Finally we agree on something. It's NOT privacy that makes a society free. Although I don't reckon it's transparency either. I reckon it's freedom,:suz. Secrets don't remove choice. The reason we elect a government is to keep secrets, to not tell us the things that would disrupt our (comparatively) peaceful lives and send us into a spiraling descent into gibbering madness. Secrets allow us to MAKE a choice, rather removing that choice, because secrets keep us safe from the fact that there are X ammount of spies from various countries living next to you at any given time, keep us safe from the fact that corporations' lobbying is getting more and more ludicrous, that the few are using their power to substantiate their own autocratic leadership. All so we can have the freedom to decide how we want our eggs done in the morning.
It's not a great system. It's not even a good system. But it's better than socio-economic segregation, which is what Shield's system proposes. The problem with the accumulation of such vast databases of information (aside from storage of course) is the issue of access. Not everyone has a computer, so you can't put them online. That would be unfair. Hard copy is, of course, not an option. Too unwieldy. Of course you could always hold the data in some central collection building thing, but then it wouldn't be distributed and freely available. And even if it were, what about the immigrants whose facility with common language isn't good enough to buy milk, let alone requisition records. Or the uneducated, who really DO think the internet is a series of pipes in Al Gore's back yard. They couldn't get to things online, and they sure as hell wouldn't be able to use an archiving system like libraries have. Basically what you are proposing is elitism, pure and simple. You are (most likely by accident) aiming to broaden the gap between haves and have nots.
Because after all, what we really want is for today to keep going like yesterday did without having to worry about something we did years ago. Sure, someone shows footage to denigrate you, so you show footage of them to even things up "and everyone agrees that this kind of foolishness shouldn't be given any weight at all " but it will be given weight by those who have invested in any one particular side. Besides, if that doesn't work, they will just have to dig up something else, until the side with the most dirt wins. Basically it all goes back to that F you got in Math in Fifth Grade that you got because you were ill that day and couldn't hold a pen. Is that going to ruin your chance at happiness?
That seems a particularly haphazard means of going about things. Surely a loophole like that would be ridiculously easy to subvert, to facilitate skulduggery and other sorts of untoward goings on?
I dunno, are you using liberal in the political sense, or the ideological? Please eludicate. I'm a unilateral unitarian, so I'll like you no matter what ideological standpoint you take.
You seem to be confusing 'free and open' with 'inherently good.'
If this were a 'free and open' society, then we'd never leave the house because something bad would without doubt happen. Then we'd probably be arrested for being burdensome for society. It's a slippery slope, dude.
Besides, it'd be impractical to collect and process that ammount of information anyway. Couldn't digitize it, too insecure. Couldn't keep it hardcopy because you'd need a small planet for the volume of paperwork alone that people generate.
Has anyone brought up the whole Minority Report thing?
To what extent do we want to restrict privacy to the detriment of so called human rights? Who here is in favour of the patriot act?
Well, this lawsuit could have some serious precedent-setting potential. This could well remove the very anonymity that makes the internet so attractive to trolls, flamers, poets, artists, bloggers and all those other people who feel that they are safe out there because the everyday overly litigious yuppie can't figure out who they are.
Ok, Shield. No privacy. So you'd be alright with giving out all your details to everyone, but only if everyone else did too... How would that help anyone? If there was no privacy, there would be nothing done for fear of censure because under scrutiny everything is suspect. There would be virtually no way to make progress as one mistake would leave you permanently marked. There is a reason that the criminal records of juveniles are sealed, just as there is a reason they are unsealed. It is to prevent the unfair characterisation of people who may have done something due to adverse circumstances or youthful high spirits. Sure, with regards to some things, this policy of silence is counterproductive. This is why things like your National Sex Offender Register exist. And the reason for Neighbourhood Watch.
Besides, it's all very well to make ridiculous sweeping generalisations, but another thing entirely to suggest potential for positive change. It's like me saying the problem with society is the inherent tendency of humans to do bad things when they think no one is watching, so we should make everyone watch everyone else all of the time. It's a valid, but completely impractical point.
Big Brother is watching us, that's a fact. Thankfully, Big Brother is busy worrying about the other Big Brothers watching him watching you, and thinking he needs to find a way to get a camera in there, to worry about which of us are molesting children and which of us are voting green. Imagine if this Big Brother really were watching us all the time. You'd feel safe. But you'd also feel violated. Or even if he wasn't watching us per se, he had access to all our grades of every test we've ever done, the results of every anonymous survey we ever filled out. You would be scared, because you would know that whoever was looking at this information was forming an incomplete, flawed, skewed and imperfect picture of you, and making decisions based upon that inaccurate information that could adversely affect your life and leave you in a gutter somewhere as you are now unable to find work due to a note on one of your primary school report cards: "Does not play well with others." The extermination of privacy leads to other things that conflict just as much with essential human behavour (as it exists in our western society.)
I don't know about you, but I went through enough trouble with various examinations throughout my life, including a period of (undiagnosed) mental illness that prevented me from completing my Final Examinations to the best of my ability. There is no way I would want that hanging over my head for the rest of my life. I give myself enough grief about it. I don't need it following me around my entire life, thanks.
Okay, I'm going to finish this rant here, otherwise I'm going to start ranting about the removal of basic human rights to privacy and seclusion (because I don't like crowds) and the pointlessness of making judgements based on third- or fourth-hand knowledge (because I've made mistakes), and before you know it, I've used the phrase 'Orwellian nightmare' thus forfeiting my right to any sort of credibility or respect, as well as losing the argument by default. Suffice to say that the only way to live in a world without privacy would be to make sure that you never did anything that could go on your permanent record.
I'm not so polite that I'd be able to do that. And I doubt you are either.
Well, if I could find a tea-infuser ANYWHERE, I'd buy it no matter who made it. Lucky bugger... I have to jerry-rig my own out of a teapot, wire, muslin and paperclips...
As for selling out your future, a teapot is a good place to start. Snaps for making a stand.
Although... how much closer to home?
I'd argue that Capitalism is the only viable system as it's a natural extension of the basic instincts and desires inherent in the human psyche and Democracy is only the facade of competing autocracies But there again, I tend to say really stupid things sometimes. Democracy and Communism aren't diametrically opposed, you got that right. But freedom and democracy aren't automatically inclusive either, despite what the rhetoric would have us believe.
Basically, I think you said all you needed to say in your first line: Moral relativism makes any sort of value-judgments. Which is why I took umbrage at your use of the word freedom. Ain't no such thing, dude. Ain't no truth, ain't no beauty, ain't no right, ain't no wrong. I'm sure it looks just as wrong from the other side of the wall.
Uh... I don't have a pithy quote to end this on, so I'm just going to go with something irrelevant. ...asking 'can I live?' It's how these asinine kids imply they're dead already, they are, get a new car, release the brakes, put it in neutral, I'm going to steer you wrong, this way to the future, follow along... - Paul Francis
I'm pretty sure China's a much older civilisation, so they'd have been doing it longer by default. And I don't approve of your mea culpa attitude, although I see the merit in your words.
Doesn't help that China feels as if it is being excluded and threatened by a potential alliance between Japan, Australia, the US and India. More on this if I can work out where I put my newspaper...
What does Canada have to do with this? This isn't an American murder on Canadian soil, this isn't an extradition case. This is one man subverting a government he sees as unfit to govern, which is against the laws set by said government, him being found out due to the actions of a certain company, and the moral and social ramifications thereof. Where did Canada and the death penalty come into this?
Morally reprehensible from OUR moral code only, thanks. Who are we to say that OUR moral code is more valid than the Chinese government's moral code?
Also, what happens to the people who are working for Yahoo!China? Do they lose their jobs just so Yahoo! can be morally upright? Or the companies with advertising on the Yahoo!China pages/domains? Or the groups that it hosts? Are all of these people supposed to be punished because Yahoo! is conforming to one particular moral code, a code that conflicts with that of the country in which they are operating? This issue has too many facets to simply apply the "Jail is wrong, Communist China is wrong, Big Corporations are wrong" blanket.
Sky is blue, RIAA is big bad, litigious fools with more time than sense are killing the world. In other news, I supplant my copyright infringement guilt by sponsoring children, and recycling.
Related stories: RIAA vow to start persecuting shoplifters.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally we agree on something. It's NOT privacy that makes a society free. Although I don't reckon it's transparency either. I reckon it's freedom, :suz. Secrets don't remove choice. The reason we elect a government is to keep secrets, to not tell us the things that would disrupt our (comparatively) peaceful lives and send us into a spiraling descent into gibbering madness. Secrets allow us to MAKE a choice, rather removing that choice, because secrets keep us safe from the fact that there are X ammount of spies from various countries living next to you at any given time, keep us safe from the fact that corporations' lobbying is getting more and more ludicrous, that the few are using their power to substantiate their own autocratic leadership. All so we can have the freedom to decide how we want our eggs done in the morning.
It's not a great system. It's not even a good system. But it's better than socio-economic segregation, which is what Shield's system proposes. The problem with the accumulation of such vast databases of information (aside from storage of course) is the issue of access. Not everyone has a computer, so you can't put them online. That would be unfair. Hard copy is, of course, not an option. Too unwieldy. Of course you could always hold the data in some central collection building thing, but then it wouldn't be distributed and freely available. And even if it were, what about the immigrants whose facility with common language isn't good enough to buy milk, let alone requisition records. Or the uneducated, who really DO think the internet is a series of pipes in Al Gore's back yard. They couldn't get to things online, and they sure as hell wouldn't be able to use an archiving system like libraries have. Basically what you are proposing is elitism, pure and simple. You are (most likely by accident) aiming to broaden the gap between haves and have nots.
Because after all, what we really want is for today to keep going like yesterday did without having to worry about something we did years ago. Sure, someone shows footage to denigrate you, so you show footage of them to even things up " and everyone agrees that this kind of foolishness shouldn't be given any weight at all " but it will be given weight by those who have invested in any one particular side. Besides, if that doesn't work, they will just have to dig up something else, until the side with the most dirt wins. Basically it all goes back to that F you got in Math in Fifth Grade that you got because you were ill that day and couldn't hold a pen. Is that going to ruin your chance at happiness?
Well, if you're dumb enough to accept the claims of complete anonymity at face value, you deserve whatever comes your way.
Same way that if you shout something insulting out in a crowded place, you got to be ready for someone to chase you and beat you with a shoe.
That seems a particularly haphazard means of going about things. Surely a loophole like that would be ridiculously easy to subvert, to facilitate skulduggery and other sorts of untoward goings on?
I dunno, are you using liberal in the political sense, or the ideological? Please eludicate. I'm a unilateral unitarian, so I'll like you no matter what ideological standpoint you take.
You seem to be confusing 'free and open' with 'inherently good.'
If this were a 'free and open' society, then we'd never leave the house because something bad would without doubt happen. Then we'd probably be arrested for being burdensome for society. It's a slippery slope, dude.
Besides, it'd be impractical to collect and process that ammount of information anyway. Couldn't digitize it, too insecure. Couldn't keep it hardcopy because you'd need a small planet for the volume of paperwork alone that people generate.
Has anyone brought up the whole Minority Report thing?
To what extent do we want to restrict privacy to the detriment of so called human rights? Who here is in favour of the patriot act?
Well, this lawsuit could have some serious precedent-setting potential. This could well remove the very anonymity that makes the internet so attractive to trolls, flamers, poets, artists, bloggers and all those other people who feel that they are safe out there because the everyday overly litigious yuppie can't figure out who they are.
Ok, Shield. No privacy. So you'd be alright with giving out all your details to everyone, but only if everyone else did too... How would that help anyone? If there was no privacy, there would be nothing done for fear of censure because under scrutiny everything is suspect. There would be virtually no way to make progress as one mistake would leave you permanently marked. There is a reason that the criminal records of juveniles are sealed, just as there is a reason they are unsealed. It is to prevent the unfair characterisation of people who may have done something due to adverse circumstances or youthful high spirits. Sure, with regards to some things, this policy of silence is counterproductive. This is why things like your National Sex Offender Register exist. And the reason for Neighbourhood Watch.
Besides, it's all very well to make ridiculous sweeping generalisations, but another thing entirely to suggest potential for positive change. It's like me saying the problem with society is the inherent tendency of humans to do bad things when they think no one is watching, so we should make everyone watch everyone else all of the time. It's a valid, but completely impractical point.
Big Brother is watching us, that's a fact. Thankfully, Big Brother is busy worrying about the other Big Brothers watching him watching you, and thinking he needs to find a way to get a camera in there, to worry about which of us are molesting children and which of us are voting green. Imagine if this Big Brother really were watching us all the time. You'd feel safe. But you'd also feel violated. Or even if he wasn't watching us per se, he had access to all our grades of every test we've ever done, the results of every anonymous survey we ever filled out. You would be scared, because you would know that whoever was looking at this information was forming an incomplete, flawed, skewed and imperfect picture of you, and making decisions based upon that inaccurate information that could adversely affect your life and leave you in a gutter somewhere as you are now unable to find work due to a note on one of your primary school report cards: "Does not play well with others." The extermination of privacy leads to other things that conflict just as much with essential human behavour (as it exists in our western society.)
I don't know about you, but I went through enough trouble with various examinations throughout my life, including a period of (undiagnosed) mental illness that prevented me from completing my Final Examinations to the best of my ability. There is no way I would want that hanging over my head for the rest of my life. I give myself enough grief about it. I don't need it following me around my entire life, thanks.
Okay, I'm going to finish this rant here, otherwise I'm going to start ranting about the removal of basic human rights to privacy and seclusion (because I don't like crowds) and the pointlessness of making judgements based on third- or fourth-hand knowledge (because I've made mistakes), and before you know it, I've used the phrase 'Orwellian nightmare' thus forfeiting my right to any sort of credibility or respect, as well as losing the argument by default. Suffice to say that the only way to live in a world without privacy would be to make sure that you never did anything that could go on your permanent record.
I'm not so polite that I'd be able to do that. And I doubt you are either.
The author of the above post has asked me to take the time to point out that he is a poet first, and a would-be assassin second.
That's alright, everyone else has modded it up already, so justice is done.
Well, if I could find a tea-infuser ANYWHERE, I'd buy it no matter who made it. Lucky bugger... I have to jerry-rig my own out of a teapot, wire, muslin and paperclips...
As for selling out your future, a teapot is a good place to start. Snaps for making a stand.
Although... how much closer to home?
I'd argue that Capitalism is the only viable system as it's a natural extension of the basic instincts and desires inherent in the human psyche and Democracy is only the facade of competing autocracies But there again, I tend to say really stupid things sometimes. Democracy and Communism aren't diametrically opposed, you got that right. But freedom and democracy aren't automatically inclusive either, despite what the rhetoric would have us believe.
...asking 'can I live?' It's how these asinine kids imply they're dead already, they are, get a new car, release the brakes, put it in neutral, I'm going to steer you wrong, this way to the future, follow along...
Basically, I think you said all you needed to say in your first line: Moral relativism makes any sort of value-judgments. Which is why I took umbrage at your use of the word freedom. Ain't no such thing, dude. Ain't no truth, ain't no beauty, ain't no right, ain't no wrong. I'm sure it looks just as wrong from the other side of the wall.
Uh... I don't have a pithy quote to end this on, so I'm just going to go with something irrelevant.
- Paul Francis
I'm pretty sure China's a much older civilisation, so they'd have been doing it longer by default. And I don't approve of your mea culpa attitude, although I see the merit in your words.
Props for the Burns quote, though.
Doesn't help that China feels as if it is being excluded and threatened by a potential alliance between Japan, Australia, the US and India. More on this if I can work out where I put my newspaper...
Fragment: Consider revising
Morally reprehensible from OUR moral code only, thanks. Who are we to say that OUR moral code is more valid than the Chinese government's moral code?
Also, what happens to the people who are working for Yahoo!China? Do they lose their jobs just so Yahoo! can be morally upright? Or the companies with advertising on the Yahoo!China pages/domains? Or the groups that it hosts? Are all of these people supposed to be punished because Yahoo! is conforming to one particular moral code, a code that conflicts with that of the country in which they are operating? This issue has too many facets to simply apply the "Jail is wrong, Communist China is wrong, Big Corporations are wrong" blanket.
Sky is blue, RIAA is big bad, litigious fools with more time than sense are killing the world. In other news, I supplant my copyright infringement guilt by sponsoring children, and recycling.
Related stories: RIAA vow to start persecuting shoplifters.
clearly see that it is superceded
That sounds really cool when you say it a couple of times. I'm writing that down.
Troll hit you for -5
You hit Troll for 1
Troll hit you for -3
You used Administrative Beatdown on Troll
Damaged Troll for 775 (overkill 759)
Troll is Defeated!
EULA, anyone?
Wow. I thought I was the king of off-the-wall analogies. But you've just dethroned me.
*applause*
thx gir.
Done.
"See you in Me-hi-kooooo..!"
Heh... the RIAA are a bad sig.
I always hated those sigs that trumpeted my IP. Not because it did me any harm, but because they were always ugly.
Your post is my new desktop. You made my year. Someone eMail Alanis, quick!