I think the discussion would be enlightened by distinguishing between "privacy" and "anonymity".
A "private" act or utterance is, in and of itself, hidden. The universe of people who know about it, and the identity associated with it, is limited and controlled.
An "anonymous" act or utterance is PUBLIC, but the identity associated with it is hidden. So, when "True Colors", by Anonymous, was published, the Whole World knew that there was a person who had access to all this private info about the Clintons, but the identity of the person was limited.
The way I see it, social networking sites are destroying anonymity, not privacy. As of a few years ago, if I did something stupid in public, though any number of people may have seen me do it, I could be relatively assured that my identity would not be connected with the act. If I don't wear my name on my shirt, I'm probably not going to be recognized (all the more reason dumb college pranks are done naked - not by me, of course).
But that's blown out of the water now. With ubiquitous imaging and communication technology, the odds of remaining anonymous in an act or utterance is getting vanishingly small. Where before there might be one polaroid of, say, a fraternity pledge class playing football naked at midnight (again, not involving me, of course), now that picture would most assuredly have bee taken digitally. And published. And, where there is a practical limit to the number of times a polaroid can be passed around, thereby limiting the chance for identity recognition, there is NO practical limit to transmission and duplication of digital imagery. SOMEone is going to recognize someone else in a photo. Period.
Anonymity is dead. The days of being able to do and say stupid stuff in public and not be associated with those acts is over. Keep it private, or don't do it at all, or face the consequences of public actions. It may be that the latter isn't the disaster it's being made out to be.
"To communicate with many of my friends, who insist on using social networking sites as their main avenues for staying in touch with friends, I am forced to use a privately-owned network where many of my rights may be waived. You could say, of course, that I should not stay in contact with those friends, but in real life it is not so easy to make such demands, especially when we are talking about communicating with relatives and dear friends, often in cases where communication is essential, such as family emergencies."
You are conflating 2 different issues. 1) People put stupid crap about their personal lives on social networking sites - pictures, poetry (ugh), etc. Solution? Don't do that in your account.
2) People use their social networking page to communicate with others. Again, don't use the site for important/potentially embarrassing communications.
Here's where your example gets confusing. You say "many" of your friends insist on using these sites? How does that affect how you deal with "relatives and dear friends" - one assumes a much smaller number. If you want to communicate with less important friends on these sites, talk about less important stuff - keep it banal and bland. For your more important folks, are they really going to drop you if you reserve more important/embarrassing communications for more secure transport?
And "family emergencies"? Are you kidding? If you are relying on a social networking site to communicate with family members in a crisis, you are an idiot. Ever heard of a telephone? You can still call collect.
The whole situation isn't black and white. No one is "forced to use a privately-owned network where many of my rights may be waived". You choose to do it. And if you choose to use it for communications that would be better on a more secure network, that's your lookout.
Step 1: Ask politely for the pictures to be removed. Step 2: Ask forcefully for the pictures to be removed. Step 3: Ask to see the signed model release that allows your image to be published.
Of course, this gets dodgy - are model reelases required for acts in a public space, and/r "publishing w/o profit?
"Fortunately, there are others (climatologists) who have spent decades or longer learning all there is to know about climate science, and scrutinizing the data. The OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS among PhD-level climatologists (and I know a few personally) is the global warming is REAL, and is HUMAN CAUSED.
Now, the problem arises when politicians, businessmen, and even scientists stepping outside their discipline start second-guessing the climatologists' work. "
That is only the face of the "not qualified" coin. The reverse of that coin include the climate scientists who believe they are economists, economists that believe they are politicians, and politicians who believe they are environmental scientists, and any of the above who think tehy have ANYTHING in common with the general populace. All of these folks take your your statement "global warming is REAL, and is HUMAN CAUSED" and then turn into experts on what should be done about it.
Let's make a deal: climate scientists will get a free pass on their conclusions if they will simply STFU about what we should do about them. We get it - the earth is warming up, and humans are the cause. Now go away while the rest of us figure out what, if anything, to do about it.
Don't like that? Scientists have opinions too, and should get to voice them? Fine, then so does everyone else. Can't take the heat? Don't make the appeal to expertise.
Wrong. Class action suits are largely based in common law, not criminal law. Criminal law deals with punishment, common law with equity. At least, that's how it was...
Class actions started as a matter for convenience for the courts - if there are a lot of people with the same basic claim, just litigate once instead of many times. Saves costs/more efficient.
Punitive damages were supposed to be a secondary function of the court, where particularly egregious behavior was punished.
Then came Congress, and the Trial Lawyer Association.
Congress at some point decided that, instead of making certain activities subject to criminal law, they would be subject to civil law. So if some corporation does something bad, the FBI doesn't bust ass - someone sues. And to make sure that there was punishment meted out, we got statutory punitive damages, mandatory, and set at 3x the judgement. Lawyers loved this - they get to make a shitload of money doing the Fed's dirty work.
At the same time, mega law firms developed. In order to increase revenue, they becan the rampant campaign of class action suits we see today, which are specifically designed NOT to punish, or to give their clients redress - they simply occurr to make the law firms more money. Witness the silicosis debacle, and the "tobacco settlement", where select, politically connected law firms made profits orders of magnitude greater than their cost (I'm looking at you, Angelos).
Class actions have been abused into a legal sham and a public laughing stock. as an instrument of equity, they are useless, and that's because a bunch of large law firms want it that way.
Don't spend $5 that my wife requested I spend on lottery, after explaining the statistical realities, the economic unfairness, telling her that she's just not "getting" the point, and being informed of what I wasn't going to be "getting" tonight - MASSIVE negative impact.
And yes, in effect I am buying sex for $5. Smilin' all the way.
"perhaps I should call it a government lie. It's Enron accounting."
Right on the Gov't, wrong on Enron. It's Social Security accounting.
1) pay money into the general fund, but allocate it to a "fund" that only exists on paper 2) Loan the money from the phantom fund to the general fund - i.e. to itself 3) the general fund pays interest to the phantom fund - i.e. to itself 4) when the phantom fund goes negative, pay the principal back from the general fund - i.e. to itself 5) ? 6) Lockbox! Err, wait...Profit! No...errr...how does this work again?
"I was playing cat and mouse for a while. Block Kazaa and they move to Emule. Block that and they move to torrent. Block that and they start using gnutella. The game goes on and on. "
You are right - that is a sucker's game.
How about an email to the offending employee's boss? "Dear Random PHB: An employee in your section, one Jane P. Douchebag, is violating IT policy by allowing free access to her hard drive from the outside. Among the 6.7 gigabytes of music, movies, and porn she has made available are also documents detailing customer records, company strategy, and certain emails from her to a competitor. Just thought you might want to know. Very Truly Yours, BOFH."
"But at this point I think we've clearly crossed the "better to let 20 murderers walk than hang one innocent man" threshold and bloggers should be treated with respect and as bona fide journalists unless they demonstrate otherwise"
Absolutely. And since I wouldn't piss on a J-school graduate if he was on fire, much less treat him with respect, I guess that's how I'll treat bloggers as well. As for the government, "journalists" should have no fewer rights than I do, but certainly no more.
Somewhere along the way, the journalists have gotten it into their head that they are part of a fourth branch of government: "representing" the people and providing oversight. And now, they have started acting like members of government - priveledged, out of touch with reality, and believing the laws don't apply to them.
And all pot dealers care about is their profits, and not hemp legalization, cannabis culture, or personal freedom. They too are running an illegal operation for profit, but are tolerated, and even praised, by certain segments of society for "sticking it to the man", especially when those same segments of society get something they want out of the deal as well.
Piratebay makes money off our desire for free stuff, whether or not we have a legal right to it. Pot dealers make money off our desire to get high, despite the illegality of it
Because if I am going to pay a content provider for a download, I want the transaction to be as follows:
1) I pay $$$ 2) Provider sends me file, using their upstream bandwidth and my downstream.
As opposed to: 1) I pay provider. 2) Provider tells me where the files, or pieces thereof, are. 3) I use my downstream AND upstream bandwidth, and my file storage, and my processor cycles, to distribute the file for the person I just paid.
I know some game companies do this to distribute, and that's fine, because gamers know what they are paying for. But for mass distribution of passively consumed content? Fuck 'em - they can make their own capital investment in servers and bandwidth instead of "borrowing" mine.
On the shores of the Chesapeake: "Hey, inside this nasty shell which sliced my hand to ribbons there's a big glob of what looks like snot. Got any lemon juice?"
When loading a Google Page, an intermediate page pops up saying
"Your ISP is interfering with the transmission of data requested from Google our users, and as a result we are unable to consistently provide advanced services to you. You will be redirected to a more basic version of Google's services so that we can provide as much as we can in the manner you have come to expect from us".
Wait 10 seconds, then redirect to Google's non-AJAX pages.
I predict hordes with torches and pitchforks (led by a little old lady with a claw hammer)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the discussion would be enlightened by distinguishing between "privacy" and "anonymity".
A "private" act or utterance is, in and of itself, hidden. The universe of people who know about it, and the identity associated with it, is limited and controlled.
An "anonymous" act or utterance is PUBLIC, but the identity associated with it is hidden. So, when "True Colors", by Anonymous, was published, the Whole World knew that there was a person who had access to all this private info about the Clintons, but the identity of the person was limited.
The way I see it, social networking sites are destroying anonymity, not privacy. As of a few years ago, if I did something stupid in public, though any number of people may have seen me do it, I could be relatively assured that my identity would not be connected with the act. If I don't wear my name on my shirt, I'm probably not going to be recognized (all the more reason dumb college pranks are done naked - not by me, of course).
But that's blown out of the water now. With ubiquitous imaging and communication technology, the odds of remaining anonymous in an act or utterance is getting vanishingly small. Where before there might be one polaroid of, say, a fraternity pledge class playing football naked at midnight (again, not involving me, of course), now that picture would most assuredly have bee taken digitally. And published. And, where there is a practical limit to the number of times a polaroid can be passed around, thereby limiting the chance for identity recognition, there is NO practical limit to transmission and duplication of digital imagery. SOMEone is going to recognize someone else in a photo. Period.
Anonymity is dead. The days of being able to do and say stupid stuff in public and not be associated with those acts is over. Keep it private, or don't do it at all, or face the consequences of public actions. It may be that the latter isn't the disaster it's being made out to be.
"To communicate with many of my friends, who insist on using social networking sites as their main avenues for staying in touch with friends, I am forced to use a privately-owned network where many of my rights may be waived. You could say, of course, that I should not stay in contact with those friends, but in real life it is not so easy to make such demands, especially when we are talking about communicating with relatives and dear friends, often in cases where communication is essential, such as family emergencies."
You are conflating 2 different issues.
1) People put stupid crap about their personal lives on social networking sites - pictures, poetry (ugh), etc. Solution? Don't do that in your account.
2) People use their social networking page to communicate with others. Again, don't use the site for important/potentially embarrassing communications.
Here's where your example gets confusing. You say "many" of your friends insist on using these sites? How does that affect how you deal with "relatives and dear friends" - one assumes a much smaller number. If you want to communicate with less important friends on these sites, talk about less important stuff - keep it banal and bland. For your more important folks, are they really going to drop you if you reserve more important/embarrassing communications for more secure transport?
And "family emergencies"? Are you kidding? If you are relying on a social networking site to communicate with family members in a crisis, you are an idiot. Ever heard of a telephone? You can still call collect.
The whole situation isn't black and white. No one is "forced to use a privately-owned network where many of my rights may be waived". You choose to do it. And if you choose to use it for communications that would be better on a more secure network, that's your lookout.
Step 1: Ask politely for the pictures to be removed.
Step 2: Ask forcefully for the pictures to be removed.
Step 3: Ask to see the signed model release that allows your image to be published.
Of course, this gets dodgy - are model reelases required for acts in a public space, and/r "publishing w/o profit?
"Fortunately, there are others (climatologists) who have spent decades or longer learning all there is to know about climate science, and scrutinizing the data. The OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS among PhD-level climatologists (and I know a few personally) is the global warming is REAL, and is HUMAN CAUSED.
Now, the problem arises when politicians, businessmen, and even scientists stepping outside their discipline start second-guessing the climatologists' work. "
That is only the face of the "not qualified" coin. The reverse of that coin include the climate scientists who believe they are economists, economists that believe they are politicians, and politicians who believe they are environmental scientists, and any of the above who think tehy have ANYTHING in common with the general populace. All of these folks take your your statement "global warming is REAL, and is HUMAN CAUSED" and then turn into experts on what should be done about it.
Let's make a deal: climate scientists will get a free pass on their conclusions if they will simply STFU about what we should do about them. We get it - the earth is warming up, and humans are the cause. Now go away while the rest of us figure out what, if anything, to do about it.
Don't like that? Scientists have opinions too, and should get to voice them? Fine, then so does everyone else. Can't take the heat? Don't make the appeal to expertise.
"Any other fricken fantasy stories we need to get promoted as actual 'News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters'?"
$5,000/hr call girls that want to have astounding, mind blowing sex with Slashdot readers because we are just so virile. FOR FREE!
Wrong. Class action suits are largely based in common law, not criminal law. Criminal law deals with punishment, common law with equity. At least, that's how it was...
Class actions started as a matter for convenience for the courts - if there are a lot of people with the same basic claim, just litigate once instead of many times. Saves costs/more efficient.
Punitive damages were supposed to be a secondary function of the court, where particularly egregious behavior was punished.
Then came Congress, and the Trial Lawyer Association.
Congress at some point decided that, instead of making certain activities subject to criminal law, they would be subject to civil law. So if some corporation does something bad, the FBI doesn't bust ass - someone sues. And to make sure that there was punishment meted out, we got statutory punitive damages, mandatory, and set at 3x the judgement. Lawyers loved this - they get to make a shitload of money doing the Fed's dirty work.
At the same time, mega law firms developed. In order to increase revenue, they becan the rampant campaign of class action suits we see today, which are specifically designed NOT to punish, or to give their clients redress - they simply occurr to make the law firms more money. Witness the silicosis debacle, and the "tobacco settlement", where select, politically connected law firms made profits orders of magnitude greater than their cost (I'm looking at you, Angelos).
Class actions have been abused into a legal sham and a public laughing stock. as an instrument of equity, they are useless, and that's because a bunch of large law firms want it that way.
Spend $5 on lottery - negligible negative impact.
Don't spend $5 that my wife requested I spend on lottery, after explaining the statistical realities, the economic unfairness, telling her that she's just not "getting" the point, and being informed of what I wasn't going to be "getting" tonight - MASSIVE negative impact.
And yes, in effect I am buying sex for $5. Smilin' all the way.
"perhaps I should call it a government lie. It's Enron accounting."
Right on the Gov't, wrong on Enron. It's Social Security accounting.
1) pay money into the general fund, but allocate it to a "fund" that only exists on paper
2) Loan the money from the phantom fund to the general fund - i.e. to itself
3) the general fund pays interest to the phantom fund - i.e. to itself
4) when the phantom fund goes negative, pay the principal back from the general fund - i.e. to itself
5) ?
6) Lockbox! Err, wait...Profit! No...errr...how does this work again?
My boss, who is a retired frigate captain, tells a story about a ship he was on heeling over at 70 degrees.
We ask "20 degrees from vertical? That's pretty steep"
Reply: "No - 20 degrees from horizontal"
"Specifically, what actions has he taken to make you believe that he is one of "those people?"
1) He ran for Senate.
2) He's running for President.
It is far more likely he is a lying, corrupt scumbag than a paragon of virtue. Statistically speaking, that is.
We want Linux to take over the World.
But we want the World to skip the Clueless n00b stage
And we don't want to make Linux too easy to use.
Pick any 2.
"I was playing cat and mouse for a while. Block Kazaa and they move to Emule. Block that and they move to torrent. Block that and they start using gnutella. The game goes on and on. "
You are right - that is a sucker's game.
How about an email to the offending employee's boss? "Dear Random PHB: An employee in your section, one Jane P. Douchebag, is violating IT policy by allowing free access to her hard drive from the outside. Among the 6.7 gigabytes of music, movies, and porn she has made available are also documents detailing customer records, company strategy, and certain emails from her to a competitor. Just thought you might want to know. Very Truly Yours, BOFH."
Pass the popcorn.
"To prevent most piracy all you have to do is to not pay the crew third world wages. Pay real wages and you will save money in the long run."
Absolutely. All criminals are only doing it because they are poor, and if they weren't poor, they wouldn't commit crimes.
Ahem. Enron, Milliken, S&L Scandal, etc.
Economic status may be a factor in crimes, but it is certainly not the only factor.
As a parent of 2 school age children, I can only say...
AWESOME, DUDE!!!
"But at this point I think we've clearly crossed the "better to let 20 murderers walk than hang one innocent man" threshold and bloggers should be treated with respect and as bona fide journalists unless they demonstrate otherwise"
Absolutely. And since I wouldn't piss on a J-school graduate if he was on fire, much less treat him with respect, I guess that's how I'll treat bloggers as well. As for the government, "journalists" should have no fewer rights than I do, but certainly no more.
Somewhere along the way, the journalists have gotten it into their head that they are part of a fourth branch of government: "representing" the people and providing oversight. And now, they have started acting like members of government - priveledged, out of touch with reality, and believing the laws don't apply to them.
And all pot dealers care about is their profits, and not hemp legalization, cannabis culture, or personal freedom. They too are running an illegal operation for profit, but are tolerated, and even praised, by certain segments of society for "sticking it to the man", especially when those same segments of society get something they want out of the deal as well.
Piratebay makes money off our desire for free stuff, whether or not we have a legal right to it. Pot dealers make money off our desire to get high, despite the illegality of it
And in both cases, so what?
"and that's a bad thing why, exactly? "
Because if I am going to pay a content provider for a download, I want the transaction to be as follows:
1) I pay $$$
2) Provider sends me file, using their upstream bandwidth and my downstream.
As opposed to:
1) I pay provider.
2) Provider tells me where the files, or pieces thereof, are.
3) I use my downstream AND upstream bandwidth, and my file storage, and my processor cycles, to distribute the file for the person I just paid.
I know some game companies do this to distribute, and that's fine, because gamers know what they are paying for. But for mass distribution of passively consumed content? Fuck 'em - they can make their own capital investment in servers and bandwidth instead of "borrowing" mine.
On the shores of the Chesapeake: "Hey, inside this nasty shell which sliced my hand to ribbons there's a big glob of what looks like snot. Got any lemon juice?"
Best.post.title.ever!
...and jump out of the vehicle and beat up a hooker?
"They could sell a couple thousand extra boxes that way."
Fixed that for ya. I thing you overestimate the number of folks willing to do this by several orders of magnitude.
When loading a Google Page, an intermediate page pops up saying
"Your ISP is interfering with the transmission of data requested from Google our users, and as a result we are unable to consistently provide advanced services to you. You will be redirected to a more basic version of Google's services so that we can provide as much as we can in the manner you have come to expect from us".
Wait 10 seconds, then redirect to Google's non-AJAX pages.
I predict hordes with torches and pitchforks (led by a little old lady with a claw hammer)
"What I would like is for someone to say "The White House no longer has the power or authority to rewrite scientific reports made by agencies." "
Absolutely. "Only Congress should have the power or authority to rewrite scientific reports made by agencies."
Oh, wait a minute.
"Only the Courts should have the power or authority to rewrite scientific reports made by agencies."
No, that's not right...
"Scientific agencies should be free from all oversight."
What the fuck am I saying?!
That was a typo - I intended to write "tape off".
So if I can hold all my porn in one hand, and work the keyboard with the other...
How's this supposed to work, again?