AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Reyo wrote:What sort of stuff, though? That I have a messy room? That my friend smokes plants? That my roommate is having issues with his relationship? What could advertisers use that for? If my roommate suddenly gets twice as many junk emails for relationship therapy, he'll probably just have twice as many junk emails to not look at in his junk mail box. If I start getting more ads for a maid service in my mailbox, I'll just end up having more peices of colored paper to throw away along with the other stuff they already send me.

While I see where the issue of privacy is coming from, I can't help but notice that the basis for the argument is simply the slight intrusion on communaction privacy, and not actually a worry for a needed revolution.

That seemingly useless info is still worth millions to companies so they seem to get some use out of it.
When you talk about slight intrusion on privacy, don't forget there's a reason why the government is not allowed to just go and open and read every physical letter that gets sent (ignoring the impracticality of that). That includes letters to your grandma but also letters that only one person and one person only should be allowed to see.

I understand where that's coming from. I come from the medical field, so the whole "doctor/patient confidentiality" thing resonates with me on a personal level. But then again, if the technology is used the way it's supposed to be used, there should be low risk of truly dangerous personal information being leaked. Facebook should obviously be of no concern since you have complete control over it. Phone calls are trickier, but not impossible since you should be recieving any detrimental information in person anyway. I know these are ideals, but the possible negatives don't render it impossible to implement safely.

Except since when has any technology of this nature been used as it was meant to be used?

Here's a great example: drone planes. The kind that fly overhead and take pictures of stuff on the ground. Used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lancaster, CA.

Yep, that technology intended for surveillance of terrorist movements is going to be an eye in the sky for the entirety of the Antelope Valley's private moments. Fuck warrants, who needs 'em right?

They said the same thing about nuclear energy...hell...they still say that about nuclear energy. The same with internet networking, and, for some reason, wind turbines (less the whole "weaponizing" bit more "What if it shows up in my back yard.") It's good to note the bad things technology can do, but bad to use them as an excuse to never implement them.

Reyo wrote:They said the same thing about nuclear energy...hell...they still say that about nuclear energy. The same with internet networking, and, for some reason, wind turbines (less the whole "weaponizing" bit more "What if it shows up in my back yard.") It's good to note the bad things technology can do, but bad to use them as an excuse to never implement them.

Funny you should mention wind turbines, or green energy in general. Because that technology is indirectly causing people to die where I live. Solar panels in particular. To place the panels down, a large area has to not only be cleared but tilled and stripped of all plant life so it won't grow back. However, we also have wind turbines, because we have a lot of wind. So we've got large swaths of loose dirt being made for solar panels, which then gets blown into the air, which causes something called valley fever, a condition from the microbes in the dirt.

Would you say that the benefits of the technology outweigh the fact that it's indirectly killing people?

That's a textbook answer and honestly any time the greater good is invoked it's either hypocritical or a cop-out. Because the greater good can be applied to anything that would benefit people in the long run while sacrificing others, including eugenics, which is almost universally-despised. But for some reason the greater good doesn't apply in that instance.

It's a simple question. Do the benefits of technology outweigh the fact that by installing it people in the area are guaranteed to die, develop breathing problems, or similar issues?

Just by its existence it will ruin many lives and benefit many others. Why does the greater good apply here but not elsewhere, like fracking for instance?

Nuclear power is a severely misunderstood form of energy production. If you ask someone why they are against it they will mention three things: Chernobyl, Long Island and Fukushima. Fun fact, despite several studies, the Long Island event has not been proven to have created any severe health effects. Fukushima has resulted in zero deaths and just a few other adverse effects. Even the uninhabitable zone around the reactors will be shrunk down soon because the radiation levels are within acceptable values. Link to the Fukushima article.

And these events are old reactor designs. Fukushima was nearly obsolete when it happened. Newer technology in the same area, even closer to the epicenter of the earthquake shut down without any incident. And this isn't even touching LFTR designs. If we can actually get thorium reactors operational, meltdowns will be a thing of the past. There is even less waste from it and there is no known way to make weapons from it. There are several other benefits to this as well. Kirk Sorenson on the subject

Back on topic about the surveillance, why does it care that someone knows you smoke cannabis? Well, an insurance company could deny you any aid because "there is a high probability that smoking will cause an accident". However bullshit that may be, they can use it as an excuse. Or maybe the government sees you have opinions that they don't like and you are getting into politics. Let's just put you in prison because of that copyright infringement you didn't even know you committed.

Hell, you anonymously tipped a newspaper about some bad things and you get charged for breaking contract. How did they know? You were the only one from the company/bureau that contacted the newspaper. That is going to make people want to tell on their government when they do something bad...

Need more reasons to not like PRISM? You get a link to a picture on imgur and without you knowing it is childporn. You just broke a very severe law. "But it wasn't your intention?" Sorry. That's not how the law is worded. You downloaded an image to your computer of a minor engaged in a sexual act. You are now on the sex offenders list. Absurd? Yes. This will probably not be the first things that happen, but it sure as hell will at some point.

Here is an example case from the EFF article I linked earlier.

They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.

Your insurance just went up. You are a high risk investment to the insurance company.

And then Reyo Inadvertantly causes another discussion to sprout

anyway

Madican wrote:

Reyo wrote:They said the same thing about nuclear energy...hell...they still say that about nuclear energy. The same with internet networking, and, for some reason, wind turbines (less the whole "weaponizing" bit more "What if it shows up in my back yard.") It's good to note the bad things technology can do, but bad to use them as an excuse to never implement them.

Funny you should mention wind turbines, or green energy in general. Because that technology is indirectly causing people to die where I live. Solar panels in particular. To place the panels down, a large area has to not only be cleared but tilled and stripped of all plant life so it won't grow back. However, we also have wind turbines, because we have a lot of wind. So we've got large swaths of loose dirt being made for solar panels, which then gets blown into the air, which causes something called valley fever, a condition from the microbes in the dirt.

Would you say that the benefits of the technology outweigh the fact that it's indirectly killing people?

I'd say that's more a flaw in the design of the project than a flaw in the technology itself, a design flaw that could easily be fixed with "Don't point the wind turbines at the tilled dirt for the solar panels." That's a combination of things going wrong that couldn't have been predicted (well, to be honest, it probably could've been predicted with a little reconnaissance and some forethought, but hindsight is always 20/20). I mean the same thing could be said about sticking a nuclear reactor next to a fault line. Next thing we know, the reactor has a catastrophic meltdown during the next earthquake, but the issue isn't "nuclear energy is bad!" it's "How stupid was it to build this thing next to a faultline?"

To put it in more archaic terms, it's like moving next to a nightclub and then shouting "nightclubs are bad." Nightclubs aren't bad, it's just bad to move next to one if you're a stickler for peace and quiet.

Brekkjern wrote:

They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.

Your insurance just went up. You are a high risk investment to the insurance company.

Probably splitting hairs, but I'd hope the insurance company would be smarter than that since they'd know they wouldn't cover a suicide anyway. It'd be more pertinent if they found out you were participating in midnight races, which are highly illegal and dangerous anyway.

You keep basing your thoughts on hopes that companies aren't scumbags. Insurance providers up your rate or drop you completely if you present a risk. They're not in the business to make sure you've got cheddar when something goes wrong, they're in the business to make cheddar off you when you're healthy and deny deny deny when you call on them to honor their side of the contract.

Also, I mentioned wind turbines because we have a lot of wind. It's not the turbines causing the dust clouds, those things don't do anything on their own except chop birds in half, it's the wind that this valley, this desert, has been known to have ever since people first settled here. Valley fever was still a thing then, but it was just a few cases since people kept the dust down.

These solar panels are the biggest solar project in the entire United States. Acres upon acres of loose dirt is being sent into the air and cases of valley fever have grown 70% in the last decade with a sharp spike in the recent years because of it. Your example of a nightclub isn't relevant unless it was more like the nightclub settled in next door to a neighborhood and began disrupting normal life.

On the subject of nuclear reactors, Brekkjern's got it right. With new technology a reactor can withstand a full on quake without issues. This is California, we build everything to withstand a quake. The biggest danger here isn't the buildings collapsing but them sinking into the dirt. However, the last big quake we had was 1994, two decades ago. We are not "due" for another one either, they're not clockwork and fault lines don't mean the most damage. I mean there's a freeway in this city that runs between a faultline and it didn't suffer anything in '94.

I don't mean bodaciously, I used it as a metaphor. You don't blame the new technology on something that's been around forever, and was the result of predictable cause and effect. You don't blame the new solar energy project on what the wind kicks up. If the solar evergy project is what kicked up what the wind is blowing, then you alter the plan, you don't jettison the plan altogether. That's what I'm saying. You monitor it to make sure it runs with the best possible efficiency. If it's killing people, you make it where it no longer kills people. My Dad would always have a morbid saying for this. Basically, if you have a dog that keeps peeing on the carpet, you have one of two choices. You either train it not to pee on the carpet...or you shoot it in the head with your 9mm. Either choice produces the same desired outcome, but ones just a little more insane than the other.

As for having faith in companies, I keep faith in everyone. I do it because if I give in to the thought process that everyone's a dick who's out to get me, I'll have no reason not to join in on the dickery myself, and I owe it to the ones who don't to not assume everyone's a complete asshole. Of course, I won't blindly believe everyone who says they're not a dick, companies included, but I'm not going to make the assumption and give them reason to live up to my mental image of them.

Reyo wrote:

Kubein wrote:

They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.

Your insurance just went up. You are a high risk investment to the insurance company.

Probably splitting hairs, but I'd hope the insurance company would be smarter than that since they'd know they wouldn't cover a suicide anyway. It'd be more pertinent if they found out you were participating in midnight races, which are highly illegal and dangerous anyway.

The point is that this kind of information is valuable to companies and they will use it to screw you over if they can get hold of it. Corporations exist to get as much cheddar as possible and they don't do that by being charities. If they can use big data to figure out if you are a high or low risk investment, they will. It's a basic fact of business. If something is going to cost you cheddar, you don't do it unless you will see a significant return on that investment. The ideal setting for an insurance company is to never have to pay any of its customers. They will find any way to make that happen if they can.

You start googling a lot about cancer. You are having frequent visits to the doctor. Maybe I shouldn't insure you because from the looks of it, you got cancer and cancer is expensive...

Then it sounds like we need to reform the way insurance companies do business, which is another discussion in it of itself. I'm not particularly fond of the issue between getting insurance to cover yourself, and then getting fucked when you actually need it, but again that's an issue with the insurance company, not the technology that'd be used to monitor for terrorist activites.

Besides, usually insurance companies mhave to prove why you're a high risk. If they don't, then they run the risk of legal action (at least I'd hope. I'm not a legal expert.) If you walk in and they say they won't cover you, they need to explain why to make sure they're not coming to a false assumption. Like what if I'm researching cancer because I'm a biology student studying the effects of leukemia on your system. If suddenly my insurance company drops me, and they don't tell me it's because they bought my google search results from the government, then they dropped a perfectly healthy client under their own paranoia and greed. Hell, what if I did it on a friends computer because mine was down for some reason. His insurance company does the same exact thing where NEITHER of us are sick.

Point is I'm hoping the insurance companies would be smart enough to be a bit more collaborative, and if not, we need to change them, not the technology to monitor communications.

Madican wrote:That's a textbook answer and honestly any time the greater good is invoked it's either hypocritical or a cop-out. Because the greater good can be applied to anything that would benefit people in the long run while sacrificing others, including eugenics, which is almost universally-despised. But for some reason the greater good doesn't apply in that instance.

It's a simple question. Do the benefits of technology outweigh the fact that by installing it people in the area are guaranteed to die, develop breathing problems, or similar issues?

Just by its existence it will ruin many lives and benefit many others. Why does the greater good apply here but not elsewhere, like fracking for instance?

The issue is that there is never a perfect solution when it comes to these things. There's always drawbacks and sacrifices that have to be made.

It's not necessarily right or the best "morally", but solar and wind power does not negatively impact the entire globe. Yes, it affects plants, birds, and even local communities, but it does not also affect everything else on the planet.

And that's where the greater good comes into play.

Whose greater good though? The company putting up the solar panels is getting electricity to sell while the community its next to is being affected negatively. We're not getting any benefit to this, we're still going to have to pay for the electricity at the same rate, which gets higher every year.

Greater good is an answer, but I oppose anything that has the greater good lining the pockets of companies while causing others to suffer, even if it is in the best interests of the world. A community may be insignificant in the long run, but that's the danger of the greater good argument; to forget that these are people who don't deserve to be shat on by an amoral corporation.

Again, just like fracking. Lined the pockets of the company, poisoned the groundwater for years to come. Do you really think these dust storms won't have an effect on the natural life of the valley? Like animals?

When compared to oil, coal, and gas, not really. Solar panels and wind turbines don't give you cancer.

Why do you act like the community sees none of that energy? I know of farmers who have wind turbines on their property and people who have solar panels on their roof. I don't see anyone with a oil well in their backyard.