I listen to electrohouse everyday. I'm not that into dubstep and I tend to not like it outside of coding, but it puts you into the zone pretty quickly, kind of like if the techno rythm stopped you from thinking normally.
For those interested, many of the mixes can be downloaded for free out there. I found :
http://soundcloud.com/tsnm all the TSNM no excuses mix, the 100 download limit is quickly maxed out on those though
While I agree with you, the sysadmin would be able to provide evidence of specific actions that prevented something bad happening. TSA has made zero arrest related to terrorism so far.
Plus quoting the end of the article :
He said that the laptop rule is about appearances, giving people a sense that something is being done to protect them. “Security theater,” he called it.
Brushing my teeth has a direct, proportional return on my time investment. My mouth stays healthy (reducing dentist expenses) and my wife doesn't turn green when I speak near her.
Clicking "Like" has an unbalanced return on my time investment, short as it is. I get virtually nothing in return, but marketers and advertisers have another data point that they can use. My friends couldn't give a crap what I click Like on.
> My friends couldn't give a crap what I click Like on.
Well, in case of my friends Liking things, I do. It's a good recomendation engine. Especially, if your friends are not from the same industry as you, looking at what they Like is a way to avoid filter bubble.
I actually host my own email. I developed an open source application for automatically encrypting all email with my public key as soon as it arrives, and I can't do this if somebody else hosts my email. You can read why and how here: https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_E...
Brilliant! Thank you for sharing the post and code. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on how to make it searchable. If you don't index, searching will take quite some time. I guess the best thing to do would be to index each e-mail (keywords?) before it is encrypted and then encrypt the index itself as well. There is a problem with the keyword approach though - if the index encrypts the words but the "link" between message id and encrypted keywords is not encrypted, then an attacker who is in posession of one or several other message bodies in plain text can see correlations between the content of known and unknown message bodies.
I have read here comments along the lines of "Anyone doing that would be evil, but here it's Google. So it's OK. Google would never do any harm" (it was a post about privacy)
The "Google is evil" trend may be an overreaction to those comments, but it embodies a sane criticism in my opinion. It gives a counterpart to the awkward "Google is my big brother"
I agree with that, it is quite similar to what they did with youtube and the unbearing amount of ad that one has to endure before watching a video now, after 5 years+ of making it available free of annoyance.
To respond to the last sentence : Yes, things like that can be illegal. As an example, in France it is forbidden to count the number of people who get in & out of a subway at a given station.
I guess it's really a strong difference of culture between Europe and America : laws are made in Europe to make sure that people should not have to make the effort of guessing if a company will mess with their data or not. The company has to make that effort.
> As an example, in France it is forbidden to count the
> number of people who get in & out of a subway at a given
> station.
That seems lame. That number is highly anonymous. How does a statement like "between 8am and 9am 250 people boarded the subway, and 130 people exited the subway" affect a person's privacy?
In July 2009, civil society groups opposed the implementation of intelligent advertising LCD screens in a Parisian subway station.[163] These screens not only broadcast messages but can also count the number of people passing by and measure the time spent looking at the screen thanks to a face scanning sensor. Since these actions, the French data protection Authority, the CNIL, has issued a report considering that this technology must take into consideration the data protection rights of individuals as provided under the Data Protection Law: individuals must receive proper notice and the devices must be notified to the CNIL.
European law tends to work on the assumption that it's up to the owner of a technology to show how it will safeguard against the abuse of it. Failure to do so in the past has had disastrous consequences in some parts of Europe.
And that was before large scale facerecognition software that could be employed to determine not only how many people are walking by the device but also who. Now doing this in real time with a large crowd is still not technically feasible but at some point we will probably cross that line.
Good to know there is at least one country where you'll be safe from that.
Good to know there is at least one country where you'll be safe from that.
Well, until it gets so cheap that there's no way to know whose glasses or contacts are recording and compiling information about you as part of their lifelog. This sort of thing is like the tide coming in: legislation against it can only ultimately be effective by severe restrictions on allowed technologies for the people of the country.
Well, until it gets so cheap there's no way to know whose glasses or jacket contains a gun capable of shooting you dead on the street. This sort of thing is like the tide coming in: legislation against it can only ultimately be effective by severe restriction on allowed technologies for the people of the country.
Substitute whatever anti-social mechanism you prefer.
The drone wars are coming: pilotless aircraft, possibly autonomous, from the size of a small car to the size of a gnat, with intel or lethal payloads.
Bioweapons or nukes. We've had suitcase nukes for a few decades, fortunately they haven't been used. Suitcase-sized conventional explosives are rather frequently deployed in some parts. Weaponized chemicals or biological agents are another option.
It's trivially possible to adulter drugs or drinks. Some of the oldest laws on the books deal with food and alcohol purity.
Having the technical capability to do something doesn't mean it must needs be accepted. Legal sanctions may be swimming upstream at times, but other norms (social, cultural, religions. technological) generally help keep us from tearing one another to pieces, most of the time.
I certainly suspect that most people make a distinction between shooting someone, and videotaping someone. This leads me to believe that surreptitious surveillance would be a far more widespread problem than random shootings.
If the <i>use</i> of any of that data -- for profiling, legal process, advertising, contact, etc. -- is prohibited, and the action of performing the surveillance exposes the entity to plausible legal consequences and/or obligations (notification, deletion requests, etc.), then its practice will be limited. Undisclosed phone recording in some states, for example (not admissible in legal processes, a violation of law of itself, etc.).
Much crime is economically motivated (not all, but much). Part of criminal theory revolves around making crime more expensive (to greater or lesser success, depending). There's an economic study of criminal activity as well.
Businesses tend not to undertake activities for which there isn't a net economic benefit. Shareholder obligations and all that. So yes, with an appropriate legal framework in place, it's quite likely that incentives for engaging in certain behaviors will be limited.
Undisclosed phone recording in some states, for example (not admissible in legal processes, a violation of law of itself, etc.).
Laws like this are a legacy of a time before it was easier to just record everything that happens to a person or in an area than to make decisions about what to record. We're still in the tail end of that era, but only just.
Much crime is economically motivated (not all, but much).
It's estimated that the average American commits three felonies a day (but if you start thinking about this topic and the people around you, it will escalate sharply, since failure to report a felony you know about is itself a felony...). Given this, I think we can safely say that the vast majority of crime in the US is completely incidental and unknowingly committed. Even if laws about recording other people (like police and audio callers) remain on the books, the ubiquity and silence of continuous recording will mean that it falls into the list of things that people do all the time that the state technically bans.
Hm. This comment reads like something straight out of an SF novel and yet I can't shake the feeling that it is just around the corner. Interesting times indeed. Thank you for opening my eyes a bit further. Gargoyles seemed like a fun thing when Neal Stephenson wrote about it and Steve Mann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann) was experimenting in that direction.
I never expected it to possibly hit the mainstream this quickly though, and especially not with some of the possibilities that you are hinting at.
Sure, lots of easy things are illegal. But people and corporations have incentives to keep legal even when it would be very easy to commit the crime anyways. Enforcement has the job of catching people that are committing easy crimes, and discouraging them from doing so in the first place.
If it's lame, then someone who wants to count must instead throw up his hands in exasperation as they obey the law and don't count.
Until a few years ago it was illegal to sell liquor on Sunday in Colorado. That was lame, but I never saw a liquor store open on Sunday. If any did, they'd probably get fairly good public support and letters to the editor in favor, but they would still lose their liquor license.
I was criticizing the law (or at least an example of how a law is being applied) that you used as an example, because it seems to be that it goes far beyond just protecting personal privacy.
You seem to be stating in response that the law must be followed while it is in place. I'm unsure what your driving point is as I wasn't even advocating civil disobedience of said law.
It seems to be late commits on public githubs account. Maybe filtered by curse word.
The default picture on the avatars seems to be the little cute octopus thing of github.
