Wish there was a way to combat either the wariness, or to exacerbate the joy. For, I must be assimilated into the Borg, too. :)
I just feel like it makes a lot of good sense to produce something of the sort. I'm also naive enough to believe that it isn't too late to attempt to establish such a document and have it not contain all sorts of loopholes that would render it useless.
I can understand why the feds want to monitor the Internet and various communications, however there needs to be that pushback, that line drawn where we can hold their overreach accountable. It may not always work, but there needs to be something that us ordinary citizens can lean back on for protection.
Unfortunately while it doesn't always work out, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea.
Currently us citizens literally have nothing to combat our Government essentially having their way with the Internet to get at our data. This is an issue to both the individual but also groups/companies.
We need something, anything to use for defense.
You could have some arbitrary cutoffs, like don't worry about information on less than 1000 people or stored less than 3 months (or whatever numbers you want to pick out of the air, the point is that the threshold for reporting might not be 0).
What I think this might do in many cases is make storing the information more expensive than any value derived from it. It also gives people a chance to learn that the water company is sharing their usage with the police (or whatever).
This is a (very) short story I wrote a while ago that is semi related: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=eRNQYx21
However, something like this should probably start on something that is much more approachable by your average citizen.
Folks that visit Hacker News and work in tech have a decent understanding of the issues, however the masses are still on the outside looking in with regards to comprehension. The platform to deliver this message really needs to be insanely user friendly.
Sorry for the flame material, but why is it that this is rarely mentioned in western news media (at least in the countries whose news I follow)?
For those who, like me, didn't know that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India
The law that everyone was in uproar about is that in Russia you're not allowed to promote non-traditional sexual relationships.
Yet in what many claim is a 'free' country (India), homosexuality it outlawed outright.
Funny how propaganda works.
You can pick your criteria but please try to make it adequate and generic Then name one free country on this planet.
If Russia was mistreated in Western media, Putin would have been burned in effigy every day for a decade in every city in the west over e.g. this:
"On October 21, 1999, a series of Russian ballistic missile strikes on central Grozny killed at least 137 people, mostly civilians, and injured hundreds. The missiles hit the city's main marketplace, a maternity hospital and a mosque."
And other points listed on that page, which has never really been discussed in western media.
But I guess Wikipedia, HRW et al are in on Obama's homosexual conspiracy? :-)
Homosexuality has been illegal in India. No change no uproar.
Russia's laws have moved things bavkwards.
Look at what happened in Uganda.
The issue went to the supreme court and they said this matter is for the legislature to decide.
The good thing (unlike Russia) is that almost everyone from the ruling government, media, public, etc want this law abolished.
There's a world view I can't imagine.
When this law came up for review in the supreme court this year, it ruled that since the law criminalizes actions, not persons, it is not discriminatory and hence, not unconstitutional. As you can imagine, this was a very controversial judgment. But as things stand now, the supreme court has passed the ball back to the parliament to repeal/amend the law.
I am not sure when exactly the original law was amended in Britain.
Sadly, while the British have since got rid of the prudery, it continues here.
The government in power is keen to have the Supreme court strike it down, to avoid any voting backlash from the conservative population.
While one of the courts did strike it down, the Supreme Court later put the ball back into the Parliament's court, saying that only the Parliament can use its legislative powers to get rid of the law.
Thankfully, there have been very few convictions under the law, but it has been used for harassment of some people.
Christian, esp the various puritan sub-sects. Oral sex being socially acceptable is relatively new. 40yrs or less. As a kid in 70's I'd get in trouble for saying "suck". My parents considered it an obscene word as bad as "fuck".
"Georgia code section 16-6-2 provides a 1 to 20 year mandatory sentence for any adults consenting to "any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another". Married couples are not excluded from this law."
Afaik several species beyond our own do oral/anal sex.
> why is it that this is rarely mentioned in western news media
It is mentioned in Western media. Also in India you are not prosecuted for being a gay or homosexual unless you bring to the out in the open (I am not defending the culture). Which means you can't usually do girl-girl/guy-guy making out in the public. Hell, you can't even do girl-guy making out in the open. This is covered by some "indecency laws". So, basically it's like there's no witch-hunt on for gays and lesbians even though you declare that you are a homosexual.
Now when someone says this country has a lot lot bigger issues to fix before fixing issues of homosexuality, please don't pounce on him/her because that's true (IMO).
I'm always surprised at the number of friends and family I see who have their Facebook set to public - especially considering what they post. When I tell them they don't care. I think the majority of people want some semblance of privacy but they are willing to give up a lot for the efficiency these new products, that require us to give up privacy, provide.
Is this only because of the app permissions model? AFAIK, other than that, Android per se isn't any less privacy-oriented than iOS. iOS apps also much more commonly retrieve various user data and marginally more often send data around unencrypted.
It seems like people are alluding to Google's data usage as some sort of black box where it seems pretty open to me.
That being said, I don't really understand the assumption that Apple would be a good steward of personal data. As someone else alluded to on this thread, it came out _years_ ago that Apple was collecting fine grained location logs and storing them in a fully readable (unencrypted) file on each ios device (and I believe on any computer that the phone was synced to). I can't think of any behavior in Android that's even close to as egregious as that, for me.
And if it's in Apple's interest to protect your data, it's in Google's interest all the more to protect your data - because they do make money of some of it. Also, they have a very public declaration of what they do with the data, how they are stored and how long. With Apple, I have no fucking idea.
Also, when it comes to security, Apple has no stellar record - their's have been slow and callow approach to security (and security by obscurity).
The difference between Apple and Google has recently occurred to me: with Apple, their secrets are in jeopardy. With Google, yours are.
With 3D printers, neural implants, augmented reality, food and organ printers, and the age of automation, what the future holds is a digital realm that's going to be very scary for people who understand it, especially if the infrastructure is completely owned by corporations and un-trustable governments and even a small amount of the source is closed. I mean look around the room and think of all the things that could be augmented or replaced with 3D printed components.. Why have a physical laptop in front of you when you can augment the key board, 25 screens, and everything else? Not only that, but you can do it for nothing if you know how to code it.
We can already print organs and I don't think it will be too long until we can print good tasting food, but what if you execute some code on your food printer that prints a steak with anthrax in it? I think in the next 50 years all this is going to be fairly common place in the developed world and I really hope I have confidence in the system that we have in place at that time.
Wow ... 313 words without a single line feed.
Yes, let's have the government mandate what license your code should have! Facepalm.
> In Comments
>Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Public facing code shouldn't be closed source. Sure, if you want to run something on your own and for your self, you don't have to share that with anyone, but when you put something out into the wild that can't be conclusively shown to not be malicious it should be treated like malware.
Edit: and also, what do you think the government should do for the people when it comes to digital rights? Or do you believe corporations know what's best? I for one don't believe in either.
Yes, but that isn't an idea the OP posted, it's an idea that you posted. A discussion of software license types doesn't automatically lead to either a preference for one kind of license over another, or the idea of governmental involvement. Those were things you made up on your own.
> If you want to download possible malware that is your choice.
Both closed and open-source code are susceptible to malware. The issues of licensing and malware are orthogonal. Closed-source code should in principle prevent malware, but it's quite obvious that it doesn't. Open-source, by being visible and readable, should reveal any vulnerabilities and prevent malware, but that doesn't work either, primarily because the more interesting vulnerabilities aren't obvious to someone reading the code.
Which means your argument is just an argument.
He did not make this argument. He argued that closed source has serious drawbacks -- he never suggested that it should be "disallowed". Find the word or an equivalent word -- but you must find it in his posts, not yours.
If I complain about women, am I saying they should be disallowed? Only to someone who invents positions for other people, then proceeds to object to the positions he has invented.
> Who else but the government is going to make such rules?
Is Apple under government mandate to have a closed-source system? Is Red Hat under government mandate to have an open-source system? Neither is true. The government is not involved at all, in any way, period.
> Yes I brought freedom into it.
Yes, you did, after inventing arguments no one made, using claims about society that aren't part of reality.
> ... so what is the point of banning closed software if not "freedom"?
You fabricated this entire argument out of whole cloth. No one advocated "banning closed software", no one brought up government, no one brought up freedom. These are all parts of your private fantasy.
Perhaps we should have laws that guarantee some form of open-ness but allow closed source code to exist on some sort of semi-to-fully-anonymous fully-encrypted secondary communications network?
It's a reasonable concern. People have already been injured and killed by software errors, both open and closed, so this is definitely on the table as a reasonable issue.
> Perhaps we should have laws that guarantee some form of open-ness but allow closed source code to exist on some sort of semi-to-fully-anonymous fully-encrypted secondary communications network?
My view is that we should let people sort this out without government involvement. Right now there are open-source companies and closed-source companies, and people get to vote with their feet. If closed-source causes problems or is more expensive or whatever, people can choose the alternative. Same with open-source.
There are any number of cases where government involvement turned out to be counterproductive, and I think this might be one of them. Remember that government can't just bust in and start issuing orders, they have to be invited by the voters. And sometimes, if things go wrong, they get voted out again.
Freedom of speech -- clearly a government issue. Open-source versus closed-source software -- sorry, how this is a government issue doesn't immediately occur to me.
Hey -- even when people freely choose which license code should have, there are still better and worse choices. There's no essential role for government, and the OP didn't suggest that.
Also, according to my favorite theory of modern society, governments find out what people are going to do anyway, order them to do it, then try to take credit for the result. So (if this theory has any substance) governmental involvement is more illusory than real.
It might all be more balanced in reality, it's just an impression from online articles.
I think that's actually smart. In reality the privacy setting on Facebook has no real effect on privacy, because companies and the NSA will still get your information. You might as well treat everything you post on Facebook as public.
> the NSA
You mean, law enforcement agencies who specifically request your information with a subpoena?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they are set to public by default... in fact, IIRC they even reset everyone to public when they released that "feature" a couple of years ago.
> When I tell them they don't care. I think the majority of people want some semblance of privacy but they are willing to give up a lot for the efficiency these new products, that require us to give up privacy, provide.
Sure, and smokers are willing to risk a slow painful death to forgo the pain of quitting. Humans are short-term thinkers.
There are two reasons.
First, legal systems with an excessive power in the hands of the prosecution can take an ordinary, civil citizen, and legally rape him (this description was used some time ago on an HN article)
Second, anybody that lives a regular life has secrets to hide; this is just a fact. And that secrets will be abused if it would be instrumental to the authorities.
I've said "extremely dangerous" - why? Because data collection today is considered/perceived/felt as a big nuisance, but not much more.
In reality, it's an oppression instrument, and it's not perceived by the general population just because they're not in prominent positions towards the government.