Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 8 May 2015.
Because I've seen and heard so much similar bleating on the internet over the years. It's a disease. Almost always from relatively privileged people, funnily enough (again I refer you to CCTV. I'm old enough to remember when THAT was being touted as the "end of civil liberties". It seems laughable now). It gets tiresome and I try to limit my exposure as much as possible.
I'm going to listen to Holiday In Cambodia later. Seems very appropriate.
Ah yes, of course.
Yadda, I'm genuinely curious - do you have a cut off point where you would consider something to be too intrusive or are you happy to accept any level of surveillance for what you consider a safe and secure life?
That doesn't make them any less valid though does it.
Funnily enough quite the opposite is true, state surveillance is always carried out by those privileged people that are in power, they use it as way of retaining that power, of preventing dissidence, a way to asses the public's reactions to how they use their powers, all things that Glenn Greenwald covers in the video you refuse to watch.
Of course Yadda does otherwise he/she wouldn't have curtains or blinds on the windows, he/she wouldn't have passwords on email accounts. As Yadda would have learned if he/she bothered to watch the video VipersGratitude posted, while he/she says he/she believes privacy doesn't matter his/her actions speak otherwise.
I wouldn't be too keen on compulsory surveillance inside my home, or the full capture of my comm's, i.e. "tapping" rather than just capturing metadata. I would consider both those things unnecessarily intrusive and would take some convincing to think otherwise.
I'll leave them open tonight, just for you big boy.
If you don't mind me saying that seems rather odd to me, people can learn so much more from metadata than actually listening or watching what someone does.
The collection of metadata enables you to use the power of computers to build a massive database with all the information you would ever need, it shows how important the people we communicate with are to us, how we truly feel about different subjects and not just what we tell others.
Metadata is the closest thing you can get to reading someones innermost thoughts, to reading their mind, metadata is far more powerful than most people give it credit.
In the vain hope that Yadda may actual want to watch this video, it's not some people bleating on about civil liberties, it's a talk given by MIT Media Lab graduate students on the importance of metadata.
How do you know I'm a boy and how do you know I have size issues, have you been looking at my metadata.
I'm pretty certain that being able to go to, and graduate from, MIT is a privileged position relative to the majority of the planet's population. (Not saying I don't agree with what they're saying, 'cos I do, just pointing out that claiming graduate students from one of the world's most prestigious universities aren't privileged is perhaps a little off-the-mark.)
Is MIT like our oxbridge then? IDK anything about the American education system so just assumed MIT wasn't full of people born with silver spoons in their mouths.
Either way thanks for the correction, or apologies for misunderstand what "relatively privileged" is.
It's one of the most famous and prestigious technical universities in the world, and costs $43,720 for a nine-month term. Undergraduate room and board is another $13,224 (depending, MIT's tuition page says, "on the student's housing and dining arrangements," while the average spend on books and personal expenses is about $2,790. So, you're looking at nearly $60,000 to attend for nine months, or $6,700 a month. The median individual income in the US is $32,140 a year, or $2,678 a month. While financial aid is available, it is limited and available only to a select few individuals.
Never mind needing a silver spoon in your mouth; you need to hock the family silver just to pay for your living costs, let alone the tuition fees themselves. Student loans, naturally, take care of things for most - but, again, if you're not one of the privileged few you won't qualify for a student loan and thus will never get the chance to go to MIT. Even if you do qualify for a loan, or have a big-'ol chunk of change down the back of the sofa to get your three-year degree, you have to be smart - not only to pass the entrance exams but also to actually graduate at the end. Even if you're naturally smart, you'll need the educational background to back that up. A kid from the ghetto who went to the worst school around, dodging gang-bangers and drug-pushers his whole life? Yeah, he doesn't get to go to MIT, even if he could afford it (which he can't.)
Things are even more stark when you put them into a global perspective. Remember that $2,678 median monthly income for US citizens? The median individual income world-wide is, according to 'ere, $850 a year, or $71 a month. You ain't going to MIT on $71 a month. Heck, you ain't visiting Massachusetts on $71 a month.
TL;DR: there are many forms of privilege, and "being born with a silver spoon in your mouth" is only one of 'em. I'm privileged as all get-out, and I haven't got a scrap of blue blood. Heck, just having clean water on-tap makes me better off than a fifth of the world's population, while access to electricity is still unavailable to 1.2 billion people.
sorry you said MIT and I linked a homeless gang banger who graduated from Harvard.....
Oh, it can happen - just not often. The person in your linked story attended only because of a full scholarship from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That was his only choice: he couldn't afford it himself, he couldn't get a student loan or other financial aid that would make it possible to attend. Funnily enough, he was privileged to receive the scholarship from the B&MG Foundation. While the list of 2015 scholarships is long (PDF warning), it represents a tiny fraction of the population of the US.
Privilege, I tell's ya, privilege!
EDIT: Even ignoring the quantity of scholarships available, the requirements to be considered for one mean they're not accessible to all. From the official website:
Wait, I'm being off-topic again, aren't I? As you were, gentlebeings, as you were...
shhh I know - I was just pointing out that being in the right place at the right time , the impossible can happen in the USA. He was also of a level of interlect to warrant a grade point average of 3.3
And he worked bloody hard, of course. Just proves that privilege is a spectrum, not an absolute, and that hard work can pay off - just not always (or, the cynic in me pipes up, often.)
Collecting someone's metadata is like "reading their mind"? Corky, you love this kind of stuff don't you?
Gareth, thanks for explaining to Corky what MIT is, it made me chuckle. (Just to be clear, I had no idea he was MIT - by "relatively privileged", I meant someone without too much to complain about in the grand scheme of things.)
On that note, I'll leave you (Corky et all) to it.
Careful now Gareth, you're starting to sound like a dissident.
And thanks for pointing out that scholarships to places like MIT aren't as numerous as i believed.
I guess what they say about ignorance being bliss is true then, it's easy to mock someone when you refuse to look at both sides of an argument, perhaps when you know more about the power of metadata (that video would be a good start) we can debate the subject without having resorting to mockery.
As you seem adverse to watching videos how about the following statement from a a crypto researcher at the University of Pennsylvania..
We disagree, Corky. That's all. It's no big deal.
Not exactly, it's more like reading their habitual behaviour. The thing is that so much of what we do is done on "autopilot" for known psychological and neurological reasons that we might as well be hooked up to a mind-reading machine. We now broadcast so much metadata about our autopilot behaviour that, grouped and analysed, it can infer and predict things about us with great accuracy, like when a retailer knew a high-school girl was pregnant before her father did. It doesn't get more invasive than knowing what's happening up inside your junk, does it?
If you still think our collective metadata has no exploitable value, please explain Google's market value or at least point to the comparable company built atop closed circuit television technology.
Great links. You have shared the enjoyed information.
Glad to be here.
Hell, yes! As Vipersgratitude says, people are largely habitual creatures. Moreover we do not nearly have as much insight into our own behaviour as we like to think. What we unselfconsciously do says a lot more about what is going on in our brain than what we are consciously aware that we think. Metadata reveals a lot of our daily life unselfconscious choices, behaviour patterns, routines. Show me the metadata, and I'll show you the man.
Look into my eyes not around my eyes but into my eyes...
...back in the room!
Separate names with a comma.