On shitting on Google.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Let me put it this way - Sneaking around and withholding the truth and downright fucking lying about shit, and being able to hide everything from deeds to corpses from interpersonal, right up to governmental and corporate level doesn't seem to be working out for us in a big way.

How much worse can it get?

Maybe we're not on the same page here. Perhaps it's only the "us" side of the great "them and us" battlefield that are going to lose our rights to sneak and skulk. I can help thinking that both sides seem to be losing it at about the same rate ATM. Disagree?

[Requia ☣]

You only say this becaue you think you have nothing to hide.

A) you are a criminal, probably a felon.   There are some 10,000 federal laws to break, not to mention the state laws.  Your privacy is the only thing that keeps you out of jail when a cop decided you looked at him funny and need to be put away.

B) Some secrets ruin careers, social lives, even get people killed when they're revealed.  I'm not talking about bad people doing bad things with the information, I'm talking about bad things happening *because* of the information.

[P3nT4gR4m]

A) If everyone is a criminal who is left to lock us up and where?

B) Not sure I get where you're coming from but in a more transparent culture might not these secrets be less dangerous?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Also...

You only say this becaue you think you have nothing to hide.

On the contrary - I say this because I have tons of shit I have to hide and I'm pig sick of having to fucking hide it

[Captain Utopia]

Right now if personal information is easily available, it's considered acceptable to view it.  I think in terms of a social bargain, this is not something which will be coming with us into the future.  I wrote more about this here, and the video is worth a watch too (though only really the parts with Clay Shirky).

[BabylonHoruv]

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

Hmm, that is a very good point.

So its not that Google has the search data, or the data they get from adsense, or the emails.  Its that they have *all* of it.

This is both good and bad.  It all depends on what use the information is put to.  The fact it is all in one database simply makes it more effectively useful.

[NotPublished]

It is a definate combination,

But, something I find scary -  corporations fight to appear earlier on their results, you have some corporations who solely focus on Google SEO; and since google has a large share of users, it can sometimes make or break other companies; though sometimes I have to wonder if they would personally tamper with the PRs for certain websites.

So they hold alot of sway.

Soon google will implant chips into us and record all of our thoughts

[Rumckle]

Soon google will implant chips into us and record all of our thoughts

Then they will create a match-making service.

[Triple Zero]

The reason I'm getting involved in this argument to this extent is that I find myself, more and more recently, wondering if this urge to sneak around and hide and keep everything you know to yourself is some kind of primitive throwback that is actually holding us back as a species. Like a lot of sacred cows that have gone before it, maybe it's time to embrace the idea of shooting the fucking thing in the head.

Ok there we have it. I was staying out of this thread because it simply makes my blood boil, some of the issues are so dear to me.

Anyway, yes you're right. You hit the nail on the head.

This privacy thing is holding our species back from evolving to some sort of next level. And I like it that way. This is my species, and not that next level. I can smell what it's going to be like, and I don;t like it one bit.

Loss of privacy is one thing, but complete loss of all individuality is what we are going to get down this road. And sure, our species will have ascended to some next level, but there won't be any "me" or "you" to enjoy it.

And I will tell you now, it's not even going to be all bliss hippie "all is one, I am you and you are me and we are all together" enlightened bullshit, we should be so lucky!

No, it's going to be just the same thing as every other time it has happened in the evolution of life on this planet:

The smaller organisms (humans) will be absorbed in an endosymbiotic relationship with some larger-scale organisms (probably corporations) where individuality is a liability for the larger organism.

It happened to mitochondria, it happened to intestinal bacteria.

Every time you take a shit, you dump millions of living and dead intestinal bacteria down the sewer, we even call it "cleansing", and we don't even care or think about. That's what corporations are going to do to humans if we let them. That is your precious next level. That is indeed what I would like to hold my species back from.

"Individual" means the same thing as "single cellular organism". And in certain multi-cellular cases, "Individual" even means "dangerous cancer that must be annihilated for the greater good of the larger organism".

Sure enough those intestinal bacteria never had the consciousness to say "hey do we actually like where we are heading now?", and we are probably the first conscious species that are standing on the brink of endosymbiosis and we can ask ourselves this question.

Do you want to be an ass-polyp?

[BabylonHoruv]

I dunno that the mitochondria or intestinal bacteria had much option either.  In both cases they were eaten by the larger organism.

I'm also not sure that privacy is particularly related to individuality, aside from tangentially.

[Triple Zero]

I dunno that the mitochondria or intestinal bacteria had much option either.  In both cases they were eaten by the larger organism.

yes that is my point. they didn't have much choice. we are conscious, and can at least give it a shot, resisting.

I'm also not sure that privacy is particularly related to individuality, aside from tangentially.

They are very related. Privacy is what keeps individuals individual. Once your data is on the street, and is shared with everyone, this everyone, this sharing will become something, a structure in which the individual is irrelevant.

And when Dok Vitriol is talking about taking our species to the next level, then that is what I fear we will become. And it is already happening. Big faceless corporations are fighting battles about abstract things we do not understand, over abstract territories, and in which humans are mere organelles, insignificant and replaceable.

One thing for such a complex organisational structure to become more powerful, is to increase communication and information transfer between its parts. That is exactly the thing that is happening right now, with the erosion of our privacy rights. I see a terrible analogy between this and the evolution of nerve cells, which did not have axons at first but could only communicate with neighbours. The power of the network grew exponentially when it did. In a similar fashion, any suprahuman organism will grow more powerful the more "transparent" the network of humans that is part of it becomes. This goes for corporations, nations, and anything. That is why it's happening. Well, one of the whys, on some level.

The point is, erosion of privacy makes the suprahuman organism more efficient, which is good for it. BUT it is not necessarily good for the individual humans. In fact, the more powerful the suprahuman organism becomes, the less important the wellbeing of the individual human becomes.

And when you're talking about where we are going, as a species, most signs that I can read, point in this direction, and not in the direction of Awesome Technology Stuff and Knowledge for All [individuals], we might get a littlebit of that, but we will be getting a lot more of the other.

[Requia ☣]

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

Hmm, that is a very good point.

So its not that Google has the search data, or the data they get from adsense, or the emails.  Its that they have *all* of it.

This is both good and bad.  It all depends on what use the information is put to.  The fact it is all in one database simply makes it more effectively useful.

The concern with Google is not necessarily what they have done with the data, but what they might do, or might be forced to do by governments, or just simple security failure.

[BabylonHoruv]

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

Hmm, that is a very good point.

So its not that Google has the search data, or the data they get from adsense, or the emails.  Its that they have *all* of it.

This is both good and bad.  It all depends on what use the information is put to.  The fact it is all in one database simply makes it more effectively useful.

The concern with Google is not necessarily what they have done with the data, but what they might do, or might be forced to do by governments, or just simple security failure.

There's also what various organizations might do with the information.  This includes repressive governments, but also includes medical researchers, environmental researchers trying to find more sustainable approaches to consumption, as well as others with positive motivations.

[NotPublished]

I've heard of someone getting arested over Yahoo Answers, are there any arrests made over Google Searchs?

[Golden Applesauce]

I've heard of someone getting arested over Yahoo Answers, are there any arrests made over Google Searchs?

Not that I know of, but how many companies would be willing to hire employees who frequently google things like "corporate sabotage" "how to bypass corporate firewalls" "ways to get revenge on my boss" "bdsm furry chipmunk anime obama"?

I'll be honest, if I were an employer, I'd be very hesitant about hiring anyone with a posting history on this site.  Posting during work hours is the least of it - a lot of members here have gone on the record about experimenting with illegal drugs, not always with negative impressions.  That, plus a general dislike of hierarchy and an acceptance of pranks - I still have that Simple Sabotage Manual I got from Cain here - and a tendency to get creative when we feel we are wronged should make any potential boss nervous.  Would they understand all of our in-jokes, or make a snap decision when they see a poster commenting that 2/3rds of a rape victim deserved it?  Every flame fest, every hissy fit, every organized troll is a matter of public record.

It doesn't even take something that deviant - I could see having a really bad chess record in online matches, or being a really lousy roleplayer on a PBP (if roleplaying enough doesn't make the employer think twice) being damaging to chances of getting hired to a job.

There are things we can share with our family, things we can share with close friends, and things we can share with coworkers.  We can talk about politics, religion, sexuality to people who already have some relationship with that won't be damaged by discovering someone is a libertarian.  How many employers would love to be able to screen applicants on how they feel about labor unions?  In the US at least, employers aren't allowed to ask questions about protected qualities like national origin, family status, sexuality, etc., because we know that they can't be trusted with it.  If everything is public, they won't have to - and that means nobody will be able to make a firm statement on a controversial subject online ever.