On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:55:26 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/11/2015 02:25 PM, juan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all previous ones in history combined...
Oh, OK. Yes, all those things you mention are enhanced by electronic communication networks. And yes, the online library is especially nice. I can't help pointing out though that all the things you mentioned existed before the internet and even before telegraph networks =P Before 'networking', access to libraries was more restricted, true, but the ability for governments to track millions of people in realtime was just a crazy dream - or nightmare. Looks to me that the good changes are more incremental in nature whereas the bad changes are kinda 'revolutionary'.
A highly productive "office worker's desk" that fits in a small tote bag has its uses as well.
Point taken.
The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the inmates but the inmates can not watch the guards. The Internet is a prison where the inmates can watch each other,
Last time I checked, the 'internet' is a bunch of servers controlled by google and the pentagon and I don't happen to have the password(s).
Please, any hacker out there, post the password(s) so I we can watch the guards. Thank you very much.
Just for starters check out CopWatch, referenced in my earlier post.
Until a few months ago I had a facebook account and yes, I used to follow copwatch, among other things. As a matter of fact, I've been involved in the political networking you speak of (both online & offline) , for years, mostly in spanish speaking 'libertarian' circles.
We might also factor in a half dozen or so investigative journalism outlets, document distribution sites like Cryptome and Public Intelligence, one's news aggregators of choice, access to foreign press outlets, various spook watching sites, the mass of raw data contributed by Manning, Snowden et al...
The Internet is billions of people, interacting through the world's first many-to-many communications medium. The "Web 2.0" buzzword denotes a real thing:
Yes, I realize that part of the hype actually references real and valuable changes.
The availability of more and better political intelligence formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially.
Sorry, that's exponential bullshit.
- From this I can only you don't take any interest in politics, or your definition of the word is very different from mine. or that you just don't use the Internet much.
I honestly don't see a radical change in that area. Or else, if 'poltical intelligence' is more common and of better quality, I don't see too many people acting on it.
This is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large scale power relationships that is causing a panic among our present rulers. The United States is preparing to put down major civil uprisings inside its own borders,
I'm guessint that the government having full access to all communications will come handy, don't you think?
Yes it will. But will that be a sufficient advantage to compensate for the ones our rulers lost when the Internet became too important to commerce to "just turn it off"?
I don't think they plan to turn it off. That's the thing. Considering how computers work, it's possible or even easy for them to, say, sabotage or control personal communications while 'freely' allowing people to buy stuff off amazon.
Little Brother is watching Them, and there are enough /clever/ Little Brothers (and Sisters) out there looking to pull Big Brother's pants down that they are becoming a real world problem.
Wait and see I guess.
We are not talking about your neighbor reading your mail or your mind(none of his business anyway), we are talking about the sickest nazis on the planet doing it.
Surely you realize that's a bit problematic?
Yes, it gives the opposition a potentially useful tool. As there are FAR too many dissidents of various types wandering around loose for it to be possible to personally persecute more than a tiny fraction of them,
Yes, you do have a point there, but it's not as if mass persecution of dissidents is impossible either. Just look at the US 'war on drugs'.
the main value of mass surveillance is for aggregate content analysis, social network mapping, and predictive modelling of large scale social behavior.
None of which is exactly harmless...
This may be useful for targeting and calibration of propaganda, and advance deployment of physical assets to counter populist political actions. But so far, Big Brother seems to suck at that kind of work...
I don't think there's been a real 'on the field' test yet.
Do the new surveillance capabilities the Internet gives military and police agencies outweigh the educational, intelligence, propaganda and organizational capabilities the Internet has given to radicals of all stripes? That remains to be seen,
Well, that I can agree with. I obviously am not too optimistic regarding future outcomes, at least as far as the near future is concerned.
but I am fairly sure that obsessive attention to "privacy" shifts the balance of power somewhat toward those whose whole job is to maintain the status quo.
That may be true.
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing.
How old are you?
Very old. Sometimes I wonder, "when did I get so damned old?" I watched Mercury and Gemini launches from my back yard.
Well, at 44 I'm not exactly young either =P. Anyway, I don't think the different views have much to do with age. Yes, young people on 'social networks' will post 'private' pictures for all the world to see, but I think even them have secrets they don't want to share.
People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
You want more age-based 'analysis'? The old farts you mentioned have raised generations of clueless young retards.
I didn't start the "age based" comments, but srsly, it doesn't take THAT much effort to find plenty of clever young radicals to play with IRL -
I don't think there are many radicals around here, either young or old =/ Maybe I should move... if you're OK with exposing your identity as a
"political dissident" on teh interwebs.
I kinda suspect I already did =P
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWa2JtAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LyFoQAK4hO/ko/nRojRE2m/n7ygSh h4kIEr0uMYsrwpDtE5M6OEkvQZZWZtk8jKj+0Oh4kO8GFWC5nvnbUjYor9HwPHhO PlhdIibMzrqYRfRelEduQt9QkYdhezxmwSUVLailzhEju8wVKRJ4rF9rN4qhL77T k5cqfrnfM2ILQesi/Ey8O7+vNjZIXXjLuERgn0Z/+aGgsA8VdIupx5T+whD6YtiD 2Fm62LCG7H4xdbivtuvYCa5yG2kNRU+zjjY5wMxdY2gMEBObD6KbA7YST3DxFdFi bqFv5LpjUQYitQ7Bq64ts4j5Hwg5+F2ZnGQt9D4XkUSPIM0Am1W/4jj1bqoBQxv2 p1tI+T1XLlPkIla4BIL7GRishlLzAxQGzkezeWdjfC3Z76yo0D1EZkabAy8x0WJv /g7scAynmMKD+zGV0kXyhv9nXmajReYe6cwEPIa8ZMnN7cqQiMLlt7tJHBLwG3pg A/d5xrJqhldAayjkxTx1F9HMLqapYFEVEPPH0gs308iUBTP2iWBqxO7LSByCbBU7 N+CBL3UKSl84G3XcQ4hyDqEZxD5if1Yo1y5jjmodF/NRhwuahf3AqhnIA87Qn+B/ o4Fne1yls+uNhM5rdtBHZOwIJaLuAfXE6iDF7X2q7cdTE+uVRfkGgTROTGrI247z fi4+ZbBhgdGMLSYzC/Bl =9n9b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----