Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Again, this topic relates to generational values differences. Technology routinely challenges status quo worldviews. Just remember this conversation when you're older and people younger than you can't understand why you'd be uncomfortable breeding human/dog/antaran chimeras in your backyard and getting a temporary gender change at the reassignment kiosk so you can give birth to the puppies to feed your pet snake. I mean, seriously, what's the big deal? You can just change back, right? And yet do you see how "you can just change back" completely misses why such a scenario might seem weird to you?

30 years ago the idea that people would be walking around with with video cameras strapped to their face able to record everything you do and make it available to the whole world would have been just as weird.

Imagine the following scenario: you're sitting in your living room. You're not doing anything illegal. You're not doing anything morally questionable. Let's say you're reading a book. And your neighbor knows your'e reading  book, even though you didn't tell him. That bothers some people. If you're not one of the people bothered by it, great. The next 20 years will be easier for you to cope with. But it does bother some people. And I don't mean rare fringe cases. Ask 10 people over the age of 40 if it would bother them then ask 10 people under the age of 20. There will be more people in the over 40 group than there are in the under 20. This is a generational worldview thing. While you're at it, ask those same two groups if they feel comfortable with same-gender marriage, or think nose piercings are proper, or any other arbitrary cultural thing.

[lemon10]

Going to have to side with the oldies on the nose piercings. No privacy for anyone? Sure. Nose piercings? Hell no.

[DJ]

If you have a problem with people livestreaming you you should just jam their signal. This is one of those problems that technology both creates and solves.

[BurnedToast]

If you have a problem with people livestreaming you you should just jam their signal. This is one of those problems that technology both creates and solves.

Jamming cellphone signals is against the law, so no you really should not.

[DJ]

I put more weight in what's moral than in what's legal.

[BurnedToast]

I put more weight in what's moral than in what's legal.

Breaking the law and jamming everyone in the area's cellphone signal and potentially causing someone's death (if they were trying to make, or receive and emergency call and couldn't) just because someone was doing something perfectly legal that annoyed you is the moral choice?

Ok.

[DJ]

Yeah, jamming cell signal kills people

And broadcasting what people are doing against their will is all sorts of immoral. If you have a hard time wrapping your head around it, just imagine that the person being filmed is a pretty woman and the broadcaster is a creepy guy.

[alexandertnt]

I don't like the idea of being recorded and showing up on youtube or something. I have no problem with being recorded per se, but public demonstrations of recordings of me is what I don't like.

Nose rings and snakes are fine, public humiliation much less so.

Now, phones can already do this, but something like the Google Glasses makes it easier to do. I don't have a problem with the glasses per se, just this thing.

Yeah, jamming cell signal kills people

The problem is with the statement "jam their signal", as if you can jam one persons signal. When you use a cell phone jammer, you are jamming everybodies phone in the vicinity of the jammer.

It stops people from being able to use emergency numbers like 112. If someone were to have a health issue that would require an ambulance (which obviously can happen), then you are indeed interfering in getting help and thus endangering that person.

Your also pissing alot of people off who want to use their phone ligitamately. So yeah, make sure you consider other people before asserting your morals in a way that affects other people

[DJ]

There's landlines everywhere. As for those legitimate users, a good chunk of them are endangering lives while using their phones by driving and talking. And losing cell signal is an inconvenience, while livestreaming people against their will is violation of their person.

Besides, if somebody really needs to use their cellhpone they can just move where they have signal. A jammer is only going to affect a couple of meters around you unless you plan to wear a backpack full of batteries for it.

[itisnotlogical]

I think what's got people more riled up about Glass than previous surveillance methods, even recently popularized means like data collection, is that Glass is (eventually) going to be as ubiquitous as the smartphone, but much sneakier. You can't see the satellite that's providing images of your house to Google Earth, and you can't see your browsing history being sent to the NSA, so you don't think or worry about those as much. On the flip side, it's really, painfully obvious if you catch somebody pointing any sort of phone at you, so you can make them stop.
But eventually Glass will become as common as an iPhone. If you talk to somebody wearing Glass, you'd never know if they started recording before you started talking to them. And there's all the aforementioned stigma that would be involved with asking them to take off or turn off their Glass.

[alexandertnt]

There's landlines everywhere.

Not really. Public telephones have been largely removed due to massively increased cell phone use, and if you have to seek out a landline nearby, you are waisting time. Many people and businesses exclusively use cellphones.

As for those legitimate users, a good chunk of them are endangering lives while using their phones by driving and talking.

Erm... no.

And losing cell signal is an inconvenience, while livestreaming people against their will is violation of their person.

Again, you are interfering in other peoples business to assert your morals. The morality of doing that is dubious.

[DJ]

If somebody can't walk 5 meters to get cell signal in an emergency situation then natural selection should just do it's job.

[alexandertnt]

Because natural selection is a good thing?

If somebody can't walk 5 meters to get cell signal in an emergency situation then natural selection should just do it's job.

...But its not the cell phone user thats in danger. Its the person lying on the floor. Should they have their lives put at risk, because someone else was dumb, because your paranoid about live streaming?

On top of that, thats a morally abhorrent response. "I was jamming cell phones, but they were to dumb to move 5 meters, so the repercussions are their fault. Stuped person wasn't smart enough to live".

But hey, at least you weren't livestreamed!

[BurnedToast]

If somebody can't walk 5 meters to get cell signal in an emergency situation then natural selection should just do it's job.

I sincerely hope that if you are ever in need of immediate life-saving aid that the people around you are more compassionate then you are.

And broadcasting what people are doing against their will is all sorts of immoral. If you have a hard time wrapping your head around it, just imagine that the person being filmed is a pretty woman and the broadcaster is a creepy guy.

Is it immoral? maybe. But it's legal and nobody is going to die from it, which is more then can be said for your cellphone jammer.

I think what's got people more riled up about Glass than previous surveillance methods, even recently popularized means like data collection, is that Glass is (eventually) going to be as ubiquitous as the smartphone, but much sneakier. You can't see the satellite that's providing images of your house to Google Earth, and you can't see your browsing history being sent to the NSA, so you don't think or worry about those as much. On the flip side, it's really, painfully obvious if you catch somebody pointing any sort of phone at you, so you can make them stop.
But eventually Glass will become as common as an iPhone. If you talk to somebody wearing Glass, you'd never know if they started recording before you started talking to them. And there's all the aforementioned stigma that would be involved with asking them to take off or turn off their Glass.

How is it sneakier if it's right their on their face for everyone to see, and it lights up when they record, and they have to stare at you to keep recording you?

Anyone you talk to *right now* could be recording you and you wouldn't have any idea. Why is this suddenly a problem when they are wearing glass?

[DJ]

But what if they were a pedophile livestreaming children that just happened to be in my proximity? Think of the children!

^That is exactly how the whole life endangerment argument looks from where I'm standing.