General Category > Blog
Terrorism, web sites, games and privacy (anonymity)
ratty redemption [RIP]:
very interesting and agreed, we're usually dismissed it seems until something either directly affects the broadsheets or they can sell more issues with their breaking stories, he he.
kat:
You could not make this up - NSA and GCHQ spies 'operated in games including World of Warcraft and Second Life' [Telegraph]. It's things like this that are behind SOPA, ACTA and the PPP, all of which are attempts to clamp down on the Internet under the guise of (laughable) preventing stuff like this from happening.
kat:
A group of artists and authors have penned an open letter concerning 'privacy'. Sadly, the irony displayed, given the articles authors, is astounding - International bill of digital rights [The Guardian]. Appeals to the UN, and the individuals status within a 'democracy', no longer means what they used to (some would argue it's always been an illusion any way), and plays into the hands of power-brokers because an individuals rights are then determined by those said same institutions to which appeal is made. And for their edification.. we most certain DID give the state the authority it now has to surveil.. or have they not been paying attention to the news? We all, as a democratic society, collectively voted to be [sic]"kept safe". One could argue quite easily that is an example of democracy at its finest ::)
ratty redemption [RIP]:
i just read your previous post and he he, i love this quote:
--- Quote ---Intelligence operatives feared that games such as Second Life and World of Warcraft could be used to secretly communicate, move money or plot terrorist attacks, all under the radar of existing snooping ability. The security agencies were already able to intercept emails and phone calls, but many online games were considered possible safe havens for illegal activity.
--- End quote ---
kat:
GCHQ identified Kinect as possible snooping tool; Microsoft denies all knowledge [Develop].
Nothing to hide right?
If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason for anyone to be looking.
Based on the comments posted to accompany the linked article, people either 'get it', or they don't (very few comments sitting on the fence). Sadly, the issue is not about 'humans' watching 'humans', someone watching CCTV or the output from Kinect as in this instance. It's about 'machines' gathering 'data' - "data" being the catch-all redefinition of the effects attributed to an individuals actions. This redefinition and machine abstraction is why Government's can 'spy' and not appear to be breaking the well established Law, it's being done by 'objects' and 'entities' that have no individual agency or accountability.
What can be done with all this 'data'? It's a doorway into an individuals personalised routines that can be, at the very least, monetised, or perhaps used a means to enact individual prohibitions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version