Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Decades of conditioning through media to get you to be a lazy oaf. You've been socio-engineered. The laziness has happened as a biproduct of the system, not by design. I don't think it's in anyone's direct interest to make "the" public lazy and misinformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Well, that was mature. To add: this joke apparently landed wrong. I get that - it came out of nowhere and was a little strange - so I have apologized for it above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 The laziness has happened as a biproduct of the system, not by design. I don't think it's in anyone's direct interest to make "the" public lazy and misinformed. The government benefits from the public being lazy and misinformed. And if I have to file something like a 'freedom of information act' to get what should be public information, backs up my claim. Obfuscation is the name of the game. While it would be nice to have access to some of my personal information online, that means everyone else can have access to it as well. We see two different application of when it comes to open data or open government initiatives. The information on them will still be inaccessible, while you an I can look at each others data without barriers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 The government benefits from the public being lazy and misinformed. I don't see how. Also, they have programs to promote education and 'awareness' ... that seems to conflict with the goa. And if I have to file something like a 'freedom of information act' to get what should be public information, backs up my claim. Obfuscation is the name of the game. I agree that FOI shouldn't be required for most information, however you're misunderstanding why that happens IMO. Let me ask you how you report your time and progress on tasks where you work, as an introduction to such a discussion. While it would be nice to have access to some of my personal information online, that means everyone else can have access to it as well. Data Pragmatist says: The risk of personal information theft is probably a risk we'll have to take in order to distribute information widely. Data Absolutist says: Everybody should have access to it. We see two different application of when it comes to open data or open government initiatives. The information on them will still be inaccessible, while you an I can look at each others data without barriers. I don't think we can look at each others' data. If Data Absolutist got his way then everything would be open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) I don't see how. Yes I get that. Which really baffles me. Also, they have programs to promote education and 'awareness' ... that seems to conflict with the goa. Awareness of non essential issues that don't interfere with policy. We see action on cancer, fitness, but do we see action on corruption within government? Do we see them calling themselves out on it? I agree that FOI shouldn't be required for most information, however you're misunderstanding why that happens IMO. Let me ask you how you report your time and progress on tasks where you work, as an introduction to such a discussion. When I was working, I used to fill out timesheets from our sharepoint site. And I see where you want to take this but it is a non starter. I have the option to not fill out the time sheet, but then out of a job. The timesheet is something that the company makes as a rule or standard for everyone to follow. You just try to make that kind of information public and they will scream. The company does use this information as when analyzed the company can make proper decisions. But that information will not be made public. Not all information on all Canadians needs to be made public. Privacy matters. If one does not value it, they will be open to abuse. Data Pragmatist says: The risk of personal information theft is probably a risk we'll have to take in order to distribute information widely. Data Absolutist says: Everybody should have access to it. I don't think we can look at each others' data. If Data Absolutist got his way then everything would be open. Of course not all data should be open. A public discussion and public decision with applicable laws can resolve this. Consensus data like city population and other data that has specific non-identifiers should be public. What we wont see is open data on the daily workings of the government. But to some extent they do, but people are lazy. This allows certain laws to be passed without much push back from the public. Even with the outcry of Bill C130, the Vic Teowes wiretapping bill, it was eventually worked in somehow. So even if we DO make a stink: We were not lazy, and we were informed, and the result was still terrible. Edited March 5, 2014 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Yes I get that. Which really baffles me. If you're saying that this is a hidden agenda, then you have to either get some kind of evidence or just tell me to take your word for it. Awareness of non essential issues that don't interfere with policy. We see action on cancer, fitness, but do we see action on corruption within government? Do we see them calling themselves out on it? The Conservatives and the press were quite adamant when they found corruption in Chretien's government. As the Liberals were with the Duffy scandal. Are you just complaining about the business-as-usual scandals ? That's not the same thing as 'government promoting ignorance'. It's a completely different thing. You need to own your opinions, provide evidence not just generally and familiar complaints. When I was working, I used to fill out timesheets from our sharepoint site. And I see where you want to take this but it is a non starter. I have the option to not fill out the time sheet, but then out of a job. Did your boss fill out a time sheet for you to review ? The timesheet is something that the company makes as a rule or standard for everyone to follow. But nobody wants to do it. If you don't have to do it, then you don't do it. That's just human behavior. Not all information on all Canadians needs to be made public. Privacy matters. Data Absolutist says: privacy doesn't matter. It's a false human need. Of course not all data should be open. A public discussion and public decision with applicable laws can resolve this. Consensus data like city population and other data that has specific non-identifiers should be public. Data Absolutist says: of course it should be. Why do we have to pay so much to keep information from each other ? Why do corporations have the right to beg for public funding and cry poor, even if their huge profits are kept secret ? What we wont see is open data on the daily workings of the government. We already have that, aggregated, in many respects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 If you're saying that this is a hidden agenda, then you have to either get some kind of evidence or just tell me to take your word for it. The point I was making is that the government benefits when we are lazy and misinformed. Regardless of any conspiracy. The Conservatives and the press were quite adamant when they found corruption in Chretien's government. As the Liberals were with the Duffy scandal. Chump change of a few hundred thousand dollars. While the government has pissed billions away in other things. Every party has engaged in corruption. Well, members of each party. Reciprocal attacks for the exact same actions the other side took part in. Cons on Libs, now Libs on Cons. While both took part in the same behaviour. You need to own your opinions, provide evidence not just generally and familiar complaints. Government needs to own some responsibility. Did your boss fill out a time sheet for you to review ? No I filled it out for HIM to review. Data Absolutist says: privacy doesn't matter. It's a false human need. The Data Absolutist would stop being the absolutest once all his information is made public. The stance of the Data Absolutist is a fallacy. Data Absolutist says: of course it should be. Why do we have to pay so much to keep information from each other ? Why do I need to pay in the first place for someone else to keep my data private? Sounds like extortion to me. Why do corporations have the right to beg for public funding and cry poor, even if their huge profits are kept secret ? I don't think they should have the right to beg for public funding. However it seems the law demands that income is made available for tax purposes. But if they do get public funding, then yes their finances become a public matter, for the fact of using public money for private venture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 The point I was making is that the government benefits when we are lazy and misinformed. Regardless of any conspiracy. I see. In the short term, bureaucrats may prefer it if there is no public for their services, as there will be no criticism. But you end up with a feedback deficit that manifests itself later in uglier ways. No I filled it out for HIM to review. Exactly. It doesn't go two ways, because there's a stigma about time reporting. It's done by those lower on the chain, for those higher in the chain, and it's not for us to ask why it's done. The Data Absolutist would stop being the absolutest once all his information is made public. What if it wasn't ? The stance of the Data Absolutist is a fallacy. You don't know the DA, so maybe he would be ok with it. If so, your argument crumbles. Why do I need to pay in the first place for someone else to keep my data private? Sounds like extortion to me. I don't think they should have the right to beg for public funding. That's self-expression, a protected right. Furthermore, the right to lie is also protected as self-expression. However it seems the law demands that income is made available for tax purposes. But if they do get public funding, then yes their finances become a public matter, for the fact of using public money for private venture. But they're not. The DA says let's let sunshine come in on all of this darkness - government, private information, everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Exactly. It doesn't go two ways, because there's a stigma about time reporting. It's done by those lower on the chain, for those higher in the chain, and it's not for us to ask why it's done. We did not have to ask, were were told why. They want to know where our time was being spent and for how long. You don't know the DA, so maybe he would be ok with it. If so, your argument crumbles. There are no absolutes. Which is a conundrum in of itself. And the notion of a Data Absolutist fails even if they decide that even the smallest amount of certain data should not be made available. The DA says let's let sunshine come in on all of this darkness - government, private information, everything. The DA is a dangerous stance and a non starter, while being quite illogical and unreasonable. I work for a company, they determine the rules. A private entity. The government works for us, but yet they determine the rules anyways. A public entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 We did not have to ask, were were told why. They want to know where our time was being spent and for how long. Yes, exactly. The 'why' isn't even asked here. They want it. That's all. The DA is a dangerous stance and a non starter, while being quite illogical and unreasonable. Why ? You haven't said why it's: -dangerous -illogical -unreasonable You simply said that if the Data Absolutist is hypocritical about his personal desire for privacy then he's not an absolutist. As for a non-starter, I can't argue that. Meanwhile, I am starting it though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Yes, exactly. The 'why' isn't even asked here. They want it. That's all. Mike, we were told WHY they wanted the timesheets done, there for we did not need to ask. It was not a mystery what they were looking for. They wanted to know where time and money is spent and where it is wasted so they can address it. Very straight forwards. Why ? You haven't said why it's: -dangerous -illogical -unreasonable You simply said that if the Data Absolutist is hypocritical about his personal desire for privacy then he's not an absolutist. Correct, if you manage to find a true DA, please feel free to let us know. There is no such entity as a 'data absolutist'. Dangerous - having ALL information at EVERYONES fingertips. Illogical - see above. Unreasonable - see above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Correct, if you manage to find a true DA, please feel free to let us know. There is no such entity as a 'data absolutist'. I feel that the DA has some interesting points, though. Dangerous - having ALL information at EVERYONES fingertips. Illogical - see above. Unreasonable - see above. You seem to have found yourself in the untenable position of trying to argue values. As such, there is actually no rationale in this part of the post. You're a fan of bitcoin yes ? There's a built-in opening to privacy in bitcoin too - with attendant advantages there right ? Can't you track the history of a bitcoin to see where it went ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I feel that the DA has some interesting points, though. Some? or All? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Some? or All? You're right -all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Here's more from the Data Abolutist: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/why-death-threats-wont-keep-the-duke-porn-star-from-doing-what-she-needs-to-pay-tuition/article17362601/ This pornography actor can't come clean (sorry) about career choices because of threats. Meanwhile, there is widespread use of pornography. Why should your entertainment choices be private when it results in the ghettoization of an entire industry and the human beings that work in it ? It's time to shine light on this industry too. The Data Absolutist would have your web searches traceable by anybody who put your name into the search engine as the norm. If you want to pay for privacy for some reason then go ahead, that's your choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Incidentally, I'm (naively?) a little surprised at the response this young woman has received. Pretty ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am still wondering why there is a notion that I have to pay for privacy. It just sounds like extortion to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Here's more from the Data Abolutist: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/why-death-threats-wont-keep-the-duke-porn-star-from-doing-what-she-needs-to-pay-tuition/article17362601/ This pornography actor can't come clean (sorry) about career choices because of threats. Meanwhile, there is widespread use of pornography. Why should your entertainment choices be private when it results in the ghettoization of an entire industry and the human beings that work in it ? It's time to shine light on this industry too. If you freely chose to work in that business, there is no ghettoization. She did not do it for entertainment, she did it for money. But if you take the porn industry to task, then you take strip clubs up to task as well, and prostitution. If you want to be absolute about the data. The Data Absolutist would have your web searches traceable by anybody who put your name into the search engine as the norm. If you want to pay for privacy for some reason then go ahead, that's your choice. The approach of the DA and the use of that article to support it simply does not jive. She willingly works in the porn biz. Something not related to anyone's online searching. She says it all though. Even with the pride she takes in her work (and a Twitter feed peppered with explicit shots), Knox explained she deserves to keep what’s left of her privacy: “My sexuality is not some sort of blackmail to be used against me, granting you ownership over my life or my story.” You have people that watch porn and watch her trying to pass judgement on her when all of them participated in it through viewing the vids. So what was the DA approach actually trying to accomplish here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am still wondering why there is a notion that I have to pay for privacy. It just sounds like extortion to me. Because it costs money ? Because I shouldn't have to pay for your paranoia ? Or so says the DA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 If you freely chose to work in that business, there is no ghettoization. She did not do it for entertainment, she did it for money. Maybe I chose the wrong term. Basically the industry is regarded as illegitimate and not given the attention of proper and upright people. You have people that watch porn and watch her trying to pass judgement on her when all of them participated in it through viewing the vids. So what was the DA approach actually trying to accomplish here? That's the thing. They all act like they DON'T watch the vids, but clearly some of them too. Privacy means that everybody pays for these people to hide their true selves. And therefore, a porn actor has to endure scorn from hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Maybe I chose the wrong term. Basically the industry is regarded as illegitimate and not given the attention of proper and upright people. Oh, kind of like government then. That's the thing. They all act like they DON'T watch the vids, but clearly some of them too. Privacy means that everybody pays for these people to hide their true selves. And therefore, a porn actor has to endure scorn from hypocrites. Her being porn star IS part of her true self. Still the article does not support your notion of the DA. And what exactly was she hiding by BEING a porn star? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Her being porn star IS part of her true self. Still the article does not support your notion of the DA. And what exactly was she hiding by BEING a porn star? Not HER. The people who criticize her, purporting to be aghast from pornography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Not HER. The people who criticize her, purporting to be aghast from pornography. They are not DA's either, they did not want you to know they watch porn. And those that say something against it are hypocritical. There is no way for someone that watches porn to be shocked or appalled when someone they know is involved in that business. None of this supports the notion or stance of the DA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 They are not DA's either, they did not want you to know they watch porn. Exactly - this is why the DA says that their web watching habits should be public knowledge. Keeping this dirty little secret brings indirect harm to human beings in the pornography industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Exactly - this is why the DA says that their web watching habits should be public knowledge. And that is why the DA approach is dangerous. They have no idea about the societal impacts that would have. Keeping this dirty little secret brings indirect harm to human beings in the pornography industry. I think the fact that there is a porn industry at all is indicating a direct and indirect harm to people in that business. What you want to do is go after the dealer, not the user. The notion of the DA is false. This porn analogy failed in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.