actually looks like a nice app. It's cool that you can follow people without friending them, and I like the way the circles are implemented. Also according to that video, sharing is no different than facebook, except instead of calling it 'friend lists', they are called circles. It looks like the default is 'public'.
but really it looks like they've cloned facebook and added twitter functionality.
The one really awesome thing - ability to edit posts. Why didn't facebook ever implement that?
pozz
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
(1)Why are people so scared of their "personal" data (i.e. what colour t-shirts they like) being shared? (2)It's like those tools who protest against CCTV being installed - if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with being incidentally caught on tape.
(1) We don't have access to the information collected about us.
(2) It's an indication that the entire populace is under suspicion.
It will only support one-on-one chats, and won't support group chats for some time. Google+: 1, Facebook: 0.
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by pozz
(1) We don't have access to the information collected about us.
(2) It's an indication that the entire populace is under suspicion.
1) Again, that's not a problem unless you're doing something illegal.
2) No, it's not. It's a safeguard. These things aren't proactively checked to see if there's any wrong doing, they're in place so that if something does happen, there's reliable evidence on hand after the fact.
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
It will only support one-on-one chats, and won't support group chats for some time. Google+: 1, Facebook: 0.
but are people really going to use multiple participant video conferences that much? and can their internet connections support it?
what's to say skype and facebook wont upgrade their tech to include multiple people in the future, and wouldn't people rather use their existing accounts and social network?
netroM
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
1) Again, that's not a problem unless you're doing something illegal.
Don't facebook have the right to sell pictures of you for uses in ads or commercials without you knowing of it? Even pictures taken of you uploaded by others?
I've certainly heard such stories at least.
Tasty Onions
It's not always easy to tell when something currently legal will become illegal, or when it might just become something that could "tag" you as worth investigating.
Also, there's no practical guarantee of surveillance capabilities being used only for "legitimate purposes." Months ago I read a story about some officers using surveillance privileges in the U.S. to stalk and harass women they were interested in. Any power granted to law enforcement or others for "legitimate" use is also, in effect, a power granted to that inevitable fraction of people who will abuse it. So it's not only about the value of privacy in itself: it's also about the cost-benefit analysis of evidence gained versus new kinds of abuse made possible.
ziptnf
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
but are people really going to use multiple participant video conferences that much? and can their internet connections support it?
what's to say skype and facebook wont upgrade their tech to include multiple people in the future, and wouldn't people rather use their existing accounts and social network?
I've already used group chat twice with my friends on +. It's very nice, and it's pretty fun too.
I'm just saying, Google+ is already many months ahead of the curve. Many of my friends have already gone so far as to delete their facebook accounts and use Google+.
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by netroM
Don't facebook have the right to sell pictures of you for uses in ads or commercials without you knowing of it? Even pictures taken of you uploaded by others?
I've certainly heard such stories at least.
That's different, of course. We were talking about CCTV specifically. It's like all the retarded Germans who got their houses blurred out when Street View first got implemented here. What is there to be scared of? That someone in Nigeria knows what colour you like your house painted?
quote:
Originally posted by Tasty Onions
Also, there's no practical guarantee of surveillance capabilities being used only for "legitimate purposes." Months ago I read a story about some officers using surveillance privileges in the U.S. to stalk and harass women they were interested in. Any power granted to law enforcement or others for "legitimate" use is also, in effect, a power granted to that inevitable fraction of people who will abuse it. So it's not only about the value of privacy in itself: it's also about the cost-benefit analysis of evidence gained versus new kinds of abuse made possible.
Great post, which I agree very much with in regards to person-to-person surveillance. Again though, in the context of CCTV I think there's very little potential for such activity.
