or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by emoeric87

Not necessarily: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you
I'm not saying that people's privacy should just fall open when the government wants it to. But I am saying there's a problem when criminals can't be tracked or eavesdropped in any way, because nobody can. Digital anarchy. That's what may be coming.
He does acknowledge, though, that there is a problem with inaccessible data. Computer information is, indeed, so very different from physically stored documents and papers. And how we treat computer information can't be totally equivocated from how we treat physical documents/information. The medium makes it different.
Yeah, also. I'll get right on teaching my newborn jujitsu. Also, surveilling him at all times, with my own physical eyes, and never take any possible sensory-altering drugs to make sure he can never be abducted. Oh, and immediately divorce my wife so she can't possibly be around him to take him anywhere he could be harmed. Oh, and handcuff myself to a somewhat distant location so that I can't harm him either. Keyword: A LITTLE paranoia is justifiable. But a little paranoia...
Regardless, you can't argue that having more tools wouldn't save someone from a life-threatening situation. Again, no need to be black-and-white. There really is a new frontier here that needs to be discussed (i.e., not just written off as something we've already figured out).
It is interesting to think that something that protects someone from an oppressive government can be turned around and used to actually harm me. Protection from one entity means being un-protected from another entity.
 To play the devil's advocate, your incentive only works while a suspect is in custody. What about while the crime is being committed...while people are (hypothetically) being killed/maimed/abused/exploded?
Well, I, for one, think this is a problem both technology companies and the government have to figure out together. It really is a problem that the government has been able to vacuum up everybody's data to analyze (though those same technology companies have been doing the same thing with far fewer complaints).   On the other hand, it would really suck if my kid was abducted and the police had no possible way of locating the captor or intercepting his/her phone messages....
 The simple truth is that it IS more distracting when the person isn't in the car with you. I don't know a single friend (or foe) riding in the car with me who wouldn't react to my obvious concern for traffic or other approaching road hazards by shutting the hell up and letting me drive to a safer situation on the road. Siri isn't even a person, (at least you can tell someone on the phone to "hold on"). Nobody says, "Siri, give me directions to Panera." They say, "Siri,...
Actually, the study (which took the time to quantify real observations) says the opposite. You're not having a conversation (philosophically speaking), and Siri messes up all the time—you're feeding words into a pretty picky computer, and trying to get it to respond the way you want it to (Have you ever tried to make an appointment with a number or date in it using Siri? Brain-numbing...). You tell me you're "just having a conversation" while merging into rush hour...
New Posts  All Forums: