Off Topic: The End of Internet Anonymity
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl…
Google CEO Eric Schmidt predicts an end to privacy on the internet.
"The only way to manage [misuse for criminal and rebellious purposes] is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."
Google CEO Eric Schmidt predicts an end to privacy on the internet.
"The only way to manage [misuse for criminal and rebellious purposes] is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
9 comments
However, since peopleare only interested in watching the NFL and America's Next Top Model, and flat out not giving a shit about anything else, nothing will get done. As a cop, I don't know how many times I've heard "Can't you do something ?" No, I can't do anything until the public actually gets serious about crime and punishment. Do you want to deter thieves ? Make them suffer, and really suffer. Want to keep a hacker from fucking with your identity ? Punish him to be in chains, outside in the weather, for the next twenty years, doing the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing now.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
What this means, is that unless you are committing a crime, or about to commit a crime, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Suppose you like to surf the net for porn involving very petite women, does this make you a rapist ? Should the fact that you surfed the net for petite women be the basis of a prosecution against you ? And yet, one guy was arrested and prosecuted because he had a DVD of porn actress Lupe Fuentes. Does Lupe look very young ? Yep, but it should have been embarassing for prosecution that they disregarded the age of consent disclaimer on the DVD-because Lupe herself showed up to testify for the defendant. Was his name dragged through the mud ? You bet. Was his right to privacy guarded ? NOPE.
This is a strip club website. If a stripper and/or her accomplice falsely accuse you of rape, your membership here could be used against you. If you get popped during an OTC jaunt, because a vice cop knows your date is a frequent provider, again, your membership here would be included in your prosecution.
Think about it.
And a lot of 'privacy' proponents want to have you take all sorts of steps to remove cookies, history, temporary files, and whatever from your computer. The problem is that if you are accused of anything all that removal makes you look like you are tying to hide something. Their lack can look worse than the reality. Yes your computer can be your accuser but it can also be your alibi. So unless you are doing something defintily illegal then I usually recommend that people not behave like they are by feeling that they have to do all sort of cleaning.