# In 10 years...



## mishele (Jan 6, 2015)

our whole house will be programed like this!!  We will always be plugged into some system that can record every step we make. =)Scary but fun!!
Just the beginning!!
Amazon Echo - Official site - Request an invitation


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 6, 2015)

Speaking of fun, what games do you play on PS4?


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 6, 2015)

I like "ok Google".


----------



## snerd (Jan 6, 2015)

What about our half houses?



.....................


----------



## kundalini (Jan 6, 2015)

Sorry to disappoint dear, but I refuse to be that connected.  I lost my cell (mobile) phone almost three years ago and haven't missed not having one for an instant.

I don't do any kind of social media, ever.

I do text my boys via my partners' phone because they are silent otherwise.

I've got an old 32gig MP3 player for jamming when I'm out doing yard work or going for a bike ride.  The +1000 CD's are boxed up in the spare room.

I program the thermostat to be cool in the winter and warm in the summer.  I dress accordingly.

Only a select few know my real name while I'm on the internet.  The IRS may be watching.

I think the descriptor "curmudgeon" is in my profile.

I do like to have a laugh otherwise.


----------



## snerd (Jan 6, 2015)

I put in my dibs for one of those about a month ago. I'm a social being!


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2015)

i swear, everyday it's new and exciting tech designed to deliver the same shitty content.

"Oh thank his I have my new giant TV with all the bells and whistles so I can watch Big Bang theory in ultra HD because that will make it funny.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 6, 2015)

Ten years?  I probably be in Valhalla by then.


----------



## limr (Jan 6, 2015)

snowbear said:


> Ten years?  I probably be in Valhalla by then.



Hey, I work in Valhalla, we can totally do lunch! 

"Connected to the cloud so it's always getting smarter."
As we are getting dumber and dumber.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2015)

Just imagine how much crap content there will be in 10 years!


----------



## snowbear (Jan 6, 2015)

limr said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > Ten years?  I probably be in Valhalla by then.
> ...



I thought you worked in the underworld.  Oh, wait, that's me.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2015)

Mine won't be


----------



## Forkie (Jan 7, 2015)

I WANT IT!  I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it!


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

You may have my portion.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2015)

And mine


----------



## snowbear (Jan 7, 2015)

This is my favorite part:


> Connected to the cloud so it's always getting smarter


----------



## pgriz (Jan 7, 2015)

Of course, the moment it's connected to the cloud, it's another opportunity to appropriate our personal information and habits to feed "big data" and have an even better way of selling stuff we don't need to us.  I've worked on a project where homes were instrumented to record temperature, humidity, and various other operational statistics to build up a profile of the home's energy efficiency.  If that kind of information is shared, then third parties now know the habits of the household to an uncomfortable (at least to me) level of detail.  When coupled with other homes, this creates a database of performance that can help improve the quality of installed infrastructure (that's the positive view) or become one more highly-intrusive infringement of our privacy (the negative view).  

This kind of device, having the ability to respond to any of our requests, also has the ability to log and track our activities.  Do I really want some external entity to know everything about my daily life and habits?  As it is, the tracking mechanisms built into the web browsers, social media sites, and smart phone apps allow a very detailed profile to be built up on each of us, and this technology can ramp up the peeling back of any kind of privacy to an even greater degree.


----------



## KenC (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm with the skeptical and unconnected on this one.  I don't like having conversations with inanimate objects, which always used to be grounds for suspicion and rightly so.  It's not that hard to keep track of everything without surrendering all of your private information.  There are reasons that companies are eager to sign people up for all sorts of monitoring and control systems.


----------



## snerd (Jan 7, 2015)

Our "privacy" has long since disappeared. And there is "nothing" anyone can do about it. Heck, most people couldn't care less about it! They listen to our every call, read our every e-mail, take endless pics of us in public and know our every move through cell phones and even the driving habits tracker that some allow Progressive Insurance to install in their car! No, it's only going to get worse. There is no one to stand up against it anymore. We just sigh, and accept that it's inevitable. A huge majority of people say that if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. All is lost in the privacy debate.


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

While I agree that it seems hopeless, I think it is our right and duty to resist.


----------



## KenC (Jan 7, 2015)

I agree that most of it is gone, most people don't care and there's not much to be done, but when someone comes around and asks for access to some of the remaining bits I'll still say no.


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2015)

It's taken a bit longer than Orwell predicted, but Big Brother's control is being secured a little bit more every day.


----------



## runnah (Jan 7, 2015)

snerd said:


> Our "privacy" has long since disappeared. And there is "nothing" anyone can do about it. Heck, most people couldn't care less about it! They listen to our every call, read our every e-mail, take endless pics of us in public and know our every move through cell phones and even the driving habits tracker that some allow Progressive Insurance to install in their car! No, it's only going to get worse. There is no one to stand up against it anymore. We just sigh, and accept that it's inevitable. A huge majority of people say that if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. All is lost in the privacy debate.



Right but short of naked photos most people are extremely boring. I have a hard time caring about what my friends and family post on social media let along complete strangers.

Want privacy? Be boring.


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2015)

Ah, but who gets to define what "boring" is? One day, I'm just a boring, mousy nerd, reading because I like to learn things. But then the agency that monitors library book loans decides that my borrowing "Mein Kampf," a few language books on Arabic or Farsi, and a book on home chemistry means that I'm up to some politically subversive terrorist activity. In reality, I'm a person who likes to read, learn languages, and cook up some home film developers, but monitoring systems may be programmed with triggers to alert authorities, and who programs those triggers? How many innocent, boring activities will be seen as triggers in the eyes of those in charge?


----------



## runnah (Jan 7, 2015)

limr said:


> who programs those triggers?



The illuminati.

I've said too much!


----------



## bribrius (Jan 7, 2015)

not really into it. sounds neat but i would be happy not to lose power four times or so a year. Far as privacy, i don't like intrusions but at the same time my life is about as exciting as watching paint dry.  I pity anyone or any thing tracking me.


----------



## KenC (Jan 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I pity anyone or any thing tracking me.



I know what you mean.  In some movies/tv the federal agents who have done something wrong are punished by having to monitor wiretaps.  Anyone monitoring me would have been punished severely.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 7, 2015)

limr said:


> It's taken a bit longer than Orwell predicted, but Big Brother's control is being secured a little bit more every day.


look at the bright side. Perhaps the greatest thing about tech is that it is truly a castles in the air fake and vulnerable thing. If anything it is mans attempt to hide itself from nature but the next hurricane pretty much reminds us what a joke our tech is. No matter how high tech they get i cant seem to keep my cellphone from having dead spots and i learned the hard way on trying to drive through the river here with the vehicles on board computer under the driver seat. i got locked out of one of our cars a month ago when the security system got confused. No body has ever tried to steal it the only one the security system prevented from driving it was me, the actual owner. wicked high tech we are. (not really we are just idiots with stupid tech ideas).  There is a philosophy on complex systems i studied once. Basically the more complex a system becomes the more prone it is to failure and vulnerability. At the point of peak complexity it not only becomes counter productive but self destructive. Like a house of cards. And since every piece of that system is usually reliant on another it goes down like a house of cards. why the survivalists avoid tech like the plague unless it is solar power with redundant simple systems. so there are limits to tech.


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

More like the NSA.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 7, 2015)

I figure I'll just walk around naked for a few days and it will stop spying on me out of disgust.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 7, 2015)

I want everyone monitored so I know who likes Coors wee wee water, vs someone with good taste that likes Sam Adams or a nice IPA.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 7, 2015)

The Aliens will have invaded by then. So it won't matter ...


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I want everyone monitored so I know who likes Coors wee wee water, vs someone with good taste that likes Sam Adams or a nice IPA.


Naturally.  You wouldn't want to go visit somebody who doesn't know how to stock his fridge.


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> The Aliens will have invaded by then. So it won't matter ...


Hah!  We can spy on the aliens.  Find out what makes 'em tick.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 7, 2015)

Designer said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > The Aliens will have invaded by then. So it won't matter ...
> ...


geez. when you guys going to catch on here. the reason we cant find aliens is WE ARE the aliens. You know all those ancient alien artifacts. YOu don't actually think we were originally from this planet do you?


----------



## Forkie (Jan 7, 2015)

I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing.  If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.

I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.

Facebook learns what type of ads or news stories I like and which of my friends I interact with most, so display the most relevant stories from the friends I actually care about (fewer baby pictures!  Woo!)

My iPhone learns what words I use most in messages and the dictionary corrects spelling mistakes more accurately.

People always seem to be worried that governments are going to be spying on us in the future, but they already know almost everything and how much worse are our lives for it?  Governments and corporations already know:

Where we live: electoral role, utility bills, TV/internet subscriptions,
Who we live with: Censuses, marriage/child/death registers,
How much we earn: mortgage/loan applications, credit ratings,
Where we are NOW: Google Maps, GPS, smart phones,
Where we work: Payroll, tax codes, national insurance/social security records,
Where we go on holiday (and who with!): Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
Where we shop and what we buy: credit cards, loyalty cards, etc.

The list just goes on.  I find these things make life better and more convenient, not worse.  Yes it's all for someone elses commercial gain, but that's how the world works. 

The internet is _the_ most important invention in history.  I genuinely believe that the more the world is connected together, the more chance there is of everyone getting on with each other. In fact, I think it is vital for the world's cultural and social unity and will bring all people from all cultures, backgrounds and levels of economic development closer together and more peaceful.

Just look at this website as a fine example.  There are people from every corner of the globe that come here to chat about something we all have an interest in.  We can learn from each other, help each other, even MEET each other if we so wish.  Imagine if we could have done that 101 years ago when the first world war started - how much better and more enlightened the world might be by now. 

Bring it on, I say.  Bring it all on.  Connect, connect, connect!


----------



## KmH (Jan 7, 2015)

Uh. What happens when the electricity fails?


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 7, 2015)

Light a match?


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

KmH said:


> Uh. What happens when the electricity fails?



Then we're up $___ creek without a paddle.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 7, 2015)

KmH said:


> Uh. What happens when the electricity fails?



Not being on Facebook, you obviously missed the recent "Facebook is down all over the world" fiasco.  It made television news!

How often does electricity go down, really?  Once every couple of years, for a couple of hours at a push?  I think the world will survive.  And anyway, with solar, wind and water power growing in popularity, one day we'll all be _OFF THE GRID BIATCHES!_


----------



## snerd (Jan 7, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I want everyone monitored so I know who likes Coors wee wee water, vs someone with good taste that likes Sam Adams or a nice IPA.


Dude.............. just mentioning Sam Adams puts you on a list!


----------



## pgriz (Jan 7, 2015)

The arguement that if I don't have anything to hide, I shouldn't be concerned about being identified, is not a good one, in my opinion.  For that statement to be true, the powers that be should be altruistic or at least neutral, I should be able to redress any injustice that such scrutiny may create, and I should not have run afoul of any laws on the books, whether I know of their existence or not.  But any system with humans in it, inherently has at the very least some potential for error or poor judgement.  If such error or poor judgement impacts me and those around me, I "should" be able to find redress in the justice system.  But here again, it appears that you can have all the justice you can afford to pay for.  If you don't have the financial resources, then you have no way of redressing a wrong.  The third point is that we may quite inadvertently run afoul of a law that we may not even have know about, and if we get charged for violating it, how can we defend ourselves (since it is common to rebut that "ignorance of the law is no excuse").  And do you really trust the legislators in your state or congress or province, to write clear laws that are for the benefit of the population (as opposed to a special-interest group or lobby)?  So given the potential for abuse, and the relative lack of power to defend against a false or malicious prosecution, I would rather have less recorded about me.   There is lots of stuff that is not relevant to any level of government about how I live my life.

The other problem with all this data collection, is the potential for criminals or hostile elements to hack this data and use it to target me and those around me, either for blackmail purposes, or as a protection racket, or for extortion, or for ransom.  Frankly, the less "they" know about me, the more secure I will be.


----------



## snerd (Jan 7, 2015)

pgriz said:


> The arguement that if I don't have anything to hide, I shouldn't be concerned about being identified, is not a good one, in my opinion. ......


Well of course not! I was in sarcastic mode when I typed that. That is the #1 dumbest reason of all, that I see and hear more than any other! Don't get me started!


----------



## KmH (Jan 7, 2015)

Yep. People assume the best and don't plan for the worst.
It's not if, it's when, and for how long the electrical grid craters.
I'm set up so I can live without electricity for a year.

Y'all know about this new facility, right?
How long before the computers take over like in _*Colossus: The Forbin Project*_


----------



## snerd (Jan 7, 2015)

KmH said:


> Yep. People assume the best and don't plan for the worst.
> It's not if, it's when, and for how long the electrical grid craters.
> I'm set up so I can live without electricity for a year.
> 
> ...


Once again, I'm departing the subject matter........... before getting slapped with a political infraction.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing.  If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.
> 
> I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.
> 
> ...


Thats funny there have been more wars since the internet, terrorist can get information out easier.My partner works for the police they love facebook and all the others when there's a murder that's one of the first things they look at


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing.  If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.
> ...




No there haven't.  That is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've ever heard.

There have been wars in sub-saharan Africa and the Far East and the Falklands and Vietnam and South America and Europe raging NO-STOP since humans could rub two pieces of wood together _millenia_ before the world wide web could start reporting them.

The fact that your partner in the police use Facebook in murder cases illustrates my point PRECISELY.  The police can pinpoint a suspect's whereabouts whenever and wherever they were at the time of the crime either by GPS records or simple status updates and photos, and either eliminate them from their enquiries or apprehend them if the evidence calls for it.  The internet and social networking coupled with CCTV makes it practically impossible to get away with crimes of that magnitude.

The Paris shootings are another wonderful example. Within MINUTES of the attack on those 10 journalists and 2 police officers, the world knew and was condemning the action.  The whole world is supporting the victims and their representation of free speech.  The chances of the culprits getting away with it is almost none.

Every time someone makes a serious threat to someone else on Twitter, they are lampooned and condemned.  Religious fundamentalists (of all faiths) are loosing ground with their extreme behaviour stirring up disgust with the civilised population.  Yes, terrorists can use the internet for their own ends too, but they are in the minority by a very long way.

The world is watching everyone else and commenting on them - there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part it is making the world a more civilised and socially aware place to live.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


You might like being watched but I don't and there is no way I will ever use Facebook or any of the other I leave that for all the sad bastards with no life


----------



## pgriz (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie, the issue is one of power imbalance.  Generally, entities like companies and governments have vastly more resources available to them compared to individual citizens, and that makes them very powerful.  I would like to believe that most people in those entities do not abuse their access to that power.  However, if someone does decide to persecute an ordinary individual, and we are talking of non-rational behaviour, then the more information is available on the individual, the more potential harm can be caused.  Persecuting scenarios include vengeful ex-partners, business rivals, political enemies, envious neighours, people with righteous views (almost on any topic), and so on.

Consider also the case of an ordinary individual who is a non-conformist, or is "different" in some way from the majority of people around them.  There are usually enough people in positions of power who may be uncomfortable with this non-conformance to "norms", and may try to "correct" the situation.  The more they know about the individual, the more avenues they have to exert pressure.

The power of social media to disseminate information, also includes the power to disseminate misinformation, falsehood, forgeries, scams, partial truths and the like.  How many of the recipients of such misinformation take the time to validate the assertions being made?   As you are probably aware, it takes a lot of determined digging to verify what is presented on the internet as "truth".  And even in circumstances where the facts may be obvious, there is often the question of context which determines how those facts should be understood.  We really need to have a serious societal discussion about what information is being collected on each of us, and how that information can be used or misused.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



It's not about "liking being watched" it's about not being paranoid.  Nobody in any government or corporation office is sitting in front of a screen and watching _you_.  They watch the masses; trends; the population as a whole.  Any advert or seemingly personal message to you on the internet is generated by a computer algorithm, not a Man-in-Black in a government basement with inexplicable glass panels with white felt-tip written on them and blue fluorescent lights.  You've been watching too much Jack Bauer.



pgriz said:


> Forkie, the issue is one of power imbalance.  Generally, entities like companies and governments have vastly more resources available to them compared to individual citizens, and that makes them very powerful.  I would like to believe that most people in those entities do not abuse their access to that power.  However, if someone does decide to persecute an ordinary individual, and we are talking of non-rational behaviour, then the more information is available on the individual, the more potential harm can be caused.  Persecuting scenarios include vengeful ex-partners, business rivals, political enemies, envious neighours, people with righteous views (almost on any topic), and so on.
> 
> Consider also the case of an ordinary individual who is a non-conformist, or is "different" in some way from the majority of people around them.  There are usually enough people in positions of power who may be uncomfortable with this non-conformance to "norms", and may try to "correct" the situation.  The more they know about the individual, the more avenues they have to exert pressure.
> 
> The power of social media to disseminate information, also includes the power to disseminate misinformation, falsehood, forgeries, scams, partial truths and the like.  How many of the recipients of such misinformation take the time to validate the assertions being made?   As you are probably aware, it takes a lot of determined digging to verify what is presented on the internet as "truth".  And even in circumstances where the facts may be obvious, there is often the question of context which determines how those facts should be understood.  We really need to have a serious societal discussion about what information is being collected on each of us, and how that information can be used or misused.



So not being on Facebook balances out that power, does it?  Media and governments have always tried to move the population to conform to their ideals since the dawn of civilisation.  It doesn't work.  Except maybe in North Korea.

The population of any country is more powerful than any government.  The French are brilliant at it.  If they don't get paid enough, or don't get enough time off work, they strike and refuse to work.  If someone doesn't like the way the company they work for is run, they quit.  If taxes are too high, they vote out the government that raised them.  In the UK, the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg said in his manifesto before the last election that he would remove student fees for university.  He became deputy Prime Minister in the current coalition government and when the Conservatives RAISED the student fees, he did absolutely nothing about it despite his apparent loathing of student fees.  He'll never get near leadership again.  The student population _alone _will take care of that.

Misinformation is weeded out.  Wikipedia, for want of a better example, demonstrates this.  Make a false change on any page and it is corrected by someone else within minutes. Is there any evidence somewhere of an _individual_  who has been apparently forcibly coerced into altering their "non-conformist behaviour"?  I think the world's social networks would have something to say about that.

The scenarios you quoted, i.e., vengeful partners, business rivals, envious neighbours etc, are normal civil disputes between normal human beings - the internet and social network has only changed those scenarios by the speed and medium by which one can carry out those disputes, not changed the severity or consequences of them.  We were talking about governments controlling populations (and individuals) and tin-foil hat situations.

Governments are not interested in your average individual Joe Bloggs or village idiot or even the the local fundamentalist.  The Westboro Baptist Church seem to picket soldiers' and other people's funerals with homophobic and mysogynistic placards without much hinderance from the government.  In fact, they are TAX EXEMPT because they are a church.  But the world of social media hates them and lets them know about it. They can never gain ground or mass popularity because the civilised world simply won't allow it.

The population is much more powerful than any government or corporation.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


I wouldn't watch that rubbish


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


I would have bet money on you saying that!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2015)

Who is he ?


----------



## pgriz (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie, I truly wish that your view is right, and that my pessimism is unfounded.  But the saying "better safe than sorry" comes to mind when it comes to sharing information.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Forkie, I truly wish that your view is right, and that my pessimism is unfounded.  But the saying "better safe than sorry" comes to mind when it comes to sharing information.



I respect that attitude, I really do and I really do understand why people worry about sharing information, but I just think that if you don't make the jump at some point, the edge will collapse and you'll fall away and get left behind.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Who is he ?



What do you MEAN?!

He's TV's gun toting, torturing, special-agent-who-apparently-also-has-jurisdiction-in-London, bad boy, 24-hour-a-day hero!


----------



## limr (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> I respect that attitude, I really do and I really do understand why people worry about sharing information, but I just think that *if you don't make the jump at some point, the edge will collapse and you'll fall away and get left behind.*



This makes it sound like anyone who doesn't like being constantly monitored is just a technophobe and if we don't get on the bandwagon now, then we're going to be socially ostracized and forced to live in caves.

One of the values encoded into our government in America is a distrust of _itself_ and of all over-reaching authority. To give that authority - or any authority, for that matter - the power to constantly monitor its citizens? You're damn right that doesn't sit well. As for the idea that algorithms are monitoring me instead of people? That's even more terrifying. 

You can get all rose-colored visiony as you want, but with a system that is so all-encompassing, there needs to be cynicism and vigilance to prevent the grave abuses of that system.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

limr said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > I respect that attitude, I really do and I really do understand why people worry about sharing information, but I just think that *if you don't make the jump at some point, the edge will collapse and you'll fall away and get left behind.*
> ...



But we already _are_ being monitored and our lives (well mine, certainly) is the _better_ for it, not worse.  You are using social media RIGHT NOW.  You are posting in a public online forum.  And if you think that you are being scrutinised that much, the very act of doing that has released more information about you than I think you realise.

From your posts in this thread alone "the government", or whoever it is that you're scared of, already knows where you are posting from, whether that is your home or your work (from loan agreements, mortgages, phone subscriptions, etc), what device you are using to make your posts, that you enjoy photography, what camera you use, what you like to photograph as well as where and when you like to photograph, and that you disagree with the fact that they are monitoring you in the first place.

Look outside your window.  Is there a man in a black Chevrolet with dark glasses and a doughnut watching your house through a pair of binoculars?  No?  Why not? Because no one cares.

I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't join the bandwagon is a technophobe, just a little bit paranoid or misguided.  I am aware that it is an American trait to utterly distrust anyone with a modicum of power or influence, that's why they make such great TV dramas and movies.  But with the utmost respect (and I do really respect everyone I'm debating with here), the very making of those dramas seems to be creating a nation of scaredy cats. YOU, as Joe Public are in control of your government.  YOU elect them.  YOU can get rid of them.  They exist to serve _and protect_ the citizens of the country they have been elected to govern.  NOT the other way round.  Yes, there are bad eggs in every office of authority, but it is YOUR duty to get them out. I cannot comprehend the notion that the negative verb "distrust" can be regarded as a _value_.



As a matter of interest and since I mentioned the Paris attacks earlier, I've just this minute watched on the news that the attackers have been identified and that photos and video of them have been released.  They will be caught by the end of the weekend, I'm sure of it.  Almost all of my friends, including me, have the "Je Suis Charlie" image either as their profile or cover picture or on their Flickr pages or Instagram accounts in support of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo.

I have also just read that in *24 hours*, the number of subscribers to the Charlie Hebdo magazine has gone from 60,000 to *1 million*.  That is unprecedented. That's 1 million people standing up for free speech and against the attackers - that's not including all the people who are supporting them without subscribing.  That is incredible. And all through the power of social media and the world being connected together.

It is a force for good much more than a force for bad and it should be embraced.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


i think you are being somewhat shortsighted in this. The younger generations here do embrace technology, worry less about all that tracking. Lot of this is somewhat ignorance though. The more generations that pass between a event, the more lax the generations become. wars, depressions, government corruptions, etc. etc.   Also the further from a incident the more time goes by in which to brainwash the public again who slowly forget it.  Your argument here is basically founded on how you currently benefit from this technology. It has little foundation in the realities of history. The paranoia, many might have to degrees, is not unfounded. It is FIRMLY shown in history, and if anything adds to the checks and balances....   The younger generations, or those that readily accept such things without overall considerations are shortsighted and ignorant at best. I am not sugggesting they are stupid, as their are some incredibly smart individuals into tech.  I am just suggesting either they either lack any sense of history or somehow have forgotten it.  i  am sure nazi germany or even the u.s. government would have loved such information at their fingertips in past exploits. what better information than established identities, online family trees and addresses to round up the japanese in the u.s. during the war or for the nazis to identify the jew populations more easily.  The problem is, people "forget" and think it wont happen again. But it always happens again. History repeats itself and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  In many countries the line between government/state capitalism and corporations is either blurred or one in the same.

  I myself enjoy some of the benefits of tech and dont concern myself with it. But i am also very much a fatalist in how i look upon governments and populations and war. what will be will be. Far as the world coming together in some sort of peace from the internet i would prefer the horrors of war. Those that trades security for freedom deserve neither?  It seems  when people come together is when the largest infringement on freedoms happens and the greatest atrocity is dying in captivity.  The more globalism, the more information, the greater the power that is transferred. A person questioning such large information and transfer of it and its extent of controls would be wisely having due diligence.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 8, 2015)

Every security service, in doing their (often illegal) surveillance, justifies their action by claiming that they are "protecting" us.  In other words, as the saying goes, "the ends justify the means".  So do the people who we call terrorists.  So do the people who do enormous damage in domestic violence situations.  So do people who feel that collateral damage is ok, as long as the mission is achieved.  All of these players are convinced in the correctness of their viewpoint, and in the justification for whatever tools they want to use to achieve their goals.

The other saying that comes to mind, is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", which is, if you think about it, a variation on the previous saying.  It is not enough to HAVE good intentions, it truly matters HOW those good intentions are achieved. 

Technology, whether it is the internet and social media, or genetic engineering, or guns, or botox, or ammonium nitrate, is morally neutral.  It can be used for good but it can also be used in harmful ways.  When social media is used to unify a population, it becomes a very powerful tool, because it gives a voice to those participating.  But by the same token, social media is hosted on an infrastructure that is controlled by a few entities. If those entities are part of the government (China, Egypt, Syria come to mind), then the social media becomes a tool of the government.  Even when the powers-that-be (and they don't HAVE to be government to affect our lives) don't explicitly control the medium, they certainly use it, and influence the way it is used.  When the NSA was putting its hooks into the internet and telephony infrastructure, laws were passed that forbade any of the commercial entities involved from disclosing the fact to the population (until Snowdon blew that charade sky-high).  I'm quite sure ALL the security agencies in all the governments are doing the same.  Is all this effort being for our benefit?  Maybe.  But it also certainly benefits those in power in knowing what the population is up to.

Voting our politicians in and out MAY be a form of power, but notice that the voters don't get to nominate their own candidates (except for a few jurisdictions that allow write-in votes).  So we get to vote for whichever candidates have been advanced to us by the parties involved.  Money plays a rather important role in this process, and the nomination process is open to all kinds of potential abuse.  IF the citizenry are vigilant and IF the electoral commissions are truly independent, then usually most of the monkey business is detected and aired.  But when voter turnout is approaching record lows, and people don't bother scrutinizing the nomination process, all kinds of shenanigans can occur.  So the mere fact that we can vote for someone, doesn't mean much.  In Hong Kong, the citizenry was upset because they were offered a slate of prospective candidates that were nominated and vetted by the central government.  They wanted to choose their own candidates.  That process is still going on.  Closer to home, how carefully are we as citizens informed of the local nomination process, and how much influence do we have over it?  I suggest not very much, unless we make the effort to join a particular party and exercise our influence that way.

Returning this discussion to a photographic forum level, we are having this conversation on the web site of a private organization, which quite explicitly does not want discussion of politics to come into play, as it will interfere with the business objectives of the organization.  I respect that, and therefore am trying very hard to keep my musings on a general level, without favouring any particular ideology or viewpoint.  All the social media sites (including this one) have a "Terms of Service" which sets forth the usage policy of the site, and by being or registering on the site, we agree to abide by the "Terms of Service".  The ISP also has rules about what I can or cannot do on their infrastructure.   So my ability to coordinate with my fellow photographers (or co-conspirators) is subject to agreement by the organizations who control that infrastructure.  If the control is benign and hands-off, then the conversations can be more free-wheeling, if not, then the hands of the moderators or administrators show up when matters go outside the allowed boundaries.  But, there ARE boundaries, and the conversations ARE scrutinized.

When I post images for critique purposes, I usually strip out some of the information that is in the EXIF, because putting it on the web site effectively puts it in the public domain.  Even though I technically retain copyright, we all know that this information is now accessible to anyone with an internet connection, whether they be in the UK, or North Korea or South Africa.  So I share stuff that is innoculous, and doesn't have GPS coordinates, or much identifying information.

My point is that we need to be aware of what we are putting out there in our social media profiles and various communications.  We are fortunate to be living in places that for the most part adhere to the rule of law and due process.  Whether it will stay that way is something that I hope for, but can't be sure of.


----------



## Designer (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> Look outside your window.  Is there a man in a black Chevrolet with dark glasses and a doughnut watching your house through a pair of binoculars?  No?  Why not? Because no one cares.



I think you're missing one important detail:

We already know there is a high probability that computerized algorithms are scanning everything, but it's very important whose ideology is  responsible for writing those algorithms.  

IOW: If some powerful people have decided that I am dangerous to their hold on power, they will focus their attention on me and search for "evidence" that I am dangerous.  Even if all I'm doing is writing e-mails to my Congressman.    

By the time someone is outside my window it is too late.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...




I'm struggling to pinpoint which events in history the younger generations are ignorant of where people have been brainwashed into believing an alternative sequence of events to reality.  And even if there are, I fail to see how that's relevant to future technologies and connectivity.  

For a start, the Nazi party probably wouldn't have gained any ground with current technologies, let alone invaded Poland.  They would have been as hated and condemned as ISIS is today.

Another good example is the recent release of the movie "American Sniper".  The film portrays the protagonist as a hero, which but it is now all over the internet, quoted from his own memoirs that most people didn't even know existed that he was a rather disjointed, killing crazed, war fanatic.  I regard that as one of those brainwashing examples that you mentioned being stubbed out before it even started.

The younger generation are not ignorant of the dangers of connectivity, they are accepting of it.  They know the dangers.  They know the risks, but like it or not, it is how the world now communicates and they use it more wisely than even I probably do.  

With smartphones being used to photograph and video every event going on around the world from rock concerts to war zones, hiding the reality of a war, or a crime, or any other event is nigh on impossible.  People think that "history will be lost because nothing is recorded on paper any more", but the opposite is true.  Once a video or photo is uploaded to the internet it's there forever.  Someone, nay, thousands of people will copy it and redistribute it.  It would be impossible to eradicate all copies of it.

I don't know which history you're referring to when you say "history repeats itself".  Corruption has always existed and probably will always exist, but now that everyone everywhere can know about it within hours, we make it harder and harder for corruption to take hold.

I totally agree that due diligence and care are required when sharing any kind of information - that is required even when throwing away old paper utility bills or cutting up an expired credit card, but ignoring or dismissing the technology completely is simply irrational and nonsensical.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


it seems the big part of the equation that you are missing is that you are looking at the internet and technologies as "freedom" and totally disregarding the controls put in place on them (as pgriz just alluded too) who owns them, who runs them and that their appeared used and purpose can be changed drastically to bad ends. A authority can regulate, censor, and if need be shut down the majority of these or use them for propaganda.  The internet for example started off military use, went to civilian use, became more free with multiple vendors, condensed to relatively few holders of control over it and now with further government controls for the sake of "security" in some countries it is not anything near what it appears to be.  your internet, cellphone, all your high tech communication has controls. If one wanted to they could shut you down.  A entire country or population, can be shut down or censored. You can be guaranteed to be tracked from it, you cant be guaranteed to use it as your voice. That they can shut down. The u.s. for example already has protocols to lock down the internet. It isn't imaginary.  Government orders can block anything coming in and going out. End of story.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Every security service, in doing their (often illegal) surveillance, justifies their action by claiming that they are "protecting" us.  In other words, as the saying goes, "the ends justify the means".  So do the people who we call terrorists.  So do the people who do enormous damage in domestic violence situations.  So do people who feel that collateral damage is ok, as long as the mission is achieved.  All of these players are convinced in the correctness of their viewpoint, and in the justification for whatever tools they want to use to achieve their goals.
> 
> The other saying that comes to mind, is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", which is, if you think about it, a variation on the previous saying.  It is not enough to HAVE good intentions, it truly matters HOW those good intentions are achieved.
> 
> ...



I'm interested in the case you mentioned about the NSA trying to pass a law forbidding the internet companies from disclosing information about internet and telephony infrastructure.  My question about that is:  How do you know they tried to prevent the companies from disclosing that information and how was that process stopped?  Was it through the news and the internet?  Laws that are presented in parliament are public record and are recorded in the National Archives and _on the internet_ (certainly in the UK, I don't know about the US).  Anyone can look through them at anytime.  If someone spots something they don't like, they can bring it to the world's attention.  If there is enough uproar, the government backs down.  Much like, I suspect, your NSA example.

Voter turnout is at a low and that is worrying, I agree with that.  But It is down to the public to snap themselves out of it and encourage each other to do something about that.  The perfect way to do that is through social media.  The comedian Russell Brand, although I don't agree with his views on "revolution" has got it down to a tee, gaining support for his ideas and making the general public question the very way that government is formed, let alone run, all through social media.

The terms and conditions of every site you visit are there to be read and agreed to.  I almost never read them - I doubt you do either, but that is _our own responsibility, _not the corporation's.

The fact that you strip out some of your photos' metadata is a great way to protect yourself.  I would say that in doing that you are behaving in the sensible manner to which I would expect anyone to behave in when sharing things on the internet and by that token, I see no reason why you wouldn't be perfectly at home using the internet and social media for anything else.  You have exactly the right attitude.  You can still be integrated into the wider connected world with that level of due diligence.



Designer said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > Look outside your window.  Is there a man in a black Chevrolet with dark glasses and a doughnut watching your house through a pair of binoculars?  No?  Why not? Because no one cares.
> ...




The point of computer algorithms in that respect is to detect pattern and trends, not sound a claxon whenever the words "bomb", "allahu akbar" or "my congressmen is a pr**k" is spotted.

America and the rest of the developed world prides itself on the having the right to free speech and any human being, no matter how far right or left their political standings, as far as I can tell would fight for that right.  You're speaking as if every government agency knows every citizen by name - they don't.  Only if you have a criminal record would they bother even to take any notice whatsoever and even then, unless you are planning to assassinate the President and have all your blueprints online, no one cares about our individual opinions - as much as we would like everyone to!


----------



## Designer (Jan 8, 2015)

I'm bowing out, not for a lack of caring, nor a lack of good argument, but I'd rather not be the one who is singled out for posting political stuff on TPF.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...




The internet _is_ freedom.  It _is_ freedom of speech, freedom of expression and free press. 

Governments can control our connection.  But countries that censor and block freedom of speech on the internet are derided and ridiculed. Countries who restrict the freedom of their citizens in any way are treated with suspicion and caution by all other civilised countries.  If they are sanctioned enough, they eventually will back down. 

And, for the most part, companies generally or not on the side of governments.  They want their customers to keep coming back and spending their money.  If governments make that more difficult, the ISPs will kick up a fuss. 

Here in the UK last year David Cameron, our wally of a Prime Minister said he wanted all ISPs to block perfectly legal pornography websites.  All of the ISPs said "No, that's not what the government is for.  You cannot stop someone looking at pornography simply because it makes _you_ uncomfortable".  When pressured, the smallest of companies still said no and a very few said that they would ask their customers first if that was what they wanted them to do.  As far as I'm aware, that question hasn't been asked yet and the subject hasn't been mentioned ever since.  Nobody wants to loose their freedom in whatever it is they're doing.  And if enough people shout about it - the government doesn't get what it wants.

Governments are not the be all and end all.  If they don't play by the rules they will and do face the wrath of the population.

_*Mods:  For the purposes of not being banned for political discussion and because I haven't read the terms and conditions:  Since this is the Off Topic forum, this discussion is acceptable right? !  If not - just say so, but it's fun!_


----------



## bribrius (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


in times of "emergency" or "security" it isnt so democratic. it is just done. If you dont agree with it then you can appeal the decision. Your case will be heard (maybe) within five years or so. course by then it will be too late. You are speaking of without cause, peacetime, he said she said. That is far different than a crackdown. The policy making can be somewhat democratic. The resulting actions when the occasions arise not so much. But if they shut you down you may get a apology, maybe , in some years after. " sorry we shut off all the outside communications Ten years ago , we were wrong to do that. "  

Course it could go the other way too. If accepted and deemed necessary it sets a precedence for future such infringements.   so you wake up one day your internet is off, cellphone service gone. And you become accustomed to it as they did the same thing last year you just think "oh, it must be another security threat"

I am in no way saying that there are not benefits to technology, or that they cannot be enjoyed. i am not in the "anti" technology camp.  i am not suggesting that it can not make your life more enjoyable in some aspects or add benefits. i am merely suggesting it isnt as rosy as first appears and all considerations need to be acknowledged. In those acknowledgments is not paranoia, or scaredy cats, it is awareness of possibilities.  Public opinion is often LED. It isnt individualized rebellion, but often group think led by a single source or sources. If you are led to believe a certain way or thing you most often will. If you are led to believe it is perfectly normal to have your every moment tracked and have your communication to the outside world shut off at someones whim you will accept it. People accept things in slow progressions. Not in a moment, but a slow, often unnoticed silence over time periods.  A immediate force is responded to with a immediate rebellion from a populace. A slow misdirection of that populace towards end often goes without notice or incident. A seemingly rational explanation for a show of force leads to ones acceptance (even if it really wasnt rational at all). By and large people are led.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


Not on here it ain't


----------



## limr (Jan 8, 2015)

Designer said:


> I'm bowing out, not for a lack of caring, nor a lack of good argument, but I'd rather not be the one who is singled out for posting political stuff on TPF.



+1, and I've also completely lost interest in this particular iteration of this argument.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 8, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


i am still trying to figure out "left behind"....

"left behind"   what?     The most cautious approach wouldnt be (least for me) putting keeping up with technology my first and foremost objective, but rather not becoming so RELIANT on something so fallible and fleeting. Which is probably why i dont become so concerned over it.  i dont worry too much about anyone shutting down my internet as it goes down enough on its own from "technical " issues and the isp cant seem to keep it up and running a hundred percent of the time anyway.  Kind of like my satellite tv would go out every time we had a storm. Amusing more than anything. If you want to be guaranteed to take photos get a camera that is full manual and takes no batteries.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 8, 2015)

Forkie said:


> I'm interested in the case you mentioned about the NSA trying to pass a law forbidding the internet companies from disclosing information about internet and telephony infrastructure. My question about that is: How do you know they tried to prevent the companies from disclosing that information and how was that process stopped? Was it through the news and the internet? Laws that are presented in parliament are public record and are recorded in the National Archives and _on the internet_ (certainly in the UK, I don't know about the US). Anyone can look through them at anytime. If someone spots something they don't like, they can bring it to the world's attention. If there is enough uproar, the government backs down. Much like, I suspect, your NSA example.



You'll find the following article interesting:  NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Also:  Microsoft follows Google in legal fight to disclose government FISA requests | PCWorld
There's a reason why the Snowdon revelations were such a shock.



Forkie said:


> Voter turnout is at a low and that is worrying, I agree with that. But It is down to the public to snap themselves out of it and encourage each other to do something about that. The perfect way to do that is through social media. The comedian Russell Brand, although I don't agree with his views on "revolution" has got it down to a tee, gaining support for his ideas and making the general public question the very way that government is formed, let alone run all through social media.



Here in Canada, the current federal government (Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper), won a majority in 2011, following several elections in which it had minority government status.  The election was marred by allegations of voter misdirection in certain ridings, and the tactics that were used to either get out or suppress the vote.  The independent agency (Elections Canada) which exists by act of Parliament, and reports to the Parliament (not the government), has tried to pursue investigation in a number of ridings to determine if voting fraud (or at least interference) occurred, and were blocked by the government at almost every turn.  The majority in Parliament has successfully deflected demands from the opposition parties for a thorough accounting of what transpired, and there is an act going through Parliament (C23-Fair Elections Act) which will greatly reduce the ability of the agency to do voter outreach and investigation, as well as causing the Director of Elections Canada to report to a government Cabinet position instead of Parliament.  Suffice it to say that it appears that only certain voters are being encouraged to exercise their voting rights.  Many potential voters are being turned off by all the apparent machinations, which is, I suspect one of the goals of this approach.  There is some effort to reach out to voters who are not on the ruling party's "friends" list by citizen groups, but it's an uphill battle.  So, a deliberate policy of making the electorate apathetic is not a matter of fiction or paranoia, but unfortunately, our apparent reality.

Having said that, the opposition parties aren't exactly driven-snow white.  The Liberals under Paul Martin were drummed out of office due to corruption allegations (many were proven true in court), and general disgust at the Big-Party-Machine.  The Quebec-only Bloc went from being deliberately obstructionist (trying to gum up the functioning of the federal parliament under the pretense of looking out for Quebec's interests) to being totally decimated at the polls to the level that they are now a fringe party.  The NDP were unexpected beneficiaries of the BLOC collapse, but are having a hard time transitioning from their left-oriented, union-oriented historical approach to a more populist position first pushed by Jack Layton, and now Thomas Muclair.   So we are approaching the elections in 2015, where probably the winning party that most voters would prefer will be None-of-the-above.  Unfortunately, that party will never get on the ballot, so the voters will have to hold their collective noses and vote for whoever they think will do the least amount of damage.  Which is why getting out the vote for 2015 general election may be problematic.

How this intersects with our current discussion, is that all parties, following the lead of CPC are trying to identify individual voters by riding, along with their propensity to vote for any party or to potentially switch their vote.  So although it is denied, it appears quite clear that all the tools of big data processing are being used to clearly define for each party the ground they have to stand on (more specifically, down to the household level, what the voting preferences will be).  It would not surprise me to learn that these efforts to characterize the voter base will go beyond legitimate polling and canvassing.  Once characterized, will the dirty tricks be quick to follow?  We don't know.

  I suspect the above may be too much politics for the forum, and if it is felt to be disruptive, I will delete some or all of the above.  Mods, I look forward to your advice.


----------



## limr (Jan 8, 2015)

Well, if it's too much politics, we can also explore the cognitive effects of an over-reliance on technology to do all the thinking for us


----------



## pgriz (Jan 8, 2015)

When in doubt, I use the magic 8 ball.  (Amazon.com: Magic 8 Ball: Toys & Games)

After I ignore the wrong answers, I get 100% success!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2015)

Some insightful and enlightening contributions to this thread.  I lean towards Forkie's point of view, but respect the other's.  

I also appreciate the mods letting this go if in fact a boundary was crossed.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 8, 2015)

Well, I'm bowing out of this now too.  Fun debate 

Lots of interesting opinions in here, but I think we/I've run it into the ground!


----------



## snerd (Jan 9, 2015)

Just to let you all know....... I got my e-mail today and purchased the Echo. After Prime and credits, cost me $58 bucks!! Wavey Wavey!!!


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 10, 2015)

Y'all think this is all fun and games now, but just wait...


----------

