In 10 years...

[gsgary]

I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing. If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.

I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.

Facebook learns what type of ads or news stories I like and which of my friends I interact with most, so display the most relevant stories from the friends I actually care about (fewer baby pictures! Woo!)

My iPhone learns what words I use most in messages and the dictionary corrects spelling mistakes more accurately.

People always seem to be worried that governments are going to be spying on us in the future, but they already know almost everything and how much worse are our lives for it? Governments and corporations already know:

Where we live: electoral role, utility bills, TV/internet subscriptions,
Who we live with: Censuses, marriage/child/death registers,
How much we earn: mortgage/loan applications, credit ratings,
Where we are NOW: Google Maps, GPS, smart phones,
Where we work: Payroll, tax codes, national insurance/social security records,
Where we go on holiday (and who with!): Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
Where we shop and what we buy: credit cards, loyalty cards, etc.

The list just goes on. I find these things make life better and more convenient, not worse. Yes it's all for someone elses commercial gain, but that's how the world works.

The internet is the most important invention in history. I genuinely believe that the more the world is connected together, the more chance there is of everyone getting on with each other. In fact, I think it is vital for the world's cultural and social unity and will bring all people from all cultures, backgrounds and levels of economic development closer together and more peaceful.

Just look at this website as a fine example. There are people from every corner of the globe that come here to chat about something we all have an interest in. We can learn from each other, help each other, even MEET each other if we so wish. Imagine if we could have done that 101 years ago when the first world war started - how much better and more enlightened the world might be by now.

Bring it on, I say. Bring it all on. Connect, connect, connect!

Thats funny there have been more wars since the internet, terrorist can get information out easier.My partner works for the police they love facebook and all the others when there's a murder that's one of the first things they look at

 

[Forkie]

I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing. If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.

I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.

Facebook learns what type of ads or news stories I like and which of my friends I interact with most, so display the most relevant stories from the friends I actually care about (fewer baby pictures! Woo!)

My iPhone learns what words I use most in messages and the dictionary corrects spelling mistakes more accurately.

People always seem to be worried that governments are going to be spying on us in the future, but they already know almost everything and how much worse are our lives for it? Governments and corporations already know:

Where we live: electoral role, utility bills, TV/internet subscriptions,
Who we live with: Censuses, marriage/child/death registers,
How much we earn: mortgage/loan applications, credit ratings,
Where we are NOW: Google Maps, GPS, smart phones,
Where we work: Payroll, tax codes, national insurance/social security records,
Where we go on holiday (and who with!): Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
Where we shop and what we buy: credit cards, loyalty cards, etc.

The list just goes on. I find these things make life better and more convenient, not worse. Yes it's all for someone elses commercial gain, but that's how the world works.

The internet is the most important invention in history. I genuinely believe that the more the world is connected together, the more chance there is of everyone getting on with each other. In fact, I think it is vital for the world's cultural and social unity and will bring all people from all cultures, backgrounds and levels of economic development closer together and more peaceful.

Just look at this website as a fine example. There are people from every corner of the globe that come here to chat about something we all have an interest in. We can learn from each other, help each other, even MEET each other if we so wish. Imagine if we could have done that 101 years ago when the first world war started - how much better and more enlightened the world might be by now.

Bring it on, I say. Bring it all on. Connect, connect, connect!

Thats funny there have been more wars since the internet, terrorist can get information out easier.My partner works for the police they love facebook and all the others when there's a murder that's one of the first things they look at

No there haven't. That is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've ever heard.

There have been wars in sub-saharan Africa and the Far East and the Falklands and Vietnam and South America and Europe raging NO-STOP since humans could rub two pieces of wood together millenia before the world wide web could start reporting them.

The fact that your partner in the police use Facebook in murder cases illustrates my point PRECISELY. The police can pinpoint a suspect's whereabouts whenever and wherever they were at the time of the crime either by GPS records or simple status updates and photos, and either eliminate them from their enquiries or apprehend them if the evidence calls for it. The internet and social networking coupled with CCTV makes it practically impossible to get away with crimes of that magnitude.

The Paris shootings are another wonderful example. Within MINUTES of the attack on those 10 journalists and 2 police officers, the world knew and was condemning the action. The whole world is supporting the victims and their representation of free speech. The chances of the culprits getting away with it is almost none.

Every time someone makes a serious threat to someone else on Twitter, they are lampooned and condemned. Religious fundamentalists (of all faiths) are loosing ground with their extreme behaviour stirring up disgust with the civilised population. Yes, terrorists can use the internet for their own ends too, but they are in the minority by a very long way.

The world is watching everyone else and commenting on them - there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part it is making the world a more civilised and socially aware place to live.

 

[gsgary]

I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing. If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.

I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.

Facebook learns what type of ads or news stories I like and which of my friends I interact with most, so display the most relevant stories from the friends I actually care about (fewer baby pictures! Woo!)

My iPhone learns what words I use most in messages and the dictionary corrects spelling mistakes more accurately.

People always seem to be worried that governments are going to be spying on us in the future, but they already know almost everything and how much worse are our lives for it? Governments and corporations already know:

Where we live: electoral role, utility bills, TV/internet subscriptions,
Who we live with: Censuses, marriage/child/death registers,
How much we earn: mortgage/loan applications, credit ratings,
Where we are NOW: Google Maps, GPS, smart phones,
Where we work: Payroll, tax codes, national insurance/social security records,
Where we go on holiday (and who with!): Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
Where we shop and what we buy: credit cards, loyalty cards, etc.

The list just goes on. I find these things make life better and more convenient, not worse. Yes it's all for someone elses commercial gain, but that's how the world works.

The internet is the most important invention in history. I genuinely believe that the more the world is connected together, the more chance there is of everyone getting on with each other. In fact, I think it is vital for the world's cultural and social unity and will bring all people from all cultures, backgrounds and levels of economic development closer together and more peaceful.

Just look at this website as a fine example. There are people from every corner of the globe that come here to chat about something we all have an interest in. We can learn from each other, help each other, even MEET each other if we so wish. Imagine if we could have done that 101 years ago when the first world war started - how much better and more enlightened the world might be by now.

Bring it on, I say. Bring it all on. Connect, connect, connect!

Thats funny there have been more wars since the internet, terrorist can get information out easier.My partner works for the police they love facebook and all the others when there's a murder that's one of the first things they look at

No there haven't. That is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've ever heard.

There have been wars in sub-saharan Africa and the Far East and the Falklands and Vietnam and South America and Europe raging NO-STOP since humans could rub two pieces of wood together millenia before the world wide web could start reporting them.

The fact that your partner in the police use Facebook in murder cases illustrates my point PRECISELY. The police can pinpoint a suspect's whereabouts whenever and wherever they were at the time of the crime either by GPS records or simple status updates and photos, and either eliminate them from their enquiries or apprehend them if the evidence calls for it. The internet and social networking coupled with CCTV makes it practically impossible to get away with crimes of that magnitude.

The Paris shootings are another wonderful example. Within MINUTES of the attack on those 10 journalists and 2 police officers, the world knew and was condemning the action. The whole world is supporting the victims and their representation of free speech. The chances of the culprits getting away with it is almost none.

Every time someone makes a serious threat to someone else on Twitter, they are lampooned and condemned. Religious fundamentalists (of all faiths) are loosing ground with their extreme behaviour stirring up disgust with the civilised population. Yes, terrorists can use the internet for their own ends too, but they are in the minority by a very long way.

The world is watching everyone else and commenting on them - there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part it is making the world a more civilised and socially aware place to live.

You might like being watched but I don't and there is no way I will ever use Facebook or any of the other I leave that for all the sad bastards with no life

 

[pgriz]

Forkie, the issue is one of power imbalance. Generally, entities like companies and governments have vastly more resources available to them compared to individual citizens, and that makes them very powerful. I would like to believe that most people in those entities do not abuse their access to that power. However, if someone does decide to persecute an ordinary individual, and we are talking of non-rational behaviour, then the more information is available on the individual, the more potential harm can be caused. Persecuting scenarios include vengeful ex-partners, business rivals, political enemies, envious neighours, people with righteous views (almost on any topic), and so on.

Consider also the case of an ordinary individual who is a non-conformist, or is "different" in some way from the majority of people around them. There are usually enough people in positions of power who may be uncomfortable with this non-conformance to "norms", and may try to "correct" the situation. The more they know about the individual, the more avenues they have to exert pressure.

The power of social media to disseminate information, also includes the power to disseminate misinformation, falsehood, forgeries, scams, partial truths and the like. How many of the recipients of such misinformation take the time to validate the assertions being made? As you are probably aware, it takes a lot of determined digging to verify what is presented on the internet as "truth". And even in circumstances where the facts may be obvious, there is often the question of context which determines how those facts should be understood. We really need to have a serious societal discussion about what information is being collected on each of us, and how that information can be used or misused.

 

[Forkie]

I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing. If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.

I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.

Facebook learns what type of ads or news stories I like and which of my friends I interact with most, so display the most relevant stories from the friends I actually care about (fewer baby pictures! Woo!)

My iPhone learns what words I use most in messages and the dictionary corrects spelling mistakes more accurately.

People always seem to be worried that governments are going to be spying on us in the future, but they already know almost everything and how much worse are our lives for it? Governments and corporations already know:

Where we live: electoral role, utility bills, TV/internet subscriptions,
Who we live with: Censuses, marriage/child/death registers,
How much we earn: mortgage/loan applications, credit ratings,
Where we are NOW: Google Maps, GPS, smart phones,
Where we work: Payroll, tax codes, national insurance/social security records,
Where we go on holiday (and who with!): Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
Where we shop and what we buy: credit cards, loyalty cards, etc.

The list just goes on. I find these things make life better and more convenient, not worse. Yes it's all for someone elses commercial gain, but that's how the world works.

The internet is the most important invention in history. I genuinely believe that the more the world is connected together, the more chance there is of everyone getting on with each other. In fact, I think it is vital for the world's cultural and social unity and will bring all people from all cultures, backgrounds and levels of economic development closer together and more peaceful.

Just look at this website as a fine example. There are people from every corner of the globe that come here to chat about something we all have an interest in. We can learn from each other, help each other, even MEET each other if we so wish. Imagine if we could have done that 101 years ago when the first world war started - how much better and more enlightened the world might be by now.

Bring it on, I say. Bring it all on. Connect, connect, connect!

Thats funny there have been more wars since the internet, terrorist can get information out easier.My partner works for the police they love facebook and all the others when there's a murder that's one of the first things they look at

No there haven't. That is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've ever heard.

There have been wars in sub-saharan Africa and the Far East and the Falklands and Vietnam and South America and Europe raging NO-STOP since humans could rub two pieces of wood together millenia before the world wide web could start reporting them.

The fact that your partner in the police use Facebook in murder cases illustrates my point PRECISELY. The police can pinpoint a suspect's whereabouts whenever and wherever they were at the time of the crime either by GPS records or simple status updates and photos, and either eliminate them from their enquiries or apprehend them if the evidence calls for it. The internet and social networking coupled with CCTV makes it practically impossible to get away with crimes of that magnitude.

The Paris shootings are another wonderful example. Within MINUTES of the attack on those 10 journalists and 2 police officers, the world knew and was condemning the action. The whole world is supporting the victims and their representation of free speech. The chances of the culprits getting away with it is almost none.

Every time someone makes a serious threat to someone else on Twitter, they are lampooned and condemned. Religious fundamentalists (of all faiths) are loosing ground with their extreme behaviour stirring up disgust with the civilised population. Yes, terrorists can use the internet for their own ends too, but they are in the minority by a very long way.

The world is watching everyone else and commenting on them - there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part it is making the world a more civilised and socially aware place to live.

You might like being watched but I don't and there is no way I will ever use Facebook or any of the other I leave that for all the sad bastards with no life

It's not about "liking being watched" it's about not being paranoid. Nobody in any government or corporation office is sitting in front of a screen and watching you. They watch the masses; trends; the population as a whole. Any advert or seemingly personal message to you on the internet is generated by a computer algorithm, not a Man-in-Black in a government basement with inexplicable glass panels with white felt-tip written on them and blue fluorescent lights. You've been watching too much Jack Bauer.

Forkie, the issue is one of power imbalance. Generally, entities like companies and governments have vastly more resources available to them compared to individual citizens, and that makes them very powerful. I would like to believe that most people in those entities do not abuse their access to that power. However, if someone does decide to persecute an ordinary individual, and we are talking of non-rational behaviour, then the more information is available on the individual, the more potential harm can be caused. Persecuting scenarios include vengeful ex-partners, business rivals, political enemies, envious neighours, people with righteous views (almost on any topic), and so on.

Consider also the case of an ordinary individual who is a non-conformist, or is "different" in some way from the majority of people around them. There are usually enough people in positions of power who may be uncomfortable with this non-conformance to "norms", and may try to "correct" the situation. The more they know about the individual, the more avenues they have to exert pressure.

The power of social media to disseminate information, also includes the power to disseminate misinformation, falsehood, forgeries, scams, partial truths and the like. How many of the recipients of such misinformation take the time to validate the assertions being made? As you are probably aware, it takes a lot of determined digging to verify what is presented on the internet as "truth". And even in circumstances where the facts may be obvious, there is often the question of context which determines how those facts should be understood. We really need to have a serious societal discussion about what information is being collected on each of us, and how that information can be used or misused.

So not being on Facebook balances out that power, does it? Media and governments have always tried to move the population to conform to their ideals since the dawn of civilisation. It doesn't work. Except maybe in North Korea.

The population of any country is more powerful than any government. The French are brilliant at it. If they don't get paid enough, or don't get enough time off work, they strike and refuse to work. If someone doesn't like the way the company they work for is run, they quit. If taxes are too high, they vote out the government that raised them. In the UK, the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg said in his manifesto before the last election that he would remove student fees for university. He became deputy Prime Minister in the current coalition government and when the Conservatives RAISED the student fees, he did absolutely nothing about it despite his apparent loathing of student fees. He'll never get near leadership again. The student population alone will take care of that.

Misinformation is weeded out. Wikipedia, for want of a better example, demonstrates this. Make a false change on any page and it is corrected by someone else within minutes. Is there any evidence somewhere of an individual who has been apparently forcibly coerced into altering their "non-conformist behaviour"? I think the world's social networks would have something to say about that.

The scenarios you quoted, i.e., vengeful partners, business rivals, envious neighbours etc, are normal civil disputes between normal human beings - the internet and social network has only changed those scenarios by the speed and medium by which one can carry out those disputes, not changed the severity or consequences of them. We were talking about governments controlling populations (and individuals) and tin-foil hat situations.

Governments are not interested in your average individual Joe Bloggs or village idiot or even the the local fundamentalist. The Westboro Baptist Church seem to picket soldiers' and other people's funerals with homophobic and mysogynistic placards without much hinderance from the government. In fact, they are TAX EXEMPT because they are a church. But the world of social media hates them and lets them know about it. They can never gain ground or mass popularity because the civilised world simply won't allow it.

The population is much more powerful than any government or corporation.

 

[gsgary]

I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing. If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.

I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.

Facebook learns what type of ads or news stories I like and which of my friends I interact with most, so display the most relevant stories from the friends I actually care about (fewer baby pictures! Woo!)

My iPhone learns what words I use most in messages and the dictionary corrects spelling mistakes more accurately.

People always seem to be worried that governments are going to be spying on us in the future, but they already know almost everything and how much worse are our lives for it? Governments and corporations already know:

Where we live: electoral role, utility bills, TV/internet subscriptions,
Who we live with: Censuses, marriage/child/death registers,
How much we earn: mortgage/loan applications, credit ratings,
Where we are NOW: Google Maps, GPS, smart phones,
Where we work: Payroll, tax codes, national insurance/social security records,
Where we go on holiday (and who with!): Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
Where we shop and what we buy: credit cards, loyalty cards, etc.

The list just goes on. I find these things make life better and more convenient, not worse. Yes it's all for someone elses commercial gain, but that's how the world works.

The internet is the most important invention in history. I genuinely believe that the more the world is connected together, the more chance there is of everyone getting on with each other. In fact, I think it is vital for the world's cultural and social unity and will bring all people from all cultures, backgrounds and levels of economic development closer together and more peaceful.

Just look at this website as a fine example. There are people from every corner of the globe that come here to chat about something we all have an interest in. We can learn from each other, help each other, even MEET each other if we so wish. Imagine if we could have done that 101 years ago when the first world war started - how much better and more enlightened the world might be by now.

Bring it on, I say. Bring it all on. Connect, connect, connect!

Thats funny there have been more wars since the internet, terrorist can get information out easier.My partner works for the police they love facebook and all the others when there's a murder that's one of the first things they look at

No there haven't. That is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've ever heard.

There have been wars in sub-saharan Africa and the Far East and the Falklands and Vietnam and South America and Europe raging NO-STOP since humans could rub two pieces of wood together millenia before the world wide web could start reporting them.

The fact that your partner in the police use Facebook in murder cases illustrates my point PRECISELY. The police can pinpoint a suspect's whereabouts whenever and wherever they were at the time of the crime either by GPS records or simple status updates and photos, and either eliminate them from their enquiries or apprehend them if the evidence calls for it. The internet and social networking coupled with CCTV makes it practically impossible to get away with crimes of that magnitude.

The Paris shootings are another wonderful example. Within MINUTES of the attack on those 10 journalists and 2 police officers, the world knew and was condemning the action. The whole world is supporting the victims and their representation of free speech. The chances of the culprits getting away with it is almost none.

Every time someone makes a serious threat to someone else on Twitter, they are lampooned and condemned. Religious fundamentalists (of all faiths) are loosing ground with their extreme behaviour stirring up disgust with the civilised population. Yes, terrorists can use the internet for their own ends too, but they are in the minority by a very long way.

The world is watching everyone else and commenting on them - there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part it is making the world a more civilised and socially aware place to live.

You might like being watched but I don't and there is no way I will ever use Facebook or any of the other I leave that for all the sad bastards with no life

It's not about "liking being watched" it's about not being paranoid. Nobody in any government or corporation office is sitting in front of a screen and watching you. They watch the masses; trends; the population as a whole. Any advert or seemingly personal message to you on the internet is generated by a computer algorithm, not a Man-in-Black in a government basement with inexplicable glass panels with white felt-tip written on them and blue fluorescent lights. You've been watching too much Jack Bauer.

Forkie, the issue is one of power imbalance. Generally, entities like companies and governments have vastly more resources available to them compared to individual citizens, and that makes them very powerful. I would like to believe that most people in those entities do not abuse their access to that power. However, if someone does decide to persecute an ordinary individual, and we are talking of non-rational behaviour, then the more information is available on the individual, the more potential harm can be caused. Persecuting scenarios include vengeful ex-partners, business rivals, political enemies, envious neighours, people with righteous views (almost on any topic), and so on.

Consider also the case of an ordinary individual who is a non-conformist, or is "different" in some way from the majority of people around them. There are usually enough people in positions of power who may be uncomfortable with this non-conformance to "norms", and may try to "correct" the situation. The more they know about the individual, the more avenues they have to exert pressure.

The power of social media to disseminate information, also includes the power to disseminate misinformation, falsehood, forgeries, scams, partial truths and the like. How many of the recipients of such misinformation take the time to validate the assertions being made? As you are probably aware, it takes a lot of determined digging to verify what is presented on the internet as "truth". And even in circumstances where the facts may be obvious, there is often the question of context which determines how those facts should be understood. We really need to have a serious societal discussion about what information is being collected on each of us, and how that information can be used or misused.

So not being on Facebook balances out that power, does it? Media and governments have always tried to move the population to conform to their ideals since the dawn of civilisation. It doesn't work. Except maybe in North Korea.

The population of any country is more powerful than any government. The French are brilliant at it. If they don't get paid enough, or don't get enough time off work, they strike and refuse to work. If someone doesn't like the way the company they work for is run, they quit. If taxes are too high, they vote out the government that raised them. In the UK, the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg said in his manifesto before the last election that he would removed student fees for university. He became deputy Prime Minister in the current coalition government and when the Conservatives RAISED the student fees, he did absolutely nothing about it despite his apparent loathing of student fees. He'll never get near leadership again. The student population alone will take care of that.

Misinformation is weeded out. Wikipedia, for want of a better example, demonstrates this. Make a false change on any page and it is corrected by someone else within minutes. Is there any evidence somewhere of an individual who has been apparently forcibly coerced into altering their "non-conformist behaviour"? I think the world's social networks would have something to say about that.

The scenarios you quoted, i.e., vengeful partners, business rivals, envious neighbours etc, are normal civil disputes between normal human beings - the internet and social network has only changed those scenarios by the speed and medium by which one can carry out those disputes, not changed the severity or consequences of them. We were talking about governments controlling populations (and individuals) and tin-foil hat situations.

Governments are not interested in your average individual Joe Bloggs or village idiot or even the the local fundamentalist. The Westboro Baptist Church seem to picket soldier's and other people's funerals with homophobic and mysogynistic placards without much hinderance from the government. In fact, they are TAX EXEMPT because they are a church. But the world of social media hates them and lets them know about it. They can never gain ground or mass popularity because the civilised world simply won't allow it.

The population is much more powerful than any government or corporation.

I wouldn't watch that rubbish

 

[Forkie]

I see the tracking of habits as a not such a bad thing. If a device in my house tracks my energy usage, a rival energy company can call me or email me and offer me the service for less.

I use Spotify radio which plays music based on what's already in my playlist, meaning the radio I listen has more stuff I like and less that I don't meaning I have a better experience.

Facebook learns what type of ads or news stories I like and which of my friends I interact with most, so display the most relevant stories from the friends I actually care about (fewer baby pictures! Woo!)

My iPhone learns what words I use most in messages and the dictionary corrects spelling mistakes more accurately.

People always seem to be worried that governments are going to be spying on us in the future, but they already know almost everything and how much worse are our lives for it? Governments and corporations already know:

Where we live: electoral role, utility bills, TV/internet subscriptions,
Who we live with: Censuses, marriage/child/death registers,
How much we earn: mortgage/loan applications, credit ratings,
Where we are NOW: Google Maps, GPS, smart phones,
Where we work: Payroll, tax codes, national insurance/social security records,
Where we go on holiday (and who with!): Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
Where we shop and what we buy: credit cards, loyalty cards, etc.

The list just goes on. I find these things make life better and more convenient, not worse. Yes it's all for someone elses commercial gain, but that's how the world works.

The internet is the most important invention in history. I genuinely believe that the more the world is connected together, the more chance there is of everyone getting on with each other. In fact, I think it is vital for the world's cultural and social unity and will bring all people from all cultures, backgrounds and levels of economic development closer together and more peaceful.

Just look at this website as a fine example. There are people from every corner of the globe that come here to chat about something we all have an interest in. We can learn from each other, help each other, even MEET each other if we so wish. Imagine if we could have done that 101 years ago when the first world war started - how much better and more enlightened the world might be by now.

Bring it on, I say. Bring it all on. Connect, connect, connect!

Thats funny there have been more wars since the internet, terrorist can get information out easier.My partner works for the police they love facebook and all the others when there's a murder that's one of the first things they look at

No there haven't. That is possibly the most ridiculous sentence I've ever heard.

There have been wars in sub-saharan Africa and the Far East and the Falklands and Vietnam and South America and Europe raging NO-STOP since humans could rub two pieces of wood together millenia before the world wide web could start reporting them.

The fact that your partner in the police use Facebook in murder cases illustrates my point PRECISELY. The police can pinpoint a suspect's whereabouts whenever and wherever they were at the time of the crime either by GPS records or simple status updates and photos, and either eliminate them from their enquiries or apprehend them if the evidence calls for it. The internet and social networking coupled with CCTV makes it practically impossible to get away with crimes of that magnitude.

The Paris shootings are another wonderful example. Within MINUTES of the attack on those 10 journalists and 2 police officers, the world knew and was condemning the action. The whole world is supporting the victims and their representation of free speech. The chances of the culprits getting away with it is almost none.

Every time someone makes a serious threat to someone else on Twitter, they are lampooned and condemned. Religious fundamentalists (of all faiths) are loosing ground with their extreme behaviour stirring up disgust with the civilised population. Yes, terrorists can use the internet for their own ends too, but they are in the minority by a very long way.

The world is watching everyone else and commenting on them - there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part it is making the world a more civilised and socially aware place to live.

You might like being watched but I don't and there is no way I will ever use Facebook or any of the other I leave that for all the sad bastards with no life

It's not about "liking being watched" it's about not being paranoid. Nobody in any government or corporation office is sitting in front of a screen and watching you. They watch the masses; trends; the population as a whole. Any advert or seemingly personal message to you on the internet is generated by a computer algorithm, not a Man-in-Black in a government basement with inexplicable glass panels with white felt-tip written on them and blue fluorescent lights. You've been watching too much Jack Bauer.

Forkie, the issue is one of power imbalance. Generally, entities like companies and governments have vastly more resources available to them compared to individual citizens, and that makes them very powerful. I would like to believe that most people in those entities do not abuse their access to that power. However, if someone does decide to persecute an ordinary individual, and we are talking of non-rational behaviour, then the more information is available on the individual, the more potential harm can be caused. Persecuting scenarios include vengeful ex-partners, business rivals, political enemies, envious neighours, people with righteous views (almost on any topic), and so on.

Consider also the case of an ordinary individual who is a non-conformist, or is "different" in some way from the majority of people around them. There are usually enough people in positions of power who may be uncomfortable with this non-conformance to "norms", and may try to "correct" the situation. The more they know about the individual, the more avenues they have to exert pressure.

The power of social media to disseminate information, also includes the power to disseminate misinformation, falsehood, forgeries, scams, partial truths and the like. How many of the recipients of such misinformation take the time to validate the assertions being made? As you are probably aware, it takes a lot of determined digging to verify what is presented on the internet as "truth". And even in circumstances where the facts may be obvious, there is often the question of context which determines how those facts should be understood. We really need to have a serious societal discussion about what information is being collected on each of us, and how that information can be used or misused.

So not being on Facebook balances out that power, does it? Media and governments have always tried to move the population to conform to their ideals since the dawn of civilisation. It doesn't work. Except maybe in North Korea.

The population of any country is more powerful than any government. The French are brilliant at it. If they don't get paid enough, or don't get enough time off work, they strike and refuse to work. If someone doesn't like the way the company they work for is run, they quit. If taxes are too high, they vote out the government that raised them. In the UK, the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg said in his manifesto before the last election that he would removed student fees for university. He became deputy Prime Minister in the current coalition government and when the Conservatives RAISED the student fees, he did absolutely nothing about it despite his apparent loathing of student fees. He'll never get near leadership again. The student population alone will take care of that.

Misinformation is weeded out. Wikipedia, for want of a better example, demonstrates this. Make a false change on any page and it is corrected by someone else within minutes. Is there any evidence somewhere of an individual who has been apparently forcibly coerced into altering their "non-conformist behaviour"? I think the world's social networks would have something to say about that.

The scenarios you quoted, i.e., vengeful partners, business rivals, envious neighbours etc, are normal civil disputes between normal human beings - the internet and social network has only changed those scenarios by the speed and medium by which one can carry out those disputes, not changed the severity or consequences of them. We were talking about governments controlling populations (and individuals) and tin-foil hat situations.

Governments are not interested in your average individual Joe Bloggs or village idiot or even the the local fundamentalist. The Westboro Baptist Church seem to picket soldier's and other people's funerals with homophobic and mysogynistic placards without much hinderance from the government. In fact, they are TAX EXEMPT because they are a church. But the world of social media hates them and lets them know about it. They can never gain ground or mass popularity because the civilised world simply won't allow it.

The population is much more powerful than any government or corporation.

I wouldn't watch that rubbish

I would have bet money on you saying that!

 

[gsgary]

Who is he ?

 

[pgriz]

Forkie, I truly wish that your view is right, and that my pessimism is unfounded. But the saying "better safe than sorry" comes to mind when it comes to sharing information.

 

[Forkie]

Forkie, I truly wish that your view is right, and that my pessimism is unfounded. But the saying "better safe than sorry" comes to mind when it comes to sharing information.

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.

 

[Forkie]

Who is he ?

What do you MEAN?!

He's TV's gun toting, torturing, special-agent-who-apparently-also-has-jurisdiction-in-London, bad boy, 24-hour-a-day hero!

 

[limr30 3]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[pgriz]

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.