Post: #1

Well, this doesn't fit the Orwellian paranoid agenda, so I guess we have to shrink it to fit, right...

.. guys, explain how this fits the gubmint hatred trope? [/i]

Post: #2

Just because there are a few voices of reason left in the wilderness doesn't mean that the wilderness isn't expanding. Good decision by the Supreme Court though.

On another note, why have you been adding all this political lingo into your posts lately? Just live and let live. I disagree with political opinions of a lot of posters around here, but I always keep in mind that I share too much with them in other aspects to let such petty things affect our friendship.

Post: #3

(06-27-2014 01:27 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Well, this doesn't fit the Orwellian paranoid agenda, so I guess we have to shrink it to fit, right...

.. guys, explain how this fits the gubmint hatred trope? [/i]

It fits perfectly well. Civilian powers and oversight have never been able to stop military ones.

WIA

Post: #4

(06-27-2014 01:31 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Just because there are a few voices of reason left in the wilderness doesn't mean that the wilderness isn't expanding. Good decision by the Supreme Court though.

On another note, why have you been adding all this political lingo into your posts lately? Just live and let live. I disagree with political opinions of a lot of posters around here, but I always keep in mind that I share too much with them in other aspects to let such petty things affect our friendship.

Sorry if I'm being antagonistic. I think I have a similar core belief, the great majority of people want very much to get along with each other and are even often willing to meet others more than halfway.

it's leaders and agitators that (generally) turn people against each other, unless you take someone whose primary agenda is forgiveness and reconciliation, I don't want to be one of the divisive type.

Post: #5

It may be an "Orwellian paranoid agenda," but anyone who can't see the steady encroachment of the state on rights and privacy is blind. It was an NSA whistleblower who said it was "turnkey tyranny."

Having read Orwell's whole oeuvre, I am sure he would be shocked at the technology and vociferous in complaining about the direction the west is taking.

Greenwald is the Orwell of our times. Let's see what he has to say about who the NSA has been targeting, the news will be out soon.

The Supreme Court made a good decision, on the other hand it might just be a fig leaf because local police can get almost all of this information remotely through NSA-type devices called "Trigger Fish" and "Stingray" or a simple letter to wireless carriers.

http://original.antiwar.com/lucy/2014/06...-metadata/

Post: #6

This is such a major topic right now that the SCOTUS predictably had to vote this way and send a message. Does if stop the unconstitutional spying the NSA did in the first place going forward? ... no. Whom is going to go to go cart NSA agents to jail? The top levels of USA intelligence all spy on each other as a means to keep all parties in check. An order for the FBI to go after the NSA, and the NSA rolls out the FBI shipping in and out weapons which lead to Americans being killed in the USA and Mexico. So in the end this SCOTUS vote It's a symbolic, but, empty move.

Post: #7

https://prism-break.org

Post: #8

This was a terrible thing that was going on for a while. Basically on a normal traffic stop with no probable cause cops were saying they could not only look in your cellphone but also hook it up to a hard drive and basically download all yoru data to look through later. THis is so fucked up and big brother its unbelievable this even had to go to the supreme court, thankfully they ruled fairly on this however they do leave an exception for situations like terrorist attacks and things like that. That kinda scares me as anytime you leave an opening authorities will be trying to say minor things are reasons to be able to search phones. A good reason to have your phone not only password protected but also encrypted. I believe even before when this was allowed if you had a password they coudn't get in.

Post: #9

(06-27-2014 06:50 AM)Tengen Wrote:  https://prism-break.org

I was just about to mention this...
The government has prism and the majority of the American people have no idea what it is or that it even exists. So when you have the power to tap into anyone's life at the press of a button, passing a law like is the correct MO of Orwellian authoritarian posturing:

The ignorant masses believe you are serving their needs and will support anything you say or do in the future.

Post: #10

Wait, you actually thought this was a victory against the police state? Sad to say this was nothing but a tactical retreat, a classic misdirection. Police don't even need to manually search phones anymore. They can hack into your phone using a portable fake cell tower. This technology will soon be deployed everywhere.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...e/3902809/

Quote: At least 25 police departments own a Stingray, a suitcase-size device that costs as much as $400,000 and acts as a fake cell tower. The system, typically installed in a vehicle so it can be moved into any neighborhood, tricks all nearby phones into connecting to it and feeding data to police. In some states, the devices are available to any local police department via state surveillance units. The federal government funds most of the purchases, via anti-terror grants.

Post: #11

To me, the essential issue in these security vs. privacy balances is this:

Is the development of technology going to make privacy simply impossible? I mean, is it just inevitable that the law will not be able to keep pace with technological development? Are we fighting a losing battle?

It sometimes seems that, the way things are headed, the human race is going to merge with, or be replaced by, bionic cyborg robots anyway, with swarming clouds of nano-bots flying around the atmosphere. I hope I don't live to see it. And God only knows what's going to happen in 50 years when AI becomes self-aware.

My own answer is that, even though the law will always lag somewhat behind technology, the government of a democratic republic has a responsibility to put firm checks in place to protect its people's privacy.

Maybe my view is naive and delusional in today's world.

Post: #12

(06-30-2014 12:26 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  To me, the essential issue in these security vs. privacy balances is this:

Is the development of technology going to make privacy simply impossible? I mean, is it just inevitable that the law will not be able to keep pace with technological development? Are we fighting a losing battle?

It sometimes seems that, the way things are headed, the human race is going to merge with, or be replaced by, bionic cyborg robots anyway, with swarming clouds of nano-bots flying around the atmosphere. I hope I don't live to see it. And God only knows what's going to happen in 50 years when AI becomes self-aware.

My own answer is that, even though the law will always lag somewhat behind technology, the government of a democratic republic has a responsibility to put firm checks in place to protect its people's privacy.

Maybe my view is naive and delusional in today's world.

My bet is that humanity will die off due to no one having kids, but the sex robots (that incidentally kept them from having kids because it's so much easier to have a relationship with the sexbot) will continue emulating lifelike human behavior while they're maintained by automated factories replacing the ones that break down. Should seem pretty odd to any aliens that arrive.

Post: #13

(06-27-2014 06:50 AM)Tengen Wrote:  https://prism-break.org

Does this encrypt your data? I checked out the site but I'm not really sure what it does.

Is it even possible to protect your data on a smartphone?

Post: #14

NSA already has everything from your phone....

Post: #15

Anyone ever wondered why we haven't met alien species yet. Assuming the laws of evolution are the same across thw universe (as they should be since they describe rather than prescribe), I would expect any intelligent alien species to have the same flaws we do: arrogance (being overconfident leads to more genetic success than being too insecure) and lack of foresight of the population (idiocracy anyone?). My guess is that any species that can create civilization will eventually create the technological means to destroy itself. All those AI scientists and engineers think people are overreacting about artificial intelligence, but technology is in itself neutral (as QC eloquently stated in his book). The problem is that almost every single technical advances is always put to bad use and we're extremely bad as a species to realize the nefarious long-term consequences of our technologies. Look at what household appliances and birth control really led us to. If there is a species out there that has figured out space travel and not destroyed itself in the process, I imagine them to be like Vulcans - extremely logical and very careful about long-term consequences, they probably had to wipe out their own idiots. Or perhaps less gruesomely, leave the idiots and short-sighted, emotional individuals on the home planet.

I mean, shit, we've had civilization for 10,000 years. You can argue only the last 2,000 years or maybe even 200 years are all that matter for technical advances. Imagine what another century will bring. I say this as an engineer, but every engineering student in college should be mandated to double major in philosophy so they can learn the full extent of human folly and the potential disaster their work may induce.

Post: #16

^ Interesting aside. There is some speculation that if our technological base collapses (sustained global anarchy, even for a short time) then it will literally be impossible to achieve the level of advancement we have now, much less any further advances.

The basis for this prediction is that all the easy-to-obtain resources required to build an advanced civilisation have been stripped and we're down to highly advanced and complicated procedures just to keep the machine ticking. Lack of close-to-surface mineral deposits. Readily available phosphorus/oil. Etc.

The theory goes that if the big machine grinds to a halt for any reason whatsoever then we will never again possess the abundance of resources and manpower required to get it started. It's suggested that every planet's inhabitants get literally one shot at getting off that rock and colonising or they fuck it up and eventually return to subsistence farming (or alien equivalent) until their sun consumes their planet.

Post: #17

Yeah, I have some material science background, and I've heard the same from hardcore material scientists: if we have to start over again now, we're fucked.

Personally I'm a bit skeptical about this theory. Only because I'm cautious about underestimating human intelligence (and also stupidity). Assuming all our metal resources haven't magically vanished, I'd be hard-presses to imagine we couldn't figure out a way to recycle out what we need and start over again. A bunch of us might have to learn a trade like smithing to get started.

As a sidenote, I have this hypothesis that at least one alien species looks and behaves eerily similar to us: on a planet that can sustain life, if the same forces exist that did on our planet (for simplicity sake, let's assume that other planets had similar catastrophic events such as the meteor that supposedly annihilated the dinosaurs and initiated the age of the mammal).

We've effectively the descendants of marsupials, descendants that one day decided to stand up and had to evolve intelligence very rapidly to create tools and get to the top of the food chain in the open savannah. I find the dichotomy between brawn and brains not only holds as a generalization in the human species, but between all species. It's the physically weakest species that has the largest impetus to compensate and develop higher intelligence. Therefore, I posit, that any intelligent alien species must have been physically weak. I imagine there's other factors at work too: standing up, which leads to the women having to pop out kids early and take care of an infant for at least 3-5 years. That most definitely had an impact on our evolution. Other factors would include sexual selection (as opposed to natural selection), opposable thumbs, etc. It is remarkable that the earth has just the right conditions for life. However in reality is is BECAUSE the Earth has certain conditions life exists. Similarly because early humanoids possessed certain characteristics, we've developed into intelligent beings that form complex societies.

Come to think of it, considering how many times the eye has independent evolved and considering the vast amount of galaxies out there, I would put money that at some point there have been HUMANS out there on another planet. There's probably millions of planets with life in our universe. Odds of another planet having independent evolved humans is probably not negligible. If I remember correctly, even on our singular planet, there's several species you would expect to be related due to their similarities, but are in fact very distant species that split off millions of years ago. And even though we have billions of species on this magnificent rock of ours, the fact that only one species has developed the intelligence to create the technological advances we did makes me confident that our type of intelligence requires very specific conditions. And those very specific conditions in turn would lead to very specific alien species.

Post: #18

Worthy of a separate thread. We shouldn't derail any further.

Regardless of whether SCOTUS ruling is lip service, it's still important. It reinforces the existence of the Fourth amendment which might not be a safeguard against the machinations of the elites but will still aid in telling the local plod to fuck off.

Post: #19

- IMSI catcher apps to detect stingrays being used
- Use encrypted chat
- Encrypt your phone

But realise your phone still leaks a shit ton of metadata anyway. Those are some good steps in the right direction however.

Post: #20

What about the FBI cases where they were trying to get into that dead Terrorists iPhone and the drug dealer? They demanded Apple provide a "backdoor" and Apple refused. They eventually got into both---one they paid a hacker 1 million+ dollars, and the other the guy unlocked it himself.

Post: #21

How did they vote 9-0? Did Justice Scalia vote from beyond the grave?

Post: #22

(10-14-2016 09:48 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  How did they vote 9-0? Did Justice Scalia vote from beyond the grave?

Note the date of the top replies and the article: It happened in 2014 when Scalia was alive.