If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   "We feel that every citizen has a right to communicate, the right to send data without the fear of it being grabbed out of the air and used by criminals, stored by governments, and aggregated by companies that sell it"   (slate.com) divider line 29
    More: Cool, server log, data transfer, mobile apps, encryption, groundbreakings  
•       •       •

2179 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Feb 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-07 03:59:56 AM
Feelings are neat.
 
2013-02-07 06:14:49 AM
The problem is when half of the country continually argues that business is entitled to more rights and protections than individuals.
 
2013-02-07 09:08:53 AM

Bontesla: The problem is when half of the country continually argues that business is entitled to more rights and protections than individuals.


I still don't understand why someone will consider being data raped by a corporation to be an honor.
 
2013-02-07 09:47:26 AM

Weaver95: I still don't understand why someone will consider being data raped by a corporation to be an honor.


For the same reason why some poor people vote Republican. Because they're idiots.
 
2013-02-07 09:50:34 AM

Weaver95: I still don't understand why someone will consider being data raped by a corporation to be an honor.


It's just like any economic exchange. Of course, the service being offered by the corporation has a finite and definable value, and is only offered for as long as the corporation feels like offering it. On the other hand, the commodity the users provide the corporation- their personal information- is the company's to use for as long as they like, how they like. The economic value they receive is, quite literally, immeasurable. The corporation is free to profit from that information for eternity, and is under no compulsion to provide services in exchange for that reward. Nor are they required to disclose the scope of the transaction, which makes this the free-est of free markets- one in which one participant in every transaction gets the vast majority of the benefits and has far more perfect information about the nature of the goods being exchange, and almost all of the power in the transaction.

That's downright <i>American</i>.
 
2013-02-07 09:56:42 AM

Bontesla: The problem is when half of the country continually argues that business is entitled to more rights and protections than individuals.


No one has argued that. Nice straw man though.
 
2013-02-07 09:58:59 AM

taurusowner: No one has argued that.


No one has argued it in those terms, but they argue it all the time. Who does the current intellectual property system benefit? Individual creators and inventors, or gigantic corporations? Who does the tax structure benefit? Individual citizens, or gigantic corporations? Since money is speech, who has the "free-est" speech in the land, individual citizens or gigantic corporations?
 
2013-02-07 10:09:23 AM
At the risk of pulling a Romney, I'll suggest corporations are people too. Not just legal persons, but legal instruments that help people get stuff down without being exposed to initiative-killing liability. There's nothing particularly wrong with corporations, or at least not anything more than the people that use them, or are employed by them. If you make a certain amount of money, particularly through a small business, you should probably incorporate.
 
2013-02-07 10:23:42 AM

t3knomanser: taurusowner: No one has argued that.

No one has argued it in those terms, but they argue it all the time. Who does the current intellectual property system benefit? Individual creators and inventors, or gigantic corporations? Who does the tax structure benefit? Individual citizens, or gigantic corporations? Since money is speech, who has the "free-est" speech in the land, individual citizens or gigantic corporations?


Those are all benefits that can be had just for being wealthy.  The true advantage of corporations is the fact that they can never be executed for their crimes or sent to jail.  The harshest penalty they ever suffer is financial, and they never pay more money than they have freely available, "because jobs"..
 
2013-02-07 10:24:29 AM

taurusowner: Bontesla: The problem is when half of the country continually argues that business is entitled to more rights and protections than individuals.

No one has argued that. Nice straw man though.


They argue it indirectly.  Corporate legal protections far exceed personal legal protections, even in similar circumstances.  Consequences to corporations are minimal for infractions, even in the case of gross negligence or willful malfeasance  The Republican party continuously fights to expand those protections to maintain their election coffers.
 
2013-02-07 10:25:42 AM
Area man passionate about etc.
 
2013-02-07 10:28:27 AM

Weaver95: I still don't understand why someone will consider being data raped by a corporation to be an honor.


It's by definition not rape when it's consensual.

Google gives me all kinds of free shiat that wouldn't have even been possible to pay for a decade ago.  If the price they ask for that it to collect behavioral data about me and people like me, and sell that aggregate data to companies who want to figure out how to sell me stuff, that seems like a fair exchange.
 
2013-02-07 10:34:12 AM
If a company is giving you something for free, then you're not the customer, you're the product.
 
2013-02-07 11:04:41 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Those are all benefits that can be had just for being wealthy.  The true advantage of corporations is the fact that they can never be executed for their crimes or sent to jail


True, but those same legal protections also make sure that corporations can accumulate far more wealth than any individual ever could. Life's sweet if you're a corporation.

poot_rootbeer: It's by definition not rape when it's consensual.


Not if consent was not given freely, as is the case when one party in the arrangement has far more power than the other. I still don't like the "rape" metaphor, but it's foolish to say, "Oh, you willingly participated, so you deserve what you get". <i>Caveat emptor</i> only goes so far.
 
2013-02-07 11:28:49 AM

The Crepes of Wrath

Weaver95: I still don't understand why someone will consider being data raped by a corporation to be an honor.

For the same reason why some poor people vote Republican. Because they're idiots.

And how do you explain liberal posters here who claim anyone concerned with privacy is a right wing conservative wack job?

Thank god obama has done so much to undo the bush snooping b.s. and by "undo" i mean expand.
 
2013-02-07 11:39:17 AM
My question is, when will this be ported to non-mobile OS's? Preferably linux?
 
2013-02-07 12:17:05 PM

PirateKing: If a company is giving you something for free, then you're not the customer, you're the product.


Who cares?  Free thing.
 
2013-02-07 01:14:02 PM

poot_rootbeer: PirateKing: If a company is giving you something for free, then you're not the customer, you're the product.

Who cares?  Free thing.


What if I told you that you could have free beer for life, if only you let me have a tiny, tiny peek at your medical records. For research, of course.
 
2013-02-07 01:24:20 PM
By design, Silent Circle's server infrastructure stores minimal information about its users. The company, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., doesn't retain metadata (such as times and dates calls are made using Silent Circle), and IP server logs showing who is visiting the Silent Circle website are currently held for only seven days. The same privacy-by-design approach will be adopted to protect the security of users' encrypted files. When a user sends a picture or document, it will be encrypted, digitally "shredded" into thousands of pieces, and temporarily stored in a "Secure Cloud Broker" until it is transmitted to the recipient.

If I were in the FBI and part of my job was to track human traffickers or child porn rings, I wouldn't be too happy about this.

But while Silent Circle's revolutionary technology will assist many people in difficult environments, maybe even saying lives, there's also a dark side. Law enforcement agencies will almost certainly be seriously concerned about how it could be used to aid criminals. The FBI, for instance, wants all communications providers to build in backdoors so it can secretly spy on suspects. Silent Circle is pushing hard in the exact opposite direction-it has an explicit policy that it cannot and will not comply with law enforcement eavesdropping requests. Now, having come up with a way not only to easily communicate encrypted but to send files encrypted and without a trace, the company might be setting itself up for a serious confrontation with the feds. Some governments could even try to ban the technology.

I agree that the FBI wanting backdoors in networks are sneaky attempts at warrantless surveillance, but an "explicit policy" to not cooperate with law enforcement? That's a no-knock warrant waiting to happen.

Janke is bracing himself for some "heat" from the authorities, but he's hopeful that they'll eventually come round. The 45-year-old former Navy SEAL commando tells me he believes governments will eventually realize that "the advantages are far outweighing the small 'one percent' bad-intent user cases." One of those advantages, he says, is that "when you try to introduce a backdoor into technology, you create a major weakness that can be exploited by foreign governments, hackers, and criminal elements."

That 1% are pedophiles, human traffickers, drug and weapons smugglers, and potential terrorists. That's nothing to shrug off. Those guys will use this stuff, just like they've used every P2P, darknet, Tor and other supposedly "private" networking tech that's available.

Again I'm not against having privacy on the internet. I just don't think Janke's cavalier attitude about it is going to make his life easy.
 
2013-02-07 03:52:23 PM
First use for this tech?  Sexting.
 
2013-02-07 04:20:53 PM

verbaltoxin: an "explicit policy" to not cooperate with law enforcement? That's a no-knock warrant waiting to happen.


I think you've just demonstrated why he needs such a policy.
 
2013-02-07 05:07:37 PM

t3knomanser: taurusowner: No one has argued that.

No one has argued it in those terms, but they argue it all the time. Who does the current intellectual property system benefit? Individual creators and inventors, or gigantic corporations? Who does the tax structure benefit? Individual citizens, or gigantic corporations? Since money is speech, who has the "free-est" speech in the land, individual citizens or gigantic corporations?


You do realize corporations are simply collections of people . That profits go back to people. Money has nothing to do w speech.
 
2013-02-07 05:29:25 PM

verbaltoxin: poot_rootbeer: PirateKing: If a company is giving you something for free, then you're not the customer, you're the product.

Who cares?  Free thing.

What if I told you that you could have free beer for life, if only you let me have a tiny, tiny peek at your medical records. For research, of course.


You're asking that on Fark!? Man, I hope you have a good beer supply and distribution chain, because you're gonna need one.
 
2013-02-07 05:45:15 PM

Khellendros: taurusowner: Bontesla: The problem is when half of the country continually argues that business is entitled to more rights and protections than individuals.

No one has argued that. Nice straw man though.

They argue it indirectly.  Corporate legal protections far exceed personal legal protections, even in similar circumstances.  Consequences to corporations are minimal for infractions, even in the case of gross negligence or willful malfeasance  The Republican party continuously fights to expand those protections to maintain their election coffers.


And yet big banks and gm continue to flourish despite democrats controlling 2/3rds of government. Are you ignorant to the fact liberals ate just as culpable? Focusing regulatory power to help business remove competition is a favorite of big business largely pushed througb by democrats. Just last year hrblock pushed for regulation on tax preparers to push out mom and pop shops. You cant honestly believe democrats dont pander to big business. You arent worth even arguing with if ignorant to the fact regulations are done in conjunction with business. Green energy outfits are a prime example. Gore increased his wealth by tens of millions through green corporations and government contracts and regulations. Stop being blindly partisan. Business will always take the easiest route for profit. Right now that is through an ever expanding government.
 
2013-02-07 06:27:11 PM

MyRandomName: And yet big banks and gm continue to flourish despite democrats controlling 2/3rds of government. Are you ignorant to the fact liberals ate just as culpable? Focusing regulatory power to help business remove competition is a favorite of big business largely pushed througb by democrats. Just last year hrblock pushed for regulation on tax preparers to push out mom and pop shops. You cant honestly believe democrats dont pander to big business. You arent worth even arguing with if ignorant to the fact regulations are done in conjunction with business. Green energy outfits are a prime example. Gore increased his wealth by tens of millions through green corporations and government contracts and regulations. Stop being blindly partisan. Business will always take the easiest route for profit. Right now that is through an ever expanding government.


There's so much wrong with this post, it's hard to know where to start.  Democrats don't control 2/3 of the government.  You're lying with your first sentence.  "Removing business competition" through regulation has nothing to do with granting corporate greater legal protections, which is what I was arguing.  I never said democrat don't pander to business, they just don't make it part of their platform, legislative action, and push it on the public.  They don't actively push against it as much as the right pushes for it, so they're culpable for the damage?  No, they focus their energies on other issues - entitlements, civil rights, etc.  You want to say they work too much with other lobbies (may of which are business-backed), sure, go for it.  You won't find any argument from me.  But to say they're just as much in bed with corporate structure is patently false.  I could go on, but it's not worth it.

The discussion was about corporate vs. personal protections.  For one party, is is part of their platform, and they reap the bulk of their money (dozens of times more than democrats) through campaign contributions.  They openly assert that job creators should have more protections that average citizens, and fight routinely to ensure that punishments for infractions are minor inconveniences compared to the ruinous punishments they would be to individuals.
 
2013-02-07 07:23:27 PM

MyRandomName: t3knomanser: taurusowner: No one has argued that.

No one has argued it in those terms, but they argue it all the time. Who does the current intellectual property system benefit? Individual creators and inventors, or gigantic corporations? Who does the tax structure benefit? Individual citizens, or gigantic corporations? Since money is speech, who has the "free-est" speech in the land, individual citizens or gigantic corporations?

You do realize corporations are simply collections of people . That profits go back to people. Money has nothing to do w speech.




Unfortunately the system has been comprimised. Look at Kelo Vs. New London for a perfect example.

It's a big farking funnel. A hoover. A five dollar whore.

"Money has nothing to do w speech"? Supreme Court seems to disagree. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
 
2013-02-07 07:24:39 PM

Khellendros: MyRandomName: And yet big banks and gm continue to flourish despite democrats controlling 2/3rds of government. Are you ignorant to the fact liberals ate just as culpable? Focusing regulatory power to help business remove competition is a favorite of big business largely pushed througb by democrats. Just last year hrblock pushed for regulation on tax preparers to push out mom and pop shops. You cant honestly believe democrats dont pander to big business. You arent worth even arguing with if ignorant to the fact regulations are done in conjunction with business. Green energy outfits are a prime example. Gore increased his wealth by tens of millions through green corporations and government contracts and regulations. Stop being blindly partisan. Business will always take the easiest route for profit. Right now that is through an ever expanding government.

There's so much wrong with this post, it's hard to know where to start.  Democrats don't control 2/3 of the government.  You're lying with your first sentence.  "Removing business competition" through regulation has nothing to do with granting corporate greater legal protections, which is what I was arguing.  I never said democrat don't pander to business, they just don't make it part of their platform, legislative action, and push it on the public.  They don't actively push against it as much as the right pushes for it, so they're culpable for the damage?  No, they focus their energies on other issues - entitlements, civil rights, etc.  You want to say they work too much with other lobbies (may of which are business-backed), sure, go for it.  You won't find any argument from me.  But to say they're just as much in bed with corporate structure is patently false.  I could go on, but it's not worth it.

The discussion was about corporate vs. personal protections.  For one party, is is part of their platform, and they reap the bulk of their money (dozens of times more than democrats) through campaign contributions.  Th ...


That's because they are better than us.
 
2013-02-07 08:35:41 PM
No hero tag?
 
2013-02-08 01:50:11 AM
Does the program prevent repeat articles?
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report