The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Ok, then I will now call you Ruprict. I am happy that you are at least willing to pay more serious attention to the issue at hand. In this case, age has nothing to do with it and I am speaking from personal experience. People's level of insecurity with the government, or with security, or monitoring, is more culturally defined, rather than defined by age. But even that isn't very cut and dried, really it appears to be an individual thing more than anything. And, believe me there's a whole segment of people your age that have "proof" that they are being monitored daily by the government. How else could all of the "outrage" over Ashcroft be manufactured? I can understand why you might think that people closer to your age(and I'm not so sure about the 10 years thing, I have been doing this work since I was 19) would accept monitoring, especially since they are now telling people where they are every minute of the day using social networking. 1. Like we care that you are at the (insert d-bag band here) concert. 2. I am sure that no small # of idiots will convict themselves by twittering their way into removing their own alibis for crimes, etc. However, none, 0 of this excuses the government grabbing my private emails and recording them. In fact, doing so here would violate existing law. For example, if you are my doctor and I was talking to you about a medical condition I had via email, and the government swiped that email, they would be in violation of their own HIPPA law, not because of the email, but because I didn't consent to release that medical information to them. Did you see/ignore the part of the article saying the content will not be archived, only the sender/receivers, just as is already logged for telephone calls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Did you see/ignore the part of the article saying the content will not be archived, only the sender/receivers, just as is already logged for telephone calls? Yeah, and if you believe that, I have this cool thing called the Skyway to sell you. They're taking it down soon and looking for a buyer. Honestly, what would be the point of simply establishing one email going from one account to another? It's not like it establishes where you are. Moreover, if I have the emails' headers(which could easily be spun as sender/receiver) I can very easily get the content of the message from any number of places that do not include your, or the other person'(s) computer. All this pretend restriction does is add one step that is easily taken by any number of people, legal or otherwise. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot, in my doctor example above: the fact that the government finds out that I am talking to you, my doctor, that, in and of itself, is a HIPPA violation, because I didn't release that I am your patient. This makes the least case: literally only the send and receive, still against the law. Same thing with lawyers, unless you are going to imminently commit a crime. Same thing for pharma online purchases confirmation emails, the list goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 All this pretend restriction does is add one step that is easily taken by any number of people, legal or otherwise. Isn't that the risk of progress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Isn't that the risk of progress? There's not much progress if nobody trusts the technology that you are introducing, again, I know that from personal experience. There's not much progress if the bad guys use another form of communication because they know full well that the one used to use is rigged all day. It's not "surveillance" if the bad guy knows he is being surveilled. So invading people's privacy ultimately gains you nothing if they know you are doing it. Worse, they could use it to send disinformation to waste time/money distract from their real target. There's not much progress if not only the bad guys, but the regular guys, your next door neighbor, etc., can take the same easy steps the government can to intercept email content based on headers. Like I said, your average 16 year old hacker can do this with ease. Hell it's really only a spyware thing = not even considered a virus = not even illegal. Ultimately, what risk is worth taking away a fundamental human right? I hate to invoke this, but if we let our privacy be fully taken away, then "the terrorists win". (hmmm not I have that icky, not-so-fresh, Micheal Moore feeling) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 Did you see/ignore the part of the article saying the content will not be archived, only the sender/receivers, just as is already logged for telephone calls? Uh...yeah, right. Cause if they see you sending an email to osama@overseascontingencyoperations.net they aren't going to want to see the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 There's not much progress if nobody trusts the technology that you are introducing, again, I know that from personal experience. There's not much progress if the bad guys use another form of communication because they know full well that the one used to use is rigged all day. It's not "surveillance" if the bad guy knows he is being surveilled. So invading people's privacy ultimately gains you nothing if they know you are doing it. Worse, they could use it to send disinformation to waste time/money distract from their real target. There's not much progress if not only the bad guys, but the regular guys, your next door neighbor, etc., can take the same easy steps the government can to intercept email content based on headers. Like I said, your average 16 year old hacker can do this with ease. Hell it's really only a spyware thing = not even considered a virus = not even illegal. Ultimately, what risk is worth taking away a fundamental human right? I hate to invoke this, but if we let our privacy be fully taken away, then "the terrorists win". (hmmm not I have that icky, not-so-fresh, Micheal Moore feeling) I understand your point(s), but I think it/they're lacking validity. Nobody trusts the technology? Therein lies the age divide that I originally brought up. For better or worse, tech savvy is universal among people my age (24) and younger. It's nearly universal in people 25-35, wide spread for people 35-55, limited among people 55-65, and virtually non-existent among people 65+. What personal experience do you have that would suggest otherwise? You make the point that it's an easy hoop to jump through, and by making the point that the fringe of non-tech savvy individuals is ever dissolving, I've all but rendered the hoop nonexistent. Okay, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that it IS a hoop. Something tells me not every person today in 2009 with nefarious connections/intentions will know enough to bypass the otherwise porous barriers this creates. We're getting into the hot issue of legislating digital communication, an un-explored frontier. I don't know what you do for a living, perhaps you have a insider's perspective into these types of proceedings, but I'm curious how you think law enforcement officials should/could/would stay ahead of the ever expanding curve, knowing that savvy users will be forever one step ahead of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I understand your point(s), but I think it/they're lacking validity. Nobody trusts the technology? Therein lies the age divide that I originally brought up. For better or worse, tech savvy is universal among people my age (24) and younger. It's nearly universal in people 25-35, wide spread for people 35-55, limited among people 55-65, and virtually non-existent among people 65+. What personal experience do you have that would suggest otherwise? You make the point that it's an easy hoop to jump through, and by making the point that the fringe of non-tech savvy individuals is ever dissolving, I've all but rendered the hoop nonexistent. Okay, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that it IS a hoop. Something tells me not every person today in 2009 with nefarious connections/intentions will know enough to bypass the otherwise porous barriers this creates. We're getting into the hot issue of legislating digital communication, an un-explored frontier. I don't know what you do for a living, perhaps you have a insider's perspective into these types of proceedings, but I'm curious how you think law enforcement officials should/could/would stay ahead of the ever expanding curve, knowing that savvy users will be forever one step ahead of the game. Sorry junior, but downloading Britany Spears to your iPhone and Twittering does not make you tech savvy. You really need to save all these posts you've written so you can read them when your "our" age. You'll definately laugh at yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry junior, but downloading Britany Spears to your iPhone and Twittering does not make you tech savvy. You really need to save all these posts you've written so you can read them when your "our" age. You'll definately laugh at yourself. Perfect. You just wrote my new sig line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry junior, but downloading Britany Spears to your iPhone and Twittering does not make you tech savvy. You really need to save all these posts you've written so you can read them when your "our" age. You'll definately laugh at yourself. <Bad Left/Tenent> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry junior, but downloading Britany Spears to your iPhone and Twittering does not make you tech savvy. You really need to save all these posts you've written so you can read them when your "our" age. You'll definately laugh at yourself. Dude, do you have any idea how freaking totally awesome he is at Super Smash Brothers Brawl on his Wii? When he told me I was like, "Duuude," and he was like, "Way, dude," and I was like, "OMG, WTF?" and he was like "Sweet." Totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry junior, but downloading Britany Spears to your iPhone and Twittering does not make you tech savvy. You really need to save all these posts you've written so you can read them when your "our" age. You'll definately laugh at yourself. I love how 9/10 times you tell me what I mean, often presumptively, and then proceed to make fun of the aspects of me that you made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 <Bad Left/Tenent> Ok on the your vs you're and the spelling of definitely, but the fact that I don't know how to spell Britany's is actually a feather in my cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry junior, but downloading Britany Spears to your iPhone and Twittering does not make you tech savvy. You really need to save all these posts you've written so you can read them when your "our" age. You'll definately laugh at yourself. Also, your asinine examples made my point for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I love how 9/10 times you tell me what I mean, often presumptively, and then proceed to make fun of the aspects of me that you made up. Really. Who the hell does he think he is? Keith Olberman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I love how 9/10 times you tell me what I mean, often presumptively, and then proceed to make fun of the aspects of me that you made up. Care to explain what you meant when you said that young people are more tech savvy than older people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Also, your asinine examples made my point for me. What, you know more about twittering and iTunes that I do? If that makes you tech savvy then you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Care to explain what you meant when you said that young people are more tech savvy than older people. Growing (mobile) phenomena like Twitter and flash meets indicate a function of and a relationship with technology that young people are more likely to embrace, and in most cases they're the ONLY ones embracing it. News organizations are falling all over themselves right now to include this type of communication and nobody under the age of 30 gives a SH-T about the death of newspapers because of their reliance on technology. That's a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 What, you know more about twittering and iTunes that I do? If that makes you tech savvy then you're right. Are you just trying to turn this into a semantics pissing contest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Growing (mobile) phenomena like Twitter and flash meets indicate a function of and a relationship with technology that young people are more likely to embrace, and in most cases they're the ONLY ones embracing it. News organizations are falling all over themselves right now to include this type of communication and nobody under the age of 30 gives a SH-T about the death of newspapers because of their reliance on technology. That's a start. Because we all know that Twitter and blogs are great and reliable places to get the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Are you just trying to turn this into a semantics pissing contest? Hey it's not my fault you don't know how to !@#$ing express yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts