×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you a
Computer / IT professional?
Join Tek-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Tek-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off
8

1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Well of course the "might",

Just like they "might":
  • be reading all your email,
  • listening to "every" phone call,
  • checking every website you visit,
  • tracking your every movement on CCTV,
  • looking at everything you buy when shopping (ooh no, that's just the supermarket and you willing let them do that)
Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

(OP)
It still amazes me how people plaster details of their lives on Facebook and other social media. Not only do they put pictures of every detail of their lives up, but they also tag and annotate who's in the so the NSA (etc) don't have to bother with the relationship cross references.


RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

But if you have nothing to hide ... ... Why bother hiding anything??

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Ah, that tired old argument ...

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

<star> for strongm
@ChrisHirst - it's the principle, not whether it applies to you.

Example: Hitler persecutes the Jews. I don't care, I'm not Jewish. Hitler next persecutes the Christians. Woah. You can't do that! That group includes ME.

==================================
adaptive uber info galaxies (bigger, better, faster, and more adept than cognitive innovative agile big data clouds)


RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

No matter how old it is, it still remains true.


And the simple fact is you have a choice of living in the 'modern' world with "information technology" and the necessary transparency that it brings and/or requires, or go back a century or so and do without it, which means:

no cheques/checks
No credit cards
No store cards
No loyalty cards
No debit cards
No mobile/cell phones
No email
No text messaging
No instant messaging

Good news for the post office of course, but are you willing to wait ten or fourteen days for something you order today to arrive, because you have to go to your bank, transfer the funds, wait for it to be processed by hand etc. etc.

I hear this fatuous idea about "nothing is private" and "Big Brother" really is watching everyone, the answer is very simple:

If you don't want anyone to know about yourself then don't tell them and what ANYONE ELSE puts on facebook or whatever is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANYONE ELSE whether you agree with it or not.

When I was a kid the general rule was, don't tell your mates anything you don't want your mother to know about.

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

(OP)

Quote (ChrisHirst)

...necessary transparency...

I think this is a completely false assumption. Why does the government need a transparent look at every day to day activity in our lives, just so we can participate in a technology enhanced society? That's an absurd assumption. It's a false premise. Any logical argument based on that concept is trash.

Yes, you have to give personal information to banking institutions and such to participate in the services they offer, but that does NOT mean the government should get copied on the details (metadata or content) of every transaction. The fact that I like the convenience of carrying a small phone with me everywhere I go does NOT mean I have granted the government the right to track my every movement and record all of my associations (that's all "just" metadata). Yes, I may have given them the means to do that, but that shouldn't mean they have the authority to do that.

The fact that people just accept the fact that any and all information about them is pretty much "up for grabs" just dumbfounds me (gobsmacks for those across the pond).

This is why the links I provided above so disgust me. I keep reading article after article about the horrible security being provided by IoT enabled devices. I just imagine dark rooms in the NSA and CIA and other TLAs with people high-fiving each other about all the new pathways into people's lives that will be opening up. The articles linked pretty much prove it.

RIP 4th Ammendment! (Another one bites the dust)

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

It's not like this kind of lifestyle spying hasn't been going on before. But before, you needed a warrant or court order. The "new face" is that they can take a peek at your life whenever they feel like it, for whatever reason.

15 years ago, when they busted some farmers in my county for marijuana growing, they had to get a court order for the electric company to provide the investigating bodies (police plus DEA) with electric usage. Yeah, they were using those high power grow bulbs back then. Then, with probably cause, they could get the courts to issue a search warrant for the property. (note: I'm not sure where their *probably cause* existed to get the electric records, but let's assume that was done legally).

Yup, agree with SamBones. I we don't take action now, the 4th Amendment will be gone.

From the language differences, I'm guessing ChrisHirst is not American, so I can somewhat sympathize with his situation. He hasn't truly known the 4th Amendment as a citizen's right.

==================================
adaptive uber info galaxies (bigger, better, faster, and more adept than cognitive innovative agile big data clouds)


RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Quote:

I'm not sure where their *probably cause* existed to get the electric records, but let's assume that was done legally).

They don't, the supply companies systems will flag anything unusually high simply because of the need to manage the distribution

Quote:

He hasn't truly known the 4th Amendment as a citizen's right.

Oh please ... It was written FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO in a time when most of the population thought the planet was about 6,000 years old and the bible was the absolute word of a god. Mind that last bit still seems to be true

This is one thing that ALWAYS makes me laugh, Americans claim they want the Government to protect it's citizens from every possible threat from anywhere and any body, whilst simultaneously wanting the Government to know nothing at all about any one.
You CANNOT have it both ways.

Same with the "2nd amendment" You cannot give every Tom, Dick and Harry "The right to bear arms" and then be shocked when another nut case with a gun he is allowed to carry about, decides to have a 'shoot-out' in a school or a shopping mall.

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

>It was written FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO

No, it wasn't.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

(OP)

Quote (ChrisHirst)

This is one thing that ALWAYS makes me laugh, Americans claim they want...

You've generalized over 322 million people and assume they all want the same thing. Do I have to point out the fallacy of this premise?

You're comments on the 4th and 2nd amendments tells me that you don't understand what the US is all about. The whole purpose behind the declaration of independence and bill of rights, the two documents that define The United States, is to give more power to the people, and limit the power of government. When those documents are respected and followed, the US is the land of opportunity it has a worldwide reputation for. That's the source of our "freedom" and "opportunity". The problem is that the government has grown, and has stopped following "the rules". This leads to abuses all over the map, not just to US citizens, but to other countries.

Yeah, that has no bearing on some nutcase taking a gun and shooting up a school, but a massive big brother watching every citizen wouldn't stop that. You might think that making guns illegal and confiscating them would stop gun violence. You're right, since you may have noticed how making drugs illegal has completely eliminated illegal drug use in the US [/sarcasm]. If you look at the FBI stats, the majority of gun deaths in the US are gang related. Gangs are built and fed by the money they make on illegal drug sales (among other things). It seems that stopping "The War on Drugs" would save a lot of black lives. Obama may speak up and mourn a Treyvon Martin, but he is silent on the fact that his own home town of Chicago can have 20 children killed in one day. To Obama, black lives don't matter, political lives matter.

I'm just frustrated that we seem to be heading down a very dark hole. I feel like we're already way down that hole, but very few other people seem to notice. I'm afraid everyone else won't see it till we're way too deep in a bad situation.

And people who don't care are part of the problem, not the solution.

Quote (Something I saw in someone's sig)

It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state.

Quote (Heard somewhere on the Interwebs)

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you!

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Quote:

You're comments on the 4th and 2nd amendments tells me that you don't understand what the US is all about.

Actually I DO understand, maybe a little too well, .... .... as I can see the US from an outside viewpoint.

I understand that anything where the 'rules' do not change for hundreds of years IS by it's very nature, fundamentalism and as such has little or no scope for future changes and it is in fact doomed to stagnate, because the people who treat those rules and declarations as unerring absolutes to be followed forever are, or will become, intransigent and insular, this is the 'dark hole' that you think the US is 'falling' in to, while in reality it is busy digging it for itself.

Quote:

You might think that making guns illegal and confiscating them would stop gun violence.
Nope I know that it will not have any such effect, and I would sincerely hope that America, as a nation, should have learned that lesson during the period from January 16th 1920 until October 5th 1933.

There is only one thing that will stop 'gun violence' and most other 'crimes of violence' and that is the equal distribution of resources, when no one "wants" or actually needs anything, so there is no need to forcibly take it from someone else, and that includes political and financial 'power'.

The so-called "War on Drugs" is not a war against the use, abuse and supply of certain substances that have been deemed 'illegal', it is a war of control, the so-called 'drug problem' could be wiped out overnight by governments taking over the supply and making it available 'on demand' or for a nominal cost, then the people who want to kill themselves with habit forming chemicals can do so, and just like the things that actually KILL FAR MORE PEOPLE than 'illegal' drugs do ie. tobacco and alcohol, they can also pay taxes for the privilege.

The result is that the illegal trade dries up in a very short time, no need to fight useless and pointless wars in countries that most Americans couldn't find on a world map never mind pronounce the name of, which would save lives and money for EVERY country involved AND allow more time, money and people to improve the social infrastructure in every "deprived" area.


And on the "second amendment" I would think that wagering that the majority of the people clamouring to keep that 'right' have no idea in the slightest as to why it was introduced in the first place would be a pretty safe bet.

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

>I understand that anything where the 'rules' do not change for hundreds of years

1) But the 'rules' do change - that's exactly what the Amendments are

2) And it seems like an ill-thought through objection in any case. Presumably it means you are also against our own (UK) Habeas Corpus Act, which is about 100 years older than the 4th Amendment (or, if we take it back to article 39 of Magna Carta from which it prettu much directly derives, then about 560 years older ...). Then there's the Terason act of 1351, still in force (Yes, both are amended from the original; see point 1)

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Like the book, hope lies with the Proles.

We are the dead.
NSA answers from behind the telescreen, 'You are the dead."

There's one with a hump. And one with a lump.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Quote:

But the 'rules' do change - that's exactly what the Amendments are

But the "amendments" haven't changed since the day they were added (c1789 in the case of the 'first' amendment), in the case of the Magna Carta, it is the principle of those 'statutes' that applies to this day NOT the literal application of the words. If it was all taken literally, Jews specifically, would not be allowed to profit from the lending of money.


Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Quote (ChrisHirst)

it is the principle of those 'statutes' that applies to this day NOT the literal application of the words.

This is exactly the opposite of the stance of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who advocated "originalism".

Scalia said, "But originalism does not invite him to make the law what he thinks it should be, nor does it permit him to distort history with impunity.”

==================================
adaptive uber info galaxies (bigger, better, faster, and more adept than cognitive innovative agile big data clouds)


RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek going back to Magna Carta.

>But the "amendments" haven't changed since the day they were added

Their interpretation - since the Consitition and Amendments are in reality a set of principles - has changed. For example, since you mention the 1st Amendment, it originally only applied to Congressional laws. It was extended to states through the the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, not unsurprisingly later amendments can affect earlier amendments without changing the wording of the original amendment. ANd a number of exceptions have been continually introduced in both the 20th and 21st Century.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

(OP)

Quote (Justice Scalia)

A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.

Quote (Justice Scalia)

We need to put people on the bench that understand that the Constitution is not a living and breathing document. It is to be interpreted as originally meant.

And I agree completely.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

Like the bible? Or the Koran? That's absurd. Glad the constitution, bible or koran is not interpereted literally in my neck of the woods. Might be something i'd have to get off the couch and go kick some ass about.

Here's a video of the US amendments process.
Amendment to be.

How's your car?

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

(OP)
What an absurd comparison.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplus: age, excrescence, adornment, luxury or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and no doubt will keep on trying.

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of “loyalty” and “duty.” Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute--get out of there fast. You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed.

Robert Heinlein. (an American)

Now experiencing escalation fatigue.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

The Constitution was built with a legitimate means to change it. They are called Amendments. Courts exist to determine what the Constitution means if there is no specific law or regulation for a particular matter. But lawmakers, who are supposed to represent their constituents, have the ability to change the law and even the Constitution by Amendment (subject to ratification by the states).

Quote (holdmusic34)

Like the bible? Or the Koran? That's absurd.
The Bible and Koran do not have Amendment capabilities. In fact, interpretation of the Koran can lead to fatwa (aka Salmon Rushdie).

"There is no room for play in Islam... It is deadly serious about everything."
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Ironically, the Catholic Church, which formerly used excommunication as a punishment for faulty or mis-interpretation of the Bible, now concedes compromise on modern interpretations of The Bible.

But there are no Amendments. smile

==================================
adaptive uber info galaxies (bigger, better, faster, and more adept than cognitive innovative agile big data clouds)


RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

(OP)
holdmusic34, I believe you're actually quoting the fictional character Lazarus Long in the book Time Enough For Love (1973) by Heinlein. Yes, Heinlein wrote those words, but they are the "thoughts" of a fictional character in the context of a fictional book. Due to that fact, attributing them directly to Heinlein is a little suspect.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

He hid his agendas under fiction. He realised no one was interested in reading a diatribe.

Now experiencing escalation fatigue.

RE: 1984 Was Only 32 Or So Years Off

2
So, you accept Heinein was simply forwarding his own agenda. In which case the quote loses quite a lot of it's appeal; it is simply an opinion. You are making the classic mistake of appealing to higher authority. Heinlen, just because he is a writer, has no more expertise here than any of the rest of us.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Tek-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Tek-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Tek-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Tek-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Tek-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical computer professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Tek-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close