Second Life 1 Facebook 0

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

[* remember this is international** so that doesn't mean any specific government

** I know it's a difficult concept for USA citizens but try]

---

 

Why the crack about US citizens?   Do you get off by making snide little slights?   *shakes head* 

[Bree Giffen]

I got it covered.

http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/02/facial-recognition-camouflage/

[Eloise Baily]

There's no deep stuff going on. We don't mind being cammed all over the place because we know that the truth is, 99% of the time, no-one can be bothered to look at the footage.

[Eloise Baily]

I do like your measured responses Void

[Coby Foden]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Soon everyone will wear glasses with heads-up displays that show all our personal information floating above our heads. Name, relationship status, occupation, interests, biological / birth gender, criminal record etc. 

---

Wow, that's what I've been missing in RL as I'm a constant profile peeper in SL. Now we only need a minimap in RL too... and TP would be cool too...  :smileytongue:

[PeterCanessa Oh]

I made the "no specific government" comment just so US citizens wouldn't make their usual mistake of assuming everything is about the USA.

In the UK we have pretty concrete proof of "**bleep**-up not conspiracy" almost every week so probably our biggest fear is the government issuing an F87b without annex D.  And who doesn't hate it when that happens?

More seriously it's press intrusion/blackmail that's more likely to be a problem.  No-one's so innocent they want to see their worst features splashed across a newspaper.  Unfortunately there are only two things our press does at the moment, as the News International hacking saga, numerous 'trial by press' incidents and almost any encounter with a journalist shows.  Those are a) take money for reprinting someone's press-release, b) print lies and speculation in order to destroy someone who didn't pay them enough.

Unfortunately, of course, everyone country gets the press as well as government that it deserves  (You may all enjoy: http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2010/01/every-nation-has-government-it-deserves.html)

@ Cellestial - of course!

--||-

[Eloise Baily]

OMG no annex D?? What are you even THINKING man??

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

 

 

BTW, I use my RL name and picture on Facebook.  I also use my RL name and picture on G+.....and  I'm very close to that in SL, as I do post a RL picture on my SL profile.    In my RL, people see me and know my name.  So, in RL anyone could do those things...look up information, etc.   It's not like any of us actually have "privacy" in RL, it is an illusion.  

Privacy is an illusion online too, and SL plays into that illusion, by giving people the impression that they are "anonymous" here.  But, all it'd take is a court order or legal subpoena, and anyone's RL name, address, and personal information could be gleaned and mined from the SL data systems..  It's all stored there.  (With the exception of someone who uses a "friend's" computer, and gives a fake name, and maybe even uses a proxy server to lessen IP tracking, but most people in SL don't go to all that trouble.)

---

^ This ^

It's not going to be a popular opinion in here, but I'm actually looking forward to FB's new Timeline that is coming up for release.  It puts your whole life on display, I don't have a problem with that.  I get to control what and how much is released to the general viewing public.  Some things I will put on there, other things, I will not.  Times are changing...the younger generation doesn't have an issue towards privacy that us older folks do, it's a new era   I intend to go with the flow :matte-motes-silly:

In regards to SL...SL influences my RL, it's only right that RL influences my SL. It's who I am, no matter what type of platform I'm on.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

---

Kylie Jaxxon wrote:

Times are changing...the younger generation doesn't have an issue towards privacy that us older folks do, it's a new era

---

I get your point but couldn't that be, timelessly,  re-phrased as "the younger generation doesn't have the caution bred of experience that us older folks do"?

What is "a new era", I think, is the current obsession with being 'famous' that makes people want to splash every aspect of their lives all over the place.  If that is the case then, fair enough, I'm just not part of it - can't complain about other's interests, however daft they (the interests) seem to me.

[Hmmmm, Postulate: Teenagers have traditionally always been desperate about being 'popular' (evolutionary drive = finding position in social heirarchy).  Is the fashion for social media a sign of increasingly extended childhood?]

[Deltango Vale]

It's a big puzzle for me. Does literature affect or reflect? Did Tom Clancy pave the way for the Neocons? Did Charles Dickens create British Socialism? Did Ayn Rand revitalize American Liberalism? Or were they each prisoners of their time, merely reflecting existing attitudes?

(Aside: I use the term Liberalism in its historical, international sense, not in the American sense, which is the exact opposite of its historical-international meaning. Interesting too that the political meaning of red and blue are reversed in America. It always baffles non-Americans that the Republicans use the color of International Socialism/Communism while the Democrats use conservative/business blue.)

Science Fiction anticipates the future. The film GATTACA was way ahead of the curve, for example, though, in my opinion, Neuromancer (the novel by William Gibson) remains unbeatable nearly 30 years after publication. (I honestly believe nothing interesting has been written in Science Fiction since the mid 80s, which is why it was so easy for me to catch up.)

(Aside: what is Science Fiction today other than more hobbits, cavemen, vampires, aliens, cyberspace and Star Wars clones? I think the film Cowboys and Aliens sums it up nicely, though I'm sure Attack of the Vampire Hobbits is being filmed as we speak.) I digress, but I can't help but feel that the world is drowning in boredom.

Anyway, back to topic (well, subtopic), how much influence does literature (and the arts in general) have on RL?

[RudolphUkka]

http://www.tineye.com/

*** Rudi

[Deltango Vale]

"Privacy is an illusion online too, and SL plays into that illusion, by giving people the impression that they are "anonymous" here.  But, all it'd take is a court order or legal subpoena, and anyone's RL name, address, and personal information could be gleaned and mined from the SL data systems..  It's all stored there.  (With the exception of someone who uses a "friend's" computer, and gives a fake name, and maybe even uses a proxy server to lessen IP tracking, but most people in SL don't go to all that trouble.)"

---------------------------------------------------------------

@ everyone

I wasn't thinking so much about back door invasion of privacy (having specialist IT tools to dig to get information) nor was I thinking about government/corporate conspiracies of surveillance. Rather, I was thinking about the consequences of people rushing to publish their entire lives online for anyone and everyone to see it.

As yet, there have been no high-profile cases to bring attention to the problem. Sure, there is the usual:

• houses are burgled because the thieves know from Facebook/Twitter than Dave and Cindy have taken the kids (Sarah and Josh) to visit aunt Cassie in Baltimore for the weekend
• professional scammers and spammers know how to correlate personal information gleaned from the web to replicate identities
• passwords can be guessed much more easily when viewing someone's personal profile (birthdays, street names and addresses, pet names etc.)
• stalking ('Hey, how are things? Saw you on Facebook. I just live next door and I thought I'd pop by and say hello.")
• online quarrels resulting in RL harassment ("FU Tyrone, I'll find you on the street.")
• people change their names to distance themselves from 'youthful and exuberant' blog postings in order to get a professional job ("So, Janet - or should I call you BitchBabeSeven?")
• the spreading of false and malicious gossip ("Gods, Barbara, don't tell anyone about Ted's drinking problem! It's just between you and me, okay?")

Most of us are familiar with these problems, but until we have a 'Murdoch Moment' (a high-profile implosion of something taken for granted), people will blithely expose themselves to several billion nosy neighbors.

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"Privacy is an illusion online too, and SL plays into that illusion, by giving people the impression that they are "anonymous" here.  But, all it'd take is a court order or legal subpoena, and anyone's RL name, address, and personal information could be gleaned and mined from the SL data systems..  It's all stored there.  (With the exception of someone who uses a "friend's" computer, and gives a fake name, and maybe even uses a proxy server to lessen IP tracking, but most people in SL don't go to all that trouble.)"

---------------------------------------------------------------

@ everyone

I wasn't thinking so much about back door invasion of privacy (having specialist IT tools to dig to get information) nor was I thinking about government/corporate conspiracies of surveillance. Rather, I was thinking about the consequences of people rushing to publish their entire lives online for anyone and everyone to see it.

As yet, there have been no high-profile cases to bring attention to the problem. Sure, there is the usual:

• houses are burgled because the thieves know from Facebook/Twitter than Dave and Cindy have taken the kids (Sarah and Josh) to visit aunt Cassie in Baltimore for the weekend
• professional scammers and spammers know how to correlate personal information gleaned from the web to replicate identities
• passwords can be guessed much more easily when viewing someone's personal profile (birthdays, street names and addresses, pet names etc.)
• stalking ('Hey, how are things? Saw you on Facebook. I just live next door and I thought I'd pop by and say hello.")
• online quarrels resulting in RL harassment ("FU Tyrone, I'll find you on the street.")
• people change their names to distance themselves from 'youthful and exuberant' blog postings in order to get a professional job ("So, Janet - or should I call you BitchBabeSeven?")
• the spreading of false and malicious gossip ("Gods, Barbara, don't tell anyone about Ted's drinking problem! It's just between you and me, okay?")

Most of us are familiar with these problems, but until we have a 'Murdoch Moment' (a high-profile implosion of something taken for granted), people will blithely expose themselves to several billion nosy neighbors.

---

Hi Del

I personally do not feel that it increases the chance of any consequences and I don't understand the paranoia (term used lightly) associated with online exposure.  Yes, sure, someone could piece together my info and find me...and do what?  Harm me?  Stalk me?  Is it really any different than some whacko in the grocery store that sees me and follows me?  Or my neighbor down the street who fantasizes over me and might go over the edge? 

IDK...these are all associated risks we take everyday in life.  You might say it increases the risk because you are exposing to so many more people....true, but by the same token, since everyone is putting their info out there, the nut job as a zillion other people to choose from, (probably people closer to him/her with better access,) which would lessen my odds.

 

 

[Deltango Vale]

"Teenagers have traditionally always been desperate about being 'popular' (evolutionary drive = finding position in social heirarchy).  Is the fashion for social media a sign of increasingly extended childhood?"

------------------------------------------------------------

They are the ones who will change their legal names to be free of their online history when applying for professional positions later in life.

In your generation, being arrested while driving drunk might possibly have made it to the local newspaper. Now, your GF's panties are a global hit on YouTube. Maybe you recognize the guy stuffing them into his pocket? If not, I'm sure you can find out.

[Deltango Vale]

Hey

You are absolutely right about the normal risks of life. You are also right that one must not become paranoid. I think I can summarize by saying that online exposure greatly amplifies the normal risks of life. Because of that, I believe many people will gravitate to Second Life.

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

---

Kylie Jaxxon wrote:

Times are changing...the younger generation doesn't have an issue towards privacy that us older folks do, it's a new era

---

I get your point but couldn't that be, timelessly,  re-phrased as "the younger generation doesn't have the caution bred of experience that us older folks do"?

What is "a new era", I think, is the current obsession with being 'famous' that makes people want to splash every aspect of their lives all over the place.  If that is the case then, fair enough, I'm just not part of it - can't complain about other's interests, however daft they (the interests) seem to me.

[Hmmmm, Postulate: Teenagers have traditionally always been desperate about being 'popular' (evolutionary drive = finding position in social hierarchy).  Is the fashion for social media a sign of increasingly extended childhood?]

---

Hi Peter,  I get your point also and respect your feelings/opinion on this. 

I feel we live in a different time and place then we did growing up.  Most are more accessible now...most are involved in online activities, most are part of a social network...there is so much out there, it's an overload of sorts pertaining to information.  Anyone with nefarious intentions, have a lot to pick and choose from...chances are it's not going to be me.

Was our caution bred of experience or paranoia?  Are some of us old school in our ways and habits, or willing to advance with technology?  Some will battle this to the brink just because that's not the way they have always done it...they resist change.  To each their own, I suppose, but I like to think myself as more modern, willing to adapt

P.S.  I do totally agree with you about teenagers, popularity, etc...I don't think the majority do it for that reason though, I think this generation are lazy, they do whatever is fastest and more convenient for them in what they perceive as their hectic worlds

ETA:  changed conceive to perceive, my bad

 

 

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

 

------------------------------------------------------------

They are the ones who will change their legal names to be free of their online history when applying for professional positions later in life.

 

---

lol, totally agree with you on this

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Hey

You are absolutely right about the normal risks of life. You are also right that one must not become paranoid. I think I can summarize by saying that online exposure greatly amplifies the normal risks of life. Because of that, I believe many people will gravitate to Second Life.

---

I can't agree with your summarization...yes, it does amplify the normal risks of life, but because there are so many doing it, that to me, cancels it out.  I know what everyone is going to say...to me, it's the same thing as letting your child outside to play alone or walk down the street...statistics show that it won't happen to your child, but it does have to happen to someone's child   We can't live with the paranoia and not let our children have some semblance of freedom at play.

In re to SL:  I have always felt and still do, no matter what other type of social networks are out there, it doesn't influence it here.  SL is a niche...good for some people, not so much for others.  It's all about our freedom and acceptance within ourselves to imagine, fantasize.  My oldest daughters think I'm nuts for being in here...want to know why?  Because it's not real enough   This, from a generation that consumes reality tv (yea, right...that's reality?) where it is scripted and worked around to present the worst of problems and the airing of dirty laundry) and attend in droves to see such films as "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter."  Doesn't make much sense :smileysurprised:

ETA:  I've got a question.  Do our feelings/outlook of such things (online exposure, privacy) have anything to do with our politics?  Does it go by party line?  Are some of us naturally more conservative or liberal in all things?  I think probably so...it's bred into us, learned, over the years and we gravitate to those basic beliefs.

 

[Eloise Baily]

Well I don't give a flying fairy about what my gubbamint knows about me. I'm not hiding anything.

As for the rest of the population, they don't even know I exist, nor do they care what I get up to, and in the unlikely event that I suddenly become famous...well more power to me with all that juicy goss increasing my exposure right?

I fail to see the downside, but I am very liberal. I just don't see surveillance a s a big deal because they mostly don't give a stuff about you.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

@ All - some very interesting posts in this thread.  In case you missed my RL stuff since I didn't broadcast it on twitter & facebook I have a social-media obsessed teenage daughter who is totally accurate in saying I don't understand her at all (in this respect).

 

---

Eloise Baily wrote:

I fail to see the downside, but I am very liberal. I just don't see surveillance a s a big deal because they mostly don't give a stuff about you.

---

The UK government wanted - ie; the unaccountable civil service wants but can't get - a photograph, fingerprint and DNA database of the entire population.  Would you trust any and all future governments with that information and total CCTV surveillance?  There is simply too much danger that any organisation that doesn't "give a stuff about you" - and I agree with you there - will use that information to become a police state.  Less drastically there's the "guilty-by-misprint" our-records-are-infallible problem when dealing with any (?) civil service - they don't give a stuff about you and correcting the records is too much like work, so sod off.  If those two don't seem like a credible downside to you then - do you trust every single person who has access to that data not to sell, lose or mis-use it in some way?  Ever?  Especially as they don't give a stuff about keeping you - and therefore it - safe.

We've only recently got rid of a totalitarian-inclined (but not actual, I'm not being paranoid here and am exaggerating for effect), anything-for-power, socialist government who were elected thanks to charisma Mr. Blair (first prime-minster to become a millionaire while in power, firs prime minister to be questioned by police, first ex-prime-minister to run off to a cushy international sinecure as soon as possible).  Hitler was elected.  The communist revolutions in Russia and, less so, China were popular movements.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Eloise Baily wrote:

Well I don't give a flying fairy about what my gubbamint knows about me. I'm not hiding anything.

As for the rest of the population, they don't even know I exist, nor do they care what I get up to, and in the unlikely event that I suddenly become famous...well more power to me with all that juicy goss increasing my exposure right?

I fail to see the downside, but I am very liberal. I just don't see surveillance a s a big deal because they mostly don't give a stuff about you.

---

Eloise, I don't doubt that any one of us is at low risk of being harmed by universal surveillance, but I don't know if that's the right way to look at it. While the chance I'll be harmed by an abuse is very low, the chance that someone will is, I think, probably 100%. It's that inevitability we must weigh against the advantages.

[Deltango Vale]

"I've got a question.  Do our feelings/outlook of such things (online exposure, privacy) have anything to do with our politics?  Does it go by party line?  Are some of us naturally more conservative or liberal in all things?  I think probably so...it's bred into us, learned, over the years and we gravitate to those basic beliefs."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting question. My problem is that I don't fit into any of the usual political boxes. I don't even fit into any literary political ideologies. I suppose you could call me a romantic realist.

ETA: must now clean the RL bathroom, which is far from romantic.

[2nis Sands]

"... and TP would be cool too..." Yeah! and I want to be able to detach my camera also in RL :matte-motes-inlove:

[Eloise Baily]

@ Peter. I just can't see them ever being competent enough to organise that.

@ Maddy. There is a 100% chance that someone will die today. It's still not likely to be you. I'm happy to take my chances because it's much more fun for me.

[WADE1 Jya]

Deltango: "Do our feelings/outlook of such things (online exposure, privacy) have anything to do with our politics?"

Perhaps, I just see facebook links to many dangers... a looming police state, rise of identity theft, stalker enablement... A few generations ago, people would never dream to throw away the privacy rights many people willingly do today, facebooking every personal minutae. Facial recognition & yet unseen technologies will only compound the layers of threat.

For me, it is also just an extra task, I am too lazy for things like facebook. Last thing I want to do after doing something fun or cool is get on the internet & waste my time shouting it out into the echo chambers of social media. I'd much rather get onto doing some other cool thing, without the interruptions & hassle social media offers.

BTW: When I do a political test, it labels me an "anarchist", a misnomer in my eyes since I don't want chaos! I just feel local communities can govern themselves without so much formalization & centralization of political power. Furthermore, in context of 21st century, our old world style of "Big Government" is repeatedly shown to be costly, inefficient & often quite redundant.