Ok, I'd like to step away from the right and wrong of what Google does, and ask why Google gets shit on so much in comparison to others that do similar things. All the major players do things like store your search info and help with censorship in China, so why does Google get shit on for that but not Microsoft of Yahoo. Is it that Google is bigger, is it that the 'not evil' slogan tweaks people, is it that Google has a few things that are a step past what others do (like Streetview)?
The 'little' things (Streetview, etc) that Google does extra, but mostly because it's bigger.
That's not an entirely bad reason, though. It's hard(er) to stick accusations to an industry in general - for whatever reason people respond better if you put a specific example of excesses in front of them to protest at. So mostly targeting one company might make sense for PR purposes, or might just be the way people's biases work.
And Google is the market leader - it is it the most highly visible of the other major search engines, but it got that way because it has the biggest market share (and therefore the most privacy to give away.) But beyond that, Google sets the standard. When Google lowers its standards, that gives a license to other companies to lower theirs, and signals consumers to not expect the same level of quality from any search provider. In principle, that should work in reverse too - if Google takes a stand for privacy and responsibility, and showed that it was possible to be an industry megapower without whoring out your customer's data, I wouldn't be surprised if the other companies followed suit.
Don't forget the "Don't be evil" motto. As far as I know, Google is alone of the email/search giants of even admitting that taking advantage of your customers ventures into evil. They've claimed to hold themselves to a higher standard, and it is entirely appropriate for the public to hold them to that higher standard as well. The fact that they wantonly ignore it whenever profitable makes them not just jerks but hypocritical jerks.
We tribalize everything. We also like balance. Sometimes the numbers balance out pretty much (left wing/right wing politics). Sometimes lower numbers are more extreme in their views which help balance out a larger, more passive, tribe.
I could start a thread about how much I love muffins, and the first page could be filled with others expressing their muffin-love. By page 2, you'd have either a big troll or a bunch of people saying how they're not really keen on muffins. "Oh, they're not quite as healthy as they advertise themselves", "They're usually stale and greasy", "muffin-tops are too hard to take off in one go", etc. Blessed balance.
Google is a big issue. And you always need to pick a side on big issues, don't you?
You can justify your support/hatred in any combination of a million different ways.. but it'd be surprised if the root of it all diverged very far from that basic monkey tribal principle.
Microsoft doesn't get shit on? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Maybe I'm in the wrong geek-circles, but not nearly as much as it used to. Windows 7 seems to actually be a decent OS, I've only heard good things about .Net development, visual studio has some annoying quirks but for the most part I find it excellent whenever I have to use it (rarely). Business-practice wise, they're just not as relevant as they used to be (or as they think they still are). Bear in mind that this is coming from a full-time linux/embedded systems developer who used to hate Microsoft with unspeakable passion going back to the early 90s when I was a fanatical Amiga user.
Quote from: Nigel on June 24, 2010, 03:39:51 AM
Microsoft doesn't get shit on? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Point :lulz:
I mean that they don't get shit on for the same things. At first I thought it was because there are so many other things to shit on MS over. People are so busy shitting on Microsoft for shady dealings with the standards boards and suing people for using Linux that they run out of time before they get to Microsoft giving its search records to the US gov. But then why no Yahoo! hate?
Relevance?
Since Google is the big dog, shitting on them is shitting on the rest by proxy.
Reminds me of the world-cup mentality - "Hey Joe - your team lost, therefore you suck by proxy, haha."
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 24, 2010, 05:46:16 AM
Reminds me of the world-cup mentality - "Hey Joe - your team lost, therefore you suck by proxy, haha."
:lulz:
Not quite what I meant. Kind of along the same lines that since Google leads, any changes they make, others will make.
Microsoft and Yahoo didn't follow Google in pulling out of China.
But I agree in the sense that if you put up a negative story about Google, it would probably get a lot more attention than if the exact same story had been about Yahoo!
We can't really shit on something that's not in the toilet. We can fling shit at it, but that's definitely a different dynamic from shitting on it. We're on the other side of the bars, screeching and flinging poop.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 24, 2010, 02:58:16 AM
Ok, I'd like to step away from the right and wrong of what Google does, and ask why Google gets shit on so much in comparison to others that do similar things. All the major players do things like store your search info and help with censorship in China, so why does Google get shit on for that but not Microsoft of Yahoo. Is it that Google is bigger, is it that the 'not evil' slogan tweaks people, is it that Google has a few things that are a step past what others do (like Streetview)?
for me, it's because Google is a LOT bigger.
and because Google goes WAY beyond what others do, which is in part related to them being a lot bigger, even if they did just the same things.
additionally, it's not just the "not evil" slogan [which they don't carry anymore], but the general hypocrisy and basically their whole air of being unapproachable and untouchable.
then there's the whole thing of feeling cheated. Google used to have this bright shiny image of being a fun happy smart corporation doing awesome stuff and not fucking the public over. remember that? they used to be the embodiement of the crazy dotcom bubble with private cooks and "20% time" all the perks.
but slowly the plastic bubblewrap started to melt, burn and stink and a rotting corporate zombie started to show below their clean surface.
it is that popularity, this image, that needs to be absolutely crushed. people still think Google is somehow different or better from all the other big information corps.
it needs to be shown that they are just as bad as any other faceless corporation.
except even more so, because they are the biggest by an order of magnitude. as well as not even having a human face.
in addition to that, they are STILL growing, and STILL working on even bigger and more privacy breaching projects than you've seen so far. Wave and Buzz seem to have flopped, which I count as a small victory. It's not good to give all that power and digital territory to one corporation.
[Buzz already made the same privacy fuckups that gave Facebook such a bad rep, overnight setting feeds to public, adding the entire GMail contact list as "friends" etc]
it's not only what they have done so far, it is also what I KNOW they will do if they are not stopped. StreetView may be the summum of public privacy breachings right now, but that is right now, and they won't stop there.
You can tell by their current mission statement, which is no longer "don't be evil", but the goal
to index and make searchable all information in the world.
And that's scary and dangerous, when such a gigantic megacorp as Google is doing it,
and succeeding.
And all the while having a happy shiny public imago.
(which is crumbling somewhat, but imagine if it wasn't. that is whey they need to be shat upon)
Yahoo does also bad things, but at least they're not pretending to be something they are not. They are also not as big as Google. And in fact, if the whole privacy fucking would be spread out more evenly among an ecosystem of different search and information corps, it would be a lot less of a problem. (because they would never share databases with eachother)
And Microsoft. I don't even know why you bring them up. They got their share of shit years ago, with the Windows monopoly anti-trust shit, and the browser selection screen more recently. Everybody was shitting on them, even those who didn't know what they were talking about [that last category mostly because their computers bluescreened too often, I guess].
After that, Microsoft failed. It lost battles to Google as well as Apple. BTW Imagine ten years ago, someone predicting MS would compete with Google. An OS/software firm competing with a website? Ridiculous! Microsoft didn't see that one coming either, not soon enough.
And yes I've seen their (TED?) presentation on what they're trying to do with their version of StreetView. It's way ambitious. Technically incredibly interesting. In fact, Microsoft Research is pretty damn fucking awesome [years ago I talked to one of their researchers from Cambridge, he said all the smart MS Researchers used Firefox, of course :) ].
Of course, if they had the monopoly they used to have, or the power that Google had right now, I'd be all up in arms against them. But I know now that MS is a crippled dinosaur right now. Left arm doesn't get what the right arm is doing. A real telling example is the refusal of the MS Office software development department refusing to incorporate user-interface features proposed by the Mobile OS / touchscreen UI research team. Result is of course what you see today, Apple and Google ruling the mobile computing industry, and a version of MS Office (or even Windows Mobile) that never worked smoothly on touchscreen interfaces.
Microsoft is the perfect example of an oldskool corporation paralyzed by their bureaucracy.
Fortunately their tech teams poop out some amazing stuff, especially the SeaDragon and DeepZoom technologies are brilliant. Remember those TED talks? The most brilliant part of it was when they hooked up those technologies to Flickr's location data. That would also have been SCARY AS FUCK if they pulled that off.
FORTUNATELY the Flickr database is owned by Yahoo, so MS couldn't use it for commercial purposes, just for demonstrating the technology. And from this simple ecosystem variety, our privacy wins out.
I gotta admit, I lost track of Yahoo for a littlebit [even though I use their services. Pipes was pretty cool, if useless. Their search APIs are more open and easier to use than Google's, but yeah]. I'm not entirely aware of what they are up to. But they're not as big as Google.
So to sum it up, why am I shitting on Google?
I would always shit on the biggest one. (unless they're really not evil, but they always are)
And BECAUSE they are (by FAR) the biggest one, whatever privacy breaching stuff they do is orders of magnitudes worse than what anybody else can do.
And don't get me wrong, I would and will shit on Microsoft and Yahoo if what they were doing got anywhere near what Google is doing. But they don't, currently. And even though Yahoo manages to stay out of the picture on some of the things they do, which are bad, they don't pretend and they don't do it over the entire range, like Google does.
And also what Twiddle said. Shitting on the big dog Google, shits on the smaller dogs by proxy. By which I mean, if we make a really big stink out of every "little thing" Google is doing, Yahoo will also get the message that it should thread carefully. Which really seems to have some effect, btw.
Additionally, remember when Altavista was the big and most popular search engine? It's about time some other search engine took the lead again.
Currently I would propose Duck Duck Go. It does about the same things as Google, has a couple of nifty features, and most importantly has our privacy built in from the start.
But even I use Google for any quick search I need to do. Wanna know why? Because their servers are
everywhere, and I get my answer in hallf a second:
1.40 sec http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=golden+apple+seed
1.84 sec http://www.bing.com/search?q=golden+apple+seed&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all
2.74 sec http://www.cuil.com/search?q=golden+apple+seed
5.04 sec http://nl.search.yahoo.com/search?p=golden%20apple%20seed&ei=UTF-8&fr=opera2
6.21 sec https://duckduckgo.com/?q=golden+apple+seed
I used my stopwatch to time from hitting Enter (straight from the address bar, not their frontpage, cause that's not how I search) until I saw the results on the screen.
I didn't know Bing was so fast. That's a real big plus for me, I might give Bing a few tries in the future.
And maybe if I feel inspired later today I will write a python script to repeatedly test a couple of random queries for more significance. Although that will not be entirely accurate because it would not load the CSS and images and whatever JS is trying to load.
Then a question to you, Requia. Why do you care so much? Because I really feel I have been stating nothing but the obvious here. Nothing that your smart brain couldnt have figured out for yourself. Or are you testing to see if my motivations are clean?
Cause I really don't get it. See, now if I was entirely wrong about exposing the evils of Google, I could understand your constant arguing. But the fact of the matter is that I am not. Even you should be able to see that, and the only things you get to argue about are constantly pointing out that some things might be hyperbole, and that other less significant corporations are doing the same things [except on a smaller scale and not all of them at once].
Do you want to know why I dig the "Don't be evil" motto of Google? Because it's like having a constitution, the point is not that by having it you'll never err, but that it provides a perpetual goal to work towards. I think it's also the reason why, when they realised that they'd accidentally captured a measly 1gb of wifi data, they owned up to it rather than simply deleting it. Now it's entirely possible that senior management didn't have a choice, and it was a lower-level employee who had drunk the "Don't be evil" kool-aid and threatened to blow the whistle. Regardless, they made the right choice.
For me, it's a bit like this (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24965.0). By aiming high, and by creating a positive public image, they raise the bar and get closer to the "fun happy smart" ideal than they otherwise might have done.
And their core mission is not "to index and make searchable all information in the world", but "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". It's been this ever since Google was just a bunch of motherboards duct-taped into a cardboard box. Why is this a bad goal? If information is universally accessible, then what does it matter whose servers it resides on?
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 24, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
And all the while having a happy shiny public imago.
(which is crumbling somewhat, but imagine if it wasn't. that is whey they need to be shat upon)
So I see this and I don't see someone trying to keep a company true to its stated goals and beliefs, but someone shitting on a company
because it has the apparent audacity to try to become something better than that which has come before it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 24, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
Then a question to you, Requia. Why do you care so much? Because I really feel I have been stating nothing but the obvious here. Nothing that your smart brain couldnt have figured out for yourself. Or are you testing to see if my motivations are clean?
I'm pretty sure I mentioned all the things you did in my op or in my response to Nigel. I'm more curious which of the motives is the trigger (the answer apparently being, all of them).
:mittens: to 000
We have to be very careful right now, because google is growing, and it's becoming a really intimate part of all of our lives. How many of you use the verb "to google" when you mean "to look something up using a search engine"?
I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent. The larger a company becomes, the more pervasive it becomes in everyday life, the more skeptical and reserved one should be about it.
Yeah, it was only 1 measly GB of wifi data. But if that gig of data had been social security numbers, wouldn't you be freaked out? It doesn't matter what those data were. Doesn't it bother you a bit that google is saying "Ah LOL yes don't worry about that illegal systematic data collection, that was just an accident"? If the government did this, people would be TWEAKED OUT. This is the tip of the iceberg. There are other things like this which just haven't come to the surface yet. You can be sure of it, because the people working for google are ambitious, extremely powerful, and sharp as a tack.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 06:00:05 PM
:mittens: to 000
We have to be very careful right now, because google is growing, and it's becoming a really intimate part of all of our lives. How many of you use the verb "to google" when you mean "to look something up using a search engine"?
To me it's similar to the way "Windows" represents all PC architecture in popular culture. MS rose to prominence partly because before the internet became so ubiquitous you needed a standardised platform for business.. if someone sent you a file in a floppy disk in snail-mail, and you didn't have the correct program to read it, it might be weeks before you could get the software to read the contents. Without an internet you couldn't just download a converter.
In the same way "Kleenex" replaced "tissue paper for noses" and "Hoovering" replaced "using the vacuum cleaner" (in the UK).. people will gravitate to a convenient shorthand to describe common activities - the other possibilities are all flawed: microsofting/msning/yahooing/altavistaing. "Searching" has too many off-line meanings, and a generic "online searching" is too long. "Surfing" might have been a contender, but it implies a more aimless wander through the web.
So no, I don't see it as ominous that a common activity was named after a corporation, there's plenty of precedent there.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 06:00:05 PM
The larger a company becomes, the more pervasive it becomes in everyday life, the more skeptical and reserved one should be about it.
I agree completely.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 06:00:05 PM
I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent.
Well if you start from the premise that they are successful therefore they must be evil, then yes. Why do you dismiss the possibility that it cannot be intended to primarily guide internal actions, rather than to change external reactions?
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 06:00:05 PM
Yeah, it was only 1 measly GB of wifi data. But if that gig of data had been social security numbers, wouldn't you be freaked out? It doesn't matter what those data were. Doesn't it bother you a bit that google is saying "Ah LOL yes don't worry about that illegal systematic data collection, that was just an accident"?
No, it doesn't bother me a bit.
- As a geek who has worked in large teams and small, I know how easy it can be to fuck up, and for that fuck up to go unnoticed.
- Having read the independent technical report on that issue, it looks for all the world like a stupid but hard to spot configuration error.
- Due to the nature of the collection method, the data they got would be fragmented - partial web pages, half a frame of video data. Hello - google already collects full details of every page you visit with adwords/doubeclick, and every youtube video you watch -- if they wanted to be evil, there would be much easier ways for them to get your data than drive wifi-snooping cars all around the world.
I'm not saying that Google shouldn't be more responsible with their QA, or that they should not face any consequences for the laws which they broke. But if it wasn't an accident, then why would they only collect a tiny amount of useless data, and then confess to it after they had gotten away with it.
That doesn't fit the "evil" definition to me.
Honestly, I think they were fairly laid back with their initial apology because they are overly-geeky, and assumed the public would judge this matter rationally on the technical details alone and not get upset. That was stupidity verging on aspergers.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 24, 2010, 06:41:49 PM
In the same way "Kleenex" replaced "tissue paper for noses" and "Hoovering" replaced "using the vacuum cleaner" (in the UK).. people will gravitate to a convenient shorthand to describe common activities - the other possibilities are all flawed: microsofting/msning/yahooing/altavistaing. "Searching" has too many off-line meanings, and a generic "online searching" is too long. "Surfing" might have been a contender, but it implies a more aimless wander through the web.
Brand name identification is not an accident, it's evidence of excellent marketing. They've injected their brand into everyday parlance. This in itself is not evil, but it is dangerous.
It IS weird when you need to blow your nose and you reach, in your head, for a kleenex brand
TM tissue. People who frequently use that word are more likely to buy Kleenex than other brands. This is not an innocuous evolution of language, it is a form of commercial that exists inside your skull.
QuoteQuote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 06:00:05 PM
I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent.
Well if you start from the premise that they are successful therefore they must be evil, then yes. Why do you dismiss the possibility that it cannot be intended to primarily guide internal actions, rather than to change external reactions?
I didn't say that they
were evil. I think it's laughable that any gigantic fucking corporation's actions can be simplified into a neat label like "Good" or "Evil". But in the end, their motivation is NOT to make the world better. Their motivation is to generate profit for their employees and shareholders. Sometimes some evil is going to sneak in there and it will be contextualized by your perception of the corporation.
Even if it is an internal policy, what does REALLY mean?
I'll let this quote explain how it works now:
QuoteIn 2006, when Google declared their self-censorship move into China, their "Don't be evil" motto was somewhat replaced with an "evil scale" balancing system, allowing smaller evils for a greater good, as explained by CEO Eric Schmidt at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
So here it sounds like Don't Be Evil was originally just a way of separating sponsored links from search results...
Quote[Berkley Law Professor] Chris Hoofnagle agrees that Google's original intention expressed by the "don't be evil" motto is linked to the company's separation of search results from advertising. However, he argues that clearly separating search results from sponsored links is required by law, thus, Google's practice is now mainstream and no longer remarkable or good. According to Hoofnagle, Google should abandon the motto because:
"The evil talk is not only an albatross for Google, it obscures the substantial consumer benefits from Google's advertising model. Because we have forgotten the original context of Google's evil representations, the company should remind the public of the company's contribution to a revolution in search advertising, and highlight some overlooked benefits of their model."
A modified form of the "don't be evil" motto currently exists on google's corporate philosophy page (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html). Which only says "You can make money without doing evil." It doesn't say DON'T do evil, and it certainly doesn't say "DO GOOD" (which seems to be implied by "Do No Evil").
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 24, 2010, 06:41:49 PM
In the same way "Kleenex" replaced "tissue paper for noses" and "Hoovering" replaced "using the vacuum cleaner" (in the UK).. people will gravitate to a convenient shorthand to describe common activities - the other possibilities are all flawed: microsofting/msning/yahooing/altavistaing. "Searching" has too many off-line meanings, and a generic "online searching" is too long. "Surfing" might have been a contender, but it implies a more aimless wander through the web.
Brand name identification is not an accident, it's evidence of excellent marketing. They've injected their brand into everyday parlance. This in itself is not evil, but it is dangerous.
It IS weird when you need to blow your nose and you reach, in your head, for a kleenex brandTM tissue. People who frequently use that word are more likely to buy Kleenex than other brands. This is not an innocuous evolution of language, it is a form of commercial that exists inside your skull.
If Google intentionally injected "to google" into the language, then that would be a masterstroke of marketing. Did they ever run any ads? I don't remember seeing any, but then, not being in the US I could easily have missed them.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
QuoteQuote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 06:00:05 PM
I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent.
Well if you start from the premise that they are successful therefore they must be evil, then yes. Why do you dismiss the possibility that it cannot be intended to primarily guide internal actions, rather than to change external reactions?
I didn't say that they were evil. I think it's laughable that any gigantic fucking corporation's actions can be simplified into a neat label like "Good" or "Evil". But in the end, their motivation is NOT to make the world better. Their motivation is to generate profit for their employees and shareholders. Sometimes some evil is going to sneak in there and it will be contextualized by your perception of the corporation.
I agree. There is, however, an apparent clash of motivations at the top. Eric Schmidt consistently advocates choices to increase profit - that's his job. Whereas on issues such as the decision to pull completely out of China, according to accounts Page and Brin explicitly overruled him.
Now this could be excellent PR too, but consider:
- Moving out of China does represent a massive financial loss of potential revenue.
- Some positive PR may translate positively towards the bottom line, but even if you could put a dollar figure on it, I can't imagine any way that it would be more than the loss above.
- Chinese people who one day woke up with no Google were made aware that their Government is actively censoring them. It created a public discussion point.
You can argue the relative weights, but I think the points themselves are indisputable.
According to one story, they had hoped to actually change the Chinese governments stance towards censorship by partnering with them! That's either stupid, naive or a lie created to make Google look stupid and naive. I don't have a hard time believing it since many of the high-level decisions in Google seem to come from a rather inept conception of human nature.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
Even if it is an internal policy, what does REALLY mean?
It'll mean something different every time it's applied to a particular situation. E.g. I think Microsoft would have deleted the Wifi data without thinking twice, I think it's likely that having invested emotional energy into not doing evil Google chose instead to do the right thing and admit their mistake.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
I'll let this quote explain how it works now:
QuoteIn 2006, when Google declared their self-censorship move into China, their "Don't be evil" motto was somewhat replaced with an "evil scale" balancing system, allowing smaller evils for a greater good, as explained by CEO Eric Schmidt at the time.
Yeah, that is total bullshit reasoning.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
So here it sounds like Don't Be Evil was originally just a way of separating sponsored links from search results...
Quote[Berkley Law Professor] Chris Hoofnagle agrees that Google's original intention expressed by the "don't be evil" motto is linked to the company's separation of search results from advertising. However, he argues that clearly separating search results from sponsored links is required by law, thus, Google's practice is now mainstream and no longer remarkable or good. According to Hoofnagle, Google should abandon the motto because:
That wiki link suggests that the motto was for the core company values. But regardless, this sounds like a biased account to me -- it's like saying that the individuals and States who took a stand against slavery are not remarkable because they won the war to stop the practice.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 07:08:31 PM
A modified form of the "don't be evil" motto currently exists on google's corporate philosophy page (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html). Which only says "You can make money without doing evil." It doesn't say DON'T do evil, and it certainly doesn't say "DO GOOD" (which seems to be implied by "Do No Evil").
According the the wiki page, "don't be evil" was always an unofficial motto, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to appear on the corporate philosophy page. But yeah, the official stance is definitely not as clear-cut.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 24, 2010, 08:00:35 PM
If Google intentionally injected "to google" into the language, then that would be a masterstroke of marketing. Did they ever run any ads? I don't remember seeing any, but then, not being in the US I could easily have missed them.
The following is pure speculation:
Around the time Google was getting started, Yahoo! was running ads that used Yahoo! as a verb, I wonder if Google's runaway success transformed yahoo! the verb into google the verb.
Didn't Amazon.com, once upon a time, back in the day, say they were going to give a certain percentage of their profits to save the Amazon rainforest? IIRC, this is why they chose the name.
Then they went several years without making a profit. By the time they did, they had forgotten about the whole rainforest thing.
Does anybody else remember that, or am I going senile?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on June 25, 2010, 07:31:25 AM
Didn't Amazon.com, once upon a time, back in the day, say they were going to give a certain percentage of their profits to save the Amazon rainforest? IIRC, this is why they chose the name.
Then they went several years without making a profit. By the time they did, they had forgotten about the whole rainforest thing.
Does anybody else remember that, or am I going senile?
Wikipedia says they just named themselves after the world's largest river. No source is given for that info.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on June 25, 2010, 07:31:25 AM
Didn't Amazon.com, once upon a time, back in the day, say they were going to give a certain percentage of their profits to save the Amazon rainforest? IIRC, this is why they chose the name.
Then they went several years without making a profit. By the time they did, they had forgotten about the whole rainforest thing.
Does anybody else remember that, or am I going senile?
I remember when Amazon started up, and I don't remember anything like that.
Hmm, I must have been on better drugs than I realized back then.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 24, 2010, 03:46:32 PM
And their core mission is not "to index and make searchable all information in the world", but "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".
Yes I meant that one.
QuoteIt's been this ever since Google was just a bunch of motherboards duct-taped into a cardboard box. Why is this a bad goal? If information is universally accessible, then what does it matter whose servers it resides on?
:facepalm:
sorry but, man, if you have to ASK this, we're going to have to take this discussion on privacy down a whole bunch of notches. yes, sorry I'm being condescending but I wouldn't have expected a stupid question like this so far into the discussion. it pisses me off because apparently I have been writing all those rants in this (and that other) thread to deaf ears that apparently have no idea what the fuck they are talking about and what all this means.
next you're going to ask me why it's a bad thing that corporations know all this shit about you if you have nothing to hide.
but your question, privacy 101 (the situation with Google is a LOT more complicated)
why is having data in a bigass database owned by one single megacorporation worse than having it sitting in several thousands of databases all owned by separate entities?
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.
it's not just that decentralized non-linked separately owned data cannot be shared due to copyright IP and database right issues, but also on a much more fundamental level, there are technical restrictions as well as that it's much easier to find out side-channels and correlations if all the data can be simply explored without having to ask for a license every time or other.
QuoteQuote from: Triple Zero on June 24, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
And all the while having a happy shiny public imago.
(which is crumbling somewhat, but imagine if it wasn't. that is whey they need to be shat upon)
So I see this and I don't see someone trying to keep a company true to its stated goals and beliefs, but someone shitting on a company because it has the apparent audacity to try to become something better than that which has come before it.
Yes they tried, and while they tried I really applauded them for that. In the young years of Google, I was a really big fan. I actually believed they might be able to pull it off (become really big and still "dont be evil" in a meaningful way).
But then they went corporate. Real bad. And they failed to become something better. There is nothing left to try anymore, they are a mega corporation now, and while a littlebit different from other corporations, also really on the whole not that much, except that they started out with the best intentions, as did many others. There is nothing left to save.
It's not just the 20% time mentioned in the other thread that is an empty PR lie. It's all the cool and shiny things you hear about Google. Maybe in their headquarters in Mountainview it's like the Willy fucking Wonka chocolate factory [funny how Wonka has about the same view on customer support as Google does, btw], but Google offices and servers are all over the world, also here. And everywhere I've seen em, they are exactly the same cold corporate IT structures you see in all the big corporations. Except they own some orders of magnitude more server hardware and databases.
And no, I'm not shitting on them because they tried to not become like this. Really, it's too bad that they failed. No, I shit on them because they are gigantic and dangerous, and are doing all the bad things that any greyfaced corporation would do, except they're doing it on an exceptionally large scale, and in a territory that affects everybody in the first world directly in their personal lives.
Any greyfaced corporation would do this. It's in their nature. Basically Google's initial promise to try and be better is like the promise of the Scorpion in the parable of the Frog and the Scorpion (look it up if you don't know it).
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 24, 2010, 06:41:49 PM
No, it doesn't bother me a bit.
- As a geek who has worked in large teams and small, I know how easy it can be to fuck up, and for that fuck up to go unnoticed.
- Having read the independent technical report on that issue, it looks for all the world like a stupid but hard to spot configuration error.
- Due to the nature of the collection method, the data they got would be fragmented - partial web pages, half a frame of video data. Hello - google already collects full details of every page you visit with adwords/doubeclick, and every youtube video you watch -- if they wanted to be evil, there would be much easier ways for them to get your data than drive wifi-snooping cars all around the world.
I'm not saying that Google shouldn't be more responsible with their QA, or that they should not face any consequences for the laws which they broke. But if it wasn't an accident, then why would they only collect a tiny amount of useless data, and then confess to it after they had gotten away with it.
That doesn't fit the "evil" definition to me.
I thought we already established that everyone agrees that Google most likely did not do this on purpose, so I don't know why you're bringing this up. You're right they could get much more useful data in other ways.
The bit where they are evil IS they complete lack of responsibility when it comes to QA, they only look at what the project will mean to them, accidentally trampling all over European privacy laws apparently didn't even occur to them.
Because that's the thing, this IS a serious legal issue. I dunno, apparently you don't have privacy laws like that in the US? But you'd want QA to catch a "hard to spot configuration error" if it meant large scale tax fraud as well, right?
Even if you didn't do it on purpose, even if you can somehow roll back the damage done, Google still showed itself being irresponsibly neglicient of privacy regulations.
It shows that they just cared if they got the data they wanted (streetview data and WiFi SSIDs) and checked and doublechecked that with their QA but when you go out into our streets, there's matters of privacy you gotta adhere to, just as the Google Cars aren't exempt from traffic regulations either. And they didn't care enough. This is the bit they spotted, who knows what has happened more? Or what will happen if they don't take a more responsible stance?
Here's my whole problem with the whole "OMG megacorporations want to eat our babies" approach - it paints all these terrifying what-if scenarios all over the good stuff that is happening. No shit. What google is doing represents some of the most exciting techological advancements of the 21st century. We're fast moving into an era where everybody is capable of knowing anything they want. The tinfoil hats all scream and bitch about "PRIVACY" but for me that's utter bullshit. If everybody knows everything then there can be no privacy. Newsflash - privacy is set to go the same way as the appendix - it's an organ we no longer require to function as a society or even as individuals.
Yesterday I had to drive to a location in Glasgow city center. I don't go to glasgow much and the one way system is lethal but, using google streetview I managed to find a way into this place and, when I actually got there it was like I'd already been there before. I wish retarded luddite villagers with pitchforks would STFU about google vans taking pictures of their windows. The windows are already public domain - we have this projection system called motherfucking reality and it has the data on display, live, at any time of the day or night. So now everybody in the world can see your ugly curtains without having to actually travel there - ONOEZ END OF CIVILISATION
Sorry folks, I'm just not buying it.
The problem is lack of privacy only goes one way. Your or I may not have privacy, but you can sure as hell bet Lloyd Blankfein and the National Security Council does.
And it's amazing how all of these "zomg privacy is an outdated concept" style corporations and ISPs immediately capitulate whenever, say, 32,000 State Department diplomatic cables are threatened to be published. Or an Uzbek gangster/businessman threatens to sue.
Hmm, it's almost like a double standard is at work, where those who actually collect the information or otherwise trade and profit from it are protected from the "transparent society", while no-one else is actually given a choice. Gosh, I wonder why that would be?
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2010, 11:29:32 AM
The problem is lack of privacy only goes one way. Your or I may not have privacy, but you can sure as hell bet Lloyd Blankfein and the National Security Council does.
And it's amazing how all of these "zomg privacy is an outdated concept" style corporations and ISPs immediately capitulate whenever, say, 32,000 State Department diplomatic cables are threatened to be published. Or an Uzbek gangster/businessman threatens to sue.
Hmm, it's almost like a double standard is at work, where those who actually collect the information or otherwise trade and profit from it are protected from the "transparent society", while no-one else is actually given a choice. Gosh, I wonder why that would be?
Now that's a cause I can get behind. I'm all for being able to find out what these fucks are up to but unless I'm willing to give up my own privacy in exchange then it's me who's using double standards.
National security is a tricky one and, tbh, I'm not sure where exactly I stand on that. I am pretty sure that it's used to cover up a lot of nasty shit but I'm still undecided as to the flipside - does it really make our nation more secure?
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
QuoteIt's been this ever since Google was just a bunch of motherboards duct-taped into a cardboard box. Why is this a bad goal? If information is universally accessible, then what does it matter whose servers it resides on?
:facepalm:
sorry but, man, if you have to ASK this, we're going to have to take this discussion on privacy down a whole bunch of notches. yes, sorry I'm being condescending but I wouldn't have expected a stupid question like this so far into the discussion. it pisses me off because apparently I have been writing all those rants in this (and that other) thread to deaf ears that apparently have no idea what the fuck they are talking about and what all this means.
Wait, because I don't agree with you on everything, I don't know "what the fuck I am talking about"? :lol:
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
why is having data in a bigass database owned by one single megacorporation worse than having it sitting in several thousands of databases all owned by separate entities?
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.
The key, for me at least, is that the data is "universally accessible and useful" to the public. You're now changing the argument mid-stream to be about non-shared private data, as this is what I was responding to:
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 24, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
You can tell by their current mission statement, which is no longer "don't be evil", but the goal to index and make searchable all information in the world.
And that's scary and dangerous, when such a gigantic megacorp as Google is doing it, and succeeding.
Unless you were using their statement about publicly available data to talk about their collection of private data. If that's the case, you can perhaps understand my confusion.
With the collection and manipulation of private data I am torn. No-one likes being taken advantage of, but in practical terms there's fuck all way an individual could financially profit from their data being used. At least no way that wouldn't balance out in inflationary terms. Or if data from wealthy people had a higher market price, then that's not exactly a great way to reduce income disparity.
On the other hand, if companies do know more about their consumers, then can't they tailor their products to be closer to that which will actually be desired and useful? If adverts can be targeted online, then think of all of the paper and energy that could be saved from billboards and posters in the real world. And hey, if a company can get its grubby hands on the type and appearance of adverts which I respond positively to, then you can bet in that future I'll be seeing only the occasional adwords-style ad, and no flash "bash the monkey" style shit. And even the energy saved by not serving me an annoying flash ad will be significant over my lifetime, and over the general population.
So when you account for all the energy and resources saved, the cargo-containers of unwanted plastic junk which are thrown, unsold, into landfills.. at which point does it become an environmental or ethical argument to eliminate such wastage?
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
QuoteQuote from: Triple Zero on June 24, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
And all the while having a happy shiny public imago.
(which is crumbling somewhat, but imagine if it wasn't. that is whey they need to be shat upon)
So I see this and I don't see someone trying to keep a company true to its stated goals and beliefs, but someone shitting on a company because it has the apparent audacity to try to become something better than that which has come before it.
Yes they tried, and while they tried I really applauded them for that. In the young years of Google, I was a really big fan. I actually believed they might be able to pull it off (become really big and still "dont be evil" in a meaningful way).
But then they went corporate. Real bad. And they failed to become something better. There is nothing left to try anymore, they are a mega corporation now, and while a littlebit different from other corporations, also really on the whole not that much, except that they started out with the best intentions, as did many others. There is nothing left to save.
It's not just the 20% time mentioned in the other thread that is an empty PR lie. It's all the cool and shiny things you hear about Google. Maybe in their headquarters in Mountainview it's like the Willy fucking Wonka chocolate factory [funny how Wonka has about the same view on customer support as Google does, btw], but Google offices and servers are all over the world, also here. And everywhere I've seen em, they are exactly the same cold corporate IT structures you see in all the big corporations. Except they own some orders of magnitude more server hardware and databases.
And no, I'm not shitting on them because they tried to not become like this. Really, it's too bad that they failed. No, I shit on them because they are gigantic and dangerous, and are doing all the bad things that any greyfaced corporation would do, except they're doing it on an exceptionally large scale, and in a territory that affects everybody in the first world directly in their personal lives.
Any greyfaced corporation would do this. It's in their nature. Basically Google's initial promise to try and be better is like the promise of the Scorpion in the parable of the Frog and the Scorpion (look it up if you don't know it).
If you've read the various historical accounts of Gates or Jobs, they've
always been complete power-hungry do-anything-to-get-ahead psychopathic assholes who, nevertheless, got the job done. The same cannot be said for Page and Brin, who do seem to believe that it's possible to make money without being evil, and who have fucked up royally on occasion. Of course, there may be some secret exposé which will refute that claim, but if they can't even quietly delete 1gb of incriminating data, I doubt it.
Anyway, I love these sorts of discussions, and I'd love to hear rebuttals to any points I've made.. but if you can't do that without going down to the level of telling me that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, then please don't bother.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 11:46:06 AM
National security is a tricky one and, tbh, I'm not sure where exactly I stand on that. I am pretty sure that it's used to cover up a lot of nasty shit but I'm still undecided as to the flipside - does it really make our nation more secure?
Maybe Cain knows the answer to this -- is it possible to break state secrets down roughly into categories, e.g. industrial, individuals, military, illegal orders, politics etc? E.g. industrial secrets don't necessarily make a nation more secure, though there's an obvious economic impact. Is it possible to estimate whether kill-orders overall have a stabilising or destabilising effect?
How much stuff is kept secret just because it would be bad politics? In my time working for both the British and Canadian governments, "because it would be bad politics" accounted for the
vast majority of fucked up shit I'm not allowed to talk about, because it falls under the broad umbrella of their respective official secrecy acts.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 25, 2010, 02:43:13 PM
On the other hand, if companies do know more about their consumers, then can't they tailor their products to be closer to that which will actually be desired and useful? If adverts can be targeted online, then think of all of the paper and energy that could be saved from billboards and posters in the real world. And hey, if a company can get its grubby hands on the type and appearance of adverts which I respond positively to, then you can bet in that future I'll be seeing only the occasional adwords-style ad, and no flash "bash the monkey" style shit. And even the energy saved by not serving me an annoying flash ad will be significant over my lifetime, and over the general population.
So when you account for all the energy and resources saved, the cargo-containers of unwanted plastic junk which are thrown, unsold, into landfills.. at which point does it become an environmental or ethical argument to eliminate such wastage?
surrendering our privacy is good ...for
environmental reasons??It's just so hard to get back privacy after you've lost it. And the people whose privacy at stake are never the ones making the decisions about how much of it we get to have. As long as they keep stealing our privacy in little bits, nobody's going to flip out about it. What will it take before people get serious about protecting their PI? Will it take a live 24/7 camera feed pointed directly at their house? Why do we have to wait until we've already lost our privacy before it becomes an issue?
Random thought: I might not be so bent out of shape If I got a royalty every time my PI was sold. :lol:
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 03:01:34 PM
surrendering our privacy is good ...for environmental reasons??
Among numerous other reasons, not least of which would be an ability to face the next decade or two of this civilisation of ours without turning into a tinfoil hat wearing bundle of neurotic paranoia and general fail. What's the big deal with privacy? Why do you feel the overwhelming need to be secretive about everything? What exactly are you hiding from? Evil corporations? Shady men in black? The illuminati? What?
If these bastards wanted you dead they'd have killed you by now. You're already a slave to the machine so it can't be enslavement you're worried about, surely? Is lack of privacy somehow directly related to an increase in the ability of trans dimensional beings from Sirius to control you with mind lazors?
Enlighten me? Why is google making all the information in the world available to everyone such a nightmare of apocalyptic proportions?
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 03:01:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 25, 2010, 02:43:13 PM
On the other hand, if companies do know more about their consumers, then can't they tailor their products to be closer to that which will actually be desired and useful? If adverts can be targeted online, then think of all of the paper and energy that could be saved from billboards and posters in the real world. And hey, if a company can get its grubby hands on the type and appearance of adverts which I respond positively to, then you can bet in that future I'll be seeing only the occasional adwords-style ad, and no flash "bash the monkey" style shit. And even the energy saved by not serving me an annoying flash ad will be significant over my lifetime, and over the general population.
So when you account for all the energy and resources saved, the cargo-containers of unwanted plastic junk which are thrown, unsold, into landfills.. at which point does it become an environmental or ethical argument to eliminate such wastage?
surrendering our privacy is good ...for environmental reasons??
I don't think you can argue the point that surrendering privacy would reduce waste and in that sense benefit the environment. Whether or not that's a price that's worth paying is a different point.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 03:01:34 PM
It's just so hard to get back privacy after you've lost it. And the people whose privacy at stake are never the ones making the decisions about how much of it we get to have. As long as they keep stealing our privacy in little bits, nobody's going to flip out about it. What will it take before people get serious about protecting their PI? Will it take a live 24/7 camera feed pointed directly at their house? Why do we have to wait until we've already lost our privacy before it becomes an issue?
If you are on facebook, or have any friends on facebook, it's somewhat of a moot point already ;-)
But why is it hard to get back privacy if a society decides it wants to get some back? The UK Data Protection Act (of 1984, no less), did exactly that.
There are
tons of things we could sacrifice to help the environment; accordance with the green movement can be used to justify or shoot down any argument, it's irrelevant to this discussion. And anyway, even if they perfect the science of online ad targeting, there's still going to be billboards and print ads and shit.
(There probably won't be so many newspapers or magazines, but that's not a function of privacy.)
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 03:20:00 PM
What's the big deal with privacy? Why do you feel the overwhelming need to be secretive about everything? What exactly are you hiding from? Evil corporations? Shady men in black? The illuminati? What? ...
Enlighten me? Why is google making all the information in the world available to everyone such a nightmare of apocalyptic proportions?
Of all people, we internet trolls should know.
When you're trying to fuck with somebody, what's the first thing you do? You datamine them. You find their livejournal or facebook, you use their IP address to grab a sattelite picture of their house. If you could find their ebay purchase history and library records, you'd have a pretty good picture of them.
Do you really not find it worrying that there is a large commercial market for your PI, and you have no control over that, or even any awareness of what's being traded and to whom?
Let me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?
Seeing smarter, more personalized advertisements is not worth the trade IMO, not by a long shot.
QuoteBut why is it hard to get back privacy if a society decides it wants to get some back? The UK Data Protection Act (of 1984, no less), did exactly that.
Because we tend to adjust to the level of privacy we experience.
In the 1950s or 60s (?), there was a middle school in TX that wanted to take action against kids smoking in the bathrooms. So they installed cameras in the boys and girls rooms.
Parents were
livid. They organized PTA meetings and wrote letters and made a huge stink.
The school did not budge, they just kept their mouth shut and hung on.
and by 3 or 4 years later, all those kids graduated, and the angry parents went away. The new class of kids coming in accepted that there were cameras in the bathroom. It was just as invasive, but nobody bothered fighting it because they accepted it as business as usual.
I accept that most of my privacy is going bye-bye in the next 10 years and there's little or nothing I can really do about it. I just don't think it's good policy to drop my pants and let everybody have a good look just because the people collecting the data promise they won't use it for evil. (even though they might sell it to somebody who will)
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 03:53:42 PMLet me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?
I'll give you an example, purely hypothetical. Let's say it's 2020 and you're walking down the street and you collapse. Some weird, rare condition you were diagnosed with back in '15 is about to kill you unless someone does exactly the right thing to you in the next 5 mins or so.
A bystander sees you go down and immediately scans your RFID which tells him you have condition-X and must be treated with Y asap. He doesn't have any Y but a quick scan of the immediate area shows two people who have it on their person. He chases down the nearest one, explains the situation and saves your life.
I can probably go on plucking examples like this out my ass til the cows come home but now it's your turn - why should I give a fuck?
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 25, 2010, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
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.
It's not a very good point. It's not even a very weak point. It's just a retarded logical fuck up. If everyone has the data, if it's distributed among a million different computers, if it's the equivalent of a filesharing network or if it's all on one server in google's stronghold the net result is the same - Google has access to all the data. That's the thing with any scenario where everyone has access to all the data - You can't exclude Google from that "everyone" umbrella.
Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with what you're talking about.
On the topic of privacy...
If a person 'knows' a lot about you, social engineering becomes pretty simple.
If someone knows your Name and Address, they can start looking for public documents (like a marriage license) which will have your SSN on it. If they have your SSN and D.O.B, then they can steal your identity.
If someone knows where you went to school, where you went to college, where you were born, what kind of pets you have, etc etc then it becomes relatively easy to hack your brain. We subconsciously do all kinds of stuff based on our experiences, including picking passwords (unless you generate random passwords, of course). It makes it easier to pose as you via phone etc.
A lack of privacy also means that things you don't want known publicly might be found out. The STD you contracted, or the psychological treatment you're receiving could be guessed if a person has enough information... esp from a site like Google. What did you search on after getting home from the Dr office? That new prescription? The term he used to diagnose you?
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 06:29:34 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 25, 2010, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
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.
It's not a very good point. It's not even a very weak point. It's just a retarded logical fuck up. If everyone has the data, if it's distributed among a million different computers, if it's the equivalent of a filesharing network or if it's all on one server in google's stronghold the net result is the same - Google has access to all the data. That's the thing with any scenario where everyone has access to all the data - You can't exclude Google from that "everyone" umbrella.
I think Trip was talking about the private data Google have which they don't share, but since he was responding to a bit about their public "make all data universally accessible" mission, this confused me.
That said, I'm pretty sure they are prohibited from cross-referencing an individuals gmail/youtube/browsing history/adwords historical data unless compelled to do so by law. But then again, I don't know how much legal weight privacy statements actually have.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 04:18:24 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 03:53:42 PMLet me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?
I'll give you an example, purely hypothetical. Let's say it's 2020 and you're walking down the street and you collapse. Some weird, rare condition you were diagnosed with back in '15 is about to kill you unless someone does exactly the right thing to you in the next 5 mins or so.
A bystander sees you go down and immediately scans your RFID which tells him you have condition-X and must be treated with Y asap. He doesn't have any Y but a quick scan of the immediate area shows two people who have it on their person. He chases down the nearest one, explains the situation and saves your life.
I can probably go on plucking examples like this out my ass til the cows come home but now it's your turn - why should I give a fuck?
Suppose an Immoral Fellow scans your RFID tags from across the street. Here's a few possible scenarios:
-He sees that you just went shopping (because every product has its own scannable RFID tag so you can skip checkout lines) and are carrying some goods he wants. BaBAM, give me that new iPod!
-He deduces that you give generously to a save the whales foundation ((this is obviously not
you we're talking about in this hypothetical, p3nt :p)), so he approaches you for a "donation" to support that cause
-He sees that you are prescribed medical marijuana (or some other awesome prescription) and gives you the shakedown
-Without even meeting you, he knows where you hang out and when you'll probably be walking back to your car alone
But let's assume that nobody uses this total access to information for antisocial reasons...
Let's say you're applying for a job. Does your employer need to know your medical history? What kinds of purchases you make? What kind of books you check out from the library? What websites you subscribe to? Your political affiliations? Your internet search history? You may want to conceal some parts of yourself so as to frame your identity a certain way. I certainly wouldn't want my employers finding this place, but if we all had standard internet IDs it wouldn't be a challenge. And to be sure, people in an HR office would gladly pay a small fee to access potential candidate's commercial history.
As we become cyborgs, the ways in which you can fuck with somebody over the internet will get much more intense. If people on the internet are harassing you, (and you know they might not even need a good reason) it's nice to be able to escape into a cloak of anonyminity.
If you're the one controlling the access to this information, you can put it in the proper context. For example, a friend of mine had to submit her college transcript when applying for a job. Because she was the one providing that info, she was able to explain, "Yeah that one semester that I flunked everything? My mom had died and I missed all my finals." The employer wouldn't have gotten that narrative if they dug up that info on their own.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 06:37:48 PM
On the topic of privacy...
If a person 'knows' a lot about you, social engineering becomes pretty simple.
If someone knows your Name and Address, they can start looking for public documents (like a marriage license) which will have your SSN on it. If they have your SSN and D.O.B, then they can steal your identity.
If someone knows where you went to school, where you went to college, where you were born, what kind of pets you have, etc etc then it becomes relatively easy to hack your brain. We subconsciously do all kinds of stuff based on our experiences, including picking passwords (unless you generate random passwords, of course). It makes it easier to pose as you via phone etc.
A lack of privacy also means that things you don't want known publicly might be found out. The STD you contracted, or the psychological treatment you're receiving could be guessed if a person has enough information... esp from a site like Google. What did you search on after getting home from the Dr office? That new prescription? The term he used to diagnose you?
I get what you're saying and, short-term, this is stuff that has to be dealt with, much of it regardless of privacy or lack, therof. But I can't help feeling that things like identity theft would become impossible in a completely transparent society. It's a real mental leap I find myself having to take to imagine zero-privacy but I'm pretty sure such things as passwords and security would be rendered obsolete by the time it was reached.
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.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 04:18:24 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 03:53:42 PMLet me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?
I'll give you an example, purely hypothetical. Let's say it's 2020 and you're walking down the street and you collapse. Some weird, rare condition you were diagnosed with back in '15 is about to kill you unless someone does exactly the right thing to you in the next 5 mins or so.
A bystander sees you go down and immediately scans your RFID which tells him you have condition-X and must be treated with Y asap. He doesn't have any Y but a quick scan of the immediate area shows two people who have it on their person. He chases down the nearest one, explains the situation and saves your life.
I can probably go on plucking examples like this out my ass til the cows come home but now it's your turn - why should I give a fuck?
Suppose an Immoral Fellow scans your RFID tags from across the street. Here's a few possible scenarios:
-He sees that you just went shopping (because every product has its own scannable RFID tag so you can skip checkout lines) and are carrying some goods he wants. BaBAM, give me that new iPod!
-He deduces that you give generously to a save the whales foundation ((this is obviously not you we're talking about in this hypothetical, p3nt :p)), so he approaches you for a "donation" to support that cause
-He sees that you are prescribed medical marijuana (or some other awesome prescription) and gives you the shakedown
-Without even meeting you, he knows where you hang out and when you'll probably be walking back to your car alone
But let's assume that nobody uses this total access to information for antisocial reasons...
Let's say you're applying for a job. Does your employer need to know your medical history? What kinds of purchases you make? What kind of books you check out from the library? What websites you subscribe to? Your political affiliations? Your internet search history? You may want to conceal some parts of yourself so as to frame your identity a certain way. I certainly wouldn't want my employers finding this place, but if we all had standard internet IDs it wouldn't be a challenge. And to be sure, people in an HR office would gladly pay a small fee to access potential candidate's commercial history.
As we become cyborgs, the ways in which you can fuck with somebody over the internet will get much more intense. If people on the internet are harassing you, (and you know they might not even need a good reason) it's nice to be able to escape into a cloak of anonyminity.
If you're the one controlling the access to this information, you can put it in the proper context. For example, a friend of mine had to submit her college transcript when applying for a job. Because she was the one providing that info, she was able to explain, "Yeah that one semester that I flunked everything? My mom had died and I missed all my finals." The employer wouldn't have gotten that narrative if they dug up that info on their own.
The thing about all of this is it can't be denied but, to me at least, "bad guys might do something evil with it" has never been a good enough reason to hold back progress. Yes bad guys will find new and exciting ways to exploit anything. Prevent every single technological advancement if you can - halt science in it's tracks it doesn't change a thing - bad guys will still find new and exciting ways to fuck you over. Just like good guys will find new and exciting ways to thwart their evil schemes.
It cancels out.
Like I said to you in that other thread - with or without all my PI at their disposal an wanker in personnel will take a dislike to me and deny me my dream job just for shits and giggles and there's fuck all I can do about it. In your example the employer would have found out about the mother if they decided to. All comes down to the quality of the recruiter, privacy or no.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 06:37:48 PM
A lack of privacy also means that things you don't want known publicly might be found out. The STD you contracted, or the psychological treatment you're receiving could be guessed if a person has enough information... esp from a site like Google. What did you search on after getting home from the Dr office? That new prescription? The term he used to diagnose you?
The picture is different if:
- This applies to everyone
- Search logs are not private
As in, if you apply for a job and then get a notification that your potential employer has been browsing your sexual history.. that might not be a place you want to work at. In addition, you can then publicise the social offense quite easily. Same goes for Crams argument about fucking with people.. I expect in the near future stalking will not be anonymous, and there will be a social stigma attached to it. Where "it" is the front page of your internet profile. I'm unsure whether this is a good or a bad thing.
Really flexing my pretentious futurologist muscle here, but imagine a future where if the CEO of Google commits a horrible abuse of privacy, and now he's on a list whereby no-one is willing to sell him even a loaf of bread for under $100, and anyone who does will find themselves in a similar situation. Shit, you wouldn't even need legislation - which can never keep up with technology anyway.
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?
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.
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?
Also...
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 25, 2010, 07:35:50 PM
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
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 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25510.msg886611#msg886611), and the video is worth a watch too (though only really the parts with Clay Shirky).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 25, 2010, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
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.
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
Quote from: NotPublished on July 16, 2010, 07:37:47 AM
Soon google will implant chips into us and record all of our thoughts
Then they will create a match-making service.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 07:06:11 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 16, 2010, 10:22:14 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 16, 2010, 07:17:06 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 25, 2010, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 16, 2010, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 16, 2010, 07:17:06 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 25, 2010, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
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.
I've heard of someone getting arested over Yahoo Answers, are there any arrests made over Google Searchs?
Quote from: NotPublished on July 16, 2010, 11:35:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 17, 2010, 06:56:15 AMIn 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.
nail on the head
earns
:potd:
Quote from: Cramulus on July 17, 2010, 07:15:12 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 17, 2010, 06:56:15 AMIn 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.
nail on the head
earns
:potd:
Seconded.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 17, 2010, 06:56:15 AM
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.
The unspoken premise here is that there are a significant number of people in jobs today, who wouldn't be if their employers knew what they talked about online, and that there are at least as many "conservative" unemployed workers who would easily replace them in those positions.
Well okay, but consider the prerequisites to move from where we are now, to this imagined dystopia.
Glenn Beck would be penniless because no longer would anyone want to hear him say the things they dare not say themselves, musicians wouldn't take drugs and party hard because no label would hire them if they did, taxi drivers wouldn't complain about cyclists because their employers would be just too thin-skinned, and authors and artists of all kinds would have to strive towards ensuring none of their art is controversial. Social networking, as we know it, gone - replaced by e-prime weather observations. Any party pictures posted online must contain at least one member of the clergy and someones sweet old grandmother (both fully clothed).
Forums of all kinds, previously held together by a community, gone. I just (http://www.dodgeforum.com/) searched three (http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/) random car forums (http://www.fordforum.com/forum/), and the off-topic/general discussion areas are among the most popular boards with discussions ranging from Obama to Twilight to whether you would "hit" a particular chick. Okay - whatever - but next time something goes squiffy with your vehicle, it's not insignificant if you can save a few hundred to a few thousand dollars by tapping into a knowledge base like that. Multiply that effect over every user group that maintains and collects wisdom. And you can compare such sites with the official versions which, due to liabilities/image concerns/etc do not have a community -- without that human element people do not congregate to show off their knowledge. Trite example, but if Yahoo Answers! was entirely anonymous, then it'd be dead too.
And here's the kicker for me - any company which takes up such puritanical hiring practices will be starving itself of the very same and valuable creative energy which its competitors will use to their own advantage. Either our corporations and institutions rise to meet the challenge of tolerance/turning a blind eye, or they will crumble, to be replaced by organisations which are more hip.
So no, I think this is fear-mongering. I think fear sells. And I think that's something else we'll need to change unless we, too, crumble obsolete.
I dunno man, my roommate is an H.R. manager, and although he's fairly level headed, he does hire employees based on very picky criteria.
I used to live upstairs from this xerox salesman recruiter. He was a gigantic douchebag and took extreme joy in interviewing people and then shutting them down in as judgmental a way as possible. He was telling me this anecdote about how he threw out any applications he received which weren't on expensive 30lb paper. "If they're going to be selling photocopiers, they need to take photocopies seriously."
I was like, "really dude? Do you really think that the paper weight is a good indicator of how good of a salesman the applicant will be?"
"Totally," he said, "And anyway, I get so many applications, I can afford to throw out anybody that's not taking it seriously."
:roll:
to me, it shows how arbitrary these decisions are. It may have a lot less to do with where you went to college, and more to do with what you look like in your facebook photos.
On some level, the hiring process is selecting somebody to join your tribe. This is a very picky and often emotionally centered process. When applying for a job, as an applicant, you want to control the frame through which you're being viewed. I do not want potential employers knowing that I LARP, for example. I'm not embarrassed by it, I just don't want it to be an employer's first impression of me. We can say, "A good employer will learn to see past that BS", and in a rational world I would agree, but if that vibe doesn't exist already, when will it appear? Employers have no shortage of employees banging on their doors, when will they lower their existing criteria?
I mean, consider yourself an HR manager. You have two applicants with equal qualifications. One has FB pictures of himself doing bong rips in his friend's car, the other has pics of himself going fishing with his kids. Which do you hire?
Quote from: Cramulus on July 19, 2010, 03:49:31 PM
I mean, consider yourself an HR manager. You have two applicants with equal qualifications. One has FB pictures of himself doing bong rips in his friend's car, the other has pics of himself going fishing with his kids. Which do you hire?
Am I looking to hire a Bong Salesman? But yeah, for most other positions I'd consider the stable family man image first. Why? Because it's our current environment - the family man may hit the bong in his friends car too as far as I know, but at least if he does he's smarter about it - because he is aware enough to know that it would reflect badly - and that's credit to him. Also, if I hired Mr Bong I may have to explain exactly why I'm not personally horrified by his passtime. So that's how I'd respond in that position
today.
But working towards GA's future dystopia, because nothing is private, both will have bong-rip pictures online - and that changes the equation because now I'm forced to consider that the family man may want to leave the office at 5pm sharp and not work late hours. Because before we could get to the point where everyone is hyper-cautious about what they put online, a whole load of people will have to get caught out first, right?
And this is what interests me -- what do we do when faced with the evidence that society has been up to a whole bunch of crazy unexpected shit out-of-the-office or behind-closed-doors, than previously held by conventional wisdom? GA supposes that we'll become more conservative and less tolerant, I suppose the opposite. Look at the major trends in social issues over the last few
decades centuries and come to your own conclusions I guess.
You'll still have petty tyrants in positions of power dismissing applicants for whatever reasons they can find justifications for - obviously less justification is required if you get significantly more applications than you can thoroughly process. But on the other hand, the more twisted these mini-machiavelli's get, the greater probability that their schemes will spill into their personal life - also to be documented online.
You're saying when there's dirt on everyone, people are going to be less hasty to judge.
Not really, no.
Sigmatic is saying that the thought process in an individual would be "I've done X, people might give me a hard time about that, so I shouldn't throw stones and complain about someone else doing Y". Maybe - but I wouldn't credit people with being that free of hypocrisy.
I'm saying that conventional wisdom plays a large part in dictating what is "acceptable" in a society. Traditionally it's been mixed and mashed and artists of all kinds push boundaries and expand the scope of what is "acceptable". A TV show will have the first ever lesbian/multiracial kiss and it'll be a BIG DEAL, purely for this reason. Or a movie will generate massive headlines for its shocking content, none of which is repeated for the dozens of copy-cat movies which follow. It's a relatively slow process, but have you noticed that this doesn't happen as often any more?
Instead of these shared watershed events that people can point to and historians can document, our intolerance now gets eroded in smaller chunks by our personalised experiences on the internet. A blog here, a news story we click on there. It might be a while before we see juggalos or furries as characters on The Young and the Restless, but I think this is precisely because we have no efficient method to map our personal experiences back into the conventional wisdom - it's lagging far behind in this new environment.
We assume our neighbours would be shocked by what we get up to, they assume the same, and we're all wrong. Meanwhile our masks feign the appropriate responses while in certain circles. But that disconnect is always reducing, and as it does many more things suddenly become "acceptable" in terms of conventional wisdom.
Now the question is what happens as we move towards a theoretical society where "everything is public" - does that make us less tolerant of others and more afraid to live our lives in the way we want to? I don't think it does.
But don't you see the similarities between your hypothetical situation and MAD? If everyone's capable of destroying everyone else's social standing, it's the same game as nuclear war.
Assuming that "social standing" is measured against a completely static sense of what is "socially acceptable", then yes.
But my premise is that conventional wisdom and social acceptability is not static, and can - in certain circumstances - change dramatically.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 09:45:46 PM
But don't you see the similarities between your hypothetical situation and MAD? If everyone's capable of destroying everyone else's social standing, it's the same game as nuclear war.
Doesn't work if they can do it without the victim knowing who did it.
In a situation like this, it would be plausible that any kind of attack on someone's character from an anonymous source would be ignored, the same way a good word from an esteemed person would not be ignored. An incriminating picture can be doctored (or faked the old way), and there's no reason to believe it isn't, if it came from Anonymous.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
In a situation like this, it would be plausible that any kind of attack on someone's character from an anonymous source would be ignored, the same way a good word from an esteemed person would not be ignored. An incriminating picture can be doctored (or faked the old way), and there's no reason to believe it isn't, if it came from Anonymous.
Who says anonymous? I could just make up a name...or hit one of the classbook sites, and use the name of an old fellow student.
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20009159-265.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20009159-265.html) :x :x :x
Imagine a Google social networking site... ha!
You know what? Its soo very easy to sabotage someone... This is sad. Identities can be attacked just out of maliciousness ...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies? Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?
That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies? Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?
Good luck catching me. And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.
The media use "anonymous sources" all the fucking time for hit jobs the White House or certain Senators want on people, and it never seems to negatively impact the reverence with which such smears are treated, at least within official Beltway linked circles.
They have the benefit of preexisting cred though. "The NYT said it, so it's probably not a barefaced lie".
And at least with the news, it's nothing personal. They're just selling news. Any asshole with a blog can talk shit about Total brand cereal, but if the network says Total is made of dogs, people will start to wonder.
Um....this is the same NYT which has been wrong about nearly everyfuckingthing in the last decade, right?
And "news" may be impersonal, but journalists and "anonymous sources" often aren't. People are targeted for specific reasons, usually opposition to a particular bill or policy...and the angle of attack is deeply personal in many cases, whether it involves rumours about infidelity or "immoral" personal behaviour etc etc
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:40:59 PM
That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.
Have you ever used online banking? If we can do one, why not the other?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:59:03 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:40:59 PM
That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.
Have you ever used online banking? If we can do one, why not the other?
Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?
Quote from: Cain on July 19, 2010, 10:55:34 PM
Um....this is the same NYT which has been wrong about nearly everyfuckingthing in the last decade, right?
And "news" may be impersonal, but journalists and "anonymous sources" often aren't. People are targeted for specific reasons, usually opposition to a particular bill or policy...and the angle of attack is deeply personal in many cases, whether it involves rumours about infidelity or "immoral" personal behaviour etc etc
Mainstream news, regardless of it's real accuracy, still comes off to most people as "probably true". That's the important difference.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:59:03 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:40:59 PM
That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.
Have you ever used online banking? If we can do one, why not the other?
Online banking was never iimmaculate.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652
Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security. It just doesn't exist.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies? Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?
Good luck catching me. And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.
In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered. Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit. In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies? Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?
Good luck catching me. And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.
In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered. Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit. In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.
I see. So if I don't like someone, I simply question what they've said, and if it's not 100% +/- 0% factual, I get them thrown off the internet?
WOOOOOO!
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:02:26 PM
Online banking was never iimmaculate.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652
Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security. It just doesn't exist.
I agree, but the fact is that online banking works for the vast majority of people -- it need not be 100% completely secure for it to be a valuable resource. If an individual hack is detected, then that vote will be switched. If a widespread hack has actually made a difference and changed the outcome of a vote then that will be repealed.
But there's very little motivation for such activity - there would be more money to be made hacking banks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:00:04 PM
Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?
No, I don't think that is necessary. I don't see why anything more than a username and password would be required to access the service.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:09:05 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:07:29 PM
In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered. Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit. In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.
I see. So if I don't like someone, I simply question what they've said, and if it's not 100% +/- 0% factual, I get them thrown off the internet?
WOOOOOO!
Not thrown off the internet, simply they would no longer be considered an authoritative source when it comes to dirt on someone else.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:15:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:09:05 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:07:29 PM
In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered. Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit. In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.
I see. So if I don't like someone, I simply question what they've said, and if it's not 100% +/- 0% factual, I get them thrown off the internet?
WOOOOOO!
Not thrown off the internet, simply they would no longer be considered an authoritative source when it comes to dirt on someone else.
Fuck yeah. It would be even more fun to discredit people with legitimate gripes, than it would to generate bogus ones.
BUT WAIT! I could do BOTH!
I am going to stick my nose in this thread, uninvited, to point out the argument that I seem to be seeing crop up ITT over and over again. I will express it by analogy (whoo, strawman):
"We don't need to worry too much about lack of privacy online, because bad rumors and gossip won't hurt a person's employment or other social prospects. This is because people know better than to trust a defamatory rumor that comes from a source unknown to them (or a source whose reliability they are unsure of)."
This seems like an incorrect argument to me. Mainly because of the following clause: "...people know better..."
This argument, therefore, presupposes that people (not individual persons, mind you, but people) are not shitflinging apes who get a perverse glee out of the utter humiliation of an unlucky individual and then rationalizing their behavior to each other after the fact.
The fact that this defamation is coming from the Internet, rather than phone calls, or anonymous letters, or old-fashioned "he said she said" hearsay, doesn't change the fact that defamatory lies can irreparably damage a person's reputation. Yes, being caught in a lie is a very risky business, but that hasn't stopped harmful lies from being spread via the Internet or other means, now has it?
People (again, not individual persons, but people) are absolutely rubbish at critically analyzing the sources of their information and gauging their reliability. See the case of eyewitness reports in courtrooms and their true reliability versus their perceived reliability for evidence of this. The presence of the Internet does NOT magically improve the critical thinking skills of the person hearing the defamatory rumor.
TL;DR:
Basically, if your position on this issue presupposes that there aren't enough scummy idiots in the world for shit like this to be a persistent problem, I would argue that you accidentally your view of humanity. The whole thing.
Hush. Quit disillusioning the idealists. I'm having fun here.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:01:13 AM
Hush. Quit disillusioning the idealists. I'm having fun here.
Sorry, my Idealicynicism* got the better of me and jumped the gun.
*The naive belief that everyone can be made to understand just how shite anything and everything becomes once "people" become part of the equation.
Quote from: Cainad on July 20, 2010, 03:05:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:01:13 AM
Hush. Quit disillusioning the idealists. I'm having fun here.
Sorry, my Idealicynicism* got the better of me and jumped the gun.
*The naive belief that everyone can be made to understand just how shite anything and everything becomes once "people" become part of the equation.
From a realism POV, both hopeless pessimism and foolish optimism are equally stupid. But optimism is
funnier.
OH, THE FREE MARKET WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM DEFAMING EACH OTHER ON FACEBOOK!
\
:nigel:
Quote from: Cainad on July 20, 2010, 02:49:11 AM
I am going to stick my nose in this thread, uninvited, to point out the argument that I seem to be seeing crop up ITT over and over again. I will express it by analogy (whoo, strawman):
"We don't need to worry too much about lack of privacy online, because bad rumors and gossip won't hurt a person's employment or other social prospects. This is because people know better than to trust a defamatory rumor that comes from a source unknown to them (or a source whose reliability they are unsure of)."
This seems like an incorrect argument to me. Mainly because of the following clause: "...people know better..."
This argument, therefore, presupposes that people (not individual persons, mind you, but people) are not shitflinging apes who get a perverse glee out of the utter humiliation of an unlucky individual and then rationalizing their behavior to each other after the fact.
The fact that this defamation is coming from the Internet, rather than phone calls, or anonymous letters, or old-fashioned "he said she said" hearsay, doesn't change the fact that defamatory lies can irreparably damage a person's reputation. Yes, being caught in a lie is a very risky business, but that hasn't stopped harmful lies from being spread via the Internet or other means, now has it?
People (again, not individual persons, but people) are absolutely rubbish at critically analyzing the sources of their information and gauging their reliability. See the case of eyewitness reports in courtrooms and their true reliability versus their perceived reliability for evidence of this. The presence of the Internet does NOT magically improve the critical thinking skills of the person hearing the defamatory rumor.
TL;DR:
Basically, if your position on this issue presupposes that there aren't enough scummy idiots in the world for shit like this to be a persistent problem, I would argue that you accidentally your view of humanity. The whole thing.
Well sure, but I didn't see anyone make that argument. We were talking about a situation which doesn't currently exist, where it's trivial and risk-free to ruin someones reputation by saying the wrong thing in the wrong place - because a prospective employer is guaranteed to find it - and as such scammers could simply blackmail anyone they found contact details for.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 03:11:44 AM
Quote from: Cainad on July 20, 2010, 02:49:11 AM
I am going to stick my nose in this thread, uninvited, to point out the argument that I seem to be seeing crop up ITT over and over again. I will express it by analogy (whoo, strawman):
"We don't need to worry too much about lack of privacy online, because bad rumors and gossip won't hurt a person's employment or other social prospects. This is because people know better than to trust a defamatory rumor that comes from a source unknown to them (or a source whose reliability they are unsure of)."
This seems like an incorrect argument to me. Mainly because of the following clause: "...people know better..."
This argument, therefore, presupposes that people (not individual persons, mind you, but people) are not shitflinging apes who get a perverse glee out of the utter humiliation of an unlucky individual and then rationalizing their behavior to each other after the fact.
The fact that this defamation is coming from the Internet, rather than phone calls, or anonymous letters, or old-fashioned "he said she said" hearsay, doesn't change the fact that defamatory lies can irreparably damage a person's reputation. Yes, being caught in a lie is a very risky business, but that hasn't stopped harmful lies from being spread via the Internet or other means, now has it?
People (again, not individual persons, but people) are absolutely rubbish at critically analyzing the sources of their information and gauging their reliability. See the case of eyewitness reports in courtrooms and their true reliability versus their perceived reliability for evidence of this. The presence of the Internet does NOT magically improve the critical thinking skills of the person hearing the defamatory rumor.
TL;DR:
Basically, if your position on this issue presupposes that there aren't enough scummy idiots in the world for shit like this to be a persistent problem, I would argue that you accidentally your view of humanity. The whole thing.
Well sure, but I didn't see anyone make that argument. We were talking about a situation which doesn't currently exist, where it's trivial and risk-free to ruin someones reputation by saying the wrong thing in the wrong place - because a prospective employer is guaranteed to find it - and as such scammers could simply blackmail anyone they found contact details for.
So the obvious answer is to strip all anonymity away from the internet, instead of, say NOT HAVING A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT UNDER YOUR REAL NAME.
Who wants to strip all anonymity from the internet?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 03:30:27 AM
Who wants to strip all anonymity from the internet?
Um, you.
I do :?
Did I say that anywhere?
I do think that certain forces will try to strip anonymity from the internet, and I think they'll succeed to some extent. I don't think it's necessarily a doomsday scenario, for the reasons I've given, but that doesn't mean that I wish to usher it in.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:59:03 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:40:59 PM
That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.
Have you ever used online banking? If we can do one, why not the other?
Here.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies? Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?
Good luck catching me. And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.
In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered. Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit. In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.
And here.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:14:12 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:02:26 PM
Online banking was never iimmaculate.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652
Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security. It just doesn't exist.
I agree, but the fact is that online banking works for the vast majority of people -- it need not be 100% completely secure for it to be a valuable resource. If an individual hack is detected, then that vote will be switched. If a widespread hack has actually made a difference and changed the outcome of a vote then that will be repealed.
But there's very little motivation for such activity - there would be more money to be made hacking banks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:00:04 PM
Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?
No, I don't think that is necessary. I don't see why anything more than a username and password would be required to access the service.
And here.
Because if you DON'T strip the system of anonymity, in a very strong way, 4chan will fuck you with the business end of a rake. For fun.
That's the world you have to work with if you want a practical means of utopia.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:07:15 AM
Because if you DON'T strip the system of anonymity, in a very strong way, 4chan will fuck you with the business end of a rake. For fun.
No, everyone will suddenly become very nice, because their computer will be "helping" them with their decisions. Or so I understand it.
Not that this puts a WHOLE WHACKING SHITLOAD OF POWER in the hands of certain companies, or anything.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:54:40 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:59:03 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:40:59 PM
That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.
Have you ever used online banking? If we can do one, why not the other?
Here.
No - Sigmatic was stating that it was not feasible to implement an E-Democracy system with our current level of internet security, and I provided online banking as a counter-example.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:55:03 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies? Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?
Good luck catching me. And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.
In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered. Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit. In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.
And here.
Again, I'm not rooting for a lack of anonymity here. If anonymous slander becomes a real problem, then the obvious approach to deal with it is to filter out all anonymous slander. Assuming that system is in place, it non-anonymous "basement dwellers" start slandering maliciously for fun or profit, then the logical step is to add them to the anonymous slanderers blacklist.
Actually, I don't think slander will become a problem, but it was a concern which was raised and so I addressed it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:55:24 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:14:12 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:02:26 PM
Online banking was never iimmaculate.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652
Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security. It just doesn't exist.
I agree, but the fact is that online banking works for the vast majority of people -- it need not be 100% completely secure for it to be a valuable resource. If an individual hack is detected, then that vote will be switched. If a widespread hack has actually made a difference and changed the outcome of a vote then that will be repealed.
But there's very little motivation for such activity - there would be more money to be made hacking banks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:00:04 PM
Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?
No, I don't think that is necessary. I don't see why anything more than a username and password would be required to access the service.
And here.
I'm really not sure what you see in this one which makes it sound like I want to strip anonymity from the internet.
That hypothetical situation we were talking about. Where dirt on everyone is available, and there's effectively no privacy?
Yeah, in effect there's no such thing as anonymity in a situation like that. If there is, it's only accomplishable by, well, 2600 types under low scrutiny.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:17:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:54:40 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:59:03 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:40:59 PM
That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.
Have you ever used online banking? If we can do one, why not the other?
Here.
No - Sigmatic was stating that it was not feasible to implement an E-Democracy system with our current level of internet security, and I provided online banking as a counter-example.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:55:03 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:43:42 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that. Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.
Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.
In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.
But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies? Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?
Good luck catching me. And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.
In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered. Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit. In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.
And here.
Again, I'm not rooting for a lack of anonymity here. If anonymous slander becomes a real problem, then the obvious approach to deal with it is to filter out all anonymous slander. Assuming that system is in place, it non-anonymous "basement dwellers" start slandering maliciously for fun or profit, then the logical step is to add them to the anonymous slanderers blacklist.
Actually, I don't think slander will become a problem, but it was a concern which was raised and so I addressed it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 03:55:24 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 19, 2010, 11:14:12 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 11:02:26 PM
Online banking was never iimmaculate.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652
Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security. It just doesn't exist.
I agree, but the fact is that online banking works for the vast majority of people -- it need not be 100% completely secure for it to be a valuable resource. If an individual hack is detected, then that vote will be switched. If a widespread hack has actually made a difference and changed the outcome of a vote then that will be repealed.
But there's very little motivation for such activity - there would be more money to be made hacking banks.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 19, 2010, 11:00:04 PM
Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?
No, I don't think that is necessary. I don't see why anything more than a username and password would be required to access the service.
And here.
I'm really not sure what you see in this one which makes it sound like I want to strip anonymity from the internet.
:backpedal:
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:07:15 AM
Because if you DON'T strip the system of anonymity, in a very strong way, 4chan will fuck you with the business end of a rake. For fun.
That's the world you have to work with if you want a practical means of utopia.
Well I don't think an E-Democracy system could be anonymous... oh wait, E-Democracy is the other thread. :oops:
Sorry - disregard pretty much all my responses in the last few pages. Sorry about that.
Wait.
So the internet stays anonymous in your utopia or not?
I thought we were discussing a hypothetical situation where embarrassing crap of everybody was publicly available, and widespread non-privacy, and the possible repercussions of that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:26:24 AM
Wait.
So the internet stays anonymous in your utopia or not?
The internet I'd like to see is pretty much how it is now -- you can get anonymity easily, and you can choose to trade privacy to interact with personalised services. I'd go a step further and codify that applications which deal with personal information should allow the user to drill down and explicitly check or remove the personal data which it shares and with whom.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 20, 2010, 04:29:37 AM
I thought we were discussing a hypothetical situation where embarrassing crap of everybody was publicly available, and widespread non-privacy, and the possible repercussions of that.
We were, I wasn't entirely (in the last few posts), because I got confused around about the time I started talking about online-banking :sad:
Plz to repost your thoughts unambiguously for further discussion.
Either online slandering will remain an issue which effects only a tiny minority of people, or it will be nightly-news/60 minutes material. Heck, even if it only effects a tiny minority, it makes for a great story so it'll likely get plenty of attention regardless.
And if it's newsworthy then public perception will be turned in favour of the victims. Expect the word "Anonymous" in large fonts with sinister music playing in the background. Scammers will try to exploit and profit from this by promising not to publish slander for a small fee. And if having undesirable data (false or not) online is commonplace, then it becomes a pointless metric to track when as a H.R. person, you're Googling a job applicant.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if searching the internet for data on job applicants becomes prohibited by law, since if you're doing it right you can use it to gain access to the protected data you're not supposed to know about.
So overall I find it hard to get worked up about this "slander" issue.
Towards the broader issue of just having embarrassing crap about you online, I stand by the posts I wrote starting here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25591.msg898951#msg898951).
I'll get back to this tomorrow, it's late here.
I don't have anything to add, but I want to say that I find all this speculation very interesting.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 06:04:27 AM
Either online slandering will remain an issue which effects only a tiny minority of people, or it will be nightly-news/60 minutes material. Heck, even if it only effects a tiny minority, it makes for a great story so it'll likely get plenty of attention regardless.
And if it's newsworthy then public perception will be turned in favour of the victims. Expect the word "Anonymous" in large fonts with sinister music playing in the background. Scammers will try to exploit and profit from this by promising not to publish slander for a small fee. And if having undesirable data (false or not) online is commonplace, then it becomes a pointless metric to track when as a H.R. person, you're Googling a job applicant.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if searching the internet for data on job applicants becomes prohibited by law, since if you're doing it right you can use it to gain access to the protected data you're not supposed to know about.
So overall I find it hard to get worked up about this "slander" issue.
Towards the broader issue of just having embarrassing crap about you online, I stand by the posts I wrote starting here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25591.msg898951#msg898951).
i am inclined to agree that your vision will become reality, but i imagine it will take decades at least. the others' perception of modern society's reaction to what you envision is accurate... if your internet was suddenly thrust upon them. i think only a major technological breakthrough will evolve us to narrow the disconnect you spoke of earlier.
make any sense?
QuoteAnd this is what interests me -- what do we do when faced with the evidence that society has been up to a whole bunch of crazy unexpected shit out-of-the-office or behind-closed-doors, than previously held by conventional wisdom? GA supposes that we'll become more conservative and less tolerant, I suppose the opposite. Look at the major trends in social issues over the last few decades centuries and come to your own conclusions I guess.
This would be a great question to ask a social psychologist. I've only taken one 300-level SP course myself, but here goes:
In an event where we become aware, collectively, that everyone is weirder than anticipated, cognitive dissonance naturally looms. In a situation like this, we look at each other hoping for a clue about how to react. In that moment, the first person to react sets the pace for the entire group's reaction. Are they disgusted? Amused? The first impression on things will color the flurry of rationalizations and arguments that attempt to integrate the new knowledge.
The direction an event like this would push us would tend to be reflected by the prevailing mindsets, then.
Stepping out of the classroom a bit, my pet theory is that it's the narratives we work with that determine how these things go. I would seem to have a "the world gets weirder every day" narrative, whereas my grandma might have a "the world gets scarier every day" narrative. These tiny stories seem to shape the way we integrate our experiences into our understanding, and the best way to model a person's behavior is by determining what their narratives look like.
To explain my idea a bit more, I'm not thinking of entertainment narratives. I'm talking about pre-digested sequences of events that we fit our observations to as a way of easily contextualizing things. For example, cups don't exist. Barstool, let me rephrase that: Materials don't know about cups. There are however stories we tell about cups. The liquid goes in, and you sip it out. That's a cup narrative, and any object that can suitably stand in for the role will be called "the cup".
More complex narratives involve the way we model other people's behaviors. Cf: Dennett's intentional stance; in the event where everyone's embarrassing photos are made available by Evil Search Engine #9 (or whatever ;) ) we will probably lack an appropriate narrative to tell what role to play. So we check with other people onstage. Do you have the script? Could someone prompt me here?
What story gets told all depends on who has the narrative.
I guess that's my take on what happens when society figures out how weird it is.
To expand: The outcome would be a situation where nobody actually knows how to react, and they end up looking at each other for hints. The most self-assured person in the room is the first person to give a hint as to possible reactions. People pick up on that, and that provides a starting point for how we decide to incorporate the new knowledge into our understanding of the world.
You will likely find that people are much more interested in a new worldview that everyone else seems to agree with, rather than the most rational and veracious one. This is because the pressure doesn't come from being objectively wrong, the pressure comes from not sharing the same outlook on life as other people.
I really like this concept of narratives. It sounds somewhat familiar - is it yours or taken from someplace else?
My first thought is O:MF related - if some events are predictable, how feasible is it to implant sleeper narratives, or is there always competition?
Secondly, once a narrative has shaped a perception, what is more effective at modifying that perception - rationality or a more compelling narrative?
Is a narrative a certain class of meme?
Memes? I dunno. They seem to be narratives. Cool thing is you can try this at home.
Take a meme like democracy, why not. The story is about majority getting what they ask for. There are lots of ways this happens, but the concept breaks if that part of the story doesn't happen, and as a consequence we say "this is not democracy".
So when our nation tried e-voting with those scamming bastards, and Bush became president even though it was not (I am told) what the people asked for, they said "not democracy".
So yes, memes seem to be a form of narrative. Almost any conceivable idea is. That's why I think narratives are very important with regard to modeling human thought and experience.
As far as planting sleeper narratives? I have no idea, I can't think of a way that would work. Narratives matter because they are (I think) the presenting mechanism of thought. If nobody's thinking about a narrative, it can't be said to exist. .: no sleeper narratives (at least in unaugmented brains).
(This is really my pet theory about human consciousness, but I like seeing if I can apply it to normative situations.)
In the case of the cup narrative, it need not be transmitted from one mind to another as with a meme, but it can be a learned experience. What about the class of learning that cannot be taught, only experienced - in those cases is it the internal formation of a non-transferable narrative which is occurring?
The way you're describing narratives make them sound to me like little processing units. They take input data, pattern-match, and fire accordingly. In that sense, I guess they would be the first line of defence (or weakness) against new memes? But if I present you with some data now, and it fires the same narrative that the same data would an hour from now - doesn't that narrative exist in your head even while you're not consciously considering it?
With sleeper narratives, take an event we can predict - say a reduction in online privacy resulting in society realising that it is weirder than it knew - you've got maybe two competing narratives - a) The internet makes people weirder b) The internet reveals how weird people have always been. Couldn't you create jokes/chain-letters which favour one narrative over another? I expect that if the issue is not contentious at the time then an individuals defenses are lowered.
E.g. A conversation from last week:
Wife: "Huh, it's didn't rain today and the weather forecast had a little rain icon, I guess they got it wrong"
Me: "Well yeah - it also said 40% POP which is the weather forecasters way of hedging its bets - it'd rather predict rain and have the day be sunny, than predict sun and have it rain -- because then people would write in and complain. No-one writes in to complain about being pleasantly surprised."
Wife: "Nuh-uh - it doesn't work like that!"
But I suspect if I'd made that little speech a few days earlier, then her internal narrative would not have felt threatened, and I could have avoided that argument.
In the way you're thinking about narratives, most if not all are sleepers. They don't change unless an observed event threatens them, and being the one who tries to break stories is never easy.
Someone on here once said that hijacking the narrative is the most grievous heresy. It's true. People die over that shit.
Instead of presenting an opposed narrative when an existing one was in play, in the case of the weather, you might have presented a different, preexisting narrative by saying "They were just guessing, there's really no way to know for sure." When she asked how they guess, you could have then supplied the new narrative, since the old one was then weakened.
It'd be nice if I could think of this stuff in the middle of actual conversations.
I have a feeling that bridging narratives like you describe - to avoid immediate confrontation but to lead towards your desired end - might have some overlap with some of the more seedy aspects of NLP?
I'm not sure how to conceptualise a non-sleeper narrative - where is it kept when it's not being used?
There's been some progress in figuring out the way the brain encodes episodic memory, but figuring out the way the brain carries anticipations of event patterns is probably not a question we can ask yet.
I don't consider NLP rigorous, until it moves past gimmicky new age stuff it's more worth our time to look at cognitive psychology or neuroscience.
IMO.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 20, 2010, 04:26:24 AM
Wait.
So the internet stays anonymous in your utopia or not?
The internet I'd like to see is pretty much how it is now -- you can get anonymity easily, and you can choose to trade privacy to interact with personalised services. I'd go a step further and codify that applications which deal with personal information should allow the user to drill down and explicitly check or remove the personal data which it shares and with whom.
Not gonna work, or not gonna do much good. Please to read archives of Bruce Schneier's blog, or anything else dealing with "soft" security. That being the human factor. You can improve technology, and for sure it will do some good, but it's already been established* that technology can't account for the majority of the human-based security holes [aka "the gaping security anus"].
* by these blogs, researchers, papers on "soft security" or "physical security" [the latter mostly dealing with doors, but also SocEng]
Quote from: Captain Utopia on July 20, 2010, 06:04:27 AM
And if it's newsworthy then public perception will be turned in favour of the victims. Expect the word "Anonymous" in large fonts with sinister music playing in the background.
This, as you probably are aware of, has already happened:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/HACKERS_ON_STEROIDS
BTW for anyone that hasn't seen it,
be sure to check it as it is hilarious, Fox News on Anonymous/4chan :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 21, 2010, 02:05:01 AMThis would be a great question to ask a social psychologist. I've only taken one 300-level SP course myself, but here goes:
In an event where we become aware, collectively, that everyone is weirder than anticipated, cognitive dissonance naturally looms. In a situation like this, we look at each other hoping for a clue about how to react. In that moment, the first person to react sets the pace for the entire group's reaction. Are they disgusted? Amused? The first impression on things will color the flurry of rationalizations and arguments that attempt to integrate the new knowledge.
The direction an event like this would push us would tend to be reflected by the prevailing mindsets, then.
Whoa, really does social psychology predict this? It's not immediately obvious to me, but not unbelievable either.
However, if this is the case, we should start plastering Cramulus's
Strange Times essay ALL OVER THE FUCKING PLACE, in order to tip the odds in our favour. Because it's more likely to happen than not.
Quote from: Sigmatic(...) For example, cups don't exist. Barstool, let me rephrase that: Materials don't know about cups. There are however stories we tell about cups. (...)
heh, I like how you used "Barstool" as an interjection here :)
I can dig up my textbook and hunt down the specifics later, but yes. I don't know if it stated it the way I did, but a lot of the stuff is meant to be applied to a variety of situations. I may have to revise the statement for accuracy later, fair warning.
Postering the Strange Times everywhere is advisable regardless.