Dubstepforum.com

By video link?

Pussy.

TED is a corrupt organization so any of the information given on there is wrong

also

TEDward snowden lololol

I'm obviously very proprivacy. Think it is the foundation of freedom.

But a thought experiment:

I love the old drug dividing paradigm. When two people are splitting a limited amount of drugs, the first divides the second chooses which to take. It is a technique for aligning interests.

As it now stands, our governments believe that citizens have NO interest or right to privacy. They can view and record anything said or done in ANY context by anyone. AND what the government does is completely private to them, we as citizens of that government have no right to know what they are doing. So we have a major imbalance. They get absolute privacy and we get absolutely none.

What if there was just no privacy whatsoever for ANYBODY in any context. Like all the world could watch you removing your tampon, and all the world could watch you genetically engineering a race specific virus. Following me? Think of the weapons development, anything you develop, your enemy has immediate access to it. It encourages you NOT to develop weapons, because anything you develop can and will be used against you (a little joke for the ameros).

What do you say? Should we end all forms of privacy all together?

(maybe avoid the practical problems of how the hell are we going to know what the evil bastards are doing a mile below ground in secret facilities)

I'm sure a lot of people will be up in arms about this; imo the internet is not a human right and so if you don't like the level of privacy then don't use it.

The planet isn't a human right. If you don't like the level or privacy, then don't use it.

Yeah valid point, although watch out captain strawman dubunked may be along soon.

There's probably huge holes in my logic but when you go on the internet imo you lose most rights to privacy, i don't see how it should be different to real life. At home, or when offline, you should have ultimate privacy to do what you want. When in public, or online, you lose your right to privacy. If you walk around a shopping center shouting about making a bomb the police would probably overhear; if you are visiting sites about making a bomb the police should also overhear, an extreme example but highlights my point.

Well the point is there is no real such thing as rights, they are human constructs. That being the case, why should we make the internet (and I think you are being fairly short sighted about its importance, as the internet is likely going to play an ever increasing role in our lives - to the extent that a majority of human interaction is going to take place on or through the internet) a public place (public, but of course without the rights of public spaces, like free speech - am I right Pete Banbonic?)?

Why can't we have the expectation of privacy on the internet, or on my phone? We can if we choose to, if it is a construct. What if I was an attorney speaking with my client telephonically, has he just unknowingly waived his right to attorney client confidentiality? If he sends me an email, can that email be used in a court of law against him?

I want privacy in all of my communications. In the US the executive branch has the right to execute anyone, without any form of judicial review, should I then give the executive branch the right to evaluate if my phone humor is truly humorous if I say, "this track is the bomb, it is going to go off in the club tonight?" Should I just watch the hellfire come through my skylight, and should my family have no right to question the government's actions?

These scenarios are a snowflake on the tip of the iceberg, M8son, but it is clear that you haven't thought about your right to privacy and its value, and I expect that is largely due to you being produced in a society that had those rights. Consider a world where any corporation or any government around the world has access to an indexed version of everything you have ever said, written, read, watched or done on any electronic medium of communication. If you don't find any serious problems with that... I don't know. That level of willful ignorance is hard to deal with.

I will respond to the rest later as i have a meeting to go too, but:

nowaysj wrote: Consider a world where any corporation or any government around the world has access to an indexed version of everything you have ever said, written, read, watched or done on any electronic medium of communication. If you don't find any serious problems with that... I don't know. That level of willful ignorance is hard to deal with.

You could do this with anything, consider a world where the government employ someone to follow you around all day and document what you do. Consider a world where the government enforce a law that we can only wear yellow trousers. Yes of course it is bad but it's not going to happen. Do you really think the government have the time, resources and motivation to index everything every one of billions of people is doing on the internet? If you believe they do then... i don't know. That level of paranoia is hard to deal with.

m8son wrote:I will respond to the rest later as i have a meeting to go too, but:

nowaysj wrote: Consider a world where any corporation or any government around the world has access to an indexed version of everything you have ever said, written, read, watched or done on any electronic medium of communication. If you don't find any serious problems with that... I don't know. That level of willful ignorance is hard to deal with.

You could do this with anything, consider a world where the government employ someone to follow you around all day and document what you do. Consider a world where the government enforce a law that we can only wear yellow trousers. Yes of course it is bad but it's not going to happen. Do you really think the government have the time, resources and motivation to index everything every one of billions of people is doing on the internet? If you believe they do then... i don't know. That level of paranoia is hard to deal with.

haha that last part is already happening, ignorance is thankfully easy to dispel. If you didn't know, now you know. Only wrinkle NOW is that it is not indexed until needed. When someone becomes interesting, all past communications and activities are indexed, that is everything, all collected data, all credit card transactions, all facial recognition hits, all license plate tracking. An entire map of a person's life is assembled. Do you think it is people that are doing this though, the listening, the indexing?

Those fucking nihilists...

m8son wrote:I will respond to the rest later as i have a meeting to go too, but:

nowaysj wrote: Consider a world where any corporation or any government around the world has access to an indexed version of everything you have ever said, written, read, watched or done on any electronic medium of communication. If you don't find any serious problems with that... I don't know. That level of willful ignorance is hard to deal with.

You could do this with anything, consider a world where the government employ someone to follow you around all day and document what you do. Consider a world where the government enforce a law that we can only wear yellow trousers. Yes of course it is bad but it's not going to happen. Do you really think the government have the time, resources and motivation to index everything every one of billions of people is doing on the internet? If you believe they do then... i don't know. That level of paranoia is hard to deal with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany

nowaysj wrote:haha that last part is already happening, ignorance is thankfully easy to dispel. If you didn't know, now you know. Only wrinkle NOW is that it is not indexed until needed. When someone becomes interesting, all past communications and activities are indexed, that is everything, all collected data, all credit card transactions, all facial recognition hits, all license plate tracking. An entire map of a person's life is assembled. Do you think it is people that are doing this though, the listening, the indexing?

What use is that if only computers see it?

lol gareth are you saying the current government or ones in the near future resemble the GDR? Note my use of the future tense.

m8son wrote:If you walk around a shopping center shouting about making a bomb the police would probably overhear; if you are visiting sites about making a bomb the police should also overhear, an extreme example but highlights my point.

That comparison only works if you assume the police overheard because there's an officer on each corner and inside each shop of the shopping center with the sole intention of trying to overhear someone shouting they're gunna make a bomb. Or at least some type of listening device all over the place which may or may not be picked up on.

Also I don't get you can have ultimate privacy in your own home but outside or online you lose all privacy rights? So, to take the extreme example again, you can be a paedophile, terrorist, meth cook in the privacy of your own home without being snooped on but the second you step outside or online you should be tracked and seen as a potential hazard lol? Why should it matter if you're in a building you own or not whether you're kept tracks on?

To say the police don't have the time of resources to spy on everybody online as a justification for doing so is like saying the police can't watch CCTV cameras of everybody 24/7 so let them install them in your house.. if you've got nothing to hide it doesn't matter.

m8son wrote:lol gareth are you saying the current government or ones in the near future resemble the GDR? Note my use of the future tense.

In some ways, yeah. I'm sure you'll only lol at me if I went into any further details.

My point was, you were so adamant that it wouldn't ever happen, but it happened in a "developed" country in the modern world, and only collapsed 30 years ago. Just saying that I wouldn't be so sure of it never happening again.

Side note, interesting story about a tired/drunk East German minister misspeaking that basically triggered the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Look it up.

m8son wrote:TED is a corrupt organization so any of the information given on there is wrong

calling bullshit


(it may be somewhat elite, have you seen the application? Basically you gotta be someone, known that it.)


But still that's a load of waffle.

I'll watch the full video today, thanks to the OP.

P.s this is the reply - https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_ledge ... s_ted_talk

It's like a diss in the grime scene haha

They're not corrupt, but they're a little on the shady side IMO;

http://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/viewt ... 3#p3541263

nitz wrote:

m8son wrote:TED is a corrupt organization so any of the information given on there is wrong

calling bullshit


(it may be somewhat elite, have you seen the application? Basically you gotta be someone, known that it.)


But still that's a load of waffle.

I'll watch the full video today, thanks to the OP.

P.s this is the reply - https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_ledge ... s_ted_talk

It's like a diss in the grime scene haha

i know i don't believe that at all, just parodying what people said in the ted thread

wub wrote:They're not corrupt, but they're a little on the shady side IMO;

http://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/viewt ... 3#p3541263

I've seen them banned ted talks, the one of consciousness was pretty good. I also read the TED policy in that, in where they said they a have responsibility is not allowing people who watch TED and then take that as factual science and then take mushrooms (i think that was the drug in that video, or was it that vomiting drink?)

I don't per say think that is wrong, i agree both arguments. Pluralism