Anybody have problems understanding privacy? I become extremely upset when people violate my privacy or touch things that belong to me or walk into areas I consider personal, but I can't really grasp how this works for other people. For example I become confused knowing when it is or isn't okay to look at someone if they're changing and I don't know when it's okay to walk into someone's room. It's really confusing.
I’m very serious about my own privacy. That generally extends to other people as well. I don’t even like glancing around in someone’s house unless I know them well. However, sometimes I forget about personal space. And sometimes it gets awkward. But friendly tip: Don’t look at people while they’re changing ever, just to be safe :)
"I’ll be 30. I’ll probably still be single, let’s be honest. No one’s going to sign up for this and everything that goes with it. Like, ‘Hi, nice to meet you, want a date? Do you love camera flashes? I hope you do!’" she said. "I don’t know what’s going to happen if I’m ever content in a relationship - no idea how that’s going to work… I don’t even know if that’s possible with the life I have."
I don’t know about anybody else but I found this heart-breaking. It just goes to show the emotional damage the tabloids can do, something which I feel a lot of people are guilty of underestimating. The love within Taylor’s lyrics in her first albums is so honest and beautiful and vulnerable, and something that rung true with millions of people worldwide who saw themselves and their lives reflected in those songs. But its tragic that Taylor feels that now her career is actually preventing her from finding that true love that we all long for.
Although its more than amazing that she’s valuing her friends over romance right now, I can’t help but feel sad that she’s seeing a relationship as something to be ruled out simply because of the crazy life that she leads. Of course, dealing with the paparazzi is a package deal with fame and success. But someone as incredible as Taylor should be allowed to live her life freely, on her own terms, searching for her own answers and chasing her own dreams, without the constant threat of privacy invasion getting in the way.
Surveillance technology known as ‘Stingray’ — which is used to trick phones into connecting to them by mimicking cell towers — can block or drop phone calls and disrupt other mobile devices that use the same cell network, according to a recent court disclosure.
“We think the fact that stingrays block or drop calls of cell phone users in the vicinity should be of concern to cell service providers, the FCC [Federal Communications Commission], and ordinary people,”Nathan Wessler, staff attorney at the ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, told WIRED.
“The Majority’s approval of such police procedure means, in essence, that a person desiring to keep her DNA profile private, must conduct her public affairs in a hermetically sealed hazmat suit…. The Majority’s holding means that a person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver’s license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”
"Auto-Emergency" tracking systems to be required in cars sold in the EU starting 2018
These devices will automatically set off an emergency signal containing the car’s position, should sensors detect a crash.
And this obviously means that cars from then on will be required to have a GPS tracking device installed. In the age of NSA, GCHQ and others tapping into virtually anything they can get their hands on, it’s not hard to imagine why this is not a good thing. They’re probably throwing a party right now, now that car makers will be required to bug the cars for them.
For the phone anon: is there any way for you to open up a "private browsing" tab on your phone? I know I can on Chrome but I don't have an iPhone. You could maybe open SCaR on private browsing and then it'd delete automatically?
That’s definitely something you can do on your iPhone. When you look at all the browsing windows on Safari, there’s a little button that says “Private.” When you touch it, a new blank window pops up and disappears as soon as you turn it off private.
Noise freaks have been trying to raze heads and rupture eardrums with blunt volume in the name of art since the invention of amplification. But paradigms are shifting: Quiet, it seems, is the new loud. “There’s been a dramatic increase in the fine art use of sound—using and thinking about sound in new ways,” explains Mike Wyeld, a sound technical instructor working in the Royal College of Art’s animation department. “And the absence of sound gives you an experience you could not possibly have had before.”
Demo for digital privacy tool Cyborg Un Plug shows how it can be set up to disconnect cameras on nearby drones:
Cyborg Unplug is an anti wireless-surveillance system for the home and workplace. It detects and kicks selected devices known to pose a risk to
personal privacy from your wireless network, breaking uploads and
In this lab test we look at a flying surveillance device, also known as drones.
The gist of my job involved setting prisoners up to make their phone calls with the outside world and then listening in on all the catty prison gossip. … The job was sold to me as a cushy gig. I was told I wouldn’t even go behind the gate or see prisoners. When I toured the facility, it looked sweet: I’d make more money than I’d ever made and I’d even have my own office — all for eavesdropping with occasional light data entry. Unfortunately, it turned out that everything I’d been told was a class Rumsfeld lie.
Only a few days passed before they asked me, “Would you mind going out to inmate dorms to answer questions about the phone system?” Now I had to go meet dangerous criminals face to face, sometimes after shooting down their requested phone contacts. “Oh hey, convicted criminal, I listen to everything you say — some of it possibly meant to be secret. Here’s my face, my name, and my place of employment. Oh, and here’s my card, too. I’ve included a list of my deepest fears and allergies on the back, just for funsies.”
Imagine this: You get scooped up by police, fitted with electronic headgear, and shown a series of random pictures. Among the random pictures is a not-so-random one: A crime scene. A tiny electric twinge on your scalp tips off police; the crime scene is familiar to you. You are under arrest.
This story is made up—but the technology is not.
Decades ago, researchers discovered a neural phenomenon known as the P300 wave, a voltage spike that occurs in your brain whenever you see something familiar to you. Detectable by EEG, P300 is the basis of a lie-detection technique known as brain fingerprinting. Brain fingerprinting evidence has been deemed admissible in several court cases.
Newer techniques promise to go even further in getting inside your head.
At the 2015 AAAS Annual Meeting last weekend in San Jose, brain researcher Jack Gallant of UC Berkeley presented surprisingly faithful reconstructions of brain activity using fMRI scans, a technique called brain decoding (see below). He also cautioned that there was, as yet, no way to distinguish between real and distorted or fabricated memories. “We have a long way to go before this stuff is reliable.”
Still, rapid strides in neuroscience raise new questions about just how far the justice system can or should go in peeking into peoples’ minds. At what point, if any, do you lose your right to the privacy of your own thoughts?
Legal scholar Nita Farahany of Duke University is already on the case. She sees two potential bulwarks against neural prying: the 4th and 5th constitutional amendments, which protect against unlawful search and self-incrimination, respectively.
But even these redoubtable legal barriers may not be enough to guard against an Orwellian future in which your own brain betrays you in a court of law. Farahany cites fingerprint and DNA evidence, both routinely collected, as examples in which the body “testifies” against itself.
As scanning technologies improve, the open question of whether scrutiny of grey matter constitutes a reasonable search will become an increasingly grey area. For now, at least, your thoughts are your own.
For Life Sharing we turned our private lives into a public artwork. We made each and every file on our computer, from texts and photos to bank statements and emails, available to anyone at any time through our website.
Anything on our computer was available to search, read and freely copy, including the system itself, since we were using only free software.
Paul & George - March 25,1966 Photographer - Robert Whitaker
'But the Dick Lester version of our lives in 'Hard Day's Night' and 'Help!' made it look fun and games: a good romp? That was fair in the films but in the real world, there was never any doubt. The Beatles were doomed. Your own space man, it’s so important. That’s why we were doomed because we didn’t have any. It is like monkeys in a zoo. They die. You know everything needs to be left alone.
'That is the trouble with partnerships, you get roped in on other people's trips. Completely roping everyone into a whim. Then you start getting into it and they can't handle it any more. It is very important to try and minimize the aggravation and spaciness in our lives' - George Harrison, ‘I, Me, Mine’ page 39
The site ThatsNotCool.com offers “callout cards” to send to people who cross your digital boundaries.
The growth of social media has brought with it an epidemic of nonconsensual sexy-photo sharing—called “revenge porn” because the images are often uploaded by an ex-lover. There’s a definite gender issue here: in an estimated 90 percent of cases, the person who uploads the photo is male and the person whose photos get misused is female. Activists have struggled to help lawmakers understand the nature of the problem and to create statutes that help victims reclaim their photos.
Because it’s a new phenomenon, data on revenge porn is difficult to find. One study from McAfee found that 1 in 10 ex-partners threatened to share nude or sexual photos online and that 60 percent of those making such threats followed through. A separate study, from Pew, revealed 40 percent of adults on the internet had been harassed online, while 19 percent had witnessed others being sexually harassed there.
“A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They’ll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves an unrecorded, unanalyzed thought. And that’s a problem because privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.”
Samsung was recording private conversations using some of its TVs…
And now a privacy group, EPIC, has asked the FTC to investigate.
"Samsung routinely intercepts and records the private communications of consumers in their homes," said the privacy group in its 20-page complaint (PDF). "Samsung’s attempts to disclaim its intrusive surveillance activities by means of a ‘privacy notice’ do not diminish the harm to American consumers."