Scary

[Garno]

May I just thank Garno for thanking me for posting. Very polite of you, especially as I normally write nonsense.

If anyone, regardless of what they write, take the time to answer any of my posts/threads then the very least I can do is thank them and click on like to show my appreation. It is nice that this trait of mine has been noticed

 

[sploo]

I've always felt that the threat to privacy etc. does not come from governments - at least it doesn't if you live in a western-style democracy - but rather from the big multinational IT-driven corporations. Governments are only a problem in so far as they haven't got a grip of the corps e.g. they should have introduced a complete ban on the trading of people's data.

In their defence; using Google/Facebook/Instatinderwotsit etc doesn't cost anything at the point of use, so those companies need to make money somehow - so personal data (and thus being able to target adverts) is the way they make an income.

Granted it sometimes goes way beyond what would be considered reasonable (and sometimes downright sinister) but someone needs to pay for the service. Case in point; you'll find this forum will show you targeted advertising (if you don't have an adblocker installed ).

 

[Trevanion]

For a random current example, the OPCW's investigation of chemical weapons in Syria has been shown to be completely compromised for political purposes, but you probably won't hear much about it on the BBC. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the- ... 32903f22a2

In other words, there were never any chemical weapons used in Syria, the American bombing Syria in retaliation for not using chemical weapons was illegal, and probably a war crime.

Need to be careful, because someone might be listening in...I'm out of tin foil!

How about that time they invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction", when really he didn't have much more than a spud gun.

Oil and gold my dear boy.

If anyone's interested I'm selling gold foil hats, much better at blocking mind-reading rays.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

For a random current example, the OPCW's investigation of chemical weapons in Syria has been shown to be completely compromised for political purposes, but you probably won't hear much about it on the BBC. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the- ... 32903f22a2

In other words, there were never any chemical weapons used in Syria, the American bombing Syria in retaliation for not using chemical weapons was illegal, and probably a war crime.

Need to be careful, because someone might be listening in...I'm out of tin foil!

How about that time they invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction", when really he didn't have much more than a spud gun.

Oil and gold my dear boy.

If anyone's interested I'm selling gold foil hats, much better at blocking mind-reading rays.

Don't forget Hillary's adventures in Lybia: "We came, we saw, he died, ahahahahahahahahah". The Lybian people are so much better off after that one.

The list is endless, and the media complicit in forgetting the inconvenient and promoting the lies. All this reminds me of another thread that used to be on this forum - I wonder what happened to that? Best we stick to woodwork, probably.

 

[Andy Kev.]

I've always felt that the threat to privacy etc. does not come from governments - at least it doesn't if you live in a western-style democracy - but rather from the big multinational IT-driven corporations. Governments are only a problem in so far as they haven't got a grip of the corps e.g. they should have introduced a complete ban on the trading of people's data.

In their defence; using Google/Facebook/Instatinderwotsit etc doesn't cost anything at the point of use, so those companies need to make money somehow - so personal data (and thus being able to target adverts) is the way they make an income.

Granted it sometimes goes way beyond what would be considered reasonable (and sometimes downright sinister) but someone needs to pay for the service. Case in point; you'll find this forum will show you targeted advertising (if you don't have an adblocker installed ).

I have, in principle, nothing against any of that. You have put your finger right on the point where the problems start: "... sometimes it goes way beyond what would be considered reasonable …"

It seems to me that in most human affairs the key question is where you draw the line. The problem is that with the digital world or indeed with wider business practice in general, you have to legislate because of a widespread will to be dishonest. Website pages are constructed so that it is almost impossible to find the "no thanks" option. For instance, I often get asked on my gmail account to provide my phone number so that they can "enhance the security of my account" or some such nonsense. Yeah, right, pull the other one. I almost instantly found out how to work round it but what is IMO morally wrong is the absence of a "No, get lost!" button.

IMO the answer lies in consumer protection. Governments should put out generic examples of web pages which may be used by firms at the point where they demand money, information etc. And of course they should be plain and clear in their meaning. Any firm deviating from this gets fined, say, ten grand per customer. That might do the trick.

 

[sploo]

For instance, I often get asked on my gmail account to provide my phone number so that they can "enhance the security of my account" or some such nonsense. Yeah, right, pull the other one.

True, but having your phone number does allow for two-factor authentication (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-f ... entication), which has genuine benefit.

When logging into my google account on a new/unknown device I have to enter a code that's sent as a txt message to my phone; meaning it's that bit harder for an attacker to gain access (as they'd need both my login details and my phone).

 

[thetyreman]

well this got quite political didn't it.

 

[sploo]

well this got quite political didn't it.

I did avoid pointing out that "consumer protection" is ironically something the EU is good at :mrgreen: (Andy not being a fan of aforementioned organisation)

 

[Suffolkboy]

I worked in Sainsbury's while I was in my first year of college and I remember asking a customer if he had a Nectar card. "Don't be daft. It's a con. I don't want them k owing what I buy."

From memory he'd bought bog roll, a loaf of bread and a cabbage. I can see how that would be worth keeping secret.

 

[sploo]

I worked in Sainsbury's while I was in my first year of college and I remember asking a customer if he had a Nectar card. "Don't be daft. It's a con. I don't want them k owing what I buy."

From memory he'd bought bog roll, a loaf of bread and a cabbage. I can see how that would be worth keeping secret.

If all he was eating was a loaf of bread and a cabbage he'd bl**dy well be needing that bog roll.

 

[Garno]

Anyone remember the cabbage patch doll craze ....... oh how we lived in the olden days

 

[sploo]

Anyone remember the cabbage patch doll craze ....... oh how we lived in the olden days

You've just dated yourself... to probably my age