True but I mean at some point you have to just take that risk that you might somehow end up there either accidentally or on purpose. The assumption is that it is likely to get back to you even if someone does record you. For every person who gets to be "Internet famous" through having their epic fail shared on YouTube there are thousands, maybe even millions, of others who are relegated to complete obscurity and I like those odds. But that's me.
There's always the stalker/weirdo/blackmail situation to consider but, again, not all that likely to happen to any given individual and again I personally just play the odds. I also keep my nose clean and so lower my chances further by remaining an unattractive target. I still think that inventions like Google Glass are more beneficial than they are destructive and I will wait to see how it develops before making judgments about it.
I just don't see any evidence that this iteration would present those problems. It would be a slight exacerbation of the current issues surrounding cell phones at most. I will personally give the technology a chance and see how it falls out. I think that, right now, the benefits and advancement outweigh the potential risks. Maybe the 2015 or 2020 model will give me more pause.
If you have proof that not only is it always recording and doing something with that data I'd welcome it. However from what I understand at the moment, you have to command it before anyone's privacy is potentially compromised. Even the analysis feature, I can't working without at least implied consent (implied consent being ownership of a Google account) on the part of the other party. If it's connected to something like Google+ then only what they publicly share on Google+ will show up on your AR vision.
I don't normally reply to ACs but what I'm getting at with this one is that those are exceptions, not rules. I already said that weirdos and jerks were going to stick around (I used the word "creepers" but I figure the sentiment is the same). I do not deny that those situations occur and deserve to be dealt with but people who do not do those things should not be punished or ostracized for the crimes of a relative few.
Yes, this guy has a right to ban whatever he wants in his business but that isn't really the issue. You have to speak out loud for the damn things to do anything (assuming the advertising is accurate) i.e. "Start recording" "Take a picture" so it isn't like they're active all the time. People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES. They're going to record their own lives and experiences and share those with their circles of friends (Google-related pun unintended) and if your own stupidity is captured in the background you can't say crap about it in basically any venue. Also, if the uploads work the same way that the Instant Upload feature on smartphones does then those images (and presumably videos) are private by default anyway they are not "posted for the world to see" without human intervention. Have some trust in your fellow man for Christ's sake.
There will always be creepers, but to assume that absolutely everyone is hell bent on capturing your behavior or ruining your life is paranoid and vain. If you aren't in your own home you have no expectation of privacy. It is just that damn simple. What's more is that you're getting up in arms over the inadvertent capturing of your image. I mean do you sue the evening news if they happen to catch you in frame? You people are being far too paranoid. This isn't some conspiracy to rob you of privacy. If you are inadvertently captured in someone else's video your anonymity is not gone. As technologists, we should embrace these things and do our part to help construct a new etiquette for their use rather than donning tin-foil hats and hiding from the change.
I bought a Chromebook to act as a secondary machine after my laptop died. I wanted something that had decent battery life, a keyboard and the ability to connect to the internet. I wasn't looking to play games (I have a phone, tablet and desktop for that), I wasn't looking to do heavy graphics work (I don't do it) or even my music hobby (again, desktop). The Chromebook boots up in seconds and lasts more than six hours on a charge (comparing 1.5 hours on my previous laptop). The use of the Google Apps on the Chromebook (or any webapp) is just so much easier. It's just another option to have. It's for people who want to use cloud services and need quick access anywhere that sits between a tablet and a full-fledged laptop.
I am quite content to break the law. Something about unjust laws and so on and so forth. On the other hand, after I can get my hands on an unlocked phone, I don't think I'll purchase a locked phone again.
I agree. Get a Chromebook for her. It's quite nice as a little thing to get some typing done, browse the web, play solitaire or whatever. I've written whole papers in Google Docs and if she totally insists on desktop software like MS Word you can get it through the InstallFree Chrome app (does cost money for the MS products though). My personal suggestion is the Samsung one. I've owned the Samsung 5 Series Chromebook (specifically the "uprated" 550 version) for a while now and they make a sturdy little device.
I have taken lectures' worth of notes on my phone and tablet. Swipe-based QWERTY keyboards really do help out a lot in that regard. At least I have found that to be true. I've also typed lengthy emails and Facebook posts that way. It gets tiring at about 500 words or so.
It can use a VPN though I have never tried. Right now, Chromebooks cannot share their screen remotely using anything that I know of (including Chrome Remote Desktop).
I do continue to use my laptop when it is convenient. Circumstances include at home, at school when I have a place to sit, when I am out of the house staying at another location. It's a Chromebook but fills my needs just fine. It is fine for accessing computers remotely via TeamViewer's web client or SSH, I can take notes on it via Evernote (also on my phone and tablet) and I can write up and open letters, papers and emails just fine with Google Docs.
My smartphone (which I got before my old Dell laptop died) has a similar function. I have Evernote on it as well and have taken notes on it at various lectures and demonstrations when the laptop would not have been practical due to a lack of seating. I use a gesture keyboard (Swype for a long time, SwiftKey Flow more recently) and can type adequately fast to keep up with a lecture with no real fatigue. It also has TeamViewer and an SSH client so remote control in a pinch is not impossible but not ideal. Still that's better than nothing.
Most recently, I received a Nexus 7 as a gift and it fulfills the same roles in slightly different situations. I can use the tablet instead of the smartphone during lectures (should I have it with me), and it has the same remote control software I mentioned previously which is far easier to use on the tablet versus the smartphone. It does help me to save battery on my smartphone by duplicating some of the functions that drain the smartphone's rather meager battery. So I can keep the tablet on and read, play music, video or (yes) the odd game while my smartphone sleeps and does only tasks that require the internet. I've noticed a significant increase in the useful life of my phone throughout the day since I started using the tablet. My co-workers and I use our tablets at work (we're the very small IT department of a shopping network) as portable computers for note-taking, network testing, filling out equipment inventories, reference/manual look-ups and other tasks.
Tablets really do have a place in an increasingly paperless world and I feel they will continue to persist as internet connections become more ubiquitous. Laptops are already being subsumed into tablets and soon enough we may only have tablets and phones and simply dock them to provide displays and link peripherals when a better interface is required.
I think that the niche tablets fill is not something that everyone has, but it is there and it needs filling.
This is just the direction that Ubuntu wants to go in which is good for them if they want to create a consumer operating system to compete with the likes of Android, OS X and Windows. I personally don't find the new interface all that offensive, but nor do I use it (I'm an E17 guy). I do, however, recommend it to others looking for an alternative to Windows and they seem to like it more often than not. In the case of "not" I generally point them to KDE or XFCE. The beauty of Linux operating systems is that there are hundreds (thousands?) out there to pick from and they're customizable. You can always uninstall this feature. I must state though that Ubuntu should have made it "opt in" instead of a default behavior.
So if you don't like what Ubuntu is doing, go with something else. Now, I understand RMS's complaints here and would say that using this is tantamount to using something like a mainstream OS, but I have to argue that is what Ubuntu is going for and people like RMS and other Free Software advocates are no longer its target demographic. It is now an OS for the average Joe (or at least trying to be) and the Linux people who are so offended by this have the many derivatives of Ubuntu as well as a dazzling array of other distros to choose from and to direct others to.
I don't take kindly to being called an idiot. I asked a simple question and I would like to understand. Treating people rudely isn't a way to foster mutual understanding.
I am not a troll. I don't appreciate being called stupid and attacked when I don't understand. I am a friendly person, I believe in the inherent goodness of man and trust is my default position. It's made my life mostly stress-free and rewarding. I learned that when you sign a contract, you can sign away such things as your right to free speech on a topic (NDAs), your right not to be searched (such as when working at a sensitive location), and your right to intellectual property (which was the cornerstone of the lesson being taught then in the class). I extrapolate this, based on my own relatively recent experience in public school, to mean that such rights are suspended by mutual consent of both the parent and student when they agree to the terms of the Code of Conduct. I may indeed be wrong but I'm simply putting the facts together as I see them. Furthermore, I have no problem with my location being tracked. I don't go anywhere that is unusual. I go home, to work, to college, to my girlfriend's place, to the movies, to restaurants, to church...nothing noteworthy. I don't care who knows where I am because quite frankly it isn't all that available. I don't broadcast it consciously but if it ends up happening it's really no harm as far as I can understand. I think that the likelihood of someone with nefarious intent getting a hold of that information, identifying me specifically and doing something that I really give a shit about is so remote I don't bother myself with it. It's just undue stress.
Well if that is the case, why haven't schools been forced to remove their camera systems from the hallways since that is also surveillance? Why then is it common practice (upheld by the courts and case law) that a student and his/her belongings may be searched without consent or suspicion while they are on school grounds? It seems to me that if this is the straw that breaks the camel's back it's been blown out of proportion. I'd much rather submit to having an RFID badge than know that whatever I bring may be searched without my knowledge.
The government is allowed to take reasonable actions as a means toward its ends. The school is mandated to look after the students (I believe this is called "in loco parentis") . This is left open ended and they use suitable means to ensure that mandate is met. They have the mandate to ensure students are safe and attending school, therefore they avail themselves of technology suitable to the task. In this case that is RFID tag technology. Implied powers have been a part of our government since the very beginning you can look it up if you want.
If the government can only do what citizens grant it to do, we wouldn't have taxation nor would we have a treasury. Implied powers are a real thing. Without them the Secret Service and FBI wouldn't exist. So on and so forth. So the fact of the matter is that they have these powers, there isn't a problem tracking people on school grounds. There is a material difference between a camera (which produces an image of people on said toilets) and an RFID which simply makes a computer take a note: "Student X is in restroom Y. Is Permitted? True/False. Do nothing/Make a note." I fail to see the issue here. On school grounds time and time it has been shown that a student and their belongings (including their parked car) can be searched at any time. That is what I would call invasive, not RFID location tags. This isn't to say that all uses of implied powers are good. PATRIOT Act and NDAA are prime examples of poor uses of implied powers.
RFID is close range. If she isn't at school her whereabouts won't be noted. The RFID would simply monitor location while on school property so if she passes an exit (which could theoretically also be against her will) it will be noted and intervention could be implemented. Tracking on school grounds is not invasive. At all. I don't care if my location is traced because I'm not committing a crime and (more importantly) if I were to be in an emergency situation, I'd want to be found swiftly. I understand that government is by us and for us I also understand that there are implied powers that the government can take. Location tracking for public schools and emergency response seem like appropriate use of implied powers.
I was taught this at college by a lawyer in Legal Issues for the Musician 1 - Contract Law. Unless you're a lawyer too or can provide proof of what you're saying I will continue under that assumption. Also, I don't appreciate your tone. Let's keep it civil, thanks.
I don't get this ultimate desire for privacy. Who the hell cares where you go? What does it matter if you aren't committing a crime? You are no one. The government has bigger fish to fry. Just because they can track you doesn't mean they are the least bit interested in doing so until you pop up on their radar.
Because there isn't one. Tracking student attendance is commonplace and has been for many years. Tracking student location is also commonplace. This device simply automates it. Now if she can make a case based on her religion then good on her but the right to privacy is usually suspended while on campus. In my district, this took the form of a signed agreement form by parent and student agreeing that, while on school property and/or time, the Code of Conduct superseded legal rights. You can sign away legal rights in a contract. It isn't dehumanizing and many workplaces use RFID cards to restrict access to sensitive areas and to keep track of who is coming into the building. There is a lot of FUD surrounding this kind of thing and so long as these are limited to schools and workplaces I fail to see any problem.
I don't think this will spread quite like that. That would require creative thought and, in my experience, school administrators tend to be lacking in that lately.
Slashdot Mirror
True but I mean at some point you have to just take that risk that you might somehow end up there either accidentally or on purpose. The assumption is that it is likely to get back to you even if someone does record you. For every person who gets to be "Internet famous" through having their epic fail shared on YouTube there are thousands, maybe even millions, of others who are relegated to complete obscurity and I like those odds. But that's me.
There's always the stalker/weirdo/blackmail situation to consider but, again, not all that likely to happen to any given individual and again I personally just play the odds. I also keep my nose clean and so lower my chances further by remaining an unattractive target. I still think that inventions like Google Glass are more beneficial than they are destructive and I will wait to see how it develops before making judgments about it.
I just don't see any evidence that this iteration would present those problems. It would be a slight exacerbation of the current issues surrounding cell phones at most. I will personally give the technology a chance and see how it falls out. I think that, right now, the benefits and advancement outweigh the potential risks. Maybe the 2015 or 2020 model will give me more pause.
If you have proof that not only is it always recording and doing something with that data I'd welcome it. However from what I understand at the moment, you have to command it before anyone's privacy is potentially compromised. Even the analysis feature, I can't working without at least implied consent (implied consent being ownership of a Google account) on the part of the other party. If it's connected to something like Google+ then only what they publicly share on Google+ will show up on your AR vision.
I don't normally reply to ACs but what I'm getting at with this one is that those are exceptions, not rules. I already said that weirdos and jerks were going to stick around (I used the word "creepers" but I figure the sentiment is the same). I do not deny that those situations occur and deserve to be dealt with but people who do not do those things should not be punished or ostracized for the crimes of a relative few.
"Technophiles," rather not "technologists."
Yes, this guy has a right to ban whatever he wants in his business but that isn't really the issue. You have to speak out loud for the damn things to do anything (assuming the advertising is accurate) i.e. "Start recording" "Take a picture" so it isn't like they're active all the time. People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES. They're going to record their own lives and experiences and share those with their circles of friends (Google-related pun unintended) and if your own stupidity is captured in the background you can't say crap about it in basically any venue. Also, if the uploads work the same way that the Instant Upload feature on smartphones does then those images (and presumably videos) are private by default anyway they are not "posted for the world to see" without human intervention. Have some trust in your fellow man for Christ's sake.
There will always be creepers, but to assume that absolutely everyone is hell bent on capturing your behavior or ruining your life is paranoid and vain. If you aren't in your own home you have no expectation of privacy. It is just that damn simple. What's more is that you're getting up in arms over the inadvertent capturing of your image. I mean do you sue the evening news if they happen to catch you in frame? You people are being far too paranoid. This isn't some conspiracy to rob you of privacy. If you are inadvertently captured in someone else's video your anonymity is not gone. As technologists, we should embrace these things and do our part to help construct a new etiquette for their use rather than donning tin-foil hats and hiding from the change.
I bought a Chromebook to act as a secondary machine after my laptop died. I wanted something that had decent battery life, a keyboard and the ability to connect to the internet. I wasn't looking to play games (I have a phone, tablet and desktop for that), I wasn't looking to do heavy graphics work (I don't do it) or even my music hobby (again, desktop). The Chromebook boots up in seconds and lasts more than six hours on a charge (comparing 1.5 hours on my previous laptop). The use of the Google Apps on the Chromebook (or any webapp) is just so much easier. It's just another option to have. It's for people who want to use cloud services and need quick access anywhere that sits between a tablet and a full-fledged laptop.
I am quite content to break the law. Something about unjust laws and so on and so forth. On the other hand, after I can get my hands on an unlocked phone, I don't think I'll purchase a locked phone again.
I agree. Get a Chromebook for her. It's quite nice as a little thing to get some typing done, browse the web, play solitaire or whatever. I've written whole papers in Google Docs and if she totally insists on desktop software like MS Word you can get it through the InstallFree Chrome app (does cost money for the MS products though). My personal suggestion is the Samsung one. I've owned the Samsung 5 Series Chromebook (specifically the "uprated" 550 version) for a while now and they make a sturdy little device.
I have taken lectures' worth of notes on my phone and tablet. Swipe-based QWERTY keyboards really do help out a lot in that regard. At least I have found that to be true. I've also typed lengthy emails and Facebook posts that way. It gets tiring at about 500 words or so.
It can use a VPN though I have never tried. Right now, Chromebooks cannot share their screen remotely using anything that I know of (including Chrome Remote Desktop).
Maybe he's from Boston?
I do continue to use my laptop when it is convenient. Circumstances include at home, at school when I have a place to sit, when I am out of the house staying at another location. It's a Chromebook but fills my needs just fine. It is fine for accessing computers remotely via TeamViewer's web client or SSH, I can take notes on it via Evernote (also on my phone and tablet) and I can write up and open letters, papers and emails just fine with Google Docs.
My smartphone (which I got before my old Dell laptop died) has a similar function. I have Evernote on it as well and have taken notes on it at various lectures and demonstrations when the laptop would not have been practical due to a lack of seating. I use a gesture keyboard (Swype for a long time, SwiftKey Flow more recently) and can type adequately fast to keep up with a lecture with no real fatigue. It also has TeamViewer and an SSH client so remote control in a pinch is not impossible but not ideal. Still that's better than nothing.
Most recently, I received a Nexus 7 as a gift and it fulfills the same roles in slightly different situations. I can use the tablet instead of the smartphone during lectures (should I have it with me), and it has the same remote control software I mentioned previously which is far easier to use on the tablet versus the smartphone. It does help me to save battery on my smartphone by duplicating some of the functions that drain the smartphone's rather meager battery. So I can keep the tablet on and read, play music, video or (yes) the odd game while my smartphone sleeps and does only tasks that require the internet. I've noticed a significant increase in the useful life of my phone throughout the day since I started using the tablet. My co-workers and I use our tablets at work (we're the very small IT department of a shopping network) as portable computers for note-taking, network testing, filling out equipment inventories, reference/manual look-ups and other tasks.
Tablets really do have a place in an increasingly paperless world and I feel they will continue to persist as internet connections become more ubiquitous. Laptops are already being subsumed into tablets and soon enough we may only have tablets and phones and simply dock them to provide displays and link peripherals when a better interface is required.
I think that the niche tablets fill is not something that everyone has, but it is there and it needs filling.
This is just the direction that Ubuntu wants to go in which is good for them if they want to create a consumer operating system to compete with the likes of Android, OS X and Windows. I personally don't find the new interface all that offensive, but nor do I use it (I'm an E17 guy). I do, however, recommend it to others looking for an alternative to Windows and they seem to like it more often than not. In the case of "not" I generally point them to KDE or XFCE. The beauty of Linux operating systems is that there are hundreds (thousands?) out there to pick from and they're customizable. You can always uninstall this feature. I must state though that Ubuntu should have made it "opt in" instead of a default behavior.
So if you don't like what Ubuntu is doing, go with something else. Now, I understand RMS's complaints here and would say that using this is tantamount to using something like a mainstream OS, but I have to argue that is what Ubuntu is going for and people like RMS and other Free Software advocates are no longer its target demographic. It is now an OS for the average Joe (or at least trying to be) and the Linux people who are so offended by this have the many derivatives of Ubuntu as well as a dazzling array of other distros to choose from and to direct others to.
I just try to keep the tone civil. I'm not offended, it just isn't necessary.
I don't take kindly to being called an idiot. I asked a simple question and I would like to understand. Treating people rudely isn't a way to foster mutual understanding.
I am not a troll. I don't appreciate being called stupid and attacked when I don't understand. I am a friendly person, I believe in the inherent goodness of man and trust is my default position. It's made my life mostly stress-free and rewarding. I learned that when you sign a contract, you can sign away such things as your right to free speech on a topic (NDAs), your right not to be searched (such as when working at a sensitive location), and your right to intellectual property (which was the cornerstone of the lesson being taught then in the class). I extrapolate this, based on my own relatively recent experience in public school, to mean that such rights are suspended by mutual consent of both the parent and student when they agree to the terms of the Code of Conduct. I may indeed be wrong but I'm simply putting the facts together as I see them. Furthermore, I have no problem with my location being tracked. I don't go anywhere that is unusual. I go home, to work, to college, to my girlfriend's place, to the movies, to restaurants, to church...nothing noteworthy. I don't care who knows where I am because quite frankly it isn't all that available. I don't broadcast it consciously but if it ends up happening it's really no harm as far as I can understand. I think that the likelihood of someone with nefarious intent getting a hold of that information, identifying me specifically and doing something that I really give a shit about is so remote I don't bother myself with it. It's just undue stress.
Well if that is the case, why haven't schools been forced to remove their camera systems from the hallways since that is also surveillance? Why then is it common practice (upheld by the courts and case law) that a student and his/her belongings may be searched without consent or suspicion while they are on school grounds? It seems to me that if this is the straw that breaks the camel's back it's been blown out of proportion. I'd much rather submit to having an RFID badge than know that whatever I bring may be searched without my knowledge.
The government is allowed to take reasonable actions as a means toward its ends. The school is mandated to look after the students (I believe this is called "in loco parentis") . This is left open ended and they use suitable means to ensure that mandate is met. They have the mandate to ensure students are safe and attending school, therefore they avail themselves of technology suitable to the task. In this case that is RFID tag technology. Implied powers have been a part of our government since the very beginning you can look it up if you want.
If the government can only do what citizens grant it to do, we wouldn't have taxation nor would we have a treasury. Implied powers are a real thing. Without them the Secret Service and FBI wouldn't exist. So on and so forth. So the fact of the matter is that they have these powers, there isn't a problem tracking people on school grounds. There is a material difference between a camera (which produces an image of people on said toilets) and an RFID which simply makes a computer take a note: "Student X is in restroom Y. Is Permitted? True/False. Do nothing/Make a note." I fail to see the issue here. On school grounds time and time it has been shown that a student and their belongings (including their parked car) can be searched at any time. That is what I would call invasive, not RFID location tags. This isn't to say that all uses of implied powers are good. PATRIOT Act and NDAA are prime examples of poor uses of implied powers.
RFID is close range. If she isn't at school her whereabouts won't be noted. The RFID would simply monitor location while on school property so if she passes an exit (which could theoretically also be against her will) it will be noted and intervention could be implemented. Tracking on school grounds is not invasive. At all. I don't care if my location is traced because I'm not committing a crime and (more importantly) if I were to be in an emergency situation, I'd want to be found swiftly. I understand that government is by us and for us I also understand that there are implied powers that the government can take. Location tracking for public schools and emergency response seem like appropriate use of implied powers.
I was taught this at college by a lawyer in Legal Issues for the Musician 1 - Contract Law. Unless you're a lawyer too or can provide proof of what you're saying I will continue under that assumption. Also, I don't appreciate your tone. Let's keep it civil, thanks.
I don't get this ultimate desire for privacy. Who the hell cares where you go? What does it matter if you aren't committing a crime? You are no one. The government has bigger fish to fry. Just because they can track you doesn't mean they are the least bit interested in doing so until you pop up on their radar.
Because there isn't one. Tracking student attendance is commonplace and has been for many years. Tracking student location is also commonplace. This device simply automates it. Now if she can make a case based on her religion then good on her but the right to privacy is usually suspended while on campus. In my district, this took the form of a signed agreement form by parent and student agreeing that, while on school property and/or time, the Code of Conduct superseded legal rights. You can sign away legal rights in a contract. It isn't dehumanizing and many workplaces use RFID cards to restrict access to sensitive areas and to keep track of who is coming into the building. There is a lot of FUD surrounding this kind of thing and so long as these are limited to schools and workplaces I fail to see any problem.
I don't think this will spread quite like that. That would require creative thought and, in my experience, school administrators tend to be lacking in that lately.