|
Google+ (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
Oh nevermind :p |
I bet he still uses Digg :o |
|
|
| pozz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
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. |
Both of these answers are just the obverse of mine. One position does not preclude the other. In fact, a safeguard is a measure of suspicion.
I'm not saying "they" are out to get you, more that it is a general indication of the atmosphere of developed nations: "someone is gonna with us, i dunno who, but i know it's gonna happen. i don't know when, i don't know how, but it's gonna happen... let's make a list of likely suspects: ... it. monitor everyone. much more efficient."
you know, i don't even mind so much because the information they gather has dire consequences for my life or whatnot. i'm sure they have vast stores of my fingernail clippings on file too, indexed and color-coded. it's that no matter what the argument is, they will put up the cameras. if a bank gets robbed ... it, it's gonna get robbed anyway. installing cameras does nothing. haven't you ever read Brecht? "What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?"
Your local jewelry store gets shoplifted? the distraught owner speaks: "Ohholymotherofgod. in' take it. ya specks of dust."
I'm sure you were perfect as a kid too, never took anything that wasn't yours or anything like that. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
lol chat rooms.
feels like 1996 again |
shuuuh gaaaaah dahhhh ddyyyyyyyyy....
set me freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
shuuuh gaaaaah dahhhh ddyyyyyyyyy....
set me freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
:stongue: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
Which is a point I think too many paranoid idiots don’t quite gather. CCTV isn’t something that will be whole-sale abused by The Man, but something that will get abused by individuals, the same way everything else is abused by individuals. As such there’s much less to fear. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| But if it weren't abused by individuals, where would you get your Japanese pee videos from, pkc? |
|
|
| nefardec |
ok im on this nonsense now.
not impressed :/
the 'circles' thing is in practice absolutely no different than facebook's sharing privacy features.
this is just facebook with a google skin and less features |
|
|
| bas |
| I like that the +bar (or whatever it's called) is integrated into everything Google. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
I like that the +bar (or whatever it's called) is integrated into everything Google. |
the dark header? or the plus one buttons? |
|
|
| bas |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
the dark header? or the plus one buttons? |
The dark header. The +1's just seem odd popping up in every Google search now :p |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
The dark header. The +1's just seem odd popping up in every Google search now :p |
yeah it's ok. i mean nothing more special than any website should be, as far as consistency.
one of the few times on TA where I'll say I liked the white version better |
|
|
|
|
