So what else does CC have a right to read when you "specifically consent" to them fixing your PC? Can they also make a copy of your stuff, you know, just in case they damage the drive when removing it? Can they keep that copy, just in case *you* get your drive hosed and come back to them complaining? Are you saing the repair service has right to anything on your machine?
No-one is arguing that child porn should be protected (although elsewhere some *would* argue, that only producing it should be an offense).
What's at issue is that next time a repair guy goes through your files and sees "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." and is going to report *that* too.
Next thing you know, you'll have your ass hauled from workplace to the county jail. Apologies will be slow in coming, and your work buddies may not be joining you at lunch for a while.
WHat's also at issue is that submitting a computer for repairs does not give the service people a blank check to read my email or browse through my vacation pictures. I fix my own machine, but I don't fix my car myself, and I expect the technician not to rummage through stuff I may have left in the boot, looking for thrills.
Your TV doesn't mine your apartment for personal data and upload it to the cable company. And anyway, the prevalence of advertising in the media is only one more reason to STOP any further encroachment, not tolerate it.
Mine surely is, but it is nowhere near taking the cake, yet. Maybe the difference is in the availability and price of certain technologies. We don't have OnStar-equipped vehicles yet, or tasers.
You don't tink they will mandate it? And why would they not? Have you ever, ever seen a government (any government) back down, ease regulations like these, forego a capability they once had? Have you ever seen a government decide they will no longer wiretap its citizens, for example, even though they can? Have you seen a government decide NOT to use that newly invented crowd control weapon? Ever?
The only time it happens, it seems to me, is when a country goes from an authoritarian rule to democracy (or what passes for one). When a tyrant gets deposed, the new government, formed of people who used to be in (underground) opposition, may begin with a shiny nice constitution, liberty for all and all that. After that, all a government does is ask for more and more power. You don't have to look far to see it happen.
but insurance companies will first offer discounts to car owners who have this enabled, and eventually you will not get auto insurance at all if you refuse.
Read "IBM And the Holocaust" by Edwin Black, then figure out for yourself if "neutrality and factual accuracy" of the piece in Wikipedia is in fact debatable. The fact that someone tagged a section that way means maybe that person also needs to read this book.
They don't need to be in the business of producing, since for a few decades now they've been in the much more lucrative business of *distribution*. Check out the writings of Gary Webb, Peter Dale Scott, Daniel Hopsicker et al.
Federal Reserve is a private bank, with some foreign ownership (e.g. British). The debt is emphatically *not* to American people, just to a bunch of transnational banker families. Read up.
Under corporate feudalism, the corporation has rights by default. Can they do it? Check. Will it make money for them and the shareholders? Check. There are no other questions.
"Do you find the number of cops on the street alarming and unsettling?"
I, for one, do. And so would you if, like me, you had lived under a communist regime. Sometimes I think people in the West really lack imagination (some knowledge of history would help too, but imagination is perfectly sufficient). These days you can get shot dead on the Tube for lookiong vaguely like someone the police are looking for, and the killers get away scot-free. That one was a really good lesson. The people who put up CCTV to watch over you also have the legal right to kill you, even if you are innocent of any crime. Yes, I do find it unsettling.
I don't know if it works, but nothing will if this doesnt. Tell them they are not the ones who determine whether or not they are doing anything illegal. As I wrote above, it's the owners of the surveillance systems who also get to decide who is a criminal.
"Since when was it a right to not be seen in public? If you don't like being seen in public, then don't go out. Apart from criminals, who cares about being watched on CCTV?"
Remember that the people who own and operate CCTV are the same people who get to decide who is a criminal.
Also, "being seen" is really, really different from being watched all the time and having the data recorded. It always bugs me when slashbots yell "you have no expectation of privacy in public". Bull-shit. When you walk out onto a busy street, you are perfectly anonymous. You are seen, but you are still anonymous. Nobody knows who you are, where you've been, where you're going. CCTV cameras have the potential of stripping us of that anonymity.
Thank you and thank you profusely. Every time the subject comes up I've been saying the same thing. Whenever you hear "security", substitute "control" and you get a clearer picture.
None, except for one grainy picture, totally unconvincing. That's what makes it more interesting - there SHOULD have been footage, but there wasn't any. I guess when the government engages in crime they know to disable the cameras first.
"The individuals responsible", assuming they were what we were told they were, would have been killed in the attacks, one. Two, there was virtually NO surveillance footage of them, none. We've seen one grainy picture that looks either photoshopped or pixellated beyons any usefulness as evidence. Even the cameras on the No 30 bus were mysteriously inoperable on that day.
Once agains: there was NO surveillance footage. If you think you've seen any, you're imagining it. Propaganda does that to people.
"It's not the technology that needs to be stopped - it has perfectly good uses (...) - it is those who would act maliciously with it who need to be stopped."
Okay, so why can't I buy a tank or a fully-armed figher plane, or a good dose of high explosives? I'm a pacifist, I would never use these items to hurt a living thing. But I can't buy them, because the governments don't think they can trust me with that. The law doesn't look at individual people, it looks at the society as a whole. And so there's a known n% chance of an average person committing a violent crime. Governments don't want to take that chance.
Likewise, I don't think I can trust the government with high-tech surveillance gear. It *will* be abused.
A way to stay relatively safe is to use a dedicated card. Here in Poland banks with online presence will supply you with what some call an "e-card". It looks like a Visa and is recognized as a Visa when you buy stuff online, but: a) it can ONLY be used for online transactions (it does not double as an ATM card) b) the card has its own virtual account with the issuing bank. You need to transfer money from your main account to the card before you make a purchase. Doing go takes authentication and a couple of clicks.
Yes, it takes a minute or two more, but no-one will be able to charge you repeatedly, and any loss due to fraud is limited to the amount you charged the card with. If you suspect anything untowards, you can clear the card with a single click. As a side effect, it helps prevent impulse buying, since it adds that additional step.
You could, of course, charge the card with a hefty sum and keep it over a long period, which would cancel much of the protection, but that's like installing a virus scanner and then running it disabled. In addition, if you charge the card in excess of about $1000 (depending on the bank), the transaction must occur within three days, otherwise the amount automatically reverts to your main account and the e-card is cleared.
There is a chance that a seller will coincidentally attempt a repeat charge just when you have charged the card for an unrelated purpose, but the likelihood of that is small, reduced further by the fact that an e-card is valid only for a year. It is re-issued annually (at no cost or at a minimal charge) with the same number but different expiration date. So a vendor from whom I am buying today will not be able to charge the same card next year. (If I do want to give them that option, I can always use my regular Visa - but I've never had to in six years.)
I don't know if US banks provide this kind of service as a rule; if they don't, you guys should raise bloody hell. It goes a long, long way to keep you safe, and will prevent any underhanded attempts like these.
How random are the queries TrackMeNot generates? Can you customize the lexicon? Your last example raises a bit of a red flag for me. Random phrases might get you in trouble if they make it look as though you're searching for kiddie porn, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
So what else does CC have a right to read when you "specifically consent" to them fixing your PC? Can they also make a copy of your stuff, you know, just in case they damage the drive when removing it? Can they keep that copy, just in case *you* get your drive hosed and come back to them complaining? Are you saing the repair service has right to anything on your machine?
*smack*
No-one is arguing that child porn should be protected (although elsewhere some *would* argue, that only producing it should be an offense).
What's at issue is that next time a repair guy goes through your files and sees "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." and is going to report *that* too.
Next thing you know, you'll have your ass hauled from workplace to the county jail. Apologies will be slow in coming, and your work buddies may not be joining you at lunch for a while.
WHat's also at issue is that submitting a computer for repairs does not give the service people a blank check to read my email or browse through my vacation pictures. I fix my own machine, but I don't fix my car myself, and I expect the technician not to rummage through stuff I may have left in the boot, looking for thrills.
Your TV doesn't mine your apartment for personal data and upload it to the cable company. And anyway, the prevalence of advertising in the media is only one more reason to STOP any further encroachment, not tolerate it.
"think you fail to fully understand the workings of a free-economy."
This is one of slashdot's inner jokes, like hot grits and In Soviet Russia, right? Right?
Mine surely is, but it is nowhere near taking the cake, yet. Maybe the difference is in the availability and price of certain technologies. We don't have OnStar-equipped vehicles yet, or tasers.
You don't tink they will mandate it? And why would they not? Have you ever, ever seen a government (any government) back down, ease regulations like these, forego a capability they once had? Have you ever seen a government decide they will no longer wiretap its citizens, for example, even though they can? Have you seen a government decide NOT to use that newly invented crowd control weapon? Ever?
The only time it happens, it seems to me, is when a country goes from an authoritarian rule to democracy (or what passes for one). When a tyrant gets deposed, the new government, formed of people who used to be in (underground) opposition, may begin with a shiny nice constitution, liberty for all and all that. After that, all a government does is ask for more and more power. You don't have to look far to see it happen.
but insurance companies will first offer discounts to car owners who have this enabled, and eventually you will not get auto insurance at all if you refuse.
Read "IBM And the Holocaust" by Edwin Black, then figure out for yourself if "neutrality and factual accuracy" of the piece in Wikipedia is in fact debatable. The fact that someone tagged a section that way means maybe that person also needs to read this book.
That may be true, but you better make sure the guy who defines terrorist is sane and rational. Hint: he isn't.
that would be his rommate.
They don't need to be in the business of producing, since for a few decades now they've been in the much more lucrative business of *distribution*. Check out the writings of Gary Webb, Peter Dale Scott, Daniel Hopsicker et al.
Federal Reserve is a private bank, with some foreign ownership (e.g. British). The debt is emphatically *not* to American people, just to a bunch of transnational banker families. Read up.
Steve Ballmer? How's it going, buddy? I knew it was you when the second chair flew by!
"Even Google asks you to login"
You assume they ask because they have to. That is not necessarily the case.
Under corporate feudalism, the corporation has rights by default. Can they do it? Check. Will it make money for them and the shareholders? Check. There are no other questions.
"Do you find the number of cops on the street alarming and unsettling?"
I, for one, do. And so would you if, like me, you had lived under a communist regime. Sometimes I think people in the West really lack imagination (some knowledge of history would help too, but imagination is perfectly sufficient). These days you can get shot dead on the Tube for lookiong vaguely like someone the police are looking for, and the killers get away scot-free. That one was a really good lesson. The people who put up CCTV to watch over you also have the legal right to kill you, even if you are innocent of any crime. Yes, I do find it unsettling.
I don't know if it works, but nothing will if this doesnt. Tell them they are not the ones who determine whether or not they are doing anything illegal. As I wrote above, it's the owners of the surveillance systems who also get to decide who is a criminal.
"Since when was it a right to not be seen in public? If you don't like being seen in public, then don't go out. Apart from criminals, who cares about being watched on CCTV?"
Remember that the people who own and operate CCTV are the same people who get to decide who is a criminal.
Also, "being seen" is really, really different from being watched all the time and having the data recorded. It always bugs me when slashbots yell "you have no expectation of privacy in public". Bull-shit. When you walk out onto a busy street, you are perfectly anonymous. You are seen, but you are still anonymous. Nobody knows who you are, where you've been, where you're going. CCTV cameras have the potential of stripping us of that anonymity.
Thank you and thank you profusely. Every time the subject comes up I've been saying the same thing. Whenever you hear "security", substitute "control" and you get a clearer picture.
None, except for one grainy picture, totally unconvincing. That's what makes it more interesting - there SHOULD have been footage, but there wasn't any. I guess when the government engages in crime they know to disable the cameras first.
"The individuals responsible", assuming they were what we were told they were, would have been killed in the attacks, one. Two, there was virtually NO surveillance footage of them, none. We've seen one grainy picture that looks either photoshopped or pixellated beyons any usefulness as evidence. Even the cameras on the No 30 bus were mysteriously inoperable on that day.
Once agains: there was NO surveillance footage. If you think you've seen any, you're imagining it. Propaganda does that to people.
"It's not the technology that needs to be stopped - it has perfectly good uses (...) - it is those who would act maliciously with it who need to be stopped."
Okay, so why can't I buy a tank or a fully-armed figher plane, or a good dose of high explosives? I'm a pacifist, I would never use these items to hurt a living thing. But I can't buy them, because the governments don't think they can trust me with that. The law doesn't look at individual people, it looks at the society as a whole. And so there's a known n% chance of an average person committing a violent crime. Governments don't want to take that chance.
Likewise, I don't think I can trust the government with high-tech surveillance gear. It *will* be abused.
A way to stay relatively safe is to use a dedicated card. Here in Poland banks with online presence will supply you with what some call an "e-card". It looks like a Visa and is recognized as a Visa when you buy stuff online, but:
a) it can ONLY be used for online transactions (it does not double as an ATM card)
b) the card has its own virtual account with the issuing bank. You need to transfer money from your main account to the card before you make a purchase. Doing go takes authentication and a couple of clicks.
Yes, it takes a minute or two more, but no-one will be able to charge you repeatedly, and any loss due to fraud is limited to the amount you charged the card with. If you suspect anything untowards, you can clear the card with a single click. As a side effect, it helps prevent impulse buying, since it adds that additional step.
You could, of course, charge the card with a hefty sum and keep it over a long period, which would cancel much of the protection, but that's like installing a virus scanner and then running it disabled. In addition, if you charge the card in excess of about $1000 (depending on the bank), the transaction must occur within three days, otherwise the amount automatically reverts to your main account and the e-card is cleared.
There is a chance that a seller will coincidentally attempt a repeat charge just when you have charged the card for an unrelated purpose, but the likelihood of that is small, reduced further by the fact that an e-card is valid only for a year. It is re-issued annually (at no cost or at a minimal charge) with the same number but different expiration date. So a vendor from whom I am buying today will not be able to charge the same card next year. (If I do want to give them that option, I can always use my regular Visa - but I've never had to in six years.)
I don't know if US banks provide this kind of service as a rule; if they don't, you guys should raise bloody hell. It goes a long, long way to keep you safe, and will prevent any underhanded attempts like these.
Saddam is no longer in a position to write drivers. That's why Vista users are SOL.
How random are the queries TrackMeNot generates? Can you customize the lexicon? Your last example raises a bit of a red flag for me. Random phrases might get you in trouble if they make it look as though you're searching for kiddie porn, for example.