Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Switch of priorities (Score 1) 254

The problem is that we live in a society where a large number those that traditionally stood on the side of privacy (liberals, minorities etc.) have realized that surveillance can be a very useful tool to achieve the same ends that they previously wanted privacy for.

Republican presidental candidate caught making derogatory comments on certain voter groups? Cool.
Basketball club owner recorded making racist remarks on a private phone call and forced to sell his shares? Awesome.
Internal Email history of released on the web? What a nice reading for the weekend!

It es inevitable that the liberal movement will split about this at some point: Those who want true freedom respecting even opposing opinions, as long as they are not violent, and radical idealists with an agenda who see surveillance and conformism as more effective tools to shape their utopia. It will be interesting to see on which side the companies most capable of total surveillance - Google, Apple, Microsoft - will end up.

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 181

>>> If you fly, ride the bus, train or cruise ship, other people control where you go.

And if I don't go by them they don't, so whats the point? The focus in mass transportation lies on cost efficiency, not on flexibility or privacy and I can choose where my preferences lie any time. Your argument may just as well be used to argue against any unsupervised transportation including walking.

>>>I remember people in a video forum in 2004 telling me they'd be shooting film the rest of their lives. That was just 11 years ago. In just that short >>>time span video has not only rivaled film but surpassed it. Long before video surpassed film in terms of quality, video displaced film on the basis >>>of cost and ease of workflow. The technical hurdles in 2004 for video to replace film were huge and it happened in less than a decade.

When you say "video" do you mean digital cameras vs. analogous? The only reason why someone may choose the latter above the former is image quality and if the quality fits, everythings cool. The problem does not have an individualistic or privacy component. The comparison doesn't work.

>>> It won't be that long before people who insist on driving themselves become the hazards on the road

The only people who will become hazards on the road are the same people that are hazards on the road right now.

Comment Re:NO. Police get caught doing bad things and... (Score 1) 309

People have made the experience that hoarded information may get leaked decades later and in a completely unrelated context and that a single careless commentary publicy exposed may ruin your life. So either you put yourself under permanent stress oder prepare to be listed under "Stupid guy who couldn't let his mouth shut" in some blog.

Comment Re:Could someone with privacy concerns please resp (Score 1) 205

The difference lies in the degree of efficiency provided by the combination of a permanently recording device with a database. Labeling your environment nowadays means taking out your cellphone, photograph the scenery, upload it online and do some research about all people visible. This takes too much time for someone to seriously exploit it. Google Glass on the other hand is supposed to do all this stuff in real time and label and upload the currently recorded data too even from complete strangers you don't know or care about but others do. Incidents, that would go unnoticed otherwise would be immediately escalated to the worst possible level in Google's intent to make the info available to everyone who might be interested. Like "Watch photos of Steve getting drunk on a distant mountain resort where he hoped nobody knew him".

You cannot have a science without measurement. -- R. W. Hamming