Jump to content


Photo

We have become Big Brother


  • Please log in to reply
439 replies to this topic

#401 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1531 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 01:48 AM

I agree that freedom of speech should be held up as high as possible, but I also think that hate speeches should be forbidden. In order to achieve that, it is paramount to know where the exact line to a hate speech is. Someone saying "gas all jews" is past this line (although as a German I may be overly sensitive on this specific topic). For me the difference lies in voicing your opinion ("I don't like this group") vs. incitement of the people ("Kill these people, because I don't like them"). However, I also have to agree with rich_is_bored here: This is something people should do out of their own volition. In my opinion the approach most likely to succeed in this regard is to educate people; to show them where there are differences and why these differences do not matter. Ignoring differences is just as bad as pointing them out as they DO exist. The thing is you have to accept them and know how to handle them, not ignore them. As an example, the latter would be to serve Jews and Muslims pork at your dinner with a side of beef for your Hindu friends. This will cause trouble, because you ignored their religion. On the other hand, you can use the differences to your advantage. For example: if you have a company that has to be available 24/7 and you have a good mix between religions, all Christians can take a vacation on Christmas as other religions won't care for it. At the same time these Christians can work on holidays of other religions.

 

The idea that words cause violence, and need to be censored in order to prevent violence, has never been supported by any convincing evidence. It is mostly based on correlation fallacies: "Bob abused his ex-wife online, then he assaulted her, therefore words cause violence and censoring his online speech would have protected his victim". Most speech, even offensive speech, is not a prelude to violence, and even if it were, this wouldn't prove that the speech causes violence. This is basically the same nonsense argument that we saw in the last century, when religious whack-jobs were trying to ban comic books because they might make children violent.

I get your point that in most cases verbal abuse does not cause violence, but they are rather a symptom of the same problem. Still, there are definitely cases where hate speeches have led to violence; the Third Reich is a perfect example: without Hitler's invitation to act against the jews, it would not have been done (e.g. look up "Night of Broken Glass"/"Kristallnacht"). Usually, this includes the explicit request to act against someone (hence the differentiation I made earlier between opinion and hate speech). If you use stuff that could be considered as hate speech as a joke, you should also make clear to everyone that it actually is meant as a joke (and even then there will be idiots, who will think you are serious).


  • Anderson likes this

#402 rich_is_bored

rich_is_bored

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 879 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 02:24 AM

The greater issue to acknowledge is that once the government seizes power they abuse it and never relinquish it. In this case, "gas the jews" was all they needed for a conviction. They ruled that the context was irrelevant. Following that line of logic both you and I are now guilty of hate speech even under your own slightly more specific set of rules.



#403 OrbWeaver

OrbWeaver

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7499 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 04:42 AM

IMHO, the point is just to raise awareness and inspire empathy in people.


There's nothing wrong with attempting to raise awareness of problems and inspire empathy, but you cannot do so with oppressive and censorious laws. Censorship does not inspire anything except hatred and resentment, against the people applying the laws (the state) and the people who called for those laws in the first place (the campaign groups etc).

 

Consider your own example of Russia. Do laws that make it illegal or dangerous to criticize the government make you more, or less, supportive of that government? I would be willing to bet that it makes you far less supportive, even if you have to pretend to support the government in public to avoid problems.
 

After all, if evolution of the human species is about reducing violence and having a more inclusive society - why not step by step attempt to provide benefits to the people who have been historically oppressed?

 

Because "people who have been oppressed" is a meaningless concept. People are not groups, they are individuals, and they cannot be oppressed by things which happened long before they were born. Mark Zuckerberg is not oppressed because the Holocaust happened in 1939. Samuel L Jackson is not oppressed because of the Atlantic slave trade hundreds of years ago.

 

If you want to make accommodations for specific problems that people face today, then that's fine. Provide wheelchair ramps for people who can't walk, maternity leave for pregnant women, or subtitles for deaf people. But providing special privileges for entire groups just because they were was once treated badly is collectivist nonsense.
 

Also, aren't the worst liberals less harmful than the worst conservatives?

 

You'd need to clarify what you mean by "worst liberal" in this context.

 

If you mean "liberal" in original sense of somebody who values personal freedom, then I would agree.

 

If you are asking if the authoritarian far left (Stalin, Mao) are better than the authoritarian far right (Hitler), then no, they are not. Authoritarianism is disastrous no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.



#404 OrbWeaver

OrbWeaver

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7499 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 04:49 AM

And here's some food for thought. If Count Dankula is a criminal for "hate speech" are the people who liked and shared the video on social media accomplices?

 

Uh-oh, I just realised that there is a version of the video alongside my article (which, for extra added irony, bleeps out the phrase "piss her off" but leaves the criminal hate speech clearly audible).

 

I guess if I get arrested I'll have to point out that the editors added it, not me.


  • rich_is_bored likes this

#405 OrbWeaver

OrbWeaver

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7499 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 05:04 AM

I agree that freedom of speech should be held up as high as possible, but I also think that hate speeches should be forbidden. In order to achieve that, it is paramount to know where the exact line to a hate speech is. Someone saying "gas all jews" is past this line (although as a German I may be overly sensitive on this specific topic). For me the difference lies in voicing your opinion ("I don't like this group") vs. incitement of the people ("Kill these people, because I don't like them").

 

If you are narrowly defining "hate speech" to refer to specific instructions to attack or kill a person or group of people, then I have less problem with it. Even in free speech friendly jurisdictions like the US, specific threats are not generally protected on free speech grounds.
 
The problem is that in most of the West, "hate speech" is used to refer to far more than actual threats of violence. People have been accused (and in some case convicted) of hate speech for expressing their religious opinion that homosexuality is sinful, leaving a bacon sandwich outside a mosque, calling for less immigration, accurately reporting the immigrant background of rapists, accurately reporting the connection between immigration and rising sexual assault rates, using the phrase "have a gay day", refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, refusing to use prescribed transgender pronouns, playing a clip of Jordan Peterson in a class discussion about language... the list goes on and on.
 

Still, there are definitely cases where hate speeches have led to violence; the Third Reich is a perfect example: without Hitler's invitation to act against the jews, it would not have been done (e.g. look up "Night of Broken Glass"/"Kristallnacht"). Usually, this includes the explicit request to act against someone (hence the differentiation I made earlier between opinion and hate speech).


That's exactly the sort of speculative link between speech and violence that I am referring to.

Yes, Hitler's words may have been the trigger for the Kristallnacht, but his words didn't magically conjure up the hatred of Jews that were required to make it happen. There was already widespread anti-Semitism amongst the population for a variety of complex political and historical reasons. Maybe if Hitler hadn't said what he did, the Kristallnacht wouldn't have happened at that specific time, but censorship of Hitler wouldn't have magically solved the problem of anti-Semitism, and the attacks would probably have happened later anyway.



#406 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1531 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 07:05 AM

The problem is that in most of the West, "hate speech" is used to refer to far more than actual threats of violence. People have been accused (and in some case convicted) of hate speech for expressing their religious opinion that homosexuality is sinful, leaving a bacon sandwich outside a mosque, calling for less immigration, accurately reporting the immigrant background of rapists, accurately reporting the connection between immigration and rising sexual assault rates, using the phrase "have a gay day", refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, refusing to use prescribed transgender pronouns, playing a clip of Jordan Peterson in a class discussion about language... the list goes on and on.

Well, people being overly sensitive about specific subjects definitely leads to a "watering down" of the severitiy of the word. Your examples are (at least in part) difficult to judge. Expressing the opinion that homosexuality contradicts your religious beliefs is nothing I would count as hate speech. Still, it can easily lead to discrimination of homosexials. The bacon sandwitch, on the other hand, is obviously meant as an insult. It appears relatively harmless as noone got hurt, but it is still an unwarranted provocation. Calling for less immigration is extremely difficult and if I would count it as hate speech largely depends on the tone in which it was delivered. A rational argument why it is financially not possible to care for immigrants or that we need to increase efficiency in working through the bureaucracy before being able to accept more immigrants is completely different from arguing that we stop immigration, because all immigrants are criminals. Reporting the immigrative background of a rapist is no hate speech as long as it is a simple report. However, it can easily be used as an argument in a hate speech and (especially in a volatile situation) this may exactly be the intention of the author. Writing this I realise that hate speech is a LOT about context. Basically, each statement you make is inherently no hate speech. But if you use it to incite people and use it as a basis for discrimination it can quickly become one. If a comedian trains his dog to do a Nazi salute, it is probably satirical. If a guy with Third Reich paraphernalia en mass and a picture of Hitler over his bed does it, it may not be that satirical. Again, I can only advise to educate people. Question why something is reported/said in the way it is.

 

Yes, Hitler's words may have been the trigger for the Kristallnacht, but his words didn't magically conjure up the hatred of Jews that were required to make it happen. There was already widespread anti-Semitism amongst the population for a variety of complex political and historical reasons. Maybe if Hitler hadn't said what he did, the Kristallnacht wouldn't have happened at that specific time, but censorship of Hitler wouldn't have magically solved the problem of anti-Semitism, and the attacks would probably have happened later anyway.

It is right that without any previous resentment the Kristallnacht would not have happened simply by one speech. But where did the resentment (at least in this magintude) come from? From anti-semitic propaganda. It is correct that cencorship may not have prevented any escalation (at that point), but only because the hatred was already stoked beforehand. Without any anti-semitic propaganda it would not have escalated in that magnitude. If the government would have preached tolerance instead, I believe that it even may have been possible to prevent something like that. But the problem is that it is so much easier to make a group of people that are not very popular anyway the bad guy and blame all your problems on them.

This brings me bach to the current problem of immigration: It is true that criminality increased due to immigrants. But the question one should keep in mind is: Why? Noone will risk their life and flee their home, because their dream future is being a petty thief in a rich European country. They flee their country because they fear for their life. Then they come here and sit in reception camps and wait. And wait. And wait. They have no chance to work due to not having a visum and live in the worst conditions possible. So they try to improve their life by stealing from richer people. The main problem for this situation is: there is no solution. We cannot allow anyone and everyone who comes here to simply live here. This is just not feasible. On the other hand, we cannot simply turn them away and let them die (at least no person with a small speck of ethics and humanity could). The best solution would be: stop the reason they have to flee. But, well, how would we do that? So, we try to treat the symptoms, because we cannot fight the cause.


  • Anderson likes this

#407 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1048 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 09:56 AM

And then billions of euros are paid to Turkey in the name of keeping migrants from Syria farther from Europe. And rule of law will only spiral downwards in Erdogans's Turkey.
A huge problem is the internal politics and mistakes done in civilized countries. Furthermore all that happens is repeating those mistakes in foreign policy.

Edited by Anderson, 28 March 2018 - 09:58 AM.

  • lowenz likes this

 "I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

 

 

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

 


#408 OrbWeaver

OrbWeaver

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7499 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 10:16 AM

Well, people being overly sensitive about specific subjects definitely leads to a "watering down" of the severitiy of the word. Your examples are (at least in part) difficult to judge. Expressing the opinion that homosexuality contradicts your religious beliefs is nothing I would count as hate speech. Still, it can easily lead to discrimination of homosexials. The bacon sandwitch, on the other hand, is obviously meant as an insult. It appears relatively harmless as noone got hurt, but it is still an unwarranted provocation. Calling for less immigration is extremely difficult and if I would count it as hate speech largely depends on the tone in which it was delivered. A rational argument why it is financially not possible to care for immigrants or that we need to increase efficiency in working through the bureaucracy before being able to accept more immigrants is completely different from arguing that we stop immigration, because all immigrants are criminals. Reporting the immigrative background of a rapist is no hate speech as long as it is a simple report. However, it can easily be used as an argument in a hate speech and (especially in a volatile situation) this may exactly be the intention of the author. Writing this I realise that hate speech is a LOT about context. Basically, each statement you make is inherently no hate speech. But if you use it to incite people and use it as a basis for discrimination it can quickly become one. If a comedian trains his dog to do a Nazi salute, it is probably satirical. If a guy with Third Reich paraphernalia en mass and a picture of Hitler over his bed does it, it may not be that satirical. Again, I can only advise to educate people. Question why something is reported/said in the way it is.


Surely you can see the problem here?

We started off with your narrow definition of "hate speech" which only referred to specific incitements to violence like "Go out and kill the Jews". But in the course of three posts we have already arrived at a definition which includes:

  • Speech which "might lead to discrimination".
  • Speech which constitutes an "unwarranted provocation".
  • A political opinion which is delivered in an inappropriate tone.
  • Accurate reporting of facts which, in the opinion of the authorities, may be intended to provoke hatred.

All of these are incredibly vague, subjective concepts which are up to the authorities and the courts to interpret, and could cover all sorts of political reporting and discussion which people want to censor for ideological reasons.
 
This is not a criticism of you personally or your argument; on the contrary, it demonstrates exactly how expansive and all-consuming the concept of "hate speech" actually is. It's like a sort of legal cancer that constantly finds new body parts to invade and destroy.
 
 

Noone will risk their life and flee their home, because their dream future is being a petty thief in a rich European country. They flee their country because they fear for their life. Then they come here and sit in reception camps and wait. And wait. And wait. They have no chance to work due to not having a visum and live in the worst conditions possible. So they try to improve their life by stealing from richer people.


That is true of some immigrants (actual refugees), but not all. Many of them are not actually fleeing for their lives, they are economic migrants — typically young healthy males who can afford to pay people-traffickers to smuggle them into Italy or Greece — who come to Europe because they think they will encounter better working or living conditions, social care etc. And the crime rates don't just reflect economic crimes like theft, but more serious things like sexual assault and rape which have nothing to do with money, but are not reported in many countries like Germany and Sweden because the authorities consider it "hate speech".

 

That is not to say (as the far-right do) that all immigrants are criminals or "rapefugees". Many of them are law-abiding citizens who want the chance at a better life in a richer first-world country, which is perfectly understandable. But it would be very foolish to treat all of them as innocent victims who will immediately conform to Western values and social standards (such as the idea that women should not be groped just because they don't cover their face and body in public) as soon as they're given a visa.



#409 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1531 posts

Posted 28 March 2018 - 11:02 AM

All of these are incredibly vague, subjective concepts which are up to the authorities and the courts to interpret, and could cover all sorts of political reporting and discussion which people want to censor for ideological reasons.

 
This is not a criticism of you personally or your argument; on the contrary, it demonstrates exactly how expansive and all-consuming the concept of "hate speech" actually is. It's like a sort of legal cancer that constantly finds new body parts to invade and destroy.

I completely see your point here. That's why I think it important to educate and sensitise people, so they are able to discern how a statement is meant. Populists and demagogues will always use freedom of speech to further their cause. Cencoring them would still further their cause, as they then problaim that they are being silenced by the state, because it is a painful truth. If you instead show people that they are talking bullshit, people will stop listening to them. One big problem here is that many people rather listen to their guts (i.e. their emotions) rather than reason. Thus, a good speech by a charismatic speaker that appeals to their emotions will have a greater effect on them as a reasonable (but less interesting) speech, that will not appeal to their feelings.

 

That is true of some immigrants (actual refugees), but not all. Many of them are not actually fleeing for their lives, they are economic migrants — typically young healthy males who can afford to pay people-traffickers to smuggle them into Italy or Greece — who come to Europe because they think they will encounter better working or living conditions, social care etc. And the crime rates don't just reflect economic crimes like theft, but more serious things like sexual assault and rape which have nothing to do with money, but are not reported in many countries like Germany and Sweden because the authorities consider it "hate speech".

 

That is not to say (as the far-right do) that all immigrants are criminals or "rapefugees". Many of them are law-abiding citizens who want the chance at a better life in a richer first-world country, which is perfectly understandable. But it would be very foolish to treat all of them as innocent victims who will immediately conform to Western values and social standards (such as the idea that women should not be groped just because they don't cover their face and body in public) as soon as they're given a visa.

You are right, I meant refugees, as immigrants not necessarily flee for their lifes. Regarding economic immigratns: I am not sure how high their ratio actually is. I discussed this topic with someone a couple of years ago and he had really good arguments as to why the raio is actually quite low. However, I cannot recreate any of the reasoning.

Again, I think, that many problems here can be solved with proper education. In part of people in western countries, so they know what to expect from other cultures (and maybe turn a blind eye to minor infractions that have a cultural background) and naturally in a large part of immigrants, so they know what is acceptable behaviour in the new country. I am aware that this is a process that can not be achieved in only a couple of days or weeks, but if both sides work together it should be possible. The problem then are people (on both sides) who are not willing to move their position even a bit.


  • RPGista likes this

#410 OrbWeaver

OrbWeaver

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7499 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 04:04 AM

I completely see your point here. That's why I think it important to educate and sensitise people, so they are able to discern how a statement is meant. Populists and demagogues will always use freedom of speech to further their cause. Cencoring them would still further their cause, as they then problaim that they are being silenced by the state, because it is a painful truth. If you instead show people that they are talking bullshit, people will stop listening to them.

 
Precisely. The solution for bad ideas is better ideas, never censorship. Hateful or prejudiced views should be exposed to the light of day, so that people can see how bad the arguments are, and how irrational or unjustified the prejudice is.
 
The problem we currently have is that the authorities don't understand this, or they have lost faith in both their own ability to promote better ideas, and the public's ability to respond to them. So instead they reach for the knee-jerk solution of censorship, which doesn't work, drives the prejudice underground where it can become more extreme, turns people into martyrs, and causes people who hate censorship to become sympathetic to the people being censored (even if they wouldn't otherwise have agreed with what they say).
 

Again, I think, that many problems here can be solved with proper education. In part of people in western countries, so they know what to expect from other cultures (and maybe turn a blind eye to minor infractions that have a cultural background) and naturally in a large part of immigrants, so they know what is acceptable behaviour in the new country. I am aware that this is a process that can not be achieved in only a couple of days or weeks, but if both sides work together it should be possible. The problem then are people (on both sides) who are not willing to move their position even a bit.

 

Agreed. We need to be firm in promoting western values, and make it clear that people are welcome to come here if they live according to our values. The genuine refugees should have no problem with this, but we need to be prepared for the fact that some (hopefully a small minority of) people despise western values, don't want to integrate, and will just set up ghettos or even terror cells, and it's these people we need to either turn away at the border or remove from the country if we identify them later.


  • Destined likes this

#411 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1048 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 08:12 AM

Please don't be offended but ghettos don't appear just because foreigners don't want to integrate.

The idea is that Europe as a whole was always more conservative (some states more than others of course). Proper urban management, well planned gentrification policies and in general a state built around liberalism, tolerance and education of anyone wiling to work and learn is what makes all the difference in the long run.

 

And besides all knowledge comes by drawing comparison. Complaints were made after the 90's when eastern europeans flooded the west. But when muslims came by the numbers lately, everyone forgot about the aforementioned eastern neighbors. Therefore it's a subjective impression, more out of xenophobia and rationalization of a phenomenon we struggle to understand than anything else.


Edited by Anderson, 29 March 2018 - 08:13 AM.

  • lowenz likes this

 "I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

 

 

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

 


#412 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1839 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 09:17 AM

Complaints were made after the 90's when eastern europeans flooded the west. But when muslims came by the numbers lately, everyone forgot about the aforementioned eastern neighbors. Therefore it's a subjective impression, more out of xenophobia and rationalization of a phenomenon we struggle to understand than anything else.

+1

 

Here in Italy it's really strange how the "people" forgot the massive migrant flow from Albania......selective forgetfulness.


Edited by lowenz, 29 March 2018 - 09:18 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#413 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1839 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 09:19 AM

And then billions of euros are paid to Turkey in the name of keeping migrants from Syria farther from Europe. And rule of law will only spiral downwards in Erdogans's Turkey.
A huge problem is the internal politics and mistakes done in civilized countries. Furthermore all that happens is repeating those mistakes in foreign policy.

+1000 :D

 

"Pay to forget and MAKE people forget".


Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#414 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1419 posts

Posted 29 March 2018 - 10:55 AM

One other thing is, that we often think the general population in our countries is so decent, enlightened, and full of good will, almost as if the cities and universities were the center of the world. Well, they are, but only for some of us, and we tend to forget that there is a world beyond those. Small towns and villages full of frustrated, uneducated, easily-manipulated people, who feel cheated by whatever current system is in place. And they vote out of impulse, spite, desperation. They are the world, the majority, not the folks with master degrees in capitals. That's why it's possible for USA to elect Trump, UK to do the Brexit, and Poles to witness the rise of neo-fashists, even though their country was one of the biggest victims of WWII. People don't learn, or forget history too easily, and younger generations repeat the mistakes of the old.


  • Anderson likes this

#415 OrbWeaver

OrbWeaver

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7499 posts

Posted 04 April 2018 - 11:19 AM

One other thing is, that we often think the general population in our countries is so decent, enlightened, and full of good will, almost as if the cities and universities were the center of the world. Well, they are, but only for some of us, and we tend to forget that there is a world beyond those. Small towns and villages full of frustrated, uneducated, easily-manipulated people, who feel cheated by whatever current system is in place. And they vote out of impulse, spite, desperation. They are the world, the majority, not the folks with master degrees in capitals. That's why it's possible for USA to elect Trump, UK to do the Brexit, and Poles to witness the rise of neo-fashists, even though their country was one of the biggest victims of WWII.

 

This attitude is precisely why Brexit and Trump happened in the first place.

 

As long as "we" put ourselves on pedestals, and make it clear that we are the educated Superior People with important degrees and qualifications, whose political views should take precedence over "them" — the uneducated, stupid Little People who don't know what's good for them — then we should expect those we despise to react accordingly.

 

Trump in particular, as well as Brexit to a lesser extent, was much a vote against something (the middle-class, liberal, condescending "experts" who think their education gives them an automatic right to determine the future direction of the country) than a vote for a particular candidate.

 

You'd think the resulting lesson would have been learned, but it seems that the response is just to shout "racist/bigot/xenophobe" even more loudly than before, in the hope that it will either change the outcome, or at least change the result of the next vote. I'm not sure it will work out well.


  • Judith and Anderson like this

#416 stumpy

stumpy

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1823 posts

Posted 04 April 2018 - 08:00 PM

Brexit happened because the EU is a dictatorship run by the EU commission, who are not voted in by any general population in Europe who have the vote to vote in their local country parliament. Same with Euro MP's the general public can't vote for them either.



#417 OrbWeaver

OrbWeaver

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7499 posts

Posted 05 April 2018 - 07:05 AM

 Same with Euro MP's the general public can't vote for them either.

 

I'm no fan of the EU, but that simply isn't true.

 

There are MEP elections every five years, the most recent of which was in 2014.


  • Anderson likes this

#418 Fidcal

Fidcal

    Master Mapper

  • Development Role
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16686 posts

Posted 15 May 2018 - 01:34 AM

Just reading the news this morning @

 

http://www.bbc.com/n...nology-44089161

and it got me thinking more on this.

 

The article makes clear the UK police delete innocent faces instantly and false positives after 30 days but not all countries will do that. Plus, it is certain that the technology will improve dramatically over coming decades as well as become cheaper. What's to stop unscrupulous corporations setting up cameras over this century will which will positively track absolutely everyone and match them up with on-line big data? Shops already have security cameras everywhere even pointing out into the street. A guy wearing a green shirt he bought at John Lewis 18 months ago now has a face to go with his other ID satnav mobile phone location etc. they can trade.

 

You might recall in Terminator (3 I think it was) where John Connor said he'd been living 'off the grid'. That would no longer be possible unless you go and live in a cave in the countryside somewhere (and even then the locals would notice.

 

Clearly the time is coming (and I don't see how it cannot) where the book '1984' surveillance will be dramatically surpassed beyond our wildest imagination. It looks inevitable.



#419 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1419 posts

Posted 15 May 2018 - 12:43 PM

If GDPR is to be even remotely successful, that won't be allowed, at least in Europe and to its citizens. If not, it's not really a difficult thought experiment, seeing a world with total surveillance. But that will actually be the moment when the data buble bursts. If nobody gives a shit about privacy anymore, it's stops being a valuable commodity. What would all companies of the world do, if they knew my home address, fill my mailbox with physical spam? :D And if cameras were to cover e.g. all the space we live in, homes and toilets included, someone would have to A) record all this shit somewhere, B) watch it and make decisions based on it. Unless we develop an AI to do that, there won't be enough people in the world to watch and analyse this stuff.



#420 Fidcal

Fidcal

    Master Mapper

  • Development Role
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16686 posts

Posted 15 May 2018 - 01:57 PM

It's inevitable that devices will get smarter; the only question is the time scale: centuries? decades? years? Search for the technological singularity if you've not already. It convinced me that machine learning is taking off big time. Currently, smart software is often dumbware, but in time it must evolve into incredibly fast intelligent processing which will reprocess itself faster and faster and go off the top of the graph. Whether it will ever become consciously aware, who knows? Personally, I think it may surpass human intelligence without being sentient, that is, consciously aware, but that's just my guess.



#421 Fidcal

Fidcal

    Master Mapper

  • Development Role
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16686 posts

Posted 15 May 2018 - 11:55 PM

Underlining my last post, this morning's news mentions Maven. There is so much surveillance data coming in from US spy satellites and drones it has become impossible to analyse it effectively by humans. Maven uses machine learning algorithms developed by Google to analyze full-motion video surveillance:

 

http://spacenews.com...rent-mentality/



#422 kano

kano

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 01:02 PM

https://www.kiro7.co...ntact/755507974

 

 

 

Woman says her Amazon device recorded private conversation, sent it out to random contact

 

(acknowledged by Amazon!)


Edited by kano, 24 May 2018 - 01:03 PM.


#423 Fidcal

Fidcal

    Master Mapper

  • Development Role
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16686 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 02:01 PM

Sickening in different ways. No mention of compensation (thought it's early days yets, I guess.) The couple joked about the devices listening to them. That's sad that they were so ill-informed to ever allow a big corporation like Amazon to invade their home that way. I bet there's some small print in a very lengthy agreement that Amazon can't be held responsible.

 

The idea of allowing surveillance by a secret system is crazy (I mean secret in that the users don't really understand what is going in.) The first thing I did when I bought my pc tablet was to stick black tape over the camera (I'd previously searched the net for a diagram of where it was located because I knew it would not be obvious. When I booted up I set every setting to OFF and then went into the device drivers and disabled them (no use deleting the drivers because M$oft would just restore them.) Same with microphone (couldn't think of any easy way of physically disabling that.) I don't use the keyboard (it's folded back) so M$oft can't record all my kepresses. (Maybe one day they'll record every touch on the screen!)

 

This is just the tip of a very big iceberg heading our way over the next decades.

 

Still, some good news is the new European General Data Protection Regulation coming into force soon. Hard to follow but I believe the main change is users have to manually opt-in instead of automatic opt-in so you have to opt out. In other words you're not opted into anything by default and either don't notice or have to find how to opt-out (currently you sometimes need to opt-in to a cookie which allows you to be opted-out!) I hope I've understood that right anyway. Plus users can demand info on data gathered about them.



#424 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1419 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 03:05 PM

Over the last few months I've translated several corporate GDPR courses and trainings, and a many "updated" privacy policies, and I can tell you one thing: European courts will have their hands full in the incoming months. There is a great resistance and reluctance among the biggest corporations to actually implement these changes. Most of the terms and policies that went through my hands were invalid from GDPR standpoint.

 

Most corporations, especially American, only pretended that they did something about it, while still trying to find leverage or loopholes in the legislation. They included terms like "we can use your personal data for goals similar to the original goal you gave us consent for" (no you can't, you have to ask for permission again) or "we have to collect information on your sexual preferences or political beliefs for our Equal Opportunities programme" (no you don't, these are especially sensitive data and anyone has right to refuse to disclose them). Some even still cite the Privacy Shield or Safe Harbor frameworks (we don't give a damn about those, if you want to process EU personal data, obey our laws, or GTFO).



#425 stumpy

stumpy

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1823 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 04:59 PM

I've used this GDPR to get rid of email newsletters from companies I never signed up for. eg they brought my email from some other company and therefore they have gone and re-asked for permission to carry on sending me crap I don't want, so I told them when they can stick their crap. Some companies haven't bothered though and they are not in any European country.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users