Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment What a pile of apologetic excuses! (Score 1) 202

1. So far, all disclosures have been about the 5 eyes. That does not mean others are doing it, but you have no proof, are just mouthing off because it makes you fell better (or because you are a shrill).
2. Most governments don't even have a budget big enough to fund NSA style snooping. For the time being, economics still protect us.
3. US is spying everyone else. As much as I distrust my government, I reckon it has *more* interests in common with me than US government (namely, my country's interests. US has once and again shown that it will screw other countries (population included) to further its interests.
4. World governments, we-hate-USA edition, in public have proofs of their saying. In private. as soon as something leaks, we'll take care don't you worry.
5. World governments, we-are-USA-puppets edition (the ones you don't branded) are part of the problem too. They should be dealt with along the US.

The US government and the 5 eyes are the only ones caught in this abuse of their own (and other countries) population. Like you said, YOU should clean up YOUR fucking house, before claiming of others something you don't even have any proof of.

Comment Two points on that (Score 1) 129

1. Let's suppose they're not actually spying on you. But they collect everyone's data so they:
          - Could actually be spying on every major journalist.
          - Could actually be spying on politic opponents.
            - Could actually be spying on opposing (not necesarilly bad or good, just opposing) governments.
            Once you're in power, they can use parallel construction. Just release some anonymous pointers about corruption about opponents and hide for a latter time the bits about corruption of friends. (2 years ago we were wondering why NSA was spying on Petrobras. Maybe it's only a coincidence, yet the Petrobras scandal gained a lot of force in the last week before Brazil's elections)

2. They totally can do a lot of harm without reading your posts. There is just a thing as automated NLP, sentiment analysis and that shit. I once even saw one commercial offering that listed "Belief propragation analysis in social graphs". Think about identifying who's spreading those dangerous ideas in time. And they even had the dubious taste of using Chelsea Manning as the bad boy to identify. And these are commercial offerings ... the US military compound was traditionally many years ahead in technology than the commercial world, I'm not sure that still holds, but I haven's seen any indication to the contrary either.

Comment Re:Radical Left allowed to run a country... (Score 1) 328

Today, 30% of Chile's income is because of the state owned Codelco. Chile's copper was nationalized by Allende.
Chile's current economic state is partially supported by the surge in copper price in 2005 http://www.infomine.com/invest... (at the same time, Venezuela is being hit by a record low oil price, not that that excepts all of Venezuela's mistakes)
If Allende had not nationalized the copper, Chile would need to increase taxes by 50% to maintain current budget. That wouldn't come easily to the economy.

Statistics aside, Chile is no wonder. It's very hard to people with dependents (both older people and kids). In my personal experience, based on how I've worked with chileans in IT, they are below Argentina and Brazil (in my anecdotal evidence, *way* below).

Chile's last right wing president ended his term with the lowest level of public support since the return of democracy, and resulted in a comeback of the very moderate left.
Also, you probably would find it interesting to read about the portuguese Carnation Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....

Comment It's about more than just *mapping* politics (Score 1) 289

I believe that, as far as a complacent company, or an agent in a company, is able to filter the information that people get from the other nodes in their network, the "powers that be" (make that wealth, US goverment, US agencies, whatever fits your bill) can even influence political changes in masses.

That is why the discussion about metadata was so stupid! Politically, metadata IS the ingredient that was missing. One does make political opinions widely available, but metadata allows someone with insight to the network to map influences, make profiles.
And as these two research papers explain, alter their impact in the political process of the mass. It's not the people who are controlled by social networks, but masses surely are:
Exploiting Network Structure in Enhancing Diusion of Complex Contagions: http://www.albany.edu/~ravi/pd...
Effects of Opposition on the Diffusion of Complex Contagions in Social Networks: An Empirical Study: http://link.springer.com/chapt...
Bear in mind that we do not know how edgerank selects information. It could well highlight favourable nodes and muffle problematic ones.

Interestingly, in recent years social movements favourable to western status quo have thrilled in social networks (think maidan, arab "spring", opposition to left leaning governments in South America, now Hong Kong revolts) yet the ones that oppose them have a much larger footprint in the real world than in the virtual world (Chile student revolts, Mexican "I am 132", spanish resistance to shock cuts, that gathered !4million people physically!, Occupy Wall Street). I really wonder if this asymmetry is random or coincidence

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?