The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In all seriousness though, has it ever been considered the amount of resources it would take to keep tabs on the every citizen. As much as I hate the idea of the intrusions on my life I also understand what it would require to do so. Nearly every person would find work in government monitoring data transmissions and CCTV images not to mention the number of analysts that would be required to interpret it. Intelligence data is useless with out good analytics. [/quote]

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

Seriously though, in an era of ubiquitous networking (think Wimax), where dirt-cheap hardware (a wifi-enabled camera costs under 100 bucks), where terabit storage is old news and computer assisted recognition improving steadily, I’ll be very worried if I were you.

How many people they put to monitor your activities is irrelevant. Data mining would enable them to know where you’ve been and what you’ve been doing at any given moment. Now, if you think it’s OK for the government to have those abilities, and that anyone opposing these measures are terrorist-sympathizers or have something to hide, think again. The potential for abuse in such systems is immense and kid who finds a breach can stalk, harass and blackmail you.

Privacy issues is one of the reasons I don’t intend on hanging around Sweden past next year.

82

[quote]Gael wrote:
Irony is mocking or insulting someone for spelling or grammar errors and committing one of your own.

Irony is accusing someone of degrading the quality of the forums while you add nothing of substance and admittedly only have an interest in mocking and insulting.

Your primary objective is to be a pain in the ass, which is why you run around pointing out spelling errors. Don’t you have anything better to do? Your life must suck.[/quote]

I disagree. Thunderbolt is an excellent poster. I disagree with him sometimes but I have great respect for him. It IS possible to disagree without insults, though I admit guilt on that one sometimes.

83

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It IS possible to disagree without insults, [/quote]

Are you sure we’re talking about the same TB?

84

[quote]lixy wrote:
How many people they put to monitor your activities is irrelevant. Data mining would enable them to know where you’ve been and what you’ve been doing at any given moment. Now, if you think it’s OK for the government to have those abilities, and that anyone opposing these measures are terrorist-sympathizers or have something to hide, think again. The potential for abuse in such systems is immense and kid who finds a breach can stalk, harass and blackmail you.
[/quote]

Ok, data mining aside, it still takes vast resources. We’re not talking some chip-shop operation here. And yes analytics is still required because no op agency would take a computer’s word for it (though undoubtedly, they’d find a way to blame them when shit hits the fan).

I am not arguing that these systems aren’t being put in place or are not being considered just that I am not too certain how useful or practical they’d be for monitoring the the everyday, innocent citizen.

85

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It IS possible to disagree without insults,

Are you sure we’re talking about the same TB?[/quote]

For real. While Thunderbolt has some informative posts, he posts more personal attacks than even myself or some others here…and that is an accomplishment.

However, until someone makes an entire thread about his posts, he still has a little higher to climb on the ladder of jackassery.

86

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
How many people they put to monitor your activities is irrelevant. Data mining would enable them to know where you’ve been and what you’ve been doing at any given moment. Now, if you think it’s OK for the government to have those abilities, and that anyone opposing these measures are terrorist-sympathizers or have something to hide, think again. The potential for abuse in such systems is immense and kid who finds a breach can stalk, harass and blackmail you.

Ok, data mining aside, it still takes vast resources. We’re not talking some chip-shop operation here. And yes analytics is still required because no op agency would take a computer’s word for it (though undoubtedly, they’d find a way to blame them when shit hits the fan).

I am not arguing that these systems aren’t being put in place or are not being considered just that I am not too certain how useful or practical they’d be for monitoring the the everyday, innocent citizen.[/quote]

I just finished working for the government. I can tell you that while they may be slow to act on policies and even years behind on some issues because of red tape and bureaucracy, they do have the resources if it became a priority.

Your argument is like saying there is nothing to worry about because it would be difficult to monitor individuals right now. What happens when it isn’t so difficult?

87

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In all seriousness though, has it ever been considered the amount of resources it would take to keep tabs on the every citizen.[/quote]

Unfortunately, advances in computer technology make that goal less and less impossible with each passing day.

Having humans monitor all that data would be prohibitively expensive. What you get though, is “expert systems” and “neural nets” that are “trained” to spot interesting patterns and flag them for human review. You then need a much reduced workforce to monitor all the “interesting” stuff happening in your city/state/country.

Computers are good are sifting through large amounts of boring data. Humans are much better at dealing with particularly interesting situations. Use the former to find cases for the latter, and it’s not so undoable.

Putting “dummy” cameras in place will cost you about the same thing as putting real ones in place. The costs of electronics is so low nowadays, that it’s the labor that makes up the large part of the bill. My bet would be that all the cameras are wired.

What we, the public, need to do, is to insist on being able to know how the data is being used. In the same way you have the right to see your own police record, or medical file, we should be able to know how camera data is kept, for how long, what it is used for and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse from the workers handling it.

You can’t put the genie back in the bottle once it’s out (and there are legitimate uses and cost saving applications for those technologies), but we need to make sure that the way they’re used is open to public scrutiny.

88

[quote]lixy wrote:

Are you sure we’re talking about the same TB?[/quote]

Lixy, you are confused - just because I always insult you doesn’t mean that I insult generally.

89

[quote]Professor X wrote:

For real. While Thunderbolt has some informative posts, he posts more personal attacks than even myself or some others here…and that is an accomplishment.[/quote]

Nah, my “personal attacks” are reserved for posters that don’t engage in good faith or post absolute nonsense or can’t come up to a basic level of competence. If that be a lot, then you should see it is a function in the rise of bad faith, etc. - which there has been of late.

I enjoy varying and disagreeing points of view - if I didn’t, I wouldn’t come here nor would I complain about the lack of variety of viewpoints around here - but it isn’t my job to mollycoddle the idiots, the poseurs, and the half-informed.

90

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
How many people they put to monitor your activities is irrelevant. Data mining would enable them to know where you’ve been and what you’ve been doing at any given moment. Now, if you think it’s OK for the government to have those abilities, and that anyone opposing these measures are terrorist-sympathizers or have something to hide, think again. The potential for abuse in such systems is immense and kid who finds a breach can stalk, harass and blackmail you.

Ok, data mining aside, it still takes vast resources. We’re not talking some chip-shop operation here. And yes analytics is still required because no op agency would take a computer’s word for it (though undoubtedly, they’d find a way to blame them when shit hits the fan).

I am not arguing that these systems aren’t being put in place or are not being considered just that I am not too certain how useful or practical they’d be for monitoring the the everyday, innocent citizen.

I just finished working for the government. I can tell you that while they may be slow to act on policies and even years behind on some issues because of red tape and bureaucracy, they do have the resources if it became a priority.

Your argument is like saying there is nothing to worry about because it would be difficult to monitor individuals right now. What happens when it isn’t so difficult?[/quote]

Well said. To put a concrete handle on it:
Without revealing sources, I understand that when the NSA started to monitor international cell phone calls, they had no interest in tracing the calls. The activity was done to establish a baseline algorithm; i.e. to establish a distribution plot of frequent terms used in such calls, that would establish a floor and ceiling of “suspicion.”
It would be of no value to trace every call and store it, currently.

But what of those that use “suspicious” or elusive terms? If it were to become a priority?
We would have the protection of the courts, I suppose, and 4th and 5th amendment rights, I guess…

91

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Well said. To put a concrete handle on it:
Without revealing sources, I understand that when the NSA started to monitor international cell phone calls, they had no interest in tracing the calls. The activity was done to establish a baseline algorithm; i.e. to establish a distribution plot of frequent terms used in such calls, that would establish a floor and ceiling of “suspicion.”
It would be of no value to trace every call and store it, currently. But what of those that use “suspicious” or elusive terms? If it were to become a priority?
We would have the protection of the courts, I suppose, and 4th and 5th amendment rights, I guess…
[/quote]

Technological innovation works both ways. I am guessing the government will not be the only agency using stealth technology before too long.

92

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Technological innovation works both ways. I am guessing the government will not be the only agency using stealth technology before too long.[/quote]

You should rest assured that the government will do it better.

93

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Technological innovation works both ways. I am guessing the government will not be the only agency using stealth technology before too long.

You should rest assured that the government will do it better.[/quote]

Right now 20 year old kids can and have hacked into the Pentagon.

If you use powerful enough encryption no government is able to decode it.

Not even if they combined every atom in the universe into one giant computer.

94

[quote]orion wrote:

On the other hand the ubiquitous cameras, cell phone cams and so on in the hands of citizens in combination with the Internet make it very difficult for the police to get away with things they would have gotten away with before.

Today in an urban environment they are under constant surveillance too.

That is only true as long as a government actually gives a shit, if they would not care anymore they had means at their disposal the Nazis and the Communists could only dream of.

pookie wrote:
…

What we, the public, need to do, is to insist on being able to know how the data is being used. In the same way you have the right to see your own police record, or medical file, we should be able to know how camera data is kept, for how long, what it is used for and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse from the workers handling it.

You can’t put the genie back in the bottle once it’s out (and there are legitimate uses and cost saving applications for those technologies), but we need to make sure that the way they’re used is open to public scrutiny.
[/quote]

Two very good posts.

The tools have legitimate uses - including the use by the citizenry to keep an eye on the government (particularly the police). But we need to give close scrutiny to the government’s application of the new tools, and make certain that procedural safeguards are followed in all cases.

But remember that governmental excess does not require technology or a conspiracy to watch everyone - with all the current excitement about red-light cameras, there isn’t as much outrage about procedural abuse with tickets (like charging court fees higher than the amount of a parking or speeding ticket for the right to contend the ticket was issued incorrectly, which is done in Boston and DC at least…).

As far as privacy rights go, in the U.S. at least, you have 4th Amendment “search and seizure” rights against being observed in your house without a warrant - but not rights against being observed in public. And really, even the right not to be observed in our house is limited to what can’t be seen by someone standing outside your property. Fourth Amendment | UpCounsel 2022

95

We’re all going to be watched, with increasing scrutiny. The logic of the situation demands it.

We’ll get used to it.

Someday, if you want to live otherwise, you’ll have to move (escape?) to Manitoba, and northern Manitoba at that.

96

[quote]cakewalk wrote:
An update on where Google Street View will be heading soon:

John[/quote]

LOL

97

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Majin wrote:

History runs in cycles. These cycles are based upon the ability of a central government to project force. For ex, when Rome was no longer able to project power, parts of the Empire could simply refuse to pay their taxes. Many did. This system eventually evolved into feudalism, where each castle was its own little government.

In 1490, gunpowder was brought to Europe. Castle walls and armored knights became obsolete. Because technology allowed the destruction of small pockets of defense, the offense became predominannt. Whoever had the most cannons won. The nation-state became the main form of government. (BTW: the web and international capitalism are making the nation-state obsolete.)

But now, weapons are becoming smaller, like suitcase nukes and bio weapons. Individuals themselves can truly cause a lot of havoc.

Therefore, the governments around the world are responding. They adopted things like communism and sharia law to enslave their subjects. Only by the complete elimination of liberty can ALL individuals be controlled. They will have to be controlled from birth, through education and absolute intimidation. Its perfectly logical.[/quote]

This is philosophy, not logic. There are many cycles to history, not just technological progress.

Dictatorships and totalitarian states are all failures. Thing is, people that have known freedom will fight for it. You control one part of the world, another rises. And who’s gonna be controlling? Will they have children? Will they control the children too? Absolution is absurd, it doesn’t exist, shit always happens. You are simplifying it too much. There are definitely things which head in that direction, but absolute control is ultimately a machine’s desire, not humans’. So until Matrix happens I’m gonna keep my hopes up. :slight_smile:

I know one thing - most people dislike and distrust their governments. And that’s the way it should be.

98

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
On the other hand the ubiquitous cameras, cell phone cams and so on in the hands of citizens in combination with the Internet make it very difficult for the police to get away with things they would have gotten away with before.

Today in an urban environment they are under constant surveillance too.

That is only true as long as a government actually gives a shit, if they would not care anymore they had means at their disposal the Nazis and the Communists could only dream of.

Which is what we should be afraid of…however, what we get instead is people laughing all of this off as if there is no threat at all.

I am being honest when I say I have a feeling our great grand children will be fighting civil wars more than wars abroad. [/quote]

I would be overestimating the general population if I believed that more than maybe 25% of the population actually read and absorbed the book 1984.

Be that as it may, I do pray that they watched the movie V for Vendetta very carefully, and that maybe it scared some people.

When the people that were supposed to be against the government being in all of our lives (the “conservatives”) now being the cunts that purvey government conrol the most, and the Democrats being notorious flaming pussies, I don’t have a lot of hope for the future. What I am sincerely counting on is that this government is so big and bumbling that they won’t be able to truly abuse the power the way a more compact, efficient one would.

It will, however, get worse before it gets better.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Technological innovation works both ways. I am guessing the government will not be the only agency using stealth technology before too long.[/quote]

But the government has two aces up his sleave:

A) Near unlimited resources.

B) The power to legislate the technology away from you.

That’s why it’s important to make sure that checks and balances are in place to prevent abuse, AND, most importantly, that laws passed do not criminalize use of technology by Joe Public.

On point B, most governments get nearly a free pass when they invoke “national security” concerns to restrict technology.

100

[quote]orion wrote:
If you use powerful enough encryption no government is able to decode it.[/quote]

Of course, the legal remedy for that is to issue a warrant for your password, and if you refuse to issue it, you’re thrown in jail. I’m not familiar with the US situation, but many European countries have those kinds of law in place right now.

Note also that encryption needs to be considered as a process. A mistake along any step can be exploited to crack the message even if the encryption algorithm proper remains secure. HDDVD and Blu-Ray have been cracked, not because the encryption routine were broken, but because mistakes were made in their use.