| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I don't want agencies harvesting information about me / us without permission , but if they want to just waste their time watching people - and how dull it would be watching me, then , fine - enjoy ..
How many people must the security services employ to sit there watching everyone with a webcam?
Sound recording (therefore speech / conversation / opinions) is a notion that I'd be a little more concerned over TBH
'IF' this actually happened, just imagine the hours and hours of men masterbating they would have to sit and watch!
If you are using a 'smart phone' connected to the internet, then they can already listen in to conversations through your phones microphone and track precisely where you are.Originally Posted by Vimana.
If you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
Unless they're going to lock up 99% of blokes for being dirty buggers then what's the issue?
Maybe the 1% who spend their time looking at anti-Jew websites instead of porn need to be careful but that's what you get for being weird so they'll get no sympathy from us normal people.
If you think about it, it doesn't even make sense.
Surely if they want to snoop then it's the computer they need to be looking at?
All they'll see through the webcam is some bloke in a vest and some cheap 80s decor in the background.
"If you have got nothing to hide" is a bit of a ridiculous argument Doc, as no one wants every single detail of their lives or their families lives available to the wider public.
But you can go first if you like and publish your own medical records on here for all to read and examine.
Common knowledge to cover the cam when you are, er, busy.
I've covered the front camera on mine with black tape.
When I put my phone down on the floor after I've had a poo for half an hour I noticed it was always in line of the camera and they could be watching me wiping my bum.
Had my front lense covered for the last 2 years I'd say.
Covered it for they're sakes really
I am more concerned about the buggers accessing my bank account than seeing my goolies hanging out of my dressing gown.
I've got nothing to hide but mine is still covered, there are a lot of weirdos on the internet.
OK, so where do you personally draw the line with this? You're fine with a group of strangers watching and listening to you and your family's personal movements and conversations, that much is clear, how about letting these people search your home? Why not? You've nothing to hide. How about letting them install cameras and microphones in every room? You've got nothing to fear, so that's not going to be a problem.
It's a worrying recent development that so many people seem fine, almost keen to throw their rights away like this. It's like a North Korean wet dream, a populace who are happy to be under surveillance, announcing "I've got nothing to hide, I've done nothing wrong" whilst the people doing the surveillance are the ones who get to decide what is right and wrong.
When an agency is watching and recording the conversations and movements of innocent people, it's highly unlikely that they're trying to protect them, it's more likely they're gathering evidence in the event that they one day need to prosecute them.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin.
Glen Greenwald makes the same point very well, in a quick tweet that he put out two days ago.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...28535326425088
Can it be a coincidence that so many people do not trust main stream media as well?
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...ust_the_media_
That's not the same point I was making at all.
I've watched your MO on here and quite often you'll respond to someone with something that's only vaguely related to what they were saying, usually because you've got a link you want to post.
Makes me wonder if you actually read anything that people post.
Do you still claim that the Glen Greenwald article has nothing whatsoever to do with your post?
Is it my fault that you were not familiar with his article on the same subject?
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/...lf-censorship/
You're just talking absolute shit now.
Do I still claim that the Glen Greenwald article has nothing whatsoever to do with my post? Where did I ever claim that?
I said it wasn't the same point I was making. And it wasn't.
You seem to think that if two people are talking about the same subject then they must be making the exact same point??
And what is that bollocks about me not being familiar about his article? You just talk such bollocks. I notice you used the opportunity to post another one of your links though.
"It's a worrying recent development that so many people seem fine, almost keen to throw their rights away like this. It's like a North Korean wet dream, a populace who are happy to be under surveillance, announcing "I've got nothing to hide, I've done nothing wrong" whilst the people doing the surveillance are the ones who get to decide what is right and wrong.
When an agency is watching and recording the conversations and movements of innocent people, it's highly unlikely that they're trying to protect them, it's more likely they're gathering evidence in the event that they one day need to prosecute them."
Of course Cardiffi, your post on public surveillance and his article on public surveillance, are in no way shape or form connected or even similar to one another.
I would go and have a lie down if I was you...
You daft tit, how many times have I got to say this? You were saying that he was making the same point as I was, which was not the case.
Just because the comments I made and the article you posted are on the same subject, doesn't mean the points we were making are the same, which is what you originally posted. Now you're changing it of course because the other option would be for you to admit you were wrong, which obviously can't ever happen.
It's clear both my comments and his article are on public surveillance, nobody disputed that at all. We are not making the same point though, which is what you claimed so you could post one of your links.
is it really the wider public though ? ? ? it would just be the " secret service of whatever country "as no one wants every single detail of their lives or their families lives available to the wider public.
But you can go first if you like and publish your own medical records on here for all to read and examine.
Unless you hold your medical records upto the webcam ( and why would you ? ? ? ) once again this point is rather moot
Do you think that these people can only hack your camera and microphone but could never gain access to the other files on your computer?
"There is a reason governments, corporations, and multiple other entities of authority crave surveillance. It’s precisely because the possibility of being monitored radically changes individual and collective behavior. Specifically, that possibility breeds fear and fosters collective conformity. That’s always been intuitively clear. Now, there is mounting empirical evidence proving it."
Glen Greenwald
"When an agency is watching and recording the conversations and movements of innocent people, it's highly unlikely that they're trying to protect them, it's more likely they're gathering evidence in the event that they one day need to prosecute them."
Colonel Cardiffi
Now you're just making shit up, that Glen Greenwald quote is nothing to do with what you originally posted. Here's the tweet you linked to that you said was the same point I was making:"There is a reason governments, corporations, and multiple other entities of authority crave surveillance. It’s precisely because the possibility of being monitored radically changes individual and collective behavior. Specifically, that possibility breeds fear and fosters collective conformity. That’s always been intuitively clear. Now, there is mounting empirical evidence proving it."
Glen Greenwald
"When an agency is watching and recording the conversations and movements of innocent people, it's highly unlikely that they're trying to protect them, it's more likely they're gathering evidence in the event that they one day need to prosecute them."
Colonel Cardiffi
Glenn Greenwald Verified account @ggreenwald If you don't want leaks, don't build a secret, illegal system of mass surveillance and then hide it and lie about it to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, it was not the same point and once again I have to tell you that just because I was talking on the same subject as that guy, does not automatically mean we were making the same point.
OK? same subject does not mean same point. Couldn't put it any simpler for you.
If you don't want to admit you're wrong then fine, just stop embarrassing yourself with all this weaseling.
having read the tread again I see that (FWIW) I appeared complacent or ambivalent regards organised 'snooping' in my earlier post I am not complacent, never have been and in fact I'm quite the opposite.
But I still cannot imagine how we are 'all ' potentially being identified, observed and recordel, casually, and individually via a webcam.
It would take a mammoth operation and a lot of people. Where text , emails or docs, and recorded sound can be scanned for key words, billions of hours of dull video cannot.
I agree with Colonel's point that it is the principle of unsolicited and clandestine mass observation that we need to push back against.
if we let it wash over us, our lives may well eventually become that of miserable drones.
My PC as no Mic built in, nor permanently attached. No webcam.
But, what about my iPad. It has a camera, and it has a mic.
I seem to recall that Samsung TV's had to disable some (denied) function that actually listened to conversations in the room - or potentially so, and scanned for key words.
I realise the argument that 'we need to combat terror', (and few are going to argue with that premise) but what privacy do we have to revoke , and is 'terrorism' the stick that has been used to get us to surrender all of our rights and interesting data?
a completely different scenario, though i guess you really know that
i could ask, so if you cover your webcam with some tape, it suddenly puts your PC behind a impregnable firewall ? ? ?, I am of to notify the " white hatters " of the world the breaking news
To be honest, I have no idea what point you're making.a completely different scenario, though i guess you really know that
i could ask, so if you cover your webcam with some tape, it suddenly puts your PC behind a impregnable firewall ? ? ?, I am of to notify the " white hatters " of the world the breaking news
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote