They know when you been sleeping they know when you're awake

For discussions about security.
Message
Author
gcmartin

Should we KNOW???

#31 Post by gcmartin »

One of the biggest understandings we need is perceive that the idea of "surveillance" also falls under the heading of security. And, security, today, involves use of computers. Computers are built to manage data and the computer's programs give views or makes decisions based upon that data.

We have grown significantly since the 1950s to what has become the internet of today.

Here is an interview from last week on ideas we can use to maybe have a clearer understanding of what it is that the world needs; to becomes a safe place where data is used responsibly and there is transparency in its use for Public clarity.

A person in this thread ask, indirectly, "shouldn't we have known way back in 1990?"..

Here is a Professor speaking to a Government Panel on just that question. Here is shown someone bringing Public space information and awareness to the powers who could look at citizenry protection.

This thread is not for discussion of that commentary. But, this thread does try to show those things we should understand about security, surveillance and its use of
BIG Data.

This thread should, though, give us some ideas of what we need to plan for in our tomorrow versus feeling like we cannot do anything about it. This thread bring understanding to us.
  • Should the tech community rallye around transparency more than it already has?
  • Are there other things which should be brought to light for our knowledge in this area?
Security and surveillance versus transparency ... accountability ...

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

Re: Should we KNOW???

#32 Post by jpeps »

gcmartin wrote:.
  • Should the tech community rallye around transparency more than it already has?
  • Are there other things which should be brought to light for our knowledge in this area?
Security and surveillance versus transparency ... accountability ...
The problem is members of Congress having to spend up to 70% of their time fundraising. Security decisions reflect what benefits the military-industrial (congressional) complex. Dwight D Eisenhower warned about this in the 1950's, and it's been downhill ever since.

On a similar note, standard procedure for getting health insurance is a mandatory contract such as the following quoted from a major insurer:
Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury....
How is this a democracy? Less than 6% of citizens have any faith in Congress.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

Re: Should we KNOW???

#33 Post by greengeek »

jpeps wrote:
Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury....
Interesting that it mentions that BOTH parties relinquish their constitutional rights...which suggests a mutual acceptance that financial transactions (money) are more important than ethical standards.

A victory of pragmatism over idealism? Or a corruption of morality?

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

Re: Should we KNOW???

#34 Post by jpeps »

greengeek wrote:
jpeps wrote:
Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury....
Interesting that it mentions that BOTH parties relinquish their constitutional rights...which suggests a mutual acceptance that financial transactions (money) are more important than ethical standards.
The OTHER is the insurance company which has no interest in justice to begin with, since there won't be an instance where it needs to sue a customer . A common example is severe injury or death because the insurance company delays or denies a critical treatment which you are legally covered for.

Post Reply