78 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Facebook has now started to sell information about where its users walk for use by marketing people. They are probably the single biggest threat. Uninstalling the Facebook app on your iOS/Android can stop that crap at least.

 

This doesn't really bother me. I'd rather see ads for stuff I might actually be interested in.

[Haflinger]

Don't think of it as "data that can be used only by marketing people." Think of it as "data that can be purchased by anyone for any reason who wants to see it."

 

Now think about who might want to know your exact movements on a daily basis. Sure, useful for marketing. Also yes, useful for kidnappers.

[Shokkou]

Or for la CIA knowing when it would be easiest to v& you with minimal witnesses. And really... what is it the NSA is trying to market to people that they need this information for? That's another part of Chaim Alystein's earlier post that I've been scratching my head over, and which has only become more intriguing to me now that he's tried to abandon the government side of the discussion.

Edited by Shokkou, 26 November 2015 - 07:58 PM.

[Redezra]

Can I just poke my head in here and say how funny it is that you believe people have rights?

 

Since when did people have rights? What higher power dictated this? And why are some humans gifted with them while others aren't, and why is there no natural rectification to resolve this supposed crime against nature?

 

As far as I know, there are no rights, there are only privileges. And you mustn't forget that privileges can be given, but also taken away.

[Shokkou]

>Rights are not universally enforceable, therefore they are conceptually invalid.

 

I think you've reached peak irony, Redezra. Get on board my aircraft, hothead, and be at peace.

Edited by Shokkou, 26 November 2015 - 11:39 PM.

[Alyster]

Alystein not agreeing I don't know what to say that's smart demagogy jew behind the post more shitposting mah privacy NSA finding out about my furry porn CIA will assassinate me because I'm so kwel with my new T-shirt

Edited by Alyster, 27 November 2015 - 02:59 AM.

[Shokkou]

I call you out on not trying to make a point and your response is to make even less of a point? I mean, you're welcome to keep flailing about acting as if the humorous elements in my posts in some way invalidate the actual points being made but you're only making yourself look like more of a fool.

 

Keep dodging the discussion though. I'm sure someone is convinced.

[Alyster]

You're just babling nonsense. What else do I reply? If you don't want to understand what has been posted for last 2 pages, it's your problem. And if your way of dealing with it is personal attacks, yeah I call you a retard and fire back.

Edited by Alyster, 27 November 2015 - 12:01 PM.

[Shokkou]

You're just babling nonsense.

Maybe if you keep saying that (along with your cries of "demagogy"), it will become true.

 

The fact of the matter is that you tried to drag the conversation off on a different track when you realized you had no ground in the initial discussion. Then you decided to masturbate yourself for a bit and cry that you were being attacked when asked if maybe you could be bothered to put your dick away and return to the conversation. If you want to behave like a homeless man on the subway, don't be surprised if you find yourself as the butt of a few jokes.

Edited by Shokkou, 27 November 2015 - 05:35 PM.

[Alyster]

Here in spoiler are all your 7 posts that you have replied to me.
Here in spoiler is also 0 content on the topic of OS nor on the topic of privacy.
Here in spoiler are 7 posts hysterically throwing dirt and crying.

Feel free to point out to me when was the last time you made a post that didn\t qualify for shitposting. Here or anywhere.

Spoiler

You're just babling nonsense.

Maybe if you keep saying that (along with your cries of "demagogy"), it will become true.

 
The fact of the matter is that you tried to drag the conversation off on a different track when you realized you had no ground in the initial discussion. Then you decided to masturbate yourself for a bit and cry that you were being attacked when asked if maybe you could be bothered to put your dick away and return to the conversation. If you want to behave like a homeless man on the subway, don't be surprised if you find yourself as the butt of a few jokes.
 
 

 
 

I call you out on not trying to make a point and your response is to make even less of a point? I mean, you're welcome to keep flailing about acting as if the humorous elements in my posts in some way invalidate the actual points being made but you're only making yourself look like more of a fool.
 
Keep dodging the discussion though. I'm sure someone is convinced.

 
 

>Rights are not universally enforceable, therefore they are conceptually invalid.
 
I think you've reached peak irony, Redezra. Get on board my aircraft, hothead, and be at peace.

 
 

Or for la CIA knowing when it would be easiest to v& you with minimal witnesses. And really... what is it the NSA is trying to market to people that they need this information for? That's another part of Chaim Alystein's earlier post that I've been scratching my head over, and which has only become more intriguing to me now that he's tried to abandon the government side of the discussion.

 
 

People who think Windows 10 has privacy issues need to get a reality check. Privacy has been dead for a decade. Embrace the global web and targeted marketing. Marketing and adds - that's really the thriving force behind it. They're interested in your money, NSA doesn't want to read your harry potter fan-fiction. You're not that important, don't flatter yourself. 

There has been a noticeable trend away from privacy, but not only is it not dead but the trend itself is not a valid argument in favor of moving away from privacy. That's circular logic. Their intentions are irrelevant. Privacy is a right and it should be respected, end of story.
 
It's amazing how the same fallacies get dragged out when privacy comes up. "Oh, you're not that important." As if the only reason someone could be against invasions of their privacy is because they think the government would be poring through their every word looking for an excuse to put them in the gulag. Please, Alystein. If you're going to shill your fascist rhetoric at least make an effort to disguise it.
 
 

 
 

"Not wanting people snooping on everything you do with no viable justification? Don't be such an idealist!"
 
What is it with people who hate privacy and strawmen? Are your convictions so weak that you can't even defend your position without them? Any time you're willing to address my actual statements, feel free to come back.

 
 

Privacy 
Demagogy
*BOO* Reality

I don't care what you want or like. I'm just talking about reality. Reality is Google knows more about what you want today than your mother or wife. Even if you don't use Google, Gmail, Google+ or anything from Google Corporation. Just by visiting CN you're logged into Google's database. (CN HTML contains Google Analytics - the most used website analytics tool). And I'm not even talking about OS, cookies or malware here.

So if you want to keep raging about ideals and using demagogy, go ahead. The fact still remains most ads you see today in your browser are customized for you. People using websites are a commodity website owners sell to advertisers. You're a product. Congrats.

The fact remains that you aren't arguing me, but rather some imagined construct you've created to make things easier for yourself. You can throw in as much snark and what I hesitate to call "wit" to try obfuscating that and your myriad other fallacies, but I'm not going to suddenly become stupid and fail to catch what you're doing.
 
It's amusing how you've tried desperately to drag the discussion away from PRISM, the NSA, and government surveillance and onto corporations. Almost as if you've realized you have no ground to stand on are are flailing for anything to divert attention from valid concerns. You have repeatedly cherry-picked, straw manned, and appealed to ridicule but have failed to make anything resembling a legitimate case.
 

Alyster is correct: the primary threat to security is (as it always has been) applications, not operating systems. However, operating systems bundle so many applications these days that people confuse the two.
 
Facebook has now started to sell information about where its users walk for use by marketing people. They are probably the single biggest threat. Uninstalling the Facebook app on your iOS/Android can stop that crap at least.

Has been, yes, which is why which applications we use and how we use them has been an important part of maintaining control of our privacy. Now however we have an OS being at least as intrusive and nosy, if not moreso. Does this make it impossible to protect your privacy? No. It just means you now have to lump in operating systems with the list of things to remain cognizant of.
 
 

Edited by Alyster, 27 November 2015 - 05:41 PM.

[Shokkou]

 

People who think Windows 10 has privacy issues need to get a reality check. Privacy has been dead for a decade. Embrace the global web and targeted marketing. Marketing and adds - that's really the thriving force behind it. They're interested in your money, NSA doesn't want to read your harry potter fan-fiction. You're not that important, don't flatter yourself. 

 

It's amazing how the same fallacies get dragged out when privacy comes up. "Oh, you're not that important." As if the only reason someone could be against invasions of their privacy is because they think the government would be poring through their every word looking for an excuse to put them in the gulag. Please, Alystein. If you're going to shill your fascist rhetoric at least make an effort to disguise it.

 

"Not agreeing with me? Such a facist!"

 

I have nothing against idealism. But if you have any illusions that with one OS over another or with one or another firewall you can have online privacy then you're just building castles in the air. Do you have Facebook? Email? Google account? Guess what, Facebook knows a ton about you and their making money off from that. It would be naive to build Facebooks hasn't sold marketing related data about you. 

Here we see you cherry picking the hyperbole so you could get butthurt and ignore the rest of my point. Instead of addressing the issues presented regarding Windows 10, you decided to switch gears onto Facebook and Google as if their own well known problems somehow excuse those being discussed in Windows 10. People who are interested in privacy either don't use Facebook at all or take precautions when they do use it. Same goes for Google or anything else. So sure, if we were discussing OSes like they were some be-all-end-all solution to privacy you would indeed have had a point. What we were actually discussing though was the specific issues present in Windows 10, the level of consideration we give such issues, and the responses we have to them.

 

Privacy 
Demagogy
*BOO* Reality

I don't care what you want or like. I'm just talking about reality. Reality is Google knows more about what you want today than your mother or wife. Even if you don't use Google, Gmail, Google+ or anything from Google Corporation. Just by visiting CN you're logged into Google's database. (CN HTML contains Google Analytics - the most used website analytics tool). And I'm not even talking about OS, cookies or malware here.

So if you want to keep raging about ideals and using demagogy, go ahead. The fact still remains most ads you see today in your browser are customized for you. People using websites are a commodity website owners sell to advertisers. You're a product. Congrats.

This was basically ad homs mixed with some of the aforementioned masturbation. I did however address the more coherent version provided courtesy of Haf. It's a shame you instead decided to go full retard as seen below:

 

Alystein not agreeing I don't know what to say that's smart demagogy jew behind the post more shitposting mah privacy NSA finding out about my furry porn CIA will assassinate me because I'm so kwel with my new T-shirt

More cherrypicking and failing to address the question of what it is the NSA is trying to market to us (which was the relevant point in the post you were responding to here). Keep in mind that the data is being gathered by companies and sold to the government, not the other way around. Prancing around like a tool doesn't make for a very compelling case.

 

You're just babling nonsense. What else do I reply? If you don't want to understand what has been posted for last 2 pages, it's your problem. And if your way of dealing with it is personal attacks, yeah I call you a retard and fire back.

Heaven forbid someone you disagree with not bend over backwards to make their posts appeal to you. My posts were all, to some degree, shitposting. There was however a point in there, buried within the shitposting. If you're incapable of figuring it out, you deserve to be mocked for being a retard. If you choose not to address it because you don't like how it was worded, you deserve to be called out and mocked for being a thin skinned faggot. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt so I'm willing to believe you're in the latter category, in which case congratulations. You took the easy way out of thinking you could get lax because someone started saying things you didn't like and got punished.

 

Thank you for playing, have a nice day, and bring out the dancing lobsters.

[Alyster]

I'm still waiting for the reference where you actually posted something about privacy or OS. I mean something you wanted me to reply to, something that actually made a point, something that I "kept ignoring". I won't hold my breath tho

 

Maybe it all makes sense in your head, these posts I mean. But posting a jew behind the post is not contributing, it's shit posting and making yourself look silly. OK actually you did say "privacy is not dead". But your problem is you presented it as a postulate. But problem with postulates is that they are taken as the bases of some logical thought with out any proof. For example in Middle Ages a postulate was that God exists. 

 

Your postulate was that privacy is not dead. You did not back it up, you simply said that's the way it is. After that we've seen 2 pages of nonsense from you. Now if you'd read my posts I challenged your claim that privacy is not dead and backed up mine - that privacy indeed is history.

 

Online safety against stealing is ofcourse important, but marketing has really killed all privacy of individuals. What governments do with their spyware - we can only speculate about. Only way to break this circle is to unplug. 

 

Also since I'm gay I don't appreciate you calling me a faggot. 

Edited by Alyster, 28 November 2015 - 04:07 AM.

[Shokkou]

And again, you are clinging to the parts you dislike so you can brush aside the actual point without having to confront anything that would challenge you. If you don't want to be called a faggot, quit acting like one.

[Alyster]

Unable to make a point? Shitpost more. Yo I'm done with you. You've proven your value. On a scale of 1 to 10 it's a negative number.

[Lord Draculea]

Fascinating discussion (if we take away the personal attacks part).

Does privacy matter? (Yes.) Is it dead or still alive? (Alive.) Do people have rights? (Of course, they're embedded in us and that's never going to change.) Should we fight for our freedom? (Always.) Should we be cautious about what we choose to share and how? (Of course.) Does the Government have the right to collect information for national security reasons? (Yes.) Does a company have the right to collect information about you for marketing purposes? (Yes, as long as it's disclosed in the license agreement.) Can the need of information come in collision with my rights to privacy? (Naturally.) Can it get worse in case of war or an increased level of threat? (You bet.) Is there anything we can do about it? (Yes.)

There are matters of principle and issues related to the actual setup of the scene, tools in use, or the general level of civilisation. The matters of principle don't change, as long as they're embedded in the human nature. Technology can change the rules of the game, or the level of complexity, but it shouldn't affect the principles.

Democracy is ever evolving, only the totalitarian systems are "perfect".

[Redezra]

>Rights are not universally enforceable, therefore they are conceptually invalid.

 

I think you've reached peak irony, Redezra. Get on board my aircraft, hothead, and be at peace.

 

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

[KiWi]

I would love to hold a moderated debate.

[Manoka]

I'd prefer to make my own operating system, called "Orion", that I use to hide all my information because, no-one can access it but me, because I'm the only one with a compatible operating system. 

 

It would be like mac in that, basically, it would be a slightly tweaked version of linux. That would make it uber safe. Although linux relies heavily on crowd surfing and making my own system would require me to, make my own programs, because I'd borrow it so heavily from linux, it should work out. 

 

 

It'd basically be a copy of windows. 

 

Then I'd sell it to banks as an uber safe system. I might even turn it in to a robit language or something. xP

[Shokkou]

>Rights are not universally enforceable, therefore they are conceptually invalid.

 

I think you've reached peak irony, Redezra. Get on board my aircraft, hothead, and be at peace.

 

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

I'll call Ittin.