longer time & that might be worth sneaking a peek at is Stelarc. There is also an interview with him at ctheory in the archives.

I see some 'tard moderated you down

[Anonymous Coward]

I see some 'tard moderated you down.

Don't worry, I'll knick him with meta-moderation.

Perhaps some hippie type who couldn't stand that someone complained in a creative and humourous way ?

I personally enjoyed the post.

Re:I see some 'tard moderated you down

[beanerspace]

Oh, I knew that was going to happen the moment I submitted it. There is an element here on /. that despite their screes for freedom of speach, use moderation as a tool for punishing opinions that are outside of the "campus populi."

Now don't get me wrong, I've been around artists. One of my mentors was Edmond Casarella. His wife is my Aunt. I spent several wonderful weekends in his studio. Those who know the name know what I'm talking about.

For example, the article about Dr. Steve Mann. He's someone who likes to wear his hardware. Okay, I'm cool with that, but to call him an artists ? An inventor maybe, but does everything outside the 'norm' have to be deemed art ?

I guess my real beef is with the title of the /. article "Fighting For Privacy With Art and Words" ... it doesn't really strike me that this guy is fighting or being artistic about anything. Rather he's just being a creative inventor type who likes to wear his iron.

More power to'm.

the freedom we need the most?

[dalinian]

Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most.

Is privacy really the freedom we need the most?

I'd think I value more the freedom to live my life not having to be afraid of being executed the next day for a random reason or for no reason at all.

artnotart

[PegQuin]

It's an age-old scenario--when you don't have the abilities to produce something truly artistic--take an artistic medium and add some socio-political twist to it and THEN say it's art. Looks to be Photoshop 10, pre-requisite for Photoshop 101.

Re:artnotart

[Anonymous Coward]

something truly artistic

Please define "true art".

not offended, just a stupid joke is all

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the format of your joke: "hi, this is funny because blahblahblah, get it? hahahaha" Your sense of humor reminds me of the scene from "Roadtrip" where the boys are in the car talking about cheating on their girlfriends, and one young man's analogy is "..it's like, if you spread peanut butter on your testicles and let your NEIGHBOR'S dog lick it off, then it's not cheating.." pretty dumb, eh? Kinda like your joke. Ironic, that you (in karma whoring mode, I'm sure) try to play up to the moderaters at the end of your post..ooo..you're all so in on that little joke of yours, eh? Kids today..sheesh

What privacy?

[Ars-Fartsica]

Its a quaint protest effort raised by some amusing cranks, but it has to be said, once again, that you have no real privacy left to protect.

Your credit history, purchasing habits, biographical information, tv viewing habits, web surfing habits and almost anything else you would care to keep to yourself can be revealed to people who do not know you with very little real effort. For most people reading slashdot, most societal notions of privacy were erased before they were born.

Use a credit card? Use your SSN as an id? Have a driver's license? If you answered yes to two out of three, then you can pretty much forget about personal privacy because you started building your own consumer database long ago.

Most public places -already- surveilled

[Ars-Fartsica]

Once again the naivety of people's views on surveillance rears its ugly head. Most urban centers are already heavily surveilled - they don't need advances in technology to provide 100% observational capabilities.

Go into any mall or major store and you are on camera. Go into any major office complex and you are on camera. Most cities have cameras at busy intersections. Satellites can provide amazing surveillance of ground activity anywhere.

Basically the only place you can be assured that you are not on candid camera is inside your home with the blinds drawn. Soon even this will evaporate - within five years there will be technologies that will allow someone to deposit a wireless camera in your house that will be too small for you to detect if it is well placed.

Re:Most public places -already- surveilled

[hackman]

Yes, this technology pretty much already exists. Wireless with high-bandwidth is here. You'd have to have some kind of frequency scanner to detect some of the new tiny cameras on your lawn..

But let's not be freaked about all the surveilance which already exists as you pointed out, after all, and really now, why does it bother you that someone can watch you pick your nose? Under what circumstances (and how often) does this stuff infringe on your life? Let's pick out the major objections (besides "I want privacy outdoor in public spaces" arguments), and present them as problems to the people who incorrectly use surveillance data.

It's rather obvious now that fighting the surveillance technology itself is not practical. Focus on the use of the technology and people will listen.

Brett

Reference?

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Is this a reference to something?

Cyberpunk

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

I think I read some cyberpunk piece where a character suffers because *ackers insert Brazilian (?) spam into his vision.

Maybe Neil Stephenson's Victorian book whose name I forgot, when the girl escapes her mother's house with her brother and they go along a porn district?

Re:Cyberpunk

[Number14]

The Diamond Age.

questionable ethics

[bobalu]

Until you learn the difference between a group, Slashdot, and its individual members, you deserve to be ignored and down-moded

The message was a reply to the story posting, if you didn't notice; intended for the editors who posted the story and run the place and anyone else for whom the shoe fits.

You wouldn't want someone to get around the GPL on a technicality. If you want GPL'd code you need to abide by the rules. Likewise, if you want NY Times content you ought to abide by THEIR rules. "Big media", your paranoia about being tracked, etc. is irrelevant.

But, above all, remember that Slashdot is not a singular entity.

Excuse me, but if our account #'s are any indication I've been around here a lot longer than you have, so piss off. The GPL is all about ethics, but they seem to only matter if it's the GPL that's being violated. Real ethics don't work that way.

And if you think I give a flying rat's ass about the bullshit that passes for moderation around here then you've got another think coming. Real karma has nothing to do with Slashdot.

Re:questionable ethics

[WNight]

The message was a reply to the story posting, if you didn't notice; intended for the editors who posted the story and run the place and anyone else for whom the shoe fits.

There are multiple editors, and they post news items they don't necessarily agree with. It's news for nerds, not propoganda for the proles.

"Big media", your paranoia about being tracked, etc. is irrelevant.

Not at all. Those are some of the reasons people see a difference between GPL'd free software and the NYT registration. You're free to think they're identical if you want, but it just shows you can't evaluate things based on the context they're in.

I'm not even saying all or any of those reasons are valid, just that they are reasons people see a difference.

Excuse me, but if our account #'s are any indication I've been around here a lot longer than you have, so piss off.

Testy. I've also posted three times as much as you, so by my standards you're the relative newbie.

Real ethics don't work that way.

Real ethics are situational. That's the difference between murder and self-defense. Any morals worth having recognize the situational context and take it into account.

And if you think I give a flying rat's ass about the bullshit that passes for moderation around here then you've got another think coming.

The main use of moderation on Slashdot is to hide spam, crap flooding, or clueless/offtopic comments. I couldn't care less what your karma is, I merely advocate moderating down people who don't seem to understand the difference between individuals and a group. Even moreso, it's redundant. Every time there's a GPL or MS related post (very often) one or two people post something like you did, asking how Slashdot as a singular entity, can hold two conflicting views. Even if you had anything insightful to say, it's already been said.

Re:questionable ethics

[bobalu]

I've also posted three times as much as you, so by my standards you're the relative newbie.

Oh I see, more is better. Glad I don't have to look at your code.

Look, you're just trying to justify the attitude that says "you can't violate our agreement because we're good, but we can violate yours all we want because you're a corporate entity". Situational ethics or not, that's just bullshit.

Re:questionable ethics

[WNight]

Gotcha, by your standards, age is what it's all about. Gotta respect the old COBOL programmer, he's got skillz.

You're getting tiresome. You refuse to read and blame the views of some on everyone.

I don't specifically believe that any of those five reasons I mentioned are a good reason to treat the NYT and GPLed code different, but they are reasons I know people use.

All I have stated that I believe in, is situational ethics. Your comeback is "that's just rationalization". Feh, how unoriginal. Of course it's rationalization, because unlike you, I'm not afraid to think for myself.

I have the ability to evaluate a sitation and act as I feel is justified. I'm rational, and I rationalize. That's a GOOD thing. Only sheep think otherwise.

Re:questionable ethics

[bobalu]

I resign, I had no idea I was dealing with a professional Slashdot poster.

Have a nice life. You apparently don't have one now.

Re:questionable ethics

[WNight]

Oh wow, that's clever.

You're the one who brought up the question of belonging here.

You're wussing out. Can't support your position so you bring in irrelevant stuff (age of account) and then resort to insults.

Have fun.

Re:Your girlfriend at the mall or the furniture st

[youreanidiot]

I found this out recently when trying to take pictures at the mall on a photo outing... we had to switch to a discreet point-and-click and even then we ended up getting caught twice and followed around by the security guard. Most stores, for whatever reason, really dislike photos being taken

I got kicked out of a mall for filming also. I think the reasoning is that the people who pay for space in the mall would think that it upsets customers to have some guy walking around filming people. Which is their right, and probably true. While you may be filming your girlfriend picking out a dress, I may be filming your girlfriend picking out a dress too. And what do you think of that? It's bad business. They have cameras, but they try to keep them unintrusive. Generally a good balace of "make them visible to potential shoplifters", and "make them invisible to average shopper" seems to be the norm. You wouldn't probably go to a store if they had security guards walking around with camcorders, it would just be weird. I wouldn't anyway.

The book 1984 by George Orwell [NT]

[HiroProtagonist]

The book 1984 by George Orwell [NT]

Indefinite internment, no martial law already here

[Gorimek]

One of Ashcrofts first orders was to let the INS hold people indefinitely, with no charge. There is a few hundreds rotting away as we speak. And this is no martial law. It will not be lifted when the enemy is defeated. Of course, terrorism can never be fully defeated, but that's yet another story.

Meep!

[SomethingOrOther]

"Only people who have something to hide" should be worried.
My favourate responce to this is to tell 'em that prison cells/graveyards are full of people who thought they had nothing to hide.

That and presenting them with a print out of their bookmarks to BeetOffPicturesGalore.com !

yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to carry my digital camera with me in my car (at least). Whenever some JACKASS tailgates me or cuts me off or whatever, I simply take a few shots of him/her, ensuring the flash is on. Usually the person in question backs off and resumes (what I hope is) a better driving attitude. :)

This is especially useful against SUV/cell phone users, loser kids in their souped up honda civics, and BMW driving executive-types.

Maybe one day I will post their ugly faces on the web...

Re:Your girlfriend at the mall or the furniture st

[dragons_flight]

I take a lot of photos each year, and I've never had a problem in malls or restraunts provided I'm with a group of people and they were clearly the subject of the photos.

One case in fact I was with a group of 12 or so on a dinner outing, and after taking lots of photos of the group, I took quite a few of the "ambience", picking up lots of strangers along the way. Admittedly this is something that has drawn complaints in the past, but with so many people (and the fact we had been ordering multiple rounds) no one said anything. :-)

Why does anyone care about the damn registration

[fisternipply]

Just give them bogus info, who cares? And don't tell me all you privacy freaks aren't registering on any pr0n sites!

Non-registration access to NYT

[Guido69]

Has anyone actually seen any negative effects of registering for NYT access? I broke down and registered last week after hearing they had some unique articles on the WTC attack and haven't seen any fallout from it yet. My experience is shared by some others who have registered.

Of course, I used one of my spam-target email accounts for the registration. Better safe than sorry.

Re:Non-registration access to NYT

[Anonymous Coward]

None whatsoever, except that you have one less karma-whore link to post on slashdot

WHat does in take to get into NYT

[GMOL]

I worked in this guy's lab for a year.

Most of the stuff that you are reading about is embellished beyond belief...

His "reality mediator" stuff is just motion tracking (and makes some pretty rigid assumption such as no parallax), all the sequences you see are post processed video (doesn't work in real time)...

Steve Mann, Babe Magnet!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet he has a hard time keeping all the wimmin off of him, huh? That wearable computer is SUCH a turn on and .. and those SHADES!! I'm getting wet just thinking about it!!

DO ME STEVE!!!

CNET radio interview

[Eyetapper]

CNET radio did an interview with Dr. Mann about
the SeatSale Exhibit.

There's a OGG version of it at
http://www.eyetap.org/seatsale/seatsale_cnet.ogg

and more information and links at
http://www.eyetap.org/seatsale

wankers

[Eldie]

Why do you wankers have to comment each and every ****ing time that the tremendous and FREE New York Times website requires registration? Is that such an unbearable burden. Get off your stupid high horse.

use 'cyperpunks' username/password on NYT site..

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read the article by logging in as 'cypherpunks' with a password of 'cypherpunks'. Generally, most popular sites have that account already established. Large group of people who don't like to be tracked on the Net use that shared login. Try it... (um, doesn't work on Slashdot however... *shrug*).

SeatSale exhibit began 2001 Feb. 7th

[Eyetapper]

The exhibit was produced WELL before the
events of sept11.

Thank you

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

I didn't read the book but I watched the TV show :)

Actually, I read the book but didn't remeber this part.