In 10 years...

[Designer]

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

I think you're missing one important detail:

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

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

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

 

[Forkie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bribrius]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Forkie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The terms and conditions of every site you visit are there to be read and agreed to. I almost never read them - I doubt you do either, but that is our own responsibility, not the corporation's.

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

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

I think you're missing one important detail:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Designer]

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

 

[Forkie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bribrius]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gsgary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not on here it ain't

 

[limr]

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

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

 

[bribrius]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not on here it ain't

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

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

 

[pgriz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[limr]

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

 

[pgriz]

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

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

 

[JacaRanda]

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

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

 

[Forkie]

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

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