Digital surveillance, facial recognition, privacy and security

Dennisch
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. It should. But has big tech gone past the point of no return? Nothing I can see can control it, and younger people don't seem to care anymore. With more and more people demanding more and more goods and services, increasing control and orderliness of society seems the dark path already chosen. Elois and Morlocks!
 
Until we have infrastructure like China's, it's largely voluntary. That's what stumps me -- the willing (if uninformed) participation of so many people. I don't feel like I even go out of my way to protect my privacy, but I have opted out of so much of this by merely...not always adopting something new or signing up for everything. It has not been a difficult choice.

Alexa/Home is an excellent example. Living without one of those devices in my home is utterly straightforward -- I just go on with my life as it was before they existed. I don't understand how that's an "excessive precaution". Same with social media (hello GTPlanet) or other things.
 
Wolfe
Alexa/Home is an excellent example. Living without one of those devices in my home is utterly straightforward -- I just go on with my life as it was before they existed. I don't understand how that's an "excessive precaution". Same with social media (hello GTPlanet) or other things.
Click to expand...

I actually don't understand what's great about having those devices.
 
Dotini
I agree. It should. But has big tech gone past the point of no return? Nothing I can see can control it, and younger people don't seem to care anymore. With more and more people demanding more and more goods and services, increasing control and orderliness of society seems the dark path already chosen. Elois and Morlocks!
Click to expand...

Not all younger people. For instance, me. Actually I know more people than not (of the millennial variety) who have deep reservations about big tech. Some of those people actually work in big tech.
 
Danoff
I actually don't understand what's great about having those devices.
Click to expand...

Great would be a stretch but they can certainly assist people with mobility issues with all manner of home automation.
 
Danoff
That's a somewhat outdated position. At this point many Linux flavors are more for beginners than Windows.
Click to expand...

For me and you it probably is more for beginners. Though I was raised up with DOS/command and still unfamilar with terminal.
I also prefer a unix based OS over windows. But for many users in business, gaming etc. Windows is still the default.

I think an average person's workflow is windows based it can be a challenge to move to linux. Similar as I am invested in MacOs and iOS.

Imari
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.

.
Click to expand...

I already described my stance in my first or second post in this thread. The term you are using in that context I already stated I agree with. You somehow think I disagree with you?

If people chose to share private information on the internet or by phone, they should read the terms and conditions of the platform they are using. Many are complaining about privacy, without even reading these conditions. If you use google, people should already know that they use an algorythm to track your search history. This is perfectly ok, in my opinion, because google is a for profit company and acquires revenue through the selling of ads and at the same time providing their customers many affordable or even free services. You can opt-out.

If you dont want any of your personal info used in any way (ads etc.) make sure to read all the terms or like Dennisch suggested use special software that ensures privacy. As for facial recognition China style. My opinion depends if it is in a public place or at home. At your own home one should always have the right to their privacy. Privacy at home, your phone and homecomputer should be absolute. Privacy online is limited by nature throught its public nature.
 
Last edited:
I don't think they should be doing this stuff. The fourth amendment is supposed to restrict the government from doing any of that unless they have a warrant with probable cause and sworn affirmation before a judge. There is absolutely no reason our tax dollars should be supporting these open-ended, mass surveillance systems.
 
stonesfan129
I don't think they should be doing this stuff. The fourth amendment is supposed to restrict the government from doing any of that unless they have a warrant with probable cause and sworn affirmation before a judge. There is absolutely no reason our tax dollars should be supporting these open-ended, mass surveillance systems.
Click to expand...

Simply put, they're ignoring the Constitution.

Why is it that the government cannot read your mail but they can monitor your email?

Why can't they listen in on your landline conversations but keep track of everything on your cell phone?
 
BobK
Simply put, they're ignoring the Constitution.

Why is it that the government cannot read your mail but they can monitor your email?

Why can't they listen in on your landline conversations but keep track of everything on your cell phone?
Click to expand...

The argument is that stuff that is out in public has no expectation of privacy. I disagree with that but see this is the entire problem - you have a court who acts in the interests of the government, not in the interest of the people. Just look at this most recent thing where they refused to rule on a case where the Sandy Hook victims were suing Remington. They allowed the CT Supreme Court's ruling to stand. So does that mean everyone can sue automobile and alcohol manufacturers because of drunk drivers?
 
stonesfan129
The argument is that stuff that is out in public has no expectation of privacy. I disagree with that but see this is the entire problem - you have a court who acts in the interests of the government, not in the interest of the people. Just look at this most recent thing where they refused to rule on a case where the Sandy Hook victims were suing Remington. They allowed the CT Supreme Court's ruling to stand. So does that mean everyone can sue automobile and alcohol manufacturers because of drunk drivers?
Click to expand...

But things like email and phone calls are not public. In fact the government attempted to prosecute the creator of a tool for encrypting email (Phil Zimmermann and his "Pretty Good Privacy").
 
BobK
But things like email and phone calls are not public. In fact the government attempted to prosecute the creator of a tool for encrypting email (Phil Zimmermann and his "Pretty Good Privacy").
Click to expand...

That is debatable but yes I generally agree. People use these systems like email with an expectation of privacy. These companies who host these services should not be sharing any information with a third party without your express, written consent. There needs to be a law passed that stops them from burying it in some lawyer-written terms of service agreement.
 
That's unsettling.

It's also amazing and sort of frightening how realistic that is.

*rimshot*

I definitely agree that there's a need for readily available technology for identifying the fakes, because while most of this stuff right now seems pretty fun, there's absolutely potential for misuse that can lead to significant harm for people.
 
Last edited:
ShiftingGears
Basically means video evidence will be inadmissible.
Click to expand...

Just because it looks real to your human eyes on Tiktok doesn't mean that an experienced analyst with appropriate tools can't tell the difference between a real video and one that has been altered.

I don't think faked videos impacting criminal cases is the real problem, the larger issue is that celebrities and people with significant social presence can have fakes of them doing horrific stuff dumped online and they'll have to deal with the fallout of that. The court of public opinion is quick to judge and doesn't much care for facts - if there's a video of someone who looks like Tom Cruise with Tom Cruise's face stomping a kitten to death, that's going to be tough for him.

Although hopefully the easiest solution is the one that comes about fairly quickly - don't believe everything you see online. In 2021 lots of people still don't quite get this one, but maybe deepfakes will help.
 
I'm not worried about rich snooby celebrities or athletes, what if someone made a very convincing video of a "rival/enemy" president saying something that leads to a massive chaos? What about bullies using it to distort victims into some sort of sick person? What if it's used for political propaganda reasons?

The more I hear about the current and future times, the more I wish if I was born 50-500 years prior for all I know.
 
Last edited:
Imari
Just because it looks real to your human eyes on Tiktok doesn't mean that an experienced analyst with appropriate tools can't tell the difference between a real video and one that has been altered.
Click to expand...
Assuming he's not the one who was paid to do it in the first place.
 

Latest Posts

Back