Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Aug 2010 10:47 UTC
Humor Now that I'm done with my internship and ready to take on OSNews again, I figured it'd be nice to start off with something light-hearted. I just read that Google bought an unmanned aerial vehicle equipped with a camera, ready to photograph whatever it flies across. We may consider Google's biggest threat to be privacy, but with all this computing power they have, their Street View cars, and now, unmanned flying drones, they look more and more like SkyNet to me. So, what's your most likely apocalyptic scenario?
Thread beginning with comment 435909
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 9th Aug 2010 12:15 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

We're living it. It's called 1984. (Or Brazil, as another good example)

Where no man is allowed to question how any part of the system, because that makes him a terrorist. Privacy is a crime because we've been told that only terrorists have something to hide. Corporations own everything, including your identity; nothing is truly yours.

Reply Score: 14

RE: Comment by Kroc
by David on Mon 9th Aug 2010 15:43 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I agree with you. However, if you think we're even close to how bad it could eventually be, you're in for a rude awakening. A few more terrorist attacks and the craven and cowardly populace will practically beg their leaders to trample their civil rights.

I think there's a possibility you could get a 1-2-3 punch with a police state designed to protect people from imaginary terrorist attacks rising in power, widespread civil unrest as a result of the next economic collapse, then skapegoating of illegal aliens. Each of these phenomena of course reinforces the other, as illegal aliens are mistrusted because of terrorism and because they take "our" jobs, and civil unrest prompting the government to clamp down civil rights further. The worldwide economic crisis would result in more illegal immigration and superpowers projecting their power beyond their borders in order to lay claim to natural resources, prompting more terrorism.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Zifre on Mon 9th Aug 2010 16:40 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

I think there's a possibility you could get a 1-2-3 punch with a police state designed to protect people from imaginary terrorist attacks rising in power, widespread civil unrest as a result of the next economic collapse, then skapegoating of illegal aliens. Each of these phenomena of course reinforces the other, as illegal aliens are mistrusted because of terrorism and because they take "our" jobs, and civil unrest prompting the government to clamp down civil rights further. The worldwide economic crisis would result in more illegal immigration and superpowers projecting their power beyond their borders in order to lay claim to natural resources, prompting more terrorism.

I think this pretty accurately describes what is happening to the USA right now. However, I agree that it could be a lot worse. (And I think it's going to come eventually.)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by Kroc
by jack_perry on Mon 9th Aug 2010 16:03 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

...except that we are, in fact, allowed to question the system (as you are doing right now, and no one is calling you a terrorist), that we have solid systems that allow us more privacy than we've ever had before (and you can always go live in a log cabin in the wilderness if you want more).

What's different now, from what I can see, is that people question the system, and when someone disagrees with them, instead of complaining that they're being called anarchist or communist or imperialist, they complain that they're being called terrorist -- even when no one does anything of the sort.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Novan_Leon on Mon 9th Aug 2010 16:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

...or racist. People throw around the racist moniker so much that it has become a joke. I doubt if most people in this generation even know what real racism is like.

Usually throwing out labels is just a way to neutralize an opposing ideology and/or justify your own, including the actions you take to support it.

I think an overreaching government holds more of a threat at this time than a meteor strike or climate change.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 9th Aug 2010 17:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I think the loop is being closed though, using technology. http://camendesign.com/writing/privacy - The Price That Cannot Be Bartered.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by sbenitezb on Tue 10th Aug 2010 13:25 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

We're living it. It's called 1984. (Or Brazil, as another good example)

Where no man is allowed to question how any part of the system, because that makes him a terrorist. Privacy is a crime because we've been told that only terrorists have something to hide. Corporations own everything, including your identity; nothing is truly yours.


I disagree. That may be true in USA and other terrorist countries, but surely not everywhere. I'm allowed to question whatever I want to question about the system here, except it couldn't probably matter to much people.

As of privacy, you can get as much privacy as you want in your own home. No one is watching you (go check for hidden mics). If you are thinking of privacy in public areas, well, they are public areas, there's no guaranteed privacy anywhere outside your own house. Big brother could be watching you while you drive home, as any other person around you could, for that matter. So what you might be thinking is not about privacy, but public disclosure of your public activities.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 11th Aug 2010 07:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

The society we live in is brain-dead enough to put an ad up like this and think it alright:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10929203

And where is the opt-out for CCTV? If you went to someone’s home and they did have cameras in it—and they were fine with that, but you were not—where would the opt-out be for that?

Things are changing on the whole gradually, and through that the changes are becoming impossible for the one individual to reverse. Everybody has to go with the flow.

Reply Parent Score: 1