Science and Inquiry discussion

My friend and I were talking about this a couple of weeks ago, basically with advancements of technology will the idea of privacy eventually disappear?

I mean they're working on mind reading technology and just the stuff we are already willing to fill out for a website account and post online privacy is kind of iffy now.

I believe eventually privacy will not exist and yes people will rebel to begin with, but like anything people will get used to it.

I was raised in a very large family with a cultural history of very large extended families.

I am today a 65 year old man who lives alone and never married.

Although my cultural and family history traditionally had practically zero privacy, my life choices seem to establish an almost pathological desire for total privacy.

As an educated liberal/left oriented individual my position is for a politically-structured sacred Right to Privacy. But the US Constitution has no established right to privacy (The State of Alaska does have such a right.) The right to privacy is argued to be implied by other Constitutional provisions--but it is not certain.

I bring up all of this contradictory personal/political information because I observe that the Right to Privacy may be a new idea. And since this is a Science and Inquiry discussion group, we may be in a position to ask what the Right to Privacy really is. And we are also presumably tech-savvy enough to understand the contradictory nature of the Internet--free speech but total surveillance possibilities.

So Privacy is really a complex and sticky subject today. Is it not?

Mosca, do you live in AK? Just curious. I didn't know that about the privacy right there. I have a son in AK.

About 30 years ago I lived for two winters in Alaska. I no longer live there.

During that time, because marijuana was legal in Alaska in those days, there was much discussion that Alaska's constitutional Right to Privacy was unique to Alaska's constitution.

I have since served in local city/county government. And common wisdom among the lawyers I've spoken to there is that the US has no constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Privacy. Although some argue that it is implied in other Constitutional provisions.

I am no lawyer and am not qualified to expound upon the Constitution. I support such a provision. I'm just not assured that one exists.

Thanks.

David Brin, the author and futurist, spends a lot of time talking about this. He has a whole book on it: The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom. I haven't read the book, but I follow him on Google+ and sometimes read his blog posts. If I understand correctly, he believes that we're basically going to lose most of our privacy, and that the way to combat it is to turn the tables. Makes sure that the government doesn't have any privacy either.

I agree that privacy will decline, although it probably will not disappear entirely. But the loss of privacy is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself; it seems to me that privacy and transparency are largely contradictory. A completely transparent society would require the absolute loss of privacy, which would offer some benefits, as well as some costs.

What we have today feels largely like a unidirectional loss of privacy, which makes many uneasy (and for good reason, due to the possibility of corruption) because of the asymmetrical privileges and knowledge.

The Internet of Things will largely mean a reduction in privacy, but again, having more sensors monitoring us is not necessarily inherently evil.

How does this discussion relate to Science?

Tricia wrote: "My friend and I were talking about this a couple of weeks ago, basically with advancements of technology will the idea of privacy eventually disappear?

I mean they're working on mind reading tech..."

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/tr... We r doomed.
Cheers.

Robbower wrote: "How does this discussion relate to Science?"

The name of the group is Science & Inquiry. Although we most often focus on science books or topics, we are open to discussions of all sorts of topics. If people don't want to discuss it, they will ignore it; if they do, all we ask is that the discussion be respectful.

I think privacy already has already decreased dramatically. Ultimately, this is all because of technological advancement, and primarily digitization of communication and data along with the dramatic increase in the ability to store and process that data. Without that (and a few other things, granted, like CCD / CMOS cameras) there wouldn't really be privacy issues as now semi-popularly discussed.

That said, a lot of the privacy changes are driven by social attitudes on top of the technology. The amount of information people publish about themselves on Facebook and Twitter is staggering; start including e.g. Foursquare, and it becomes (for some) downright disturbing. And that is without counting the numerous other bits you leave on Yelp, Instagram, Google+, plain ol' Google, some number of blogs, etc. Even if you hesitate to bare your soul on Twitter, most of us think nothing of entrusting our innermost thoughts to the likes of GMail, various chat services (maybe not IM anymore, but GChat, Facebook, etc.)

And that is (mostly) just text. How much does Amazon know about me? After 15 years (or is it twenty now... sigh)?

Note, btw, that none of this involves governments.

Most of us 'sell' our privacy -often at rock bottom, fire-sale prices- without even a second thought. I think, in many ways, that is bigger issue/question/realization. Privacy comes and goes (arguably, we now make so much an issue of it because we are just post a period of historically abnormally high levels of privacy.) What seems really different this time around is the ability to use the information gained in ways never before imagined, specifically to 'generate value,' and that goes back to the availability of cheap computing power and storage.

All this, of course, assumes one is not living in China of Iran. The discussion there would be radically different: what you get for 'selling' your information to e.g. Twitter is -potentially- worth it.

Resistance develops alongside unwanted developments. The culture and the counterculture are created at the same time--therefore the sophistication of privacy invasion will bring forth the sophistication of privacy.

I am not inherently resentful. I am saying this is what will inevitably happen if a significant level of UNWANTED privacy crossing develops. If it isn't wanted, then its counterpart (the sophistication of privacy) will develop comparably.

If it isn't wanted, then it isn't wanted, and corresponding adjustments will be made.

If 'transparency' can be sufficiently SOLD, then that is another matter.

Do you think it can be sold enough to prevent its counterpart developing with it? I don't.

PS: I have not been reading David Brin's blog, but I am a huge fan :)

PPS: If a right is not given in the Constitution, I suppose I just have to take it then. Should I wait around for some suit who knows nothing about me to decide what they get to know?

Such will, of course, be the logic behind the counter-sophistication of privacy in response to the sophistication of surveillance. If it is not wanted, the reaction is inevitable. Likewise, do you think a move to burn books would result in the disappearance of books? I rest my case.

Meanwhile, the internet remains (mostly) voluntary. The smart ones only use it for work.

Michel Foucault had a lot to say about surveillance. If people are afraid enough, you don't need any system of surveillance besides the people themselves. I am inclined to agree with him....

I had a recent encounter with the internet of things and the whole privacy issue. I have sleep apnea, which means I have to sleep with a CPAP machine attached to my face. (It keeps me breathing throughout the night.) I recently obtained a newer model machine, at my doctor's recommendation, even though the old one was working perfectly well. The new machine had all kinds of bells and whistles and optional settings, all controlled via a touch screen. So it would have taken some time during the day for me to get it all set up. When I go to bed, I just want to be able to turn the machine on and go to sleep. Anyway, I kept putting it off and putting it off. A couple times, the vendor called me and asked me if I was using the machine yet. After a few months, they called again and said that Medicare wouldn't pay for the machine if I didn't use it a certain amount by a certain date. So I asked how they knew.

It turns out the damn thing reported on daily usage via wifi to both my doctor and the vendor.

I'm actually something of a techie. I wasn't too concerned about the internet of things, until this happened. It just really freaked me out. Now, I have no objection to my doctor knowing how much I use my CPAP, but I don't want the machine to do the reporting automatically. I will tell the doctor what he needs to know. And I don't want the vendor to have that information. They'll just use it to try to convince me to buy more supplies and equipment.

So I took the damn machine back. It's probably a losing battle, but I just lost it.

I'm glad to see this topic surface as 2 things have surfaced lately that slapped me in the face with it.

I don't know the full story, but a friend of a friend on Facebook is calling for a boycott on Best Buy because he looked at an item in the store & later received an email from them asking why he hadn't purchased it. He has no idea how they knew he was in the store looking at the item & they were able to connect it to his personal email address. I can think of a couple of ways to know he was in the store, both very scary. The easiest would be an RFID scanner that recognized his credit card. The other would be facial recognition. The latter & his presence in a particular department would explain knowing the item. SCARY!



The other item that came up was a KY man shooting down a drone. Basically, it was over his backyard & he shot it down using a shotgun with #8 birdshot which has a max range of about 50 yards. According to him, his teenage daughters were sunbathing & he had time to get the gun because the drone was peering under the canopy into the windows of his neighbor's house. When 4 people showed up at his house & yelled at him for shooting the drone, he told them that, if they crossed the sidewalk, there would be another shooting. They didn't (Here in KY, shooting trespassers is a time honored tradition.) but the police locked him up on a couple of minor charges.

Here are 2 slightly different takes on the story:
http://www.cnet.com/news/man-shoots-d...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20...

This is very disturbing. The paparazzi have proven that anything that can be seen from a public area can be published. There are Peeping Tom laws, but there aren't clear laws on the air space around our homes. For instance, I live on a farm with a lot of area that is not visible if a person is not on our property. One area is a small grassy hollow where I have benches to sit & such. If I were to make love to my wife there & a drone flew over, it could take pictures or video. Could the owner then post them publicly & legally? Not that anyone would want to in our case, but I often feel for celebrities who are hassled at the most inappropriate times.

NoFlyZone.org is a free list where anyone can register their property as a no-fly zone. It has no authority & is only a list for some high end users & manufacturers, but it's a start & establishes my wishes. I wouldn't have any problem if someone asked & we could set rules first, but I don't want just any jackass flying over the place. It's not just privacy, but scaring the horses. They're terrified of them & could hurt themselves. They do that often enough without any help.

I am really worried about our loss of privacy.
A friend of mine some months ago was searching for a (I don't remember what) in a city, in the internet, from his smartphone. Then he used a tablet (that wasn't really of his, but it was used by him and a couple of friends for work stuff) and he noticed that a lot of popup ads were about the city he was looking for! On a different device!

I froze my Facebook account because it was very invading, and it was never clear at all about properties of my stuff and photos and opinions and so on. I activated a second account, that is empty, just to receive some news from organizations and groups I need.

I have an Instagram account, where I post some photos, but I am worried about the actual property of them. I like photography and I would be sure than those photos are still mine.

I always refuse to activate my google+ account that now is needed to do a lot of thing if you have an android smartphone (like me).

I always cover my webcam on notebook because I don't know if it is active or not. I should do the same on my smartphone.

Just to say, I feel like everything I do is registered and this makes me very unconfortable. And now drones...oh my.
But that thing about your friend's friend recognized in a real shop is terrifying!

About drones, I immediately went to check their status here in Italy, and I had a slight relief:

In Italy a regulative plan has just been approved. I read that drones cannot be used to collect personal data, that it must be certified, a licence is needed etc. If a drone collects personal data without permission, a heavy penalty is charged. If a drone compromise privacy, its pilot risks up to 4 years in prison.
More restrictive rules about more dangerous use of drones.
But I think that there is a loss of control, however. Who vigilates?

In the USA privacy has not been included in the regulatory plan about drones, in fact in Florida a local law has been approved to block drones flight over people if they compromise their privacy. It is terrible.

(However, they are very useful tools in a lot of field, they absolutely need a strict set of rules)

This is an emotional subject, and it seems that there are three distinct emotions involved.

1.) Fear of being watched. The idea that someone or something is watching you is creepy. This could be a remnant of our evolution as most of our ancestors were prey. While being watched is disconcerting, it is not clear that it has a moral gradient on it's own.

2.) Confusion stemming from a lack of external focus. Who do we blame? In the bad ole days we could blame "Big Brother" or the "Red Menace." Those were clearly defined, and therfore limited opponents. Today the voyeurs are less obvious, and more pervasive. We are watched from everywhere, and we don't know by whom. As a result we cannot easily shift the blame from ourselves.

3.) Resentment of influence. The collectors of our data do so with purpose. That purpose being to obtain insight and/or leverage with which they can influence our decisions. The simple truth is that we are a resource to be exploited for profit. We are a commodity. Sometimes they are selling our private photos on the web, and sometimes they are guaging which lie will get them re-elected. This constant coercion is maddening and immoral. It violates the categorical imperitive.

Perhaps it is on the third part that attention could be most usefully implemented.

J., good points. It's long been a rule of thumb that nothing is free &, as I have pointed out to my users for years, if you're not a paying customer, you're a product. Often, you're both & there isn't much we can do about it individually save be careful about what we put up on the web.

For years, data collection has been a fairly anonymous, generalized data set. Computers didn't have enough storage nor were they fast enough to economically invade our privacy too badly. We were all put into separate, generalized data sets, but the sets have grown smaller until they're individualized to an incredible degree. They can even tell who is using a computer by typing patterns.

A lot of people don't care about their privacy. They figure that if they're not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't need to worry. If the info is used just to target ads, that's OK with most of us, especially if the ads are small such as those in Gmail.

The real issues often arise when the data is stolen &/or used by rogues. Then seemingly innocuous data can be used to devastating effect. We're creatures of habit, so our movements can be tracked & predicted. Buying habits & personal information can be used to know which accounts to target for gain, guessing passwords, & all sorts of things.

I read an article years ago (maybe 15) where a man followed a girl home from a softball game, knocked on the door of her house & told the parents he was a friend of their daughter's from a chat room where she thought he was a boy her own age. In reality, he was a cop who had figured out exactly who she was even though she'd been very careful not to give out much personal info. She had posted her picture, mentioned her team's name, & enough other clues to the general area so he leveraged that into a successful stalk.

Yet no one remembers that example & people use apps that give out far more information on a consistent basis. The news is full of people who have been robbed because Facebook or their Twitter feed has broadcasted what they have & when they would be out of the house.

Perhaps this will result in a mass "phase-back-in" of older technology. Dare I hope that a good lot of people will even stop using credit cards???? I mean, if they are overbearing enough, HOPEFULLY people will be turned off enough to LEAVE "cutting edge communication" in droves. Maybe that's a bit Pollyanna, but I'm not talking about a return to the stone age, just a scale-back. Due to the lack of personal info stored on my old fashioned flip phone with no internet, I'm not even afraid to lose it. (Just annoyed at having to buy a new one, and of course will call customer service to suspend the account before someone uses it to make a bunch of international calls!!!)

No credit cards or bank account for me, not now, not ever. Of course I know this does not remove all "tracking" from my life, but it does make a difference. My bus card is not registered online and is only loaded with cash.

I do resent the fact that refusal to have a single credit card is grounds for bad credit. That was the reason given when I got my phone--"not enough trackable purchases" (all that meant was I had to pay more up front)

Dear credit system, penalizing me over failure to let you get a clear view of my purchases will NOT motivate me to play ball for you any time soon.

I am not afraid to say this on the internet :) I am hoping against hope that things like that Best Buy incident will encourage people to ditch their GPS, credit cards, online payments (you can pay most bills in cash at a currency exchange), and other tracking-friendly things we used to do just fine without. That would not be a fix, but it would be a help.

What value would credit ratings even have if people went back to cash? What value do they have NOW when so many have been "accidentally" forced into debt?


And Betsy, that is extremely creepy. Interesting that YOU have no way of hunting down whatever whiz kid put that feature on your CPAP to, I dunno, give them a wedgie.

That's probably not your style, but my point is, what a FUNNY little one-way street the disappearance of privacy is. Can you find THEM like they can find YOU? Of course not. How convenient it "just ended up" that way ;)

Mel, I'm sure there won't be a mass move to older tech to regain privacy. One of the main reasons people use newer tech is that it is convenient & they will take awful risks for that ability - what I consider risks, anyway. They don't see it that way, though. If Apple or some major company says it's OK, they figure it probably is.

Besides it's new & shiny which tickles them. That last factor is incredibly pervasive & strong as evidenced by the folks lining up to pay ridiculous sums for the latest gadget before they even know much about it. Privacy is far down on their list of things to worry about.

I'm somewhat familiar with the off-the-grid movement. Seems like an awful lot of work to me. Do you read 'Countryside' magazine? My cousin gave me a year subscription. I grew up doing a lot of that (no choice) & don't miss it. A few people I know are living that way today. It's pretty big around here, although it often goes in hand with less savory attitudes like religious extremism or plain paranoia. Not my idea of a balanced, enjoyable life. That's why I have a "Gentleman's Farm". IOW, it's a farm, but not expected to make money or support us.

Cash economy? Not happening any more than going back to a gold standard. There isn't enough or far too much, depending. I don't know much about it, but from the few articles I've read managing cash money is a major problem for every gov't in these high tech days with the world so small. It's not just money in-country, but also the amounts stashed & used around the globe. Counterfeiting is huge problem, too.

How could anyone buy a house, tractor, or car? It became a hassle not to have a credit card over 30 years ago. I couldn't rent a motel room or a piece of equipment without one. Many companies aren't even set up to accept it or charge extra if I don't allow them to suck the money directly out of bank accounts. I wouldn't know where or how to pay quite a few bills in cash. I'd have to drive an hour each way to pay my electric bill & I'm not sure they accept cash. My water bill can't be paid in cash, so I'd have to get a money order & then mail or drop it off. I'm not willing to do that, but I won't use the computer to pay most bills, either.

I think privacy is a very limited personal choice. In order to function in our modern society, much of our privacy is lost. Knowing where it is lost & how the information can be used is our responsibility. That requires more thought than most are willing or able to take, though.

I agree, it certainly is a one-way street. It requires constant vigilance & thoughts toward the future. Public cameras are one such consideration. While their installation may be for very limited portions of public safety (red light, speed, road conditions, high crime, etc.) their use can be changed at any time either legally or illegally. We might applaud when a bad guy is tracked on a TV cop show, but we have to remember the dangers that a disgruntled employee of the system can pose, too. It's one reason I'm dead set against a national database. Now multiple databases have to be compromised. If every podunk town cop has access to a single major system, we're screwed.

Database security & remediation systems just aren't there yet. I hope they do get a lot better before the national database becomes a reality, but I'm sure it won't be pretty. One of my users had her tax return counterfeited last year & she's still fighting with the effects even though the IRS acknowledged the issue immediately & knew it had been. In the meantime - 18 months later - she's still cussing about problems that come up because of it. Several SF authors have addressed the issues & they bring up some scary scenarios.

"Mel, I'm sure there won't be a mass move to older tech to regain privacy. One of the main reasons people use newer tech is that it is convenient & they will take awful risks for that ability - what I consider risks, anyway. They don't see it that way, though. If Apple or some major company says it's OK, they figure it probably is.

Besides it's new & shiny which tickles them. That last factor is incredibly pervasive & strong as evidenced by the folks lining up to pay ridiculous sums for the latest gadget before they even know much about it. Privacy is far down on their list of things to worry about."

I agree. Most solutions that depend on mass cooperation are pipe dreams. In fact, I might say all of them are.

"I'm somewhat familiar with the off-the-grid movement. Seems like an awful lot of work to me."

Therein lies the 2nd problem. People do not like WORK. They do not like it at all ;) That is how we got here to begin with. I agree that COMPLETE off-the-grid, which I wasn't suggesting, is darn near impossible. I knew ONE person who did it successfully, and he was not able to do it for more than a year.

"Cash economy? Not happening any more than going back to a gold standard. There isn't enough or far too much, depending. I don't know much about it, but from the few articles I've read managing cash money is a major problem for every gov't in these high tech days with the world so small. It's not just money in-country, but also the amounts stashed & used around the globe. Counterfeiting is huge problem, too."

Probably not enough, thanks to the "credit movement," AKA "s*** now, wipe later" ;) "Managing" is always a problem, and depending on what types of management it still is coming down to either a need to back off, or saying "but I don't wanna," if it's just too much work for them. The national debt exists strictly on convenience, depending on the matter at hand. Counterfeiting, meanwhile, is as old as cash. Wooden nickels. Bad groschen. Before cash, people bartered something crappy for something nice every time that they could get away with it.


"How could anyone buy a house, tractor, or car? It became a hassle not to have a credit card over 30 years ago. I couldn't rent a motel room or a piece of equipment without one. Many companies aren't even set up to accept it or charge extra if I don't allow them to suck the money directly out of bank accounts. I wouldn't know where or how to pay quite a few bills in cash. I'd have to drive an hour each way to pay my electric bill & I'm not sure they accept cash. My water bill can't be paid in cash, so I'd have to get a money order & then mail or drop it off. I'm not willing to do that, but I won't use the computer to pay most bills, either."

I say again: Mass cooperation. While I completely agree it is very unlikely, it would be a solution, as how could a business demand credit cards if no one uses them anymore? Even now, there are ways around it, just not ones that most people like. This would include houses. I cannot vouch for banks, (Unless we mass withdraw from them as well! Fat chance, but good idea.) but people trying to sell their houses, and realtors, would be a bit stuck, if there were a nice widespread ditching of credit cards, as people who demand otherwise would simply have nowhere to turn. A beautiful forcing of the Hand that I agree is a pipe dream. Even now, you can work something out between people if you want to--it's just most people have bought the credit check thing hook, line, and sinker, and in the end, it was really just a way for people to pretend they have more money than they DO ;) It came down to people wanting something right-this-second that they can't pay for up front. "Establishing credit" is only the excuse.

It is true that it is easier for me to pay bills at the currency exchange or phone store, because I live in a big city. The closest currency exchange is walking distance, and yes, I have taken a water bill, and every other utility, there. With cash. (I rent with a friend who owns her house). I did fail to take into account the fact that going to the currency exchange, or phone store, etc, to pay your bill, will be a huge pain if you do NOT live in a big city, where they are everywhere. For internet, you can go to the store, just like with the phone, or the currency exchange. If you go the CE, it takes two business days to process, just fyi.

I do not want a car, but if I did, lack of a credit card would not stop me from getting one. Meanwhile, the phrase "carbon footprint," apparently allows me to put on a halo for not having a car. (Seriously, it cuts the carbon footprint in a good half.)

The hassle of not having a credit card was done deliberately, it is very oppressive, and it is a way of enforcing laws without writing them. As our privacy disappears, those doing it become ever more faceless. We are being played. Hard. Are we going to bend over and take it, or what?

Even when database security improves, it will still "work," according to the convenience of those who control it. Just like they "accidentally" get more privacy as we get less.

Tricia wrote: "My friend and I were talking about this a couple of weeks ago, basically with advancements of technology will the idea of privacy eventually disappear? "

Didn't Mark Zuckerberg give a speech about 5 years ago where he said that he personally planned to destroy privacy? He talked about it in the same tones as people talking racism (both stupid concepts only "old people" care about).

Mel wrote: "Even when database security improves, it will still "work," according to the convenience of those who control it. Just like they "accidentally" get more privacy as we get less. "

I agree but think this missed the point a bit. It's not "work" that's the obstacle because if that were true, people would do the easy stuff which is the stuff that has the biggest impact anyway.

A person getting off facebook and never going back accomplishes more for privacy than all the threads about privacy on all the boards on the internet. Getting off facebook isn't really hard or much "work". The greater issue is that people don't care.

Everytime I see another article lamenting the loss of privacy and scroll down to "like us on facebook", I lose a little more respect for whoever wrote that obviously insincere article. I mean, who do they think they are kidding? Even the person writing the article doesn't care about privacy enough to stay off a single website or even slow their rate of advertising that site to others.

I'm not picking on fb in particular. Plenty of companies are bad about this, but they are as bad or worse than everyone else by a country mile so they make a good example. The NSA pulls less data on people than facebook does.

Daniel wrote: "...A person getting off facebook and never going back accomplishes more for privacy than all the threads about privacy on all the boards on the internet...."

Oh, how true!!! You really nailed it.

"I agree but think this missed the point a bit. It's not "work" that's the obstacle because if that were true, people would do the easy stuff which is the stuff that has the biggest impact anyway."

What are you referring to?


"A person getting off facebook and never going back accomplishes more for privacy than all the threads about privacy on all the boards on the internet. "

Completely, 100% agree. Same with trolling, technically. We have many, many stoned teens and immature adults to thank for providing a cesspool of nonsense for Big Brother to weed through. It's also fun, as long as you are not horrible about it. It also helps privacy to just be mindful of what you post--you don't have to get very personal. You can just turn it into a music or cooking blog if you feel like it. It is more about WHAT you post than whether or not you do it. You can even make an account that is strictly FOR bitching about your taboo thing of choice, (e.g. workplace, friends, family, whatever) and just omit distinguishing details. don't name the company or yourself, etc. Yes, when push comes to shove, you can be found by your IP address, or phone tracked. Still a waste of time and resources to hone in on every last whining/trolling session without a good reason. Again I thank the screaming weirdos for providing so much static. But I do agree that the best possible thing is to go offline entirely.

It's a shame though. The internet had such beautiful possibilities. Still does, in the way of communication!

Sorry, PS, one more example. Those who enjoy making embarrassing fake dating site profiles for their friends. You know, with a bad picture of them, and making them sound like a psycho. Technically they are being very helpful. Same with those who make fictional pages just to screw with people. As long as they aren't being sadistic, it's actually a noble thing to do ;P No one has the time to do a million, but do you know how many people do it, giggling all the way? Millions.

Short of a new dark age, the internet is not going away anytime soon.

I would suggest a two pronged strategy for maintaining an acceptable level of privacy for society as a whole.

1.) Children should be taught good security practices. This should be done in a straight forward manner, much as money management and sex education should be. It is a necessary life skill, and should be treated as such.

2.) Unfortunately, there will need to be new legislation governing databases and copyrights. This will be complicated by a need for international cooperation. (It is appropriate to laugh at that statement.

These stratagems will require some difficult social engineering, but I think they are doable.

Sophos Naked Security posted about the guy that shot the drone down over his property on FB & there was some discussion.
https://www.facebook.com/SophosSecuri...

I commented about not wanting drones to post pictures of my private property & activities as I did in #6 in this topic. One reply was scary.

Simon James Lambert: "In the UK they can, being 'over' an area isn't the same as being 'on' it. If you don't like that, bad luck. It's proven case law here, and UK law allows you to film / photograph almost anywhere, with only a few exceptions.

There are some big differences between the UK & the US. I think this will wind up being another. I sure hope so.

Here's another instance of an invasion of privacy & possibly copyright - people using pictures you took of your kids to play role playing games!
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015...

I never would have thought of anyone doing that. The end of the short article has some good guidelines.

Another interesting article on privacy by Sophos' Naked Security.

...There's little transparency into how police are using [biometric] technologies, which they're using, how accurate they are, nor what, if any, policies are being used to protect our rights....
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015...

Ha, in an odd way this reminds of the "Craigslist prank" 10ish years ago. A guy pretended to be a woman looking for naughty fun (complete with a naughty picture that was either a friend of his, or just copied off an amateur porn site, depending on who you ask). He encouraged all interested parties to send pictures (both of their upstairs and their downstairs). He then proceeded to post all of the responses publicly on the internet, complete with their personal info, and any pictures they had sent. All of them were furious, especially the married ones, (can't imagine why) and a couple of them tried to sue him (don't know if they succeeded). I think that's why it came to mind. The legality got pretty murky, as those guys had all sent the info/pics to a stranger on the internet that they thought was an interested lady. Thereafter, the emails were the prankster's to do what he wanted with--not much different than a sneaky BCC on a family or company email, really. Again, I don't remember offhand if any of the lawsuit attempts succeeded--I suppose they could have gotten him for harassment, technically. It would depend on the judge, etc.

Oh and J: I agree.

Mel wrote: "Ha, in an odd way this reminds of the "Craigslist prank" 10ish years ago. A guy pretended to be a woman looking for naughty fun ..."

I think you're talking about Fortuny & he did get sued by at least one person. Cost him $75K, I believe. Not sure if others went after him, too. He reveled in the publicity that this caused - a true troll. He spawned several copy cats & sites for public shaming.

Public shaming is a horrible practice that I see often on Facebook. It's worse than the old practice of locking people in stocks because a judge hasn't even ruled on the crime, just a bunch of idiots. This often ruins people's lives for a single mistake or bad choice. Sometimes just because a picture or video is taken out of context.

On the topic of privacy & public shaming, the Ashley Madison hack is in the news again. A lot of people think it's great that cheaters are being outed, but this article from the Washington Post makes some good points on why such a breach is bad.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mo...

Jim wrote: "On the topic of privacy & public shaming, the Ashley Madison hack is in the news again. A lot of people think it's great that cheaters are being outed, but this article from the Washington Post ma..."

It's hard to take seriously any person to whom whether or not hacking and posting personal data is okay is based on whether or not they personally approve of the person who got hacked. It's the equivalent of saying "I don't like LeBron James in interviews, therefor he plays basketball badly."

The issues are not related and confusing them reflects a lack of intelligence or at the very least a willingness to have a moral opinion on an issue you haven't even really thought about. Either way, it's hard to take such a person seriously in those situations.

I agree with that, Daniel. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them feeding into the idiocy that it's OK in this situation. I think the other thing that really disturbs me is that it isn't any of their business if someone is cheating on their spouse.

Jim wrote: "I agree with that, Daniel. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them feeding into the idiocy that it's OK in this situation. I think the other thing that really disturbs me is that it isn't any of th..."

I agree. Many many people feel entitled to a moral opinion on everyone around them as it is. Situations like this one are just another excuse for people of that sort.

Jim wrote: "Mel wrote: "Ha, in an odd way this reminds of the "Craigslist prank" 10ish years ago. A guy pretended to be a woman looking for naughty fun ..."

I think you're talking about Fortuny & he did get s..."

Ya, that was him. I remembered his name was "Fortuna or Fortune or something like that," but couldn't remember anything else. I had wondered how the legality came out, as there were many different angles the lawsuit(s) could have taken. The outcome would be unpredictable, since the plaintiffs had volunteered all of the information to someone they literally did not know the first thing about, and presumably knew full well what could be done with it.

This is not to be confused with a defense of the prank, or even a commentary on it. In a technical sense, what he actually did was not unlike a BCC on an email, which has bugged me from the get-go, even though I know it has its good uses. A BCC in turn is no different from the old-fashioned "listen in on the phone extension while you friend asks what they REALLY think of you," though you could usually hear the extension being picked up and put down ;) You know, the old phones in the houses, with the cords?

The actual prank was vicious to the point of creepy--it's one thing to just mess with people a little bit with some psycho fictional persona, but I do have to wonder what kind of a person would wake up one morning and think "Hey, I'm gonna completely screw and humiliate a bunch of STRANGERS WHO DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ME! Ooh, maybe it'll even ruin their lives!"

Whereas the guy who did dontevenreply.com blanks out all personal information, and that's why he can put all of his trolling sessions into a book and publish it. They are funny, by the way, IMO

Yeah, public shaming is creepy, and I use the pillory comparison, when yet another "awesome parent" comes up in the news for shaming their kid, specially over something like bad grades. Gross--no mystery to me why the poor kid felt the need to lie about her grades in the first place :( Another example of tech advances simply speeding up very old behaviors that we never really ditched.

PS: I know nothing about Ashley Madison or who she is, I'm going to have to look it up!

On infidelity, another example is the show Cheaters. Trashier than dollar nachos, and moralism has nothing to do with it. It is really more sadistic entertainment a la Jerry Springer. It's like omg they're caught, haha caught him in bondage gear w/ a hooker, let's film it, haha he's embarrassed, let's film his gf screaming at him now. No internet necessary.

My old roommate loooooooved that show. And yes, I did watch it with him sometimes.

And I just clicked on the WP article and the Ashley Madison hack IS basically a cyber version of the show Cheaters. Word for word, almost. "haha, they're in trouble!" Jeez, I might as well be watching Cheaters now, literally. They nailed it with the word schadenfreude. It is the cyber equivalent of just "pantsing" someone and walking away.

As I think about the internet my mind wanders to Hobbes, Locke and even Nietchze. Not very scientific I'm afraid, but appropriate.

At this point, I think that we can all agree that any kind of web enabled inplant is probably a bad idea.

Especially if all of the implants were connected to one big central computer and the computer crashed! (Star Trek, anyone?)

More seriously, though--just the way regular, ahem, out of body, hardware and software runs at least half the time should be enough to turn off anyone with half a brain :/

Mel wrote: "Jim wrote: "...what he actually did was not unlike a BCC on an email..."

Hmmm... This is not how I view a BCC email. I use them often to inform users of issues when I don't want them to mix up replies or know who/how many others had the issue. A BCC enhances privacy.

I think there is an expectation of privacy that needs to be adhered to both legally & morally in any sort of email exchange or it ruins it for everyone. I've certainly seen enough exceptions not to have high expectations, but I have little respect for those who feel it's OK or funny to see this sort of thing made public. Your example of pantsing is a good one. Perfect, in fact.

Since AM did nothing to insure correct information, even the minor step of confirming an email address, the leaked data is the worst sort of gossip. I remember an old, nasty trick where a guy signed another up for a bunch of free fetish & gay magazines & catalogs. Today it probably wouldn't be a big deal, but in the 70's & in the Army, it was devastating. I saw it happen again about 10 years later in a rural area. It was even worse then.

Jim wrote: "Mel wrote: "Jim wrote: "...what he actually did was not unlike a BCC on an email..."

Hmmm... This is not how I view a BCC email. I use them often to inform users of issues when I don't want them ..."

Ya, AM may have been operating on the assumption that "if it's a paid membership, then only 'real' people will sign up," but how hard is it to make a fictional page with a stolen credit card? The answer is they don't care. They probably didn't even care whose credit card it was, unless it directly affected THEM, not foreseeing something like this.


Some sites verify credit cards by asking for a DL#, which leads to the main reason for hacking sites like that--the credit card numbers and any other data that make the database a gold mine. You can sell identities and/or credit card numbers INDIVIDUALLY.

.....though it sounds like the hacker group was more into announcing what they found than discreetly racking up a bunch of bills to the credit card numbers they found ;)

Mel wrote: ".....though it sounds like the hacker group was more into announcing what they found than discreetly racking up a bunch of bills to the credit card numbers they found ;)"

I agree. Considering that it is stolen data from an insecure site that is often reposted & filtered to embarrass specific groups of people, you'd think people wouldn't pay much attention. Sure, a few people have confessed, but I'll bet a lot just got smeared.