Is it private information if you walk around shouting your name wherever you go? Or showing your face? Is it not just a short leap from that to your cell phone doing that for you?
Agreed. If you had told someone in 1960 that there would be a radio network broadcasting the current whereabouts of basically everyone, they would think the commies had taken over.
Both security and privacy are no longer worth what they used to be for the average citizen. They simply don't give a shit anymore about them, and will gladly sell their digital soul to feed their e-addictions.
Reverse tracking would be that whenever someone tracks your life, you get the legal right to track them back. So if the CEO of Company X puts a tracker on your Android phone peering into your private life, for example, you'd get the legal right to track that CEO back and peer into HIS private life and habits. If a big data company is collecting data on you, your spouse, your kids, you would have the legal right to collect big data on THAT big data company's activities, including insight into that company's most private activities. Watch how quickly all tracking stops when such a law is passed.
Most CEOs don't have a fucking clue as to how their own products abuse privacy. They're never punished for abusing privacy, which is why they don't give a shit. Even when they do risk punishment or fines, they still weigh it against profit, which is truly all they care about. They continue to abuse privacy because they found out long ago that it's worth it.
And do you know what happens when you try and do a WHOIS lookup on the worlds most popular domains? You get some generic result-by-proxy bullshit, which is exactly what any executive of any corporation would do if a reverse-tracking law were passed. You would never be allowed to track them, you would be allowed to track a sanitized proxy.
Exactly. What people do to themselves I don't care about, it's when they start affecting the rest of us that it becomes a problem.
America especially is an insanely "addictive" culture, but the afflicted need to recognize their problem and seek help
It's going to be rather hard to convince our society to label social media addiction as a "problem" that needs curing when that same society recognizes Attention Whore and Professional Narcissist as career goals. (see "Kardashian" for more details).
That's the problem with addiction; when it becomes so commonplace, even the most damaging activity can be viewed as "normal".
If Facebook really cared about the mental health and wellbeing of their users, they'd kick people off after more than fifteen minutes of daily use or just outright pull the plug on the whole works.
This tends to highlight why Greed N. Corruption is the CEO of Capitalist America.
Hopefully, the lawsuits come soon and will be painful -- FB should be a communication tool and not snoop on the content of non-public (i.e. privacy set to anything but "public") communications.
Let's also remember this action by FB stems from the Won't-Someone-Think-Of-The-Children crowd, who is also likely to sue...for not thinking of the children.
It's sad when bad parenting is so easily excused by throwing blame and litigation at everything but a mirror.
There are going to be some serious privacy issues and a lot of false positives. If all goes according to plan, expect the cops to send a SWAT team to bust down someone's door and "accidentally" pump two dozen bullets into them...
Let's remember what S.W.A.T. stands for, in order to understand what justifies their presence.
An individual being flagged for suicidal thoughts does not qualify as a SWAT-level threat, nor would they have trained staff to properly handle it.
The problem with that is this isn't the 1990s. People have lives and those lives involve connectivity.
And how the FUCK do you think the thousands of military personnel continue to survive while working in a SCIF during their entire work day?
Honestly the biggest problem with private devices is cameras, and it would be appropriate to not allow them in rooms where classified material is of course. If that includes your private office, then go somewhere else to use your phone.
Frankly, I'd rather people keep their personal stuff on personal devices and off of potentially sensitive computers, even if those computers are not on a classified network.
They ought to have a monitored wifi connection for personal business, the monitoring being only for the presence of government information.
Total bans encourage workarounds and workarounds yield security breaches every single time.
Total bans are validated for just reasons. Much like the current rules that completely ban such devices within a SCIF. People need to understand that a personal cell phone is nothing more than a security breach waiting to happen. They are personal tracking and listening devices that are constantly being hacked. Those wanting actual security to be implemented and enforced don't see these devices any other way because they can't afford to. So a black and white approach to policy is the only effective solution.
If people don't like those rules, find another fucking job elsewhere.
The problem with this attitude, is those engaged in dangerous activities often hurt or kill innocent people. It's best to not be so dismissive of ignorance and stupidity, and instead look to actually punish that activity.
To solidify my point, I no longer fear drunk drivers on the road. I fear the distracted idiots addicted to their cell phones who are becoming FAR more likely to cause harm to me or a loved one.
If anyone was wondering what first world problems looks like, you've fucking found it.
At least we can rest easily knowing that [random master narcissist] will be voted President of the United States based on nothing more than social media popularity, elected by the YOLO generation.
You jump straight to greed, but I urge you to think back throughout history to see the effect of attempting to ban a product unilaterally consumed by a good percentage of the population. It didn't work well last time.
In the mean times the efforts of banning the product in a way that is effective and doesn't create excessive legal challenge involves very slowly boiling the frog. You don't need some government commercial death machine conspiracy to see why we're where we are.
It was medically obvious 50+ years ago how fucking deadly tobacco was. That alone highlights why we are here, and sure as shit didn't need Prohibition to justify the stance or influence of Greed.
One of the main reasons Prohibition of alcohol failed, is addiction. I sure as hell don't expect a tobacco prohibition to succeed, but addiction isn't exactly a justified reason to continue legalizing a product as deadly as tobacco.
Being dismissive of the larger impact and what the future looks like isn't going to serve future generations well either.
Really, I'm being dismissive? Did you even read my post? I actually went further than net neutrality calling out the corporate corruption that is making the government be puppets on marionette strings not only with regard to Net Neutrality but in a lot of other areas as well and you call me dismissive of the big picture and not being concerned about our future as a country? Get out of here man.
You were dismissive because you didn't think this was a threat to our Freedoms. The destruction of Net Neutrality ultimately creates censorship. Information is power. THIS is the reason I was dismissive of your comments. We agree on so many levels, but I disagree with your impact here. Much like our founding fathers 200+ years ago, I'm not worried about impact now. I'm worried about impact 50+ years into the future.
CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).
Your statement might mean something in a legal system that includes actual punishments. We are still rewarding CEOs when they get caught doing unethical shit. When the worst case scenario is being forced to pull a platinum-lined parachute and walk away with millions, they have zero incentive to be honest and ethical.
They spent the money to develop the fiber optics high speed "pipes".
Why is it the governments business what speed, or how they control it?
If someone doesn't like it, develop their own pipe?
With the amount of corruption and influence already in place by those in control, what in the hell makes you think the incumbents will play fair with anyone who wants to stand up and develop their "own pipe"?!?
If you really want to know how that bullshit will work out, take a look at the history of failed CLECs.
I think "A threat to our freedoms" is polarized political mumbo jumbo and not going to serve anyone well in this discussion.
Being dismissive of the larger impact and what the future looks like isn't going to serve future generations well either. The internet has become THE resource for global information. Attempting to carve that up into standard and premium bit buckets is nothing more than a form of censorship, which has always been viewed as a threat to our freedoms.
Now liberals, think about this issue that you care about very dearly. You protest, you sign all these petitions, you blog and project online, etc. and what does the government and corporate America do? They laugh at you because they think you're weak and all talk and no action.
One can try and justify that the give-a-shit level of The People is at an all-time low because people are ignorant and lazy.
Or one can try and justify that the give-a-shit level of The People is at an all-time low because they've come to realize just how fucking irrelevant they truly are.
Either way, this particular topic has elicited millions and millions of responses from The People who were ignored, which tends to highlight the latter theory.
Systemic government corruption IS the bigger picture here. The story of the FCC and its corrupt leader is merely another chapter in the horrific book titled Threats to our Freedoms.
...why are they still sold? I know it is about money and tax revenue, but the overall cost likely does not outweigh these 'benefits'. Make cigs illegal and stop selling them or at least quadrupel the tax on them and add a 5$ deposit for each cigarette butt, package, and lighter. That way the world will be much cleaner
TFS stated that $170 billion a year in medical costs are created, which is also known as profits. That is one of the main reasons cigarettes are still legal.
We've carved this planet up into countries, and each one has a government that holds the very real responsibility of resource management. Manufacturing death is a component of that responsibility, which is the other main reason cigarettes are still a legal product.
Cigarettes are highly profitable from usage to treatment AND they create deaths. Sadly for the government, this is a win-win product.
7 million humans die every year from tobacco use. Makes you wonder how much "cleaner" the world would be if tobacco never existed, with the downside of a MUCH larger global population to manage.
"More people die every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol, combined,"
Makes you wonder why in the FUCK it's a legal product, doesn't it? (answer below)
"$170 billion every year in medical costs..."
Costs? You mean profit, as in one of the main reasons cigarettes are still a legal product. Greed benefits from this.
"$156 billion in lost productivity"
Completely irrelevant due to Greed.
"...cigarettes killing 480,000 Americans every year.
We've carved this planet up into countries, and each one has a government that holds the very real responsibility of resource management. Manufacturing death is a component of that responsibility, which is the other main reason cigarettes are still a legal product.
Cigarettes are highly profitable from usage to treatment AND they create deaths. Sadly for the government, this is a win-win product.
Considering the amount of TAX money cities, states, federal government get from the sales of cigarettes,
you would think they would encourage smoking. You watch, the continued decline in tobacco sales will
result in less money coming into governments, and they will cry about not having enough money.
A product that kills 480,000 Americans every year is legal.
What the fuck do you call that, because I call it support.
They should start the same lawsuit for guns.... maybe in 10-20 years we can finally get the guns lobby that guns doesnâ(TM)t make us safer.
Tobacco kills 480,000 Americans every year.
66% of the 30,000 gun deaths every year are due to suicide. Given that fact, the "gun" lawsuit should be attacking those who fail to fund and address mental health properly. You don't address obesity by suing manufacturers of high-capacity spoons.
So everyone in the country should send their traffic through a single VPN? How does that scale to 300m citizens, and what will stop the VPN company from throttling webpages that don't pay their internet baksheesh?
300 million citizens? Give me a break. 250 million of those citizens can't even fucking spell VPN, and they certainly don't give a shit about Net Neutrality.
These are the same citizens who will happily shell out an extra $10 per month for the "premium" internet tier just to feed their social media addiction. Those against Net Neutrality know this.
The masses proved long ago that ignorance is bliss. Don't expect them to start caring anytime soon.
I don't know that it's a great thing, necessarily. Debt is absolutely out of control. The next recession could be a real financial apocalypse if people don't wise up.
Essentially, all taxpaying citizens represent the largest and most powerful American Corporation.
Unfortunately, the Government runs on Corruption now. Corruption is the reason the People are no longer relevant. Corruption highlights why Government must be replaced.
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
You might want to google for "sling TV" or just go to their website. They are not a cable provider. They are on the internet. They are content providers, carving up their content into tiers.
It's too late. That business model is already here. You can't keep it away.
Verizon delivers "cable" service over fiber. DirectTV delivers "cable" service via satellite. SlingTV delivers "cable" service via streaming. Therefore, they are a cable provider. The term "cable" in this sense no longer refers to the physical medium; it's merely the residual moniker.
Regardless, the rest of the internet sure as hell doesn't need to follow that greedy model.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
We've had Net Neutrality for a couple years now and yet the internet is an even worse place than it was several years ago when Net Neutrality wasn't even a thing.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
Yes, the internet has gotten increasingly worse, but that's been going on for the last two fucking decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it private information if you walk around shouting your name wherever you go? Or showing your face? Is it not just a short leap from that to your cell phone doing that for you?
Agreed. If you had told someone in 1960 that there would be a radio network broadcasting the current whereabouts of basically everyone, they would think the commies had taken over.
Both security and privacy are no longer worth what they used to be for the average citizen. They simply don't give a shit anymore about them, and will gladly sell their digital soul to feed their e-addictions.
Reverse tracking would be that whenever someone tracks your life, you get the legal right to track them back. So if the CEO of Company X puts a tracker on your Android phone peering into your private life, for example, you'd get the legal right to track that CEO back and peer into HIS private life and habits. If a big data company is collecting data on you, your spouse, your kids, you would have the legal right to collect big data on THAT big data company's activities, including insight into that company's most private activities. Watch how quickly all tracking stops when such a law is passed.
Most CEOs don't have a fucking clue as to how their own products abuse privacy. They're never punished for abusing privacy, which is why they don't give a shit. Even when they do risk punishment or fines, they still weigh it against profit, which is truly all they care about. They continue to abuse privacy because they found out long ago that it's worth it.
And do you know what happens when you try and do a WHOIS lookup on the worlds most popular domains? You get some generic result-by-proxy bullshit, which is exactly what any executive of any corporation would do if a reverse-tracking law were passed. You would never be allowed to track them, you would be allowed to track a sanitized proxy.
Exactly. What people do to themselves I don't care about, it's when they start affecting the rest of us that it becomes a problem.
America especially is an insanely "addictive" culture, but the afflicted need to recognize their problem and seek help
It's going to be rather hard to convince our society to label social media addiction as a "problem" that needs curing when that same society recognizes Attention Whore and Professional Narcissist as career goals. (see "Kardashian" for more details).
That's the problem with addiction; when it becomes so commonplace, even the most damaging activity can be viewed as "normal".
If Facebook really cared about the mental health and wellbeing of their users, they'd kick people off after more than fifteen minutes of daily use or just outright pull the plug on the whole works.
This tends to highlight why Greed N. Corruption is the CEO of Capitalist America.
Nothing else matters, no matter how damaging.
Hopefully, the lawsuits come soon and will be painful -- FB should be a communication tool and not snoop on the content of non-public (i.e. privacy set to anything but "public") communications.
Let's also remember this action by FB stems from the Won't-Someone-Think-Of-The-Children crowd, who is also likely to sue...for not thinking of the children.
It's sad when bad parenting is so easily excused by throwing blame and litigation at everything but a mirror.
There are going to be some serious privacy issues and a lot of false positives. If all goes according to plan, expect the cops to send a SWAT team to bust down someone's door and "accidentally" pump two dozen bullets into them...
Let's remember what S.W.A.T. stands for, in order to understand what justifies their presence.
An individual being flagged for suicidal thoughts does not qualify as a SWAT-level threat, nor would they have trained staff to properly handle it.
The problem with that is this isn't the 1990s. People have lives and those lives involve connectivity.
And how the FUCK do you think the thousands of military personnel continue to survive while working in a SCIF during their entire work day?
Honestly the biggest problem with private devices is cameras, and it would be appropriate to not allow them in rooms where classified material is of course. If that includes your private office, then go somewhere else to use your phone.
Frankly, I'd rather people keep their personal stuff on personal devices and off of potentially sensitive computers, even if those computers are not on a classified network.
They ought to have a monitored wifi connection for personal business, the monitoring being only for the presence of government information.
Total bans encourage workarounds and workarounds yield security breaches every single time.
Total bans are validated for just reasons. Much like the current rules that completely ban such devices within a SCIF. People need to understand that a personal cell phone is nothing more than a security breach waiting to happen. They are personal tracking and listening devices that are constantly being hacked. Those wanting actual security to be implemented and enforced don't see these devices any other way because they can't afford to. So a black and white approach to policy is the only effective solution.
If people don't like those rules, find another fucking job elsewhere.
Fuck these people, I hope they die.
The problem with this attitude, is those engaged in dangerous activities often hurt or kill innocent people. It's best to not be so dismissive of ignorance and stupidity, and instead look to actually punish that activity.
To solidify my point, I no longer fear drunk drivers on the road. I fear the distracted idiots addicted to their cell phones who are becoming FAR more likely to cause harm to me or a loved one.
If anyone was wondering what first world problems looks like, you've fucking found it.
At least we can rest easily knowing that [random master narcissist] will be voted President of the United States based on nothing more than social media popularity, elected by the YOLO generation.
You jump straight to greed, but I urge you to think back throughout history to see the effect of attempting to ban a product unilaterally consumed by a good percentage of the population. It didn't work well last time.
In the mean times the efforts of banning the product in a way that is effective and doesn't create excessive legal challenge involves very slowly boiling the frog. You don't need some government commercial death machine conspiracy to see why we're where we are.
It was medically obvious 50+ years ago how fucking deadly tobacco was. That alone highlights why we are here, and sure as shit didn't need Prohibition to justify the stance or influence of Greed.
One of the main reasons Prohibition of alcohol failed, is addiction. I sure as hell don't expect a tobacco prohibition to succeed, but addiction isn't exactly a justified reason to continue legalizing a product as deadly as tobacco.
Being dismissive of the larger impact and what the future looks like isn't going to serve future generations well either.
Really, I'm being dismissive? Did you even read my post? I actually went further than net neutrality calling out the corporate corruption that is making the government be puppets on marionette strings not only with regard to Net Neutrality but in a lot of other areas as well and you call me dismissive of the big picture and not being concerned about our future as a country? Get out of here man.
You were dismissive because you didn't think this was a threat to our Freedoms. The destruction of Net Neutrality ultimately creates censorship. Information is power. THIS is the reason I was dismissive of your comments. We agree on so many levels, but I disagree with your impact here. Much like our founding fathers 200+ years ago, I'm not worried about impact now. I'm worried about impact 50+ years into the future.
Our Freedoms are important no matter the topic.
CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).
Your statement might mean something in a legal system that includes actual punishments. We are still rewarding CEOs when they get caught doing unethical shit. When the worst case scenario is being forced to pull a platinum-lined parachute and walk away with millions, they have zero incentive to be honest and ethical.
They spent the money to develop the fiber optics high speed "pipes". Why is it the governments business what speed, or how they control it? If someone doesn't like it, develop their own pipe?
With the amount of corruption and influence already in place by those in control, what in the hell makes you think the incumbents will play fair with anyone who wants to stand up and develop their "own pipe"?!?
If you really want to know how that bullshit will work out, take a look at the history of failed CLECs.
I think "A threat to our freedoms" is polarized political mumbo jumbo and not going to serve anyone well in this discussion.
Being dismissive of the larger impact and what the future looks like isn't going to serve future generations well either. The internet has become THE resource for global information. Attempting to carve that up into standard and premium bit buckets is nothing more than a form of censorship, which has always been viewed as a threat to our freedoms.
Now liberals, think about this issue that you care about very dearly. You protest, you sign all these petitions, you blog and project online, etc. and what does the government and corporate America do? They laugh at you because they think you're weak and all talk and no action.
One can try and justify that the give-a-shit level of The People is at an all-time low because people are ignorant and lazy.
Or one can try and justify that the give-a-shit level of The People is at an all-time low because they've come to realize just how fucking irrelevant they truly are.
Either way, this particular topic has elicited millions and millions of responses from The People who were ignored, which tends to highlight the latter theory.
Systemic government corruption IS the bigger picture here. The story of the FCC and its corrupt leader is merely another chapter in the horrific book titled Threats to our Freedoms.
...why are they still sold? I know it is about money and tax revenue, but the overall cost likely does not outweigh these 'benefits'. Make cigs illegal and stop selling them or at least quadrupel the tax on them and add a 5$ deposit for each cigarette butt, package, and lighter. That way the world will be much cleaner
TFS stated that $170 billion a year in medical costs are created, which is also known as profits. That is one of the main reasons cigarettes are still legal.
We've carved this planet up into countries, and each one has a government that holds the very real responsibility of resource management. Manufacturing death is a component of that responsibility, which is the other main reason cigarettes are still a legal product.
Cigarettes are highly profitable from usage to treatment AND they create deaths. Sadly for the government, this is a win-win product.
7 million humans die every year from tobacco use. Makes you wonder how much "cleaner" the world would be if tobacco never existed, with the downside of a MUCH larger global population to manage.
"More people die every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol, combined,"
Makes you wonder why in the FUCK it's a legal product, doesn't it? (answer below)
"$170 billion every year in medical costs..."
Costs? You mean profit, as in one of the main reasons cigarettes are still a legal product. Greed benefits from this.
"$156 billion in lost productivity"
Completely irrelevant due to Greed.
"...cigarettes killing 480,000 Americans every year.
We've carved this planet up into countries, and each one has a government that holds the very real responsibility of resource management. Manufacturing death is a component of that responsibility, which is the other main reason cigarettes are still a legal product.
Cigarettes are highly profitable from usage to treatment AND they create deaths. Sadly for the government, this is a win-win product.
Considering the amount of TAX money cities, states, federal government get from the sales of cigarettes, you would think they would encourage smoking. You watch, the continued decline in tobacco sales will result in less money coming into governments, and they will cry about not having enough money.
A product that kills 480,000 Americans every year is legal.
What the fuck do you call that, because I call it support.
They should start the same lawsuit for guns.... maybe in 10-20 years we can finally get the guns lobby that guns doesnâ(TM)t make us safer.
Tobacco kills 480,000 Americans every year.
66% of the 30,000 gun deaths every year are due to suicide. Given that fact, the "gun" lawsuit should be attacking those who fail to fund and address mental health properly. You don't address obesity by suing manufacturers of high-capacity spoons.
So everyone in the country should send their traffic through a single VPN? How does that scale to 300m citizens, and what will stop the VPN company from throttling webpages that don't pay their internet baksheesh?
300 million citizens? Give me a break. 250 million of those citizens can't even fucking spell VPN, and they certainly don't give a shit about Net Neutrality.
These are the same citizens who will happily shell out an extra $10 per month for the "premium" internet tier just to feed their social media addiction. Those against Net Neutrality know this.
The masses proved long ago that ignorance is bliss. Don't expect them to start caring anytime soon.
I don't know that it's a great thing, necessarily. Debt is absolutely out of control. The next recession could be a real financial apocalypse if people don't wise up.
US National Debt was 8 trillion 10 years ago.
It's over 20 trillion today.
Consumers learned that behavior from Uncle Sam.
Corporations are The People. You're a peon.
We the People, fund the Government.
Essentially, all taxpaying citizens represent the largest and most powerful American Corporation.
Unfortunately, the Government runs on Corruption now. Corruption is the reason the People are no longer relevant. Corruption highlights why Government must be replaced.
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
You might want to google for "sling TV" or just go to their website. They are not a cable provider. They are on the internet. They are content providers, carving up their content into tiers.
It's too late. That business model is already here. You can't keep it away.
Verizon delivers "cable" service over fiber. DirectTV delivers "cable" service via satellite. SlingTV delivers "cable" service via streaming. Therefore, they are a cable provider. The term "cable" in this sense no longer refers to the physical medium; it's merely the residual moniker.
Regardless, the rest of the internet sure as hell doesn't need to follow that greedy model.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
I don't give a shit what Sling or any other greedy cable provider calls their services; keep that fucked business model away from the internet.
"Apple audio engineers...quickly deemed the Echo's sound quality inferior and got back to work building a better speaker."
Inferior?
I take it Apple audio engineers have not actually used a pair of their own shitty earbuds...
We've had Net Neutrality for a couple years now and yet the internet is an even worse place than it was several years ago when Net Neutrality wasn't even a thing.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
Yes, the internet has gotten increasingly worse, but that's been going on for the last two fucking decades.