Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score 1) 161 161

"When you're in public, anyone can recognize you whether it be man or machine. Anyone can take pictures of you and what you are doing. There is no concept of "privacy" when you are in public."

To quote a /. comment I once saw (thanks, "fuzzyfuzzyfungus"), "most of your protection has always been logistical." "Privacy" in public has been available for a long time. Previously impossible actions were never considered, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be prohibited.

As expanding technological capacity tries to undermine expected privacy don't feel like there is any conceptual mandate to accept it.

Comment Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score 1) 776 776

"I was mulling that over after I posted, but after some thought I think that ends up being OK also as it's easy enough to claim your car blocks cellular signals really well or just were in a bad area..."

Pragmatically, this is probably a nice day-to-day response. But really, nobody should have to lie about things like that. It's good that someone can hash that out.

Comment Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score 3, Informative) 776 776

GP Said:
There are certain off-work things that an employer should know about - witness the guy who intentionally flew the airliner into the mountain and killed all on board - when it can affect their on-the-clock performance

You said:
It's worth noting that the situation you cite has happened exactly once in all recorded history

Not to be contrary, but pilot suicide is not brand new.

Comment Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score 3, Insightful) 347 347

So the politician is worried that the scientists are so politically motivated that they can't do good science?

Here, an apt quote from the Bible:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:5

Submission + - New Privacy Threat: Automated Vehicle Occupancy Detection->

An anonymous reader writes: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning against a new potential privacy threat: cameras that look instead cars and try to identify the people inside them. This technology is a natural combination of simpler ones that have existed for years: face recognition software and road-side cameras (red light cameras, speeding cameras, license plate readers — you name it).

"The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), a government umbrella group that develops transportation and public safety initiatives across the San Diego County region, estimates that 15% of drivers in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes aren’t supposed to be there. After coming up short with earlier experimental projects, the agency is now testing a brand new technology to crack down on carpool-lane scofflaws on the I-15 freeway. ... In short: the technology is looking at your image, the image of the people you're with, your location, and your license plate. (SANDAG told CBS the systems will not be storing license plate data during the trial phase and the system will, at least for now, automatically redact images of drivers and passengers. Xerox’s software, however, allows police the option of using a weaker form of redaction that can be reversed on request.)"

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Standard M.O. (Score 3, Interesting) 148 148

"Only if you are stating that President Obama is irresponsible."

As far as the President goes, there are 3 options that I see:
- President Obama may be irresponsible for allowing this level of intrusive surveillance.
- President Obama may not actually have the ability to change this - he may feel his hands are tied. I'm sure there are lots of things he'd like to do.
- President Obama may be responsible, and have control over the agency, but his positions and responsibilities may no longer be purely civilian.

And of course, Obama only has control over the fed. Police killing people and not being held responsible happens at a local level. The failure to hold the security apparatus responsible seems larger than a single agency or it's nominal overseer.

Comment Re:Honest question ... (Score 2) 148 148

"Everyone has been spying on everyone for at least a couple of centuries."

No... people and organizations of means have been spying on other people and organizations that are important to them to an extent dictated by their resources for centuries. It is only recently that it has become practical for a government to spy on _everyone_.

The longer the title, the less important the job.