Digital surveillance, facial recognition, privacy and security

[Imari]

Not dismissive. I just found it excessive and recommended that if one does have secrets, to keep them away from the internet.

It's 2019. "Just stay off the internet" is no longer valid advice. I'm not going back to the days when we had to walk into a physical bank to do all our banking, and neither are you.

What is the hypocritical part?

That you understand that information security is desirable and necessary, yet it's somehow worthy of derision if someone chooses to be more secure than you choose to be.

A non-hypocritical position would be that security isn't necessary. That'd be wrong, but not hypocritical. You know that security is valuable, yet you attempt to draw an arbitrary line as to what security is reasonable and what would only be used by criminals. Which is amusing, because the line is constantly shifting with technology and the passage of time. What is secure today would have been considered ridiculous overkill ten years ago, and is also very unlikely to be secure at all in ten years from now.

I already explained that the comparison is completely flawed.

No, you attempted to strawman me as saying that being burgled and having targeted ads pointed at you were the same. Technically you're right, those two specific things are not really the same unless someone is stealing a flower or two from your garden. But it in no way addresses the actual point that physical and informational theft are both theft and depending on what is stolen can have a wide range of consequences. Having my watch stolen, having my phone number put on a spam list, having my car stolen and having my identifying financial information stolen covers a wide range of awfulness across both physical and information theft.

Wanna have another go at explaining how information theft is always trivial compared to physical theft? Or is that not what you were trying to establish?

I only adressed it, because changing to Linux and staying away from alexa and google home, for the sake of privacy does suggest someone takes abnormal measures to protect their privacy.

How is that even an abnormal measure? Do not have always-on microphones in your house if you don't want to be listened in upon seems completely reasonable, and it's not like giving up these devices is a major hardship or anything. Having a Linux live USB or a second boot partition on your computer is pretty trivial for anyone technically competent enough to use Microsoft Office. I have a Linux boot on a spare laptop for when I want to use e-banking or other stuff where I'm actually concerned about the security of my information.

We're not talking about going full Edward Snowden here. It's about as simple and unintrusive as "don't walk down dark alleys in bad neighbourhoods". Yeah, technically there may be a little inconvenience but not really considering the increase in safety that you afford yourself.

I therefore assumed he had something to hide. Dennisch adressed this later that it personally wasnt about hiding anything, but seeing privacy as a property he wants to protect. That cleared it up for me.

Why did I ask that? Because there are many people that want to hide their activity for various sometimes criminal reasons. Do you think my suggestion or question was out of line?

A question would not have been. The assumption of criminal behaviour that needed to be concealed was out of line, yes. Remember, you started with this:

Unless a person has nothing to hide.

@BobK was the first to point out that privacy might have some value, three posts under yours. Several more people said similar things, but you leaned hard into the idea that only people with something to hide would want to protect their privacy. Then, finally, on page three, we start to find that actually you do take some care with your own personal information, and really, it's more a question of scale between you and others like @Dennisch or myself.

And honestly, yeah, some of us work in industries where information security is taken seriously both and work and in your personal life. So yes, we have things that we are expected and professionally obligated to hide.

You said earlier that you are professionally obligated to take care of private data for your business, are you not? I'd think that you might understand that people might have some non-criminal information that they would have good reason to make more than a token effort to protect, because you sure seem to be one of them. Are you gonna sit next to an Alexa while you have detailed discussions about your customers private data? I hardly think so, because that would be staggeringly negligent.

 

[PocketZeven]

As I've shown above, you most certainly did not.



I haven't made any actual judgements about you. The only thing close is the fact you can't seem to make up your mind, but that's something you display openly across various threads.

You are making assumptions here. First I stated the first quote as a generalisation (you dont need to move to Linux etc. if you have nothing to hide) and not directed at anyone specific. Denissch then answered while swearing Bull"poo". I therefore questioned if he had something to hide. So where is the judgment?

While I admittedly have changed my stance about gun regulations based on my conversations with Danoff, I disagree that it is a fact that I cant make up my mind? I have a strong opinion, but that suggestion is something I strongly disagree with.

I am not against the protection of privacy I adressed that:

@Dennisch

That said, the trade of using peoples personal information as a commodity should be fought against. But recommending moving towards linux using private browsers and not buying alexa or other similar products is kind of taking it far.

I even stated that I recommend measures that are less dramatic:

Dont share your photos that way. Turn off gps, use encrypted messages or do less communicating by phone. A physical stalker has different motivations then what you are describing.

It's 2019. "Just stay off the internet" is no longer valid advice. I'm not going back to the days when we had to walk into a physical bank to do all our banking, and neither are you.



That you understand that information security is desirable and necessary, yet it's somehow worthy of derision if someone chooses to be more secure than you choose to be.

A non-hypocritical position would be that security isn't necessary. That'd be wrong, but not hypocritical. You know that security is valuable, yet you attempt to draw an arbitrary line as to what security is reasonable and what would only be used by criminals. Which is amusing, because the line is constantly shifting with technology and the passage of time. What is secure today would have been considered ridiculous overkill ten years ago, and is also very unlikely to be secure at all in ten years from now.



No, you attempted to strawman me as saying that being burgled and having targeted ads pointed at you were the same. Technically you're right, those two specific things are not really the same unless someone is stealing a flower or two from your garden. But it in no way addresses the actual point that physical and informational theft are both theft and depending on what is stolen can have a wide range of consequences. Having my watch stolen, having my phone number put on a spam list, having my car stolen and having my identifying financial information stolen covers a wide range of awfulness across both physical and information theft.

Wanna have another go at explaining how information theft is always trivial compared to physical theft? Or is that not what you were trying to establish?



How is that even an abnormal measure? Do not have always-on microphones in your house if you don't want to be listened in upon seems completely reasonable, and it's not like giving up these devices is a major hardship or anything. Having a Linux live USB or a second boot partition on your computer is pretty trivial for anyone technically competent enough to use Microsoft Office. I have a Linux boot on a spare laptop for when I want to use e-banking or other stuff where I'm actually concerned about the security of my information.

We're not talking about going full Edward Snowden here. It's about as simple and unintrusive as "don't walk down dark alleys in bad neighbourhoods". Yeah, technically there may be a little inconvenience but not really considering the increase in safety that you afford yourself.



A question would not have been. The assumption of criminal behaviour that needed to be concealed was out of line, yes. Remember, you started with this:



@BobK was the first to point out that privacy might have some value, three posts under yours. Several more people said similar things, but you leaned hard into the idea that only people with something to hide would want to protect their privacy. Then, finally, on page three, we start to find that actually you do take some care with your own personal information, and really, it's more a question of scale between you and others like @Dennisch or myself.

And honestly, yeah, some of us work in industries where information security is taken seriously both and work and in your personal life. So yes, we have things that we are expected and professionally obligated to hide.

You said earlier that you are professionally obligated to take care of private data for your business, are you not? I'd think that you might understand that people might have some non-criminal information that they would have good reason to make more than a token effort to protect, because you sure seem to be one of them. Are you gonna sit next to an Alexa while you have detailed discussions about your customers private data? I hardly think so, because that would be staggeringly negligent.

@BobK was the first to point out that privacy might have some value, three posts under yours. Several more people said similar things, but you leaned hard into the idea that only people with something to hide would want to protect their privacy. Then, finally, on page three, we start to find that actually you do take some care with your own personal information, and really, it's more a question of scale between you and others like @Dennisch or myself.

And honestly, yeah, some of us work in industries where information security is taken seriously both and work and in your personal life. So yes, we have things that we are expected and professionally obligated to hide.

You said earlier that you are professionally obligated to take care of private data for your business, are you not? I'd think that you might understand that people might have some non-criminal information that they would have good reason to make more than a token effort to protect, because you sure seem to be one of them. Are you gonna sit next to an Alexa while you have detailed discussions about your customers private data? I hardly think so, because that would be staggeringly negligent.

People refuse to read between the lines. I did not lean hard. Like I am explaining above. People assumed I did. That quote is not a hardline stance against that all people protecting their privacy, have something to hide. I just suggested one does not need to move to linux (etc.). The question to Dnissch was just a reaction to his use of bull*

I handle my customers data with care. That is my obligation as a businessowner. But I dont need to move to Linux, and stop using google or alexa.

 

[Northstar]

You are making assumptions here. First I stated the first quote as a generalisation (you dont need to move to Linux etc. if you have nothing to hide) and not directed at anyone specific. Denissch then answered while swearing Bull"poo". I therefore questioned if he had something to hide. So where is the judgment?

The judgement is the part I bolded.

I disagree that it is a fact that I cant make up my mind?

How would I know?

 

[PocketZeven]

The judgement is the part I bolded.



How would I know?

Which judgment exactly? Perhaps a wrong suggestion, but definately no judgment.

Sorry wrong use of "?"

 

[Northstar]

Which judgment exactly? Perhaps a wrong suggestion, but definately no judgment.

Sorry wrong use of "?"

According to every definition I've found, The part I bolded in the quote very much is a judgement.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

Maybe in your world definitions change at your whim, but in mine they have meanings that tend to be static.

 

[PocketZeven]

According to every definition I've found, The part I bolded in the quote very much is a judgement.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

Maybe in your world definitions change at your whim, but in mine they have meanings that tend to be static.

Did you read the link yourself? Not 1 of the definitions applies.

"you dont need to move to Linux etc. if you have nothing to hide. "
or
You dont need guns, if you arent a criminal

Its perhaps a deduction, but not a judgment. A judgment would be more in the form of an authorative opinion/statement/assertion:

"If you move to Linux etc., you are hiding somehting."
or
If you need guns, you are an assassin

Perhaps you have some kind of bias, because of me having a different worldview and/or opinion. But I was not judging Dennisch at all!

 

[Northstar]

Did you read the link yourself? Not 1 of the definitions applies.

"you dont need to move to Linux etc. if you have nothing to hide. "

This one fits 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b and 6.

"If you move to Linux, you are hiding somehting."

This one also fits, 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b and 6.

But I was not judging Dennisch at all!

Of course not, you were just low-key accusing him of having lots to hide, totally different.

 

[PocketZeven]

This one fits 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b and 6.



This one also fits, 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b and 6.



Of course not, you were just accusing him of having lots to hide, totally different.

I edited my posts, see above. I guess I need to go back to school then. You seem to be stuck in that chain of thought and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. I am not sure of your academical back ground but you are plain wrong.

edit: If @Dennisch really thinks I accused him of anything then he is welcome to visit me and have a beer (or more) on the house.

 

[Northstar]

I edited my posts, see above.

A judgment would be more in the form of an authorative opinion/statement/assertion:

Which is exactly what you are doing! 💡

I am not sure of your academical back ground but you are plain wrong.

My background, academic or otherwise, has no bearing on the official definitions of "judgement".

 

[PocketZeven]

Which is exactly what you are doing! 💡



My background, academic or otherwise, has no bearing on the official definitions of "judgement".

Edit: I am not going to comment on that. It has been going way of topic.

 

[Northstar]

You are exact quote was not. The example I gave afterwards was.

Both were examples of judgement.

Yes it does have bearing actually. A lot.

I haven't checked in awhile, but I don't have any access to change definitions on Mirriam-Webster. So no, it doesn't.

 

[Dennisch]

Going for the super duper cross thread cross discussion.

The Netherlands generally has a strong stance for internet privacy.

And yet, when I take some extra precautions for Internet privacy, I'm probably a criminal or have something shady to hide.

 

[PocketZeven]

Going for the super duper cross thread cross discussion.



And yet, when I take some extra precautions for Internet privacy, I'm probably a criminal or have something shady to hide.

Hiding something does not mean you are criminal or even shady. You could hide porn, chats with your affair, secret hobbies etc. You dont need to move to firefox or change OS, etc. for that. I believe my post has been taken out of context.

Hopefully you at least understand I was not judging you as a criminal or shady. Merely that the precautions were excessive to protect ones personal information.

 

[BobK]

Hiding something does not mean you are criminal or even shady. You could hide porn, chats with your affair, secret hobbies etc. You dont need to move to firefox or change OS, etc. for that. I believe my post has been taken out of context.

Then why did you imply that it did?

Incidentally moving to linux need not have anything to do with privacy; I'd switched to linux over a decade before internet privacy became a concern.

 

[Imari]

Hiding something does not mean you are criminal or even shady. You could hide porn, chats with your affair, secret hobbies etc. You dont need to move to firefox or change OS, etc. for that. I believe my post has been taken out of context.

Hopefully you at least understand I was not judging you as a criminal or shady. Merely that the precautions were excessive to protect ones personal information.

Do you even understand the phrase "something to hide"?

https://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/someone-has-something-to-hide

This idiomatic phrase strongly implies criminality or wrongdoing. It is used only in such situations, and if the speaker does not wish to convey that meaning then they use different words.

Whether that was what you intended or not, asking someone if they "have something to hide" is indicating that you think that they have done something wrong that they need to hide. I don't think you understand the context of the language that you used to write that post, and it's not everyone else's fault that they're not mindreaders.

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you even understand the phrase "something to hide"?

https://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/someone-has-something-to-hide

This idiomatic phrase strongly implies criminality or wrongdoing. It is used only in such situations, and if the speaker does not wish to convey that meaning then they use different words.

Whether that was what you intended or not, asking someone if they "have something to hide" is indicating that you think that they have done something wrong that they need to hide. I don't think you understand the context of the language that you used to write that post, and it's not everyone else's fault that they're not mindreaders.

I implied some wrongdoing, not criminality. Dont mix criminality with wrongdoing. Like I described porn, chats with affairs etc. Stop making it sound like I was accusing Dennisch of being a criminal. Perhaps a massive porn collector at the most.

Then why did you imply that it did?

Incidentally moving to linux need not have anything to do with privacy; I'd switched to linux over a decade before internet privacy became a concern.

If I personally decided to stop buying alexa, google home, use Linux and change phone permissions etc. for the sole purpose of privacy, I would say I probably either paranoid or have something to hide.

I incidently use linux derived OS on my homeserver. I agree that doesnt mean I did it for the sake of privacy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I wasnt against it. I simply stated that some people take more measures, probably because they have more to hide.

I have more locks on my house than you, or maybe it's the other way around. I guess we'll be able to tell by which one of us has more to hide. Or will we?

 

[PocketZeven]

I have more locks on my house than you, or maybe it's the other way around. I guess we'll be able to tell by which one of us has more to hide. Or will we?

It depends on what measures you take. If you have changed your door to solid steel, I would think you probably have valuables to hide and protect.

If Dennisch just recommended to keep your passwords safe, use encrypted messaging and e-mail. Then I would have not said anything. The catalyst was recommending to change OS to Linux and not buying alexa or google products for the sake of protecting your privacy.

edit:
Changing OS in my opinion is kind of a drastic move, but maybe it isnt for the people on this forum.

 

[Imari]

I implied some wrongdoing, not criminality. Dont mix criminality with wrongdoing.

You used a phrase that could have implied either, and in the context of conversations on surveillance usually leans towards criminality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

Unless you specify exactly what you're accusing someone of, taking "do you have something to hide" as a implication of criminal behaviour is not unreasonable.

Like I described porn, chats with affairs etc. Stop making it sound like I was accusing Dennisch of being a criminal. Perhaps a massive porn collector at the most.

Why would you accuse someone of being a massive porn collector like it's something to be ashamed of? Why is collecting porn "wrongdoing" at all?

I swear, everything you say simply tells the rest of us more and more about your inbuilt biases and cultural hangups, which goes a long way towards explaining why your position on this is so illogical. All you're doing is following what you perceive to be the cultural norm, but you're unable to objectively explain why that should be sufficient for anyone who you don't deem to be a paranoid or a deviant.

If I personally decided to stop buying alexa, google home, use Linux and change phone permissions etc. for the sole purpose of privacy, I would say I probably either paranoid or have something to hide.

So there's no legitimate reason that someone could think "I don't feel like I'm adequately protecting my privacy, I think I need to step it up a notch" that wouldn't be either mental illness or wrongdoing? Are you serious?

Some years ago, I got a job with a defense contractor. After the first week of security briefings, I decided to take my own personal information security more seriously, as there was potential reason for bad actors to attempt to use my information against me to access company or governmental information.

I certainly do have my share of mental illness, but that decision was not an irrational one, nor was it motivated by any sense that I had done something wrong and needed to hide it. It was a sensible personal choice that was endorsed by my security manager in recognition of the potential increased consequences of a privacy breach in my new job. I had nothing more to hide than I had a few weeks prior, nor would my personal machines be storing any sensitive data, but it was still a sensible and worthwhile precaution.

Ultimately, your argument comes down to the fact that you don't believe that anyone would ever take an interest in your information or find you worthy of blackmail. Which is fine, you're probably best placed to judge your own value and risk in that regard. But don't assume that everyone else in the world is exactly as much of an uninteresting nobody as you deem yourself to be.

 

[PocketZeven]

You used a phrase that could have implied either, and in the context of conversations on surveillance usually leans towards criminality.

Ultimately, your argument comes down to the fact that you don't believe that anyone would ever take an interest in your information or find you worthy of blackmail. Which is fine, you're probably best placed to judge your own value and risk in that regard. But don't assume that everyone else in the world is exactly as much of an uninteresting nobody as you deem yourself to be.

I agree with that observation, but in hindsight was not my intent. I should have said soemthing in the line of "secrets anyone?". But implying that "something to hide" is used only for criminal intent is something I firmly disagree with. Keeping porn hidden from your partner, because of shame perhaps? You only feel shame because you "think" you are doing something wrong. (against your spouse or parents.)

No that isnt my postition. Have you even read my argument? I am for protection of internet privacy, concerning personal data. However internet anonomity used in the case of bullying, criminal activity, death threats or hatespeech is what I dont condone. People seem to confuse this position as being against internet privacy maybe?

 

[Dennisch]

Changing OS in my opinion is kind of a drastic move, but maybe it isnt for the people on this forum.

Not really, as Windows 10 is a first class data miner. And Linux has much more benefits but that is not for this thread.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not really, as Windows 10 is a first class data miner. And Linux has much more benefits but that is not for this thread.

I primarily use MacOS. How safe is that OS?

 

[Dennisch]

No idea. I haven't used it a lot, and I do not have any interest in it to learn about it.

 

[Imari]

I agree with that observation, but in hindsight was not my intent. I should have said soemthing in the line of "secrets anyone?". But implying that "something to hide" is used only for criminal intent is something I firmly disagree with. Keeping porn hidden from your partner, because of shame perhaps? You only feel shame because you "think" you are doing something wrong. (against your spouse or parents.)

You corrected from criminality to wrongdoing. I asked therefore why you thought that collecting lots of porn, your example of the worst that you intended to accuse Dennisch of, was wrongdoing.

I implied some wrongdoing, not criminality. Dont mix criminality with wrongdoing. Like I described porn, chats with affairs etc. Stop making it sound like I was accusing Dennisch of being a criminal. Perhaps a massive porn collector at the most.

You haven't answered that question. Feeling ashamed of it does not make it wrongdoing, that's a judgement that you are making of the behaviour.

Why is collecting porn wrongdoing?

No that isnt my postition. Have you even read my argument? I am for protection of internet privacy, concerning personal data.

No, you're for limited protection as you deem anyone that uses security in excess of a certain level to be either paranoid or have some wrongdoing that they're hiding. You've made that very clear. You do not accept that some people might legitimately wish to avoid Alexa/Home, use an operating system that monitors it's users less heavily than modern Windows, or use a browser that isn't built by companies that have a vested interest in collecting your information. You deem people who attempt to be highly secure suspicious.

If you were for protection of internet privacy, you would have agreed with Dennisch immediately and unconditionally. Or at most, said "that seems a little inconvenient for the levels of privacy that I think that most normal citizens should require, but I'd never attempt to dissuade anyone from using as much security as they need to feel safe".

You are not for absolute privacy, you are for severely limited privacy. If you want to retract some of your previous posts and change your position, then by all means do so.

 

[PocketZeven]

No idea. I haven't used it a lot, and I do not have any interest in it to learn about it.

The problem with Linux is that it isnt for beginners. Many different distributions make it complicated for the normal user.

No, you're for limited protection as you deem anyone that uses security in excess of a certain level to be either paranoid or have some wrongdoing that they're hiding. You've made that very clear. You do not accept that some people might legitimately wish to avoid Alexa/Home, use an operating system that monitors it's users less heavily than modern Windows, or use a browser that isn't built by companies that have a vested interest in collecting your information. You deem people who attempt to be highly secure suspicious.

If you were for protection of internet privacy, you would have agreed with Dennisch immediately and unconditionally. Or at most, said "that seems a little inconvenient for the levels of privacy that I think that most normal citizens should require, but I'd never attempt to dissuade anyone from using as much security as they need to feel safe".

You are not for absolute privacy, you are for severely limited privacy. If you want to retract some of your previous posts and change your position, then by all means do so.

Yes if people use excessive precautions I do think they are paranoid. To be clear, Companies should be transparant in what data they collect. In the case of changing OS I think of it not as suspicious, but overly worried.

Internet privacy is much broader then you actually think. What is your own interpretation to absolute privacy? Since I didnt know you were all championing "absolute" privacy? What is the difference in your view between absolute and limited privacy?

As stated I have to obide to the european general data protection regulation. And have gained insight on how data is protected used/misused. All websites inform you how they handle cookies, your private info etc. as well as everywhere where you go offline.

 

[Dotini]

And have gained insight on how data is protected used/misused. All websites inform you how they handle cookies, your private info etc. as well as everywhere where you go offline.

That's a fascinating statement. Do you mean to say we are monitored while offline? How does that work?

 

[Imari]

The problem with Linux is that it isnt for beginners. Many different distributions make it complicated for the normal user.

Except that a normal person can just download something like Ubuntu, and they'll get on perfectly fine if they've ever used a computer before. It's not like people have to start with Gentoo or anything.

Yes if people use excessive precautions I do think they are paranoid.

And you're the one who gets to decide what's excessive, huh? Sounds fair and reasonable.

What are your qualifications and experience for deciding what is excessive precautions? Do you take a person's individual circumstances into account when making such a determination, or is it one size fits all?

To be clear, Companies should be transparant in what data they collect. In the case of changing OS I think of it not as suspicious, but overly worried.

Companies should be transparent, but they often aren't. And "traditional" companies are not the only entities that you'll interact with online.

And you sure are softening your stance more and more as we go along. First people have something to hide, then they're paranoid or committing some minor wrongdoing, now they're just overly worried?

Internet privacy is much broader then you actually think.

Is it just? Tell me just what my narrow view of internet privacy is then, and what I'm missing out on. I didn't realise we'd had the conversation defining the totality of what consititutes internet privacy, so it would seem difficult for you to outline everything that I know about the topic.

What is your own interpretation to absolute privacy? Since I didnt know you were all championing "absolute" privacy? What is the difference in your view between absolute and limited privacy?

Absolute privacy in the sense that I was using the term is the idea that a person has information that they are within their rights to keep private. Limited privacy is anything less than that. That you would say that there is such a thing as too much security suggests that you are not for absolute privacy.

For yourself, you might decide that strong security is not worth the time or hassle, but the only reason one could have to object to other people having strong security is if you don't believe that they should be allowed to keep all their information private. It literally costs you nothing to leave the situation alone and let people be as secure as they want to be, but you've spent a LOT of time now arguing against other people using strong security for a variety of reasons.

Why?

The only thing you could possibly gain is to make other people's information more vulnerable. Hence, you're not actually advocating for absolute privacy, you're advocating for limited privacy where people's information is still vulnerable to collection and attacks beyond a certain technical level that you've arbitrarily determined. Which is apparently using an OS or any devices without self-monitoring and phone-home capabilities.

The cynical part of me wonders how much your business profits from the sort of advice that you're giving. I very much hope that you're not advocating for weak privacy because it's to your personal benefit.

 

[Danoff]

The problem with Linux is that it isnt for beginners. Many different distributions make it complicated for the normal user.

That's a somewhat outdated position. At this point many Linux flavors are more for beginners than Windows.

 

[Dotini]

Does anyone deny we are headed for a total surveillance society where everything a person says or does is recorded, analyzed, and acted upon?

It seems to me this has great potential for abuse. At the top of the tree of power and authority lies only man. God is dead. Belief in higher powers and values no longer exist. Man is the measure of all. Philosophy and ethics yield easily in the quest for power. Eschewing principle, man loves power, and will fight to attain and use it. The quest for power and control among men will surely result in loss of freedoms and security for those trapped below.

 

[Dennisch]

Does anyone deny we are headed for a total surveillance society where everything a person says or does is recorded, analyzed, and acted upon?

If more people take the stance of 'I have nothing to hide, so I don't care', yes, we are going towards a dark future. Luckily more and more people are waking up to the fact that privacy is actually something you should cherish.