|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 16, 2010 20:37:04 GMT -5
Obviously I see a major concern with this whole thing. Facial recognition with the internet helps to create a database of information for the government to use and literally control what we do and where we go. We already know that the government has referred to Ron Paul supporters, Bob Barr supporters, and Chuck Baldwin supporters (as well as others) as "terrorists."First of all, it's absolutely ridiculous to paint politicial supporters of NON-VIOLENT politicians like these as "terrorists." Especially when the supporters done absolutely nothing to warrant that term. This is particularly dangerous because of the Patriot Act and its warrantless surveillance procedures as well as its lack of proof needed to hold prospective "terrorists" without charging them with a crime. The loose definition of the word "terrorist" is EXTREMELY dangerous when accompanied with facial scanning software, again, because of the Patriot Act. In the Patriot Act, it is now officially a crime to "harbor or conceal terrorists." This is punishable by inprisonment of up to 10 years, a massive fine, or both. This means that simply associating with someone who is defined as a "terrorist" means you are committing a Federal Crime. With facial scanning software on Facebook, you are now caught red-handed every time you take a smiling picture with one of your buddies or family members who the government has defined as a "terrorist" despite his or her complete lack of violent history. Facebook, to my knowledge, is not actively planning on using this information with the government, but the government is actively working on legislature that will allow them to cease control of the internet. I hate to make the comparison to the Nazi takeover in Germany, but this is extremely similar to what happened. They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up. Before you disregard what I'm saying as the words of a paranoid nutjob, I would invite you to please look this information up. Everything I've said is completely verifiable with a simple internet search. Facial recognition is a potentially extremely dangerous technology that we need to be very careful with. I have nothing to hide, personally. It's not you I'm concerned about, it's them. Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom:
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 16, 2010 20:41:35 GMT -5
And the master shines his light onto the masses.
|
|
noir
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 20, 2007 6:53:47 GMT -5
Posts: 4,278
|
Post by noir on Dec 16, 2010 20:48:37 GMT -5
They say the pros outweighs the cons in many situations in which the government invades our lives more and more in the name of safety and freedom. If I post "I don't like the TSA body scanners." That should not raise a red flag with the government, but it does. They keep an eye out for those who are speaking against them. We have free speech in this country. The government should not be able to come in and shut us down because they don't like what we are saying. If it is anti-government stuff, they want to keep tabs on you and maybe even shut you down. Racist stuff? Meh, they don't care. Do you know the last President to do something that was actually effective against the KKK? It was Grant. He completely crushed the KKK. Now they are back and say membership is soaring. There's plenty of anti-governmental publicists and platforms out there. 'invade our lives?'. The article in question is about facebook pictures. As I'm sure you're aware, they've had access to pictures of the public for god knows how long (long before CCTV). Again, I don't see why this is a problem. If any form of communication which endangers public safety is shared over the internet, it is detectable. Monitoring the internet has simply widened the scope for crime prevention. I'm not particularly familiar with how prominent the KKK is anymore, but that's neither here nor there. But bad mouth the government, well you better watch out. I do agree with this notion to an extent, but again, there are plenty of overtly anti-government (anarchastic, anti-capitalist etc.) platforms out there. In many cases (The contemporary Wikileaks scandal for instance), it's the issue of 'lowering public confidence in the political powers that be' vs. that age old concept of 'ignorance is bliss'. Whilst we're given no choice toward the matter, you'd be surprised how many would favour the latter. EDIT: Having just read kliquid's post, I am clearly quite oblivious towards America's stance on terrorism. Not that our government is any better but contextually, I know very little about said 'Patriot Act'. So yeah, merely referring to our system as I view it. |
|
|
|
Post by KMIS™ on Dec 16, 2010 20:57:49 GMT -5
Er, I don't see the problem... Why you mad? "If you aren't mad, you haven't been paying attention." They are teaming with the government already. What if the government is looking through these pictures and sees well, a perfect match is 7 out of 7 points, well this person has 5 or 6 points out of 7, must be the same person, so we can go and arrest this person for whatever they were looking up the original person for because they look alike. Just as bad, they could sell all this to advertisers or anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by KMIS™ on Dec 16, 2010 20:58:28 GMT -5
Obviously I see a major concern with this whole thing. Facial recognition with the internet helps to create a database of information for the government to use and literally control what we do and where we go. We already know that the government has referred to Ron Paul supporters, Bob Barr supporters, and Chuck Baldwin supporters (as well as others) as "terrorists."First of all, it's absolutely ridiculous to paint politicial supporters of NON-VIOLENT politicians like these as "terrorists." Especially when the supporters done absolutely nothing to warrant that term. This is particularly dangerous because of the Patriot Act and its warrantless surveillance procedures as well as its lack of proof needed to hold prospective "terrorists" without charging them with a crime. The loose definition of the word "terrorist" is EXTREMELY dangerous when accompanied with facial scanning software, again, because of the Patriot Act. In the Patriot Act, it is now officially a crime to "harbor or conceal terrorists." This is punishable by inprisonment of up to 10 years, a massive fine, or both. This means that simply associating with someone who is defined as a "terrorist" means you are committing a Federal Crime. With facial scanning software on Facebook, you are now caught red-handed every time you take a smiling picture with one of your buddies or family members who the government has defined as a "terrorist" despite his or her complete lack of violent history. Facebook, to my knowledge, is not actively planning on using this information with the government, but the government is actively working on legislature that will allow them to cease control of the internet. I hate to make the comparison to the Nazi takeover in Germany, but this is extremely similar to what happened. They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up. Before you disregard what I'm saying as the words of a paranoid nutjob, I would invite you to please look this information up. Everything I've said is completely verifiable with a simple internet search. Facial recognition is a potentially extremely dangerous technology that we need to be very careful with. I have nothing to hide, personally. It's not you I'm concerned about, it's them. Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom:
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 16, 2010 20:58:47 GMT -5
Monitoring the internet has simply widened the scope for crime prevention. You know what else would prevent crime? Putting tracking devices on every person. Should we do that? Should we videotape ourselves all day every day and send it into the government to verify that what we're doing is acceptable to them? Are there terrorists who conspire on the internet? Yes. But when is the last time that a legitimate threat of terrorism has been stopped by the government? These recent patsies they've setup have been uneducated kids who would not have been capable of fulfilling the attack without the assistance of the federal agents who helped to set them up. They use these people to show how "dangerous" things are and why what they're doing is extremely necessary, as if there are ACTUAL LEGITIMATE TERRORIST GROUPS who would fall for these traps. Then they tell us how lucky we are that they're there to prevent it. When is the last time that a terrorist attack has been stopped at the gates by a TSA agent? ... And yet, we're letting them look at naked pictures of us and/or finger-  us if they see fit. If we say no, we are subject to massive fines. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 16, 2010 20:59:51 GMT -5
KMIS, all I ask is for you is to let me know what part of what I'm saying is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 16, 2010 21:04:01 GMT -5
It's not just John posted a picture of himself. It is John posted a picture of himself, Jane, Susan and Tim and each are identifiable by hovering over their face or around them.
Ever since we elected Obama, the KKK has been growing.
Wikileaks is out there, but they have the power to shut it down. They did actually. The government pressured Amazon to shut down the servers Wikileaks was using. Amazon complied. Wikileaks got onto other servers, but if Obama wanted to he could just shut down the whole internet so no one in America could see the site.
The Patriot Act is one of the most draconian laws we have in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by KMIS™ on Dec 16, 2010 21:06:30 GMT -5
KMIS, all I ask is for you is to let me know what part of what I'm saying is incorrect. I'll be completely honest here, I've just been dying to pull out that YouTube clip after watching Zoolander the other day.  I still think what you're onto is a bit much, Slappy aswell. |
|
noir
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 20, 2007 6:53:47 GMT -5
Posts: 4,278
|
Post by noir on Dec 16, 2010 21:11:14 GMT -5
My point is, and you don't need me to tell you this, but there's a lot of ****ed up stuff on the internet. I'm not simply referring to terrorism, although if intercepting communication among terrorist parties can be carried out (and I am inclined to believe that it has) then I have no problem with these extensive crime measures. As technology expands, so must certain measures of policing.
Now this 'Patriot Act'. I am yet to explore it so I don't know how much of what you say is true (No offence meant). I am indeed interested however, because this is a potentially huge flaw in this new form of surveillance which I guess I previously failed to consider. However, in response to your point about 'tracking devices' one could also argue that people's personal freedom should be of utmost priority, and policing should cease to exist. Extreme, right?. Of course, it's about finding a balance. I, among many others, would gladly jeopardise my personal information including 'relationship status, favourite quotes etc.' in return for a more thorough stance to be made against illegalities committed online. Of course, I'm speaking broadly here (Sleep deprived and very aware I have an essay to hand in tomorrow which I am halfway through completing) so apologies if my point is a little too generalised but I hope you get my point (Playing devil's advocate, if you will).
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 16, 2010 21:15:26 GMT -5
I still think what you're onto is a bit much, Slappy aswell. What part? I'm really interested in knowing, I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm all about learning if other people have some information that I'm unaware of. |
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Dec 16, 2010 21:17:34 GMT -5
"If you aren't mad, you haven't been paying attention." They are teaming with the government already. What if the government is looking through these pictures and sees well, a perfect match is 7 out of 7 points, well this person has 5 or 6 points out of 7, must be the same person, so we can go and arrest this person for whatever they were looking up the original person for because they look alike. Just as bad, they could sell all this to advertisers or anyone. Ehh, you just seem paranoid tbh. ding ding ding |
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Dec 16, 2010 21:19:38 GMT -5
I've been on facebook for a month and a week. Said it earlier today, say it again.. Best decision I ever made was deleting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Dec 16, 2010 21:21:07 GMT -5
oh just shut up. nobody cares if you don't use facebook. seriously. it doesn't make you cool or intelligent that you don't have a facebook, it simply means you don't have a facebook. and you probably aren't intelligent enough to figure out that if you don't post it, the government can't find it. this feature is simply to make it easier for people to tag friends in photos, stop digging around and trying to blame the government for something they might not even be doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 16, 2010 21:23:32 GMT -5
My point is, and you don't need me to tell you this, but there's a lot of ****ed up stuff on the internet. I'm not simply referring to terrorism, although if intercepting communication among terrorist parties can be carried out (and I am inclined to believe that it has) then I have no problem with these extensive crime measures. As technology expands, so must certain measures of policing. To my knowledge, no massive terrorist plots have been broken up by the government spying on people on the internet. Quite honestly, I'm surprised that they haven't set something up just to make it LOOK like they have stopped something huge by "protecting your freedom." Now this 'Patriot Act'. I am yet to explore it so I don't know how much of what you say is true (No offence meant). I am indeed interested however, because this is a potentially huge flaw in this new form of surveillance which I guess I previously failed to consider. By all means, look into it. It's an absolutely ridiculous overstepping of boundaries. However, in response to your point about 'tracking devices' one could also argue that people's personal freedom should be of utmost priority, and policing should cease to exist. Extreme, right? Police's job, just like the government's job in America, is supposed to be preserving our freedom. This means life and liberty. This means things like murder, assault, destruction of property, etc. My personal opinion is that the police should not be interfering in things that do not take away other people's personal freedoms. We have far too many resources and too much money designated to stopping non-violent crimes like personal drug usage, minor traffic violations, etc. Of course, it's about finding a balance. I, among many others, would gladly jeopardise my personal information including 'relationship status, favourite quotes etc.' in return for a more thorough stance to be made against illegalities committed online. Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 16, 2010 21:24:40 GMT -5
oh just shut up. nobody cares if you don't use facebook. seriously. it doesn't make you cool or intelligent that you don't have a facebook, it simply means you don't have a facebook. and you probably aren't intelligent enough to figure out that if you don't post it, the government can't find it. this feature is simply to make it easier for people to tag friends in photos, stop digging around and trying to blame the government for something they might not even be doing. Yeah, shut up.  Don't bother looking into the fact that the government is more than willing to take away your personal liberties. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 16, 2010 21:28:25 GMT -5
I'd say at least 99%, if not more, of the stuff on the internet advocates non-violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by KMIS™ on Dec 16, 2010 21:40:09 GMT -5
By the way, if you don't like the facial recognition software, you could always ... turn it off.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 16, 2010 21:49:54 GMT -5
By the way, if you don't like the facial recognition software, you could always ... turn it off. Yeah, I'm sure that works well. It may shut it off publically so that you nor your friends can see it, but Facebook or whoever they give information to could use it. Even if your profile is private people can still access your information. Shutting something off or setting something a certain way doesn't mean what you hope to achieve will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 16, 2010 21:55:28 GMT -5
By the way, if you don't like the facial recognition software, you could always ... turn it off. When one of my friends "tags" me in a picture, there's not really much I can do. |
|
I have nothing to hide, personally. 
