I disagree. Now they have fixed surveillance AND mobile surveillance. Even if one were better than the other, in combination Manchester is moving much closer to a total surveillance society.
I do not like the idea that the state is sending roving cameras looking for antisocial behaviour. And the head-mounted cam does not just see what 'the guy' is seeing; it records whatever comes into focus in the direction that his head is turned. There is no guarantee that he actually sees what the camera sees, and thus the camera records another whole sector of culpability. Who knows how that 'ambient' footage could be used. And these wardens could conceivably used as recon operatives, especially once their ubiquity is established.
Of course, head-mounted cameras do not constitute part of a panopticon (ubiquitous remote cams), because, by definition, in a panopticon, the subjects must never know for sure if they are under observation. Remote cams preserve this effect.
That just means that a panopticon is one form of surveillance society - and we in a liberal democracy should reject all forms of the surveillance society, or our pretense of being a liberal democracy.
I am not saying reject all forms of surveillance, just all forms of being a surveillance society. I know that now the burden is on me to define such, and as a quick and dirty first attempt, I would say a surveillance society is a society which strives to record as much public life as possible indiscriminately.
I actually am rather impressed by the youth of today. They get a bad rep. I'm relying on them to undo a lot of the damange my generation is going to do, if they haven't already started.
i have 810 spam messages on gmail right now, all brilliantly filed away in a folder i never look at. this is the default for gmail. how did you get so bogged down in spam? no more than one spam per week sneaks past the gmail spam filter on my account.
I considered 24 to be part of the pop-culture pro-torture propaganda. So I find it odd, not scary, that the pentagon is now telling them to cut it back...
you are completetly. correct... it's just that 24 pursues a more zealous line than the pentagon is comfortable with. and what i find scary is that they would prefer sweeping the government's appalling approval of torture under the carpet.
Yeah, but what I find scary here is that a month or so back, the pentagon had asked 24 to cut down on torture, ostensibly to discourage its practice by the military.
Of course, it's silly to imply that 24 has a place in the chain of command (as if Jack Bauer gives orders for real-life military torture). It's also scary that they could possibly think 24 has more sway than direct orders. Thus, I believe they want it off the show not to discourage torture, but because 24 puts current military practices in a bad light. Bush etc. have already ordered torture (although they refuse to call it such - and to think Clinton's "is" definition was once considered significant).
Now we have a concerned group of citizens doing this PR work for the army. If the people don't see it, they're safer/happier/etc.
We already pay a recycling tax on electronic equipment here in Belgium. As far as I understand it, you can just return electronic equipment to stores selling such, and they dispose of it.
TFA is clear that this does not refer to the Google Desktop vulnerability in specific, but rather to the general state of browser security.
TFA:
"A lot of these new attack techniques are going to require the browsers to improve," Grossman said. "The users really have very little ability to protect themselves against these attacks" he said. "It's very bad. Even the experts are afraid to click on each other's links anymore."
Re:Sorry, that is totally untrue
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
agreed. latin is still a very common language choice here in belgian high schools. also, many phd theses were still written in latin in the 1880s, especially in the area that is now modern germany.
I am not sure what your comment means - do you think Thailand is quite open about sexuality? Just a recent example to the contrary: the police placed a teenage curfew on valentine's day to stop teenage romantic/sexual assignations.
I lived in Thailand for a while, and let me tell you, the violence on TV/films is quite graphic, but sex is quite taboo.
Actually, the action was begun by French- and German-language papers and adjudicated in a Brussels court, and thus has nothing to do with anything Flemish.
I agree about buying inexpensive phones. I put my cheap Seimens A65 - which was switched on - through the washing machine a few months back. I let the phone dry for a week or so, and it is as good as new now. There was actually a puddle in the screen.
a slashvertisement here, but it is of topical interest: I am putting
together a peer-reviewed journal issue on the ethics of floss - the
deadline is past, but the panel will still consider papers. see the link
in my sig. please contact me via the link if you have any interest.
I disagree. I once worked at IBM, and they hired me, they said, because
I knew Latin. I would submit that Latin is to IBM as Swahili is to
Vermont (mutatis mutandis).
Knowing another language also means an ability to think outside of
the box (excuse the cliché, but I am tired), because knowing another
language is simply the culmination of a bunch of other skills you have
(intellectual/cultural curiosity, tenacity, an open mind, and strong
analytic / synthetic skills, not to mention probably vastly improved
English skills).
In fact, this last point is probably the strongest argument. I have
acquired a three other languages since I turned 19, and although I am
perfect in none of them, my English skills are extremely strong because
of the extended process of comparative grammar I have undertaken.
But since I am not a life-long bilingual, I expect now to lose my
mind at 71. I guess all you slashdotters who've been coding since the
cradle are safe though.
When you call privacy stupid, you seem to be equating privacy with dirty secrets:
Oh that's a good one - so instead of openly admitting and discussing things we allow silly tabboos to fester while we scurry around trying to hide our sins. We allow true crimes to stay hidden. We hide from ourselves and each other. Hell yes, gimme some of that.
Privacy is simply what I want to keep quiet, for better or for worse.
But even if I accept that you expand the realm of the secret beyond dirty secrets, your attitude of embracing a totally open lifestyle is about as likely to succeed as the last century's attempt to socialize the means of production. People want to be different, and secrets, like capital, are a big part of that.
In fact, as I suggested in my original post, those who benefit the most from the newly-open lifestyle are corporations and our ever-increasing security apparat (especially that of the UK and USA). These, of course, live in the shadows. Shining ever more light on our own lives will never lead to more light being shone upon theirs.
Finally, of course I have a choice. Europe has sued SWIFT for vomiting up my banking data to the bloody Yanks. I can avoid the UK and USA, including their airlines. I can avoid social networks, or use them wisely. Total privacy is impossible - I agree. But I can still remain off the grid to a surprisingly large extent. It is a question of choice, and sacrifice (to some extent). It is not fatalism.
Agreed, but I did not limit K to P. Knowledge can be power without exhausting the set of power. And anyway, technology is proof that power is at least knowledge, et vice versa.
if knowledge is power, then there is only a theoretical difference between freedom and privacy. what people know about you severely affects your ability to act.
That's true - unless social networking is being set up as a sort of honey trap encouraging people to compromise their futures. Hence, I would not stress this difference as a dichotomy - but rather as two moments of the same phenomenon.
People are giving away their freedom within a now-corporate framework that encourages this kind of activity. Just remember that.
As with fidelity/client cards, purchase-rewards, and fast-tracking at airports, the web 2.0 is training us to surrender our personal lives for the most meager of rewards. This kind of surrender almost seems propaedeutic for a greater, involuntary loss of privacy. But then again, Americans have already lost their freedom to credit reports.
Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.
I am very curious to see how Bush and co. can improve on the scientific method.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Now they have fixed surveillance AND mobile surveillance. Even if one were better than the other, in combination Manchester is moving much closer to a total surveillance society.
I do not like the idea that the state is sending roving cameras looking for antisocial behaviour. And the head-mounted cam does not just see what 'the guy' is seeing; it records whatever comes into focus in the direction that his head is turned. There is no guarantee that he actually sees what the camera sees, and thus the camera records another whole sector of culpability. Who knows how that 'ambient' footage could be used. And these wardens could conceivably used as recon operatives, especially once their ubiquity is established.
Of course, head-mounted cameras do not constitute part of a panopticon (ubiquitous remote cams), because, by definition, in a panopticon, the subjects must never know for sure if they are under observation. Remote cams preserve this effect.
That just means that a panopticon is one form of surveillance society - and we in a liberal democracy should reject all forms of the surveillance society, or our pretense of being a liberal democracy.
I am not saying reject all forms of surveillance, just all forms of being a surveillance society. I know that now the burden is on me to define such, and as a quick and dirty first attempt, I would say a surveillance society is a society which strives to record as much public life as possible indiscriminately.
i guess i deserved that reading ...
i have 810 spam messages on gmail right now, all brilliantly filed away in a folder i never look at. this is the default for gmail. how did you get so bogged down in spam? no more than one spam per week sneaks past the gmail spam filter on my account.
24
Of course, it's silly to imply that 24 has a place in the chain of command (as if Jack Bauer gives orders for real-life military torture). It's also scary that they could possibly think 24 has more sway than direct orders. Thus, I believe they want it off the show not to discourage torture, but because 24 puts current military practices in a bad light. Bush etc. have already ordered torture (although they refuse to call it such - and to think Clinton's "is" definition was once considered significant).
Now we have a concerned group of citizens doing this PR work for the army. If the people don't see it, they're safer/happier/etc.
We already pay a recycling tax on electronic equipment here in Belgium. As far as I understand it, you can just return electronic equipment to stores selling such, and they dispose of it.
agreed. latin is still a very common language choice here in belgian high schools. also, many phd theses were still written in latin in the 1880s, especially in the area that is now modern germany.
I am not sure what your comment means - do you think Thailand is quite open about sexuality? Just a recent example to the contrary: the police placed a teenage curfew on valentine's day to stop teenage romantic/sexual assignations.
I lived in Thailand for a while, and let me tell you, the violence on TV/films is quite graphic, but sex is quite taboo.
Actually, the action was begun by French- and German-language papers and adjudicated in a Brussels court, and thus has nothing to do with anything Flemish.
I agree about buying inexpensive phones. I put my cheap Seimens A65 - which was switched on - through the washing machine a few months back. I let the phone dry for a week or so, and it is as good as new now. There was actually a puddle in the screen.
a slashvertisement here, but it is of topical interest: I am putting together a peer-reviewed journal issue on the ethics of floss - the deadline is past, but the panel will still consider papers. see the link in my sig. please contact me via the link if you have any interest.
Knowing another language also means an ability to think outside of the box (excuse the cliché, but I am tired), because knowing another language is simply the culmination of a bunch of other skills you have (intellectual/cultural curiosity, tenacity, an open mind, and strong analytic / synthetic skills, not to mention probably vastly improved English skills).
In fact, this last point is probably the strongest argument. I have acquired a three other languages since I turned 19, and although I am perfect in none of them, my English skills are extremely strong because of the extended process of comparative grammar I have undertaken.
But since I am not a life-long bilingual, I expect now to lose my mind at 71. I guess all you slashdotters who've been coding since the cradle are safe though.
Just remember it's only a theory.
I once had a toy gun made in China with the warning: Do Not Aim at the People. I always loved that one.
You seemingly can't read. I said "affects," not stops or blocks. How this is an 'untruth' escapes me.
If the Web 2.0 is about user-generated content, is it a bad thing if it can't be monetized easily? I mean, I thought the point was our Web, our way?
But even if I accept that you expand the realm of the secret beyond dirty secrets, your attitude of embracing a totally open lifestyle is about as likely to succeed as the last century's attempt to socialize the means of production. People want to be different, and secrets, like capital, are a big part of that.
In fact, as I suggested in my original post, those who benefit the most from the newly-open lifestyle are corporations and our ever-increasing security apparat (especially that of the UK and USA). These, of course, live in the shadows. Shining ever more light on our own lives will never lead to more light being shone upon theirs.
Finally, of course I have a choice. Europe has sued SWIFT for vomiting up my banking data to the bloody Yanks. I can avoid the UK and USA, including their airlines. I can avoid social networks, or use them wisely. Total privacy is impossible - I agree. But I can still remain off the grid to a surprisingly large extent. It is a question of choice, and sacrifice (to some extent). It is not fatalism.
Agreed, but I did not limit K to P. Knowledge can be power without exhausting the set of power. And anyway, technology is proof that power is at least knowledge, et vice versa.
if knowledge is power, then there is only a theoretical difference between freedom and privacy. what people know about you severely affects your ability to act.
That's true - unless social networking is being set up as a sort of honey trap encouraging people to compromise their futures. Hence, I would not stress this difference as a dichotomy - but rather as two moments of the same phenomenon.
People are giving away their freedom within a now-corporate framework that encourages this kind of activity. Just remember that.
As with fidelity/client cards, purchase-rewards, and fast-tracking at airports, the web 2.0 is training us to surrender our personal lives for the most meager of rewards. This kind of surrender almost seems propaedeutic for a greater, involuntary loss of privacy. But then again, Americans have already lost their freedom to credit reports.