The government has no right to tell telemarketers that they can't use their phones as they wish. By my subscription to the phone service I open myself up to all of the negative effects that service might have on my life. I accept that I'm going to interact with that system. Furthermore, the telemarketers pay for their subscriptions to the phone services so what right does the government have to interfere with their use of what they legitimately paid for?
The answer to preventing telemarketers from calling needs to give power to the end users, not to the government/legal system. Look at all of the methods we're developing to counter spam. Many of them can also be applied to the phone system with a little creative engineering. Heck, the effort to prevent "abuse" by telemarketers might have lead to much more inteligent phones had the legal road not been tried. The technological answers would probably actually end up working better, too.
Governmental regulation has its place. It can be used to demand that all people making phone calls either be honest about their identity or not provide one, allowing the technological solution to work more effectively. But the place is certainly not telling people what they can do with their own purchases.
I was looking for someone to point out this appearent discrepancy. Slashdotters have a whole lot of them...
I believe exactly as you hint: the government has no right to tell telemarketers that they can't use their phones as they wish. By my subscription to the phone service I open myself up to all of the negative effects that service might have on my life. I accept that I'm going to interact with that system. Furthermore, the telemarketers pay for their subscriptions to the phone services so what right does the government have to interfere with their use of what they legitimately paid for?
The answer to preventing telemarketers from calling needs to give power to the end users, not to the government/legal system. Look at all of the methods we're developing to counter spam. Many of them can also be applied to the phone system with a little creative engineering. Heck, the effort to prevent "abuse" by telemarketers might have lead to much more inteligent phones had the legal road not been tried. The technological answers would probably actually end up working better, too.
Governmental regulation has its place. It can be used to demand that all people making phone calls either be honest about their identity or not provide one, allowing the technological solution to work more effectively. But the place is certainly not telling people what they can do with their own purchases.
However, there are still other benefits to using this tracking based taxation. I'm not saying the tradeoffs are worth it, but Slashdotters are in err when they so often have these knee jerk reactions condemning the idea.
Exactly! Before invoking the names of boogiemen like Ashcroft and Big Oil people need to look further into the situation and consider that there ARE advantages to such a tracking scheme for individuals as drivers and taxpayers. Different tax rates can be used to manage both traffic congestion and road wear.
As far as privacy, the records can be protected by increasing the accountability of the government. Legislate that the access to the records be public property, viewable to anyone easily over the internet. Let people see exactly what information is being accessed and why, with names and such removed of course. Maybe even getting an independent source to verify that the the information is actually complete.
Oooooohhhhh! You invoked the names "Big Oil" and "John Ashcroft"! This must be seriously bad!
The simple truth is that the reasoning wan't given. Don't jump to the conclusion that the taxpayers will lose out and that (dare I say the word?) Big Oil will actually benefit. For all you know gas taxes might be lower for most people, with certain people paying more based on where they drive. This way people might be able to vary how much they should pay in taxes.
The only ones who will definately benefit from this is probably the makers of GPS equipment. So yes, let's all go fear Big GPS Equipment.
Not necessarily, people coming in and driving through will still pay sales tax. It might be that more people would drive through the state because of the new regs, and so more sales taxes would be collected. I'm not sure how big Oregon is, but certainly someone just driving through can make it through on one tank of gas...
The problem is that the government's will has already been imposed upon others in ways that benefit Microsoft. This is just sort of an attempt to correct the situation by further imposition of will.
And note that it really isn't Sun's will. Sun isn't forcing MS to do this. The government is the one doing it.
Witholding information is your best defense against it being used in the future in unanticipated ways (assuming nobody can get the information through other channels). But so what? Giving complete access is the best defense against many other things. I'm certainly not going to be charged with murder in New York if I was tracked in LA at the time of the crime.
The most heavily advertised products are almost NEVER the most expensive ones. But that doesn't matter. SOME of us have enough sense not to believe advertisements and so companies are only allowed to sell us products that we actually want and need.
In the case of the Pinto people were simply not concerned about safety enough not to buy the car. Ford got to make a higher profit on a bunch of cars by not reengineering anything and people who wouldn't have cared enough got to buy them cheaply. Everyone won in the deal. Later on people died from their careless car selection, but that's a matter of poor judgement on the people's side and a completely unrelated topic.
The last point you made about having to destroy everyone else's privacy is ridiculous - can you provide an example?
Yes, I can. Given the funding I could within a month have numerous cameras planted in your house where you would never see or detect them. The ONLY way for this invasion of privacy to be detected would be for someone else to be watching me seeing me watching you. But of course that would be an invasion of MY privacy.
No they are not. A third option is to have regulation of computer data
How will you regulate the generation of computer data? Why don't I just go and plant my cameras in your house and start my own database of your activities inside? I could do this to a bunch of houses and come up with some killer insider informaiton for a business that I will start down the road, and nobody will know.
This of course, requires active monitoring of the legal system and lobbying by the people of companies and legislatures. And it will be the sheep like you that rely on the activists to protect your rights.
The irony is that sheep like you will keep real monitoring of public officials out of the hands of common citizens. They'll be able to watch us, all right, but the cameras will be one way.
If you want to dismiss privacy as an "irrational hangup" then you deserve all the junk mail, intrusive advertising, conmen selling you penis expanders and "get rich quick" scams and other personal invasions that you are going to get.
The want of privacy IS irrational. Whether or not you agree that it's to be easily dismissed it is simply not rational. In any case, you seem to have an odd fascination with the stupidity of the public. Many consumers are smart and carefull enough not to get caught in the scams, and the others sort of deserve it.
If the FBI determines that people who buy the extra chunky are more likely to be murderers to such a significant amount that they warrant closer investigation, then I would certainly hope they follow through on those indications and investigate me when I buy it. Otherwise they're slacking in their jobs.
If the IRS pays extra attention to anyone's tax returns and calls them on some payments being out of line then the system is working. It doesn't matter really who they're looking at, everyone should be paying their taxes by the letter of the law.
In the end there's really nothing wrong with either of your proposed situations.
Without any data to collect, no processing can be done and no inferences can be drawn.
And if you were never born no processing could be done either, what's your point?
Why should I give them my data? So they can better serve me. The information that could imply guilt could just as easily imply innocence. Errors below certain levels are ALWAYS acceptable. Datamining software works better without people senselessly gunking it up. It will also improve as time goes on. Their best intrest IS mine. If they can sell me something then we BOTH win.
Laws cannot protect privacy. Intrusions of privacy can be too undetectable these days, the only way to protect someone's privacy would be to destroy everyone else's.
1984 is probably the most miscited book ever. Analysis after analysis has shown that it would be a pretty much impossible situation to get into and even more impossible to maintain. George Orwell didn't even believe 1984 was possible. To put it simply, never cite the book in serious discussion about the future.
Here are your options for the future. These are the only two. #1: It is illegal, horrible, etc, to invade someone else's privacy. All nice law abiding people don't look at each other. The rest of society and government don't see that as stopping them and they go ahead and watch whomever they want undetected. Who's going to know? Chances are nobody is watching them, after all. You have no privacy, though you can rest easy thinking you do while whomever wants is watching.
#2: Everyone just goes ahead and accepts that they have no privacy. Society embrases the idea that cameras can be anywhere, and they even integrate them into daily life. You can tune into the police station at any time you want and watch the government at work. Check in on your congressman to make sure he's being proper with his interns. Watch your neighbors houses for people breaking in while they're away. Etc, etc, etc.
Look, the cameras are going to be there either way. The technology is out and there's no way to stop it. But... why would you want to stop it anyway? Just because you have a little irrational hangup on privacy....
Anyway, the cameras will be there, the only quesiton is who do you want watching them.
Yes, corporations give in exchange for money. While "sell" would be a more precise term in a larger context, it's still giving, and the consumers still gain. That's an important factor which I wished to hilight. So nyaah.
Now, as to why it's a bad thing, you say that it's because I lose control over what information is passed on and conclusions that may be drawn.... this itself is neither true nor a bad thing!
In the examples you give the collection of data is not the problem, the processing of it is. You can be labeled a terrorist and/or have your credit line yanked because of analysis based on anything. It's in the best intrests of the analysts not to err, and by giving them (allowing them to take) more information you allow them to be more accurate. Sure they see that you listen to gangsta rap, but then again they see that you've been purchasing fine wine recently...
The ones where it is not in their best intrests to be right are beyond consideration; they'll flag you based on anything.
Now, it's simply not true that I lose control over this information in these ways because I never had it in the first place. Anyone who wants to badly enough can gain that information through various ways, and there isn't a single thing the law can do about it. After all, unless you're watching the corporation (or the police, or your neighbor) back, you won't be able to detect that he's purchasing that undetectable bubble lens camera.
Total information awareness, as you say, is steamrolling through whether we embrase it or not. If we sit down and accept it as part of our lives we will gain the benefits from it. If we don't and continue to fight it as Slashdotters tend to do we will only gain the negative aspects of it.
Right, so in the end there's nothing actually negative with the deal in practical terms.
In any case, you're pretty off about what you're agreeing to when you use a CD. If you pop that CD in the drive you're agreeing that it can do whatever it wants while its in there. You aren't just chosing to listen to the music, there's another layer than that. You're chosing to allow that CD to interface with your hardware and one would only hope that your hardware will handle the interaction.
Now the next layer up involves the agreement between you and the producer of the CD, and it is there that you need to insure that the CD won't be doing anything more than playing the music since that's all you want. You don't have this assurance from these companies, though, and so you should simply not buy the CDs or not be surprised when they do other things.
So what? Now corporations will be able to::gasp:: give me more of the products I want! They'll be able to see what kinds of music I think are not crap and make more of it so I'll buy music, stock the grocery stores with goods I'd rather buy to entice me into larger purchases, and even make it easier for me to buy the things I'd be buying anyway.
For all of this talk about how our privacy is being eroded, nobody ever actually steps up and gives a really good reason why that's a bad thing. It's just as arguably a good thing, and in the end there is no hope of reversing this stuff anyway.
Might as well let it go and stop holding off on the benfits of the future, right? This resistance is hurting us all more than the actual erosion ever could.
So what? Now corporations will be able to::gasp:: give me more of the products I want! They'll be able to see what kinds of music I think are not crap and make more of it so I'll buy music, stock the grocery stores with goods I'd rather buy to entice me into larger purchases, and even make it easier for me to buy the things I'd be buying anyway.
For all of this talk about how our privacy is being eroded, nobody ever actually steps up and gives a really good reason why that's a bad thing. It's just as arguably a good thing, and in the end there is no hope of reversing this stuff anyway.
Might as well let it go and stop holding off on the benfits of the future. This resistance is hurting us all more than the actual erosion ever could.
Ahhh, but a whole lot of information that people based their information on was faulty because of poor auditing. The auditors audited based on the wishes of the corporate leadership. In theory the leadership was accountable to the board of directors and stockholders in general.
The new regulations did a bit to erode this accountability, as the profits to the officers came more from stock price than actual performance (stock options instead of salarys and bonuses). From there came a drive to get that stock price up without nearly the same thought to the fundamentals of the company.
So right: the public shouldn't have believed the auditors, the board of directors should have watched the auditors more closely, and the officers certainly shouldn't have asked for the audits in these ways. It's also not the ex president's fault, he didn't force anyone to engage in such affairs.
However, Clinton's policies did act as a catalyst setting the stage and encouraging the activities that lead to the meltdown. And for no reason! The policies didn't do a bit of good. These corporate officals got just the same amount of money, just through different channels.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, yes you can.
By subscribing to phone service I agree to be called. That's the system all phone service subscribers are signing up for.
You should be able to drive your car however you want, as long as you don't screw with me or my property. That is an entirely different topic.
The government has no right to tell telemarketers that they can't use their phones as they wish. By my subscription to the phone service I open myself up to all of the negative effects that service might have on my life. I accept that I'm going to interact with that system. Furthermore, the telemarketers pay for their subscriptions to the phone services so what right does the government have to interfere with their use of what they legitimately paid for?
The answer to preventing telemarketers from calling needs to give power to the end users, not to the government/legal system. Look at all of the methods we're developing to counter spam. Many of them can also be applied to the phone system with a little creative engineering. Heck, the effort to prevent "abuse" by telemarketers might have lead to much more inteligent phones had the legal road not been tried. The technological answers would probably actually end up working better, too.
Governmental regulation has its place. It can be used to demand that all people making phone calls either be honest about their identity or not provide one, allowing the technological solution to work more effectively. But the place is certainly not telling people what they can do with their own purchases.
I was looking for someone to point out this appearent discrepancy. Slashdotters have a whole lot of them...
I believe exactly as you hint: the government has no right to tell telemarketers that they can't use their phones as they wish. By my subscription to the phone service I open myself up to all of the negative effects that service might have on my life. I accept that I'm going to interact with that system. Furthermore, the telemarketers pay for their subscriptions to the phone services so what right does the government have to interfere with their use of what they legitimately paid for?
The answer to preventing telemarketers from calling needs to give power to the end users, not to the government/legal system. Look at all of the methods we're developing to counter spam. Many of them can also be applied to the phone system with a little creative engineering. Heck, the effort to prevent "abuse" by telemarketers might have lead to much more inteligent phones had the legal road not been tried. The technological answers would probably actually end up working better, too.
Governmental regulation has its place. It can be used to demand that all people making phone calls either be honest about their identity or not provide one, allowing the technological solution to work more effectively. But the place is certainly not telling people what they can do with their own purchases.
Ok, forget the sales tax tradeoff.
However, there are still other benefits to using this tracking based taxation. I'm not saying the tradeoffs are worth it, but Slashdotters are in err when they so often have these knee jerk reactions condemning the idea.
If that's true then they aren't real checks and balances in the first place.
Don't declare that the structures have always failed when they've not actually been applied.
Oh, I agree completely.
All I'm saying is that it's time to change the trend.
And how do you know that the people with heavier vehicles won't have to pay more per mile?
Exactly! Before invoking the names of boogiemen like Ashcroft and Big Oil people need to look further into the situation and consider that there ARE advantages to such a tracking scheme for individuals as drivers and taxpayers. Different tax rates can be used to manage both traffic congestion and road wear.
As far as privacy, the records can be protected by increasing the accountability of the government. Legislate that the access to the records be public property, viewable to anyone easily over the internet. Let people see exactly what information is being accessed and why, with names and such removed of course. Maybe even getting an independent source to verify that the the information is actually complete.
Oooooohhhhh! You invoked the names "Big Oil" and "John Ashcroft"! This must be seriously bad!
The simple truth is that the reasoning wan't given. Don't jump to the conclusion that the taxpayers will lose out and that (dare I say the word?) Big Oil will actually benefit. For all you know gas taxes might be lower for most people, with certain people paying more based on where they drive. This way people might be able to vary how much they should pay in taxes.
The only ones who will definately benefit from this is probably the makers of GPS equipment. So yes, let's all go fear Big GPS Equipment.
Not necessarily, people coming in and driving through will still pay sales tax. It might be that more people would drive through the state because of the new regs, and so more sales taxes would be collected. I'm not sure how big Oregon is, but certainly someone just driving through can make it through on one tank of gas...
The problem is that the government's will has already been imposed upon others in ways that benefit Microsoft. This is just sort of an attempt to correct the situation by further imposition of will.
And note that it really isn't Sun's will. Sun isn't forcing MS to do this. The government is the one doing it.
Witholding information is your best defense against it being used in the future in unanticipated ways (assuming nobody can get the information through other channels). But so what? Giving complete access is the best defense against many other things. I'm certainly not going to be charged with murder in New York if I was tracked in LA at the time of the crime.
The most heavily advertised products are almost NEVER the most expensive ones. But that doesn't matter. SOME of us have enough sense not to believe advertisements and so companies are only allowed to sell us products that we actually want and need.
In the case of the Pinto people were simply not concerned about safety enough not to buy the car. Ford got to make a higher profit on a bunch of cars by not reengineering anything and people who wouldn't have cared enough got to buy them cheaply. Everyone won in the deal. Later on people died from their careless car selection, but that's a matter of poor judgement on the people's side and a completely unrelated topic.
The last point you made about having to destroy everyone else's privacy is ridiculous - can you provide an example?
Yes, I can. Given the funding I could within a month have numerous cameras planted in your house where you would never see or detect them. The ONLY way for this invasion of privacy to be detected would be for someone else to be watching me seeing me watching you. But of course that would be an invasion of MY privacy.
No they are not. A third option is to have regulation of computer data
How will you regulate the generation of computer data? Why don't I just go and plant my cameras in your house and start my own database of your activities inside? I could do this to a bunch of houses and come up with some killer insider informaiton for a business that I will start down the road, and nobody will know.
This of course, requires active monitoring of the legal system and lobbying by the people of companies and legislatures. And it will be the sheep like you that rely on the activists to protect your rights.
The irony is that sheep like you will keep real monitoring of public officials out of the hands of common citizens. They'll be able to watch us, all right, but the cameras will be one way.
If you want to dismiss privacy as an "irrational hangup" then you deserve all the junk mail, intrusive advertising, conmen selling you penis expanders and "get rich quick" scams and other personal invasions that you are going to get.
The want of privacy IS irrational. Whether or not you agree that it's to be easily dismissed it is simply not rational. In any case, you seem to have an odd fascination with the stupidity of the public. Many consumers are smart and carefull enough not to get caught in the scams, and the others sort of deserve it.
If the FBI determines that people who buy the extra chunky are more likely to be murderers to such a significant amount that they warrant closer investigation, then I would certainly hope they follow through on those indications and investigate me when I buy it. Otherwise they're slacking in their jobs.
If the IRS pays extra attention to anyone's tax returns and calls them on some payments being out of line then the system is working. It doesn't matter really who they're looking at, everyone should be paying their taxes by the letter of the law.
In the end there's really nothing wrong with either of your proposed situations.
Without any data to collect, no processing can be done and no inferences can be drawn.
And if you were never born no processing could be done either, what's your point?
Why should I give them my data? So they can better serve me. The information that could imply guilt could just as easily imply innocence. Errors below certain levels are ALWAYS acceptable. Datamining software works better without people senselessly gunking it up. It will also improve as time goes on. Their best intrest IS mine. If they can sell me something then we BOTH win.
Laws cannot protect privacy. Intrusions of privacy can be too undetectable these days, the only way to protect someone's privacy would be to destroy everyone else's.
1984 is probably the most miscited book ever. Analysis after analysis has shown that it would be a pretty much impossible situation to get into and even more impossible to maintain. George Orwell didn't even believe 1984 was possible. To put it simply, never cite the book in serious discussion about the future.
Here are your options for the future. These are the only two.
#1: It is illegal, horrible, etc, to invade someone else's privacy. All nice law abiding people don't look at each other. The rest of society and government don't see that as stopping them and they go ahead and watch whomever they want undetected. Who's going to know? Chances are nobody is watching them, after all. You have no privacy, though you can rest easy thinking you do while whomever wants is watching.
#2: Everyone just goes ahead and accepts that they have no privacy. Society embrases the idea that cameras can be anywhere, and they even integrate them into daily life. You can tune into the police station at any time you want and watch the government at work. Check in on your congressman to make sure he's being proper with his interns. Watch your neighbors houses for people breaking in while they're away. Etc, etc, etc.
Look, the cameras are going to be there either way. The technology is out and there's no way to stop it. But... why would you want to stop it anyway? Just because you have a little irrational hangup on privacy....
Anyway, the cameras will be there, the only quesiton is who do you want watching them.
Yes, corporations give in exchange for money. While "sell" would be a more precise term in a larger context, it's still giving, and the consumers still gain. That's an important factor which I wished to hilight. So nyaah.
Now, as to why it's a bad thing, you say that it's because I lose control over what information is passed on and conclusions that may be drawn.... this itself is neither true nor a bad thing!
In the examples you give the collection of data is not the problem, the processing of it is. You can be labeled a terrorist and/or have your credit line yanked because of analysis based on anything. It's in the best intrests of the analysts not to err, and by giving them (allowing them to take) more information you allow them to be more accurate. Sure they see that you listen to gangsta rap, but then again they see that you've been purchasing fine wine recently...
The ones where it is not in their best intrests to be right are beyond consideration; they'll flag you based on anything.
Now, it's simply not true that I lose control over this information in these ways because I never had it in the first place. Anyone who wants to badly enough can gain that information through various ways, and there isn't a single thing the law can do about it. After all, unless you're watching the corporation (or the police, or your neighbor) back, you won't be able to detect that he's purchasing that undetectable bubble lens camera.
Total information awareness, as you say, is steamrolling through whether we embrase it or not. If we sit down and accept it as part of our lives we will gain the benefits from it. If we don't and continue to fight it as Slashdotters tend to do we will only gain the negative aspects of it.
Right, so in the end there's nothing actually negative with the deal in practical terms.
In any case, you're pretty off about what you're agreeing to when you use a CD. If you pop that CD in the drive you're agreeing that it can do whatever it wants while its in there. You aren't just chosing to listen to the music, there's another layer than that. You're chosing to allow that CD to interface with your hardware and one would only hope that your hardware will handle the interaction.
Now the next layer up involves the agreement between you and the producer of the CD, and it is there that you need to insure that the CD won't be doing anything more than playing the music since that's all you want. You don't have this assurance from these companies, though, and so you should simply not buy the CDs or not be surprised when they do other things.
So what? ::gasp:: give me more of the products I want! They'll be able to see what kinds of music I think are not crap and make more of it so I'll buy music, stock the grocery stores with goods I'd rather buy to entice me into larger purchases, and even make it easier for me to buy the things I'd be buying anyway.
Now corporations will be able to
For all of this talk about how our privacy is being eroded, nobody ever actually steps up and gives a really good reason why that's a bad thing. It's just as arguably a good thing, and in the end there is no hope of reversing this stuff anyway.
Might as well let it go and stop holding off on the benfits of the future, right? This resistance is hurting us all more than the actual erosion ever could.
So where are the disadvantages?
Don't just stop at saying they exist...
So what? ::gasp:: give me more of the products I want! They'll be able to see what kinds of music I think are not crap and make more of it so I'll buy music, stock the grocery stores with goods I'd rather buy to entice me into larger purchases, and even make it easier for me to buy the things I'd be buying anyway.
Now corporations will be able to
For all of this talk about how our privacy is being eroded, nobody ever actually steps up and gives a really good reason why that's a bad thing. It's just as arguably a good thing, and in the end there is no hope of reversing this stuff anyway.
Might as well let it go and stop holding off on the benfits of the future. This resistance is hurting us all more than the actual erosion ever could.
Sure they would, if the company in question offered the better deal.
The reason for the tracking was to get a huge insurance break. If the company passed half of the savings on to customers everyone would win.
Something about this was posted to Slashdot years ago. I've looked for it a couple of times but never found it.
Right, nothing can ever be DELETED from freenet.
Nobody can set out to remove something from Freenet.
There's a world of difference between someone deleting something and data falling out of the system from lack of intrest.
Ahhh, but a whole lot of information that people based their information on was faulty because of poor auditing. The auditors audited based on the wishes of the corporate leadership. In theory the leadership was accountable to the board of directors and stockholders in general.
The new regulations did a bit to erode this accountability, as the profits to the officers came more from stock price than actual performance (stock options instead of salarys and bonuses). From there came a drive to get that stock price up without nearly the same thought to the fundamentals of the company.
So right: the public shouldn't have believed the auditors, the board of directors should have watched the auditors more closely, and the officers certainly shouldn't have asked for the audits in these ways. It's also not the ex president's fault, he didn't force anyone to engage in such affairs.
However, Clinton's policies did act as a catalyst setting the stage and encouraging the activities that lead to the meltdown. And for no reason! The policies didn't do a bit of good. These corporate officals got just the same amount of money, just through different channels.
He won or tied the election fairly from every angle you want.
That Gore won the popular vote is even nonsense; voting technology isn't advanced enough to show anything other than a draw.
And no, the downturn in the economy was showing up two years before the end of Clinton's presidency.
Actually he did.
Just look at his first two months and you'll see that he did more than Clinton did in an entire term.
To a large part this is thanks to him having an extremely cooperative legislature.
Good or bad, Bush did have a much larger impact much more quickly than Clinton.