[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 19143)
Message
File  []
close
JC6C4JPJNZG5JCBULYXR5GMRFU.jpg
191431914319143
>> No. 19143 Anonymous
29th April 2019
Monday 10:14 pm
19143 spacer
Rape victims among those to be asked to hand phones to police

Victims of crimes, including those alleging rape, are to be asked to hand their phones over to police - or risk prosecutions not going ahead.

Consent forms asking for permission to access information including emails, messages and photographs have been rolled out in England and Wales. It comes after a number of rape and serious sexual assault cases collapsed when crucial evidence emerged.

Victim Support said the move could stop victims coming forward. But police and prosecutors say the forms can plug a gap in the law which says complainants and witnesses cannot be forced to disclose relevant content from phones, laptops, tablets or smart watches.

Director of Public Prosecutions Max Hill said such digital information would only be looked at where it forms a "reasonable" line of inquiry, with material going before a court only if it meets stringent rules.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48086244

This seems like a worrying turn of events and the unintended consequence of the political pressure to increase the number of rape convictions spearheaded by Alison Saunders.
Expand all images.
>> No. 19144 Anonymous
29th April 2019
Monday 10:29 pm
19144 spacer
>>19143
>the political pressure to increase the number of rape convictions spearheaded by Alison Saunders.
Typical rape apologist, always blaming the woman.
>> No. 19145 Anonymous
29th April 2019
Monday 10:36 pm
19145 spacer
Two posts and I've already gotten cancer from this thread. Colon cancer at that, cancer right up my bum, in my deepest bum crevice lives the thing that will kill me, and this thread caused it. In two posts at that.
>> No. 19146 Anonymous
29th April 2019
Monday 10:42 pm
19146 spacer
I've only attended one rape case in my life, the evidence that the 'victim' was bullshitting about the events was a collection of text messages and phone records of calls to the defendant who 'she had never met before'.

There was also that incedent last year where the police sat on text conversations that proved the innocence of the defendant. If you aren't planning on lying to the court about the events that took place then I don't see the issue in the police collecting evidence and you being fully co-operative with it. Assuming that that evidence isn't used to convict you/ provoke an investigation of an unrelated crime, as long as that is a hard written rule of this policy I have no issue with it, if it isn't then I have a serious problem with it.
>> No. 19147 Anonymous
29th April 2019
Monday 10:44 pm
19147 spacer

_99724835_chart-prosecutions-x48u6-nc.png
191471914719147
>>19144
I know rape is a highly emotive subject, but pressure to increase the rate of convictions has led to a number of cases going to court which shouldn't have gone anywhere near it. There was a 70% increase during the past two years in prosecutions collapsing due to evidence being withheld, including a few high profile rape prosecutions where mobile phone evidence which would have unequivocally proven the accused's innocence weren't disclosed to the defence.

This cack-handed approach now means that women who go forward to the police will have further distress through all of their phone records, going back several years before the incident, will be trawled through by the police. It's also the slippery slope of the authorities snooping on everyone's phone records if they can provide an excuse for it.
>> No. 19148 Anonymous
29th April 2019
Monday 11:10 pm
19148 spacer
>>19147
The formula for these sort of laws is normally not to grant new powers, but to legitimise what is already done.

Also, whooooooosh!
>> No. 19164 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 8:02 pm
19164 spacer
>>19146

>the evidence that the 'victim' was bullshitting about the events was a collection of text messages and phone records of calls to the defendant who 'she had never met before'

I would agree that a defendant has a right to demand the release of exonerating evidence even if it's on the smartphone of the accuser who is the assumed victim of a crime committed by the defendant. The victim may have a right to privacy, and that's fine and deserves respect, but against that right stands the accused's right to fair trial and thus in this case the right to have any and all available exonerating evidence presented to a court.

It's always a balancing act of interests, and it therefore goes beyond the assumed victim's right to have an attacker brought to justice. Both the defendant and the public at large have an undeniable interest in upholding fundamental legal principles, just as the victim.
>> No. 19165 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 8:42 pm
19165 spacer
>>19146
So you really think if there were evidence on the phone that the rape victim was sexually abusing a child the police should be obligated to ignore it?

Why do you support paedophiles, mate?
>> No. 19166 Anonymous
8th May 2019
Wednesday 10:11 pm
19166 spacer
>>19165

I think courts generally have the right to use accidental finds as evidence against you. There is also a clause in police law that states that coincidental finds can be used as evidence against you even if they were collected during a search that was conducted on completely unrelated charges. For example, if they search your house for stolen goods because they believe you are a thief and they find a certain amount of drugs while turning your place upside down, then they have the authority to independently open another investigation against you for drug possession.
>> No. 19167 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 1:04 am
19167 spacer
>>19165

Are you going to let rapists walk free just because they raped someone who sells a bit of pot and therefore doesnt want to incriminate themselves.

>>19166

I've always considered that a licence to come up with flimsy presents to raid someone's house. I remember reading an article years ago about looking for a 'graffiti pen' and finding a house full of weapons far right books and no graffiti pen.
>> No. 19170 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 2:17 am
19170 spacer
I am very uneasy about giving the authorities any access to my data and have spent a lot of time considering whether I would rather go to prison than give up my encryption keys, despite being innocent of any other criminal wrongdoing.

However, it's undeniable that a victim's phone data is an incredibly useful tool, and I don't think the question should be whether or not the police should be using that data, but rather the question should be how we properly regulate the use of that data. I think evidence amnesty for other crimes (within reason) is a pretty good start, but at the same time I'm not sure how many cases we'd actually see where this would be applicable - criminals tend not to report crimes against them for a variety of reasons and have done so long before they carried a digital record of their activities with them at all times.

It's a tough one but probably shouldn't be specific to rape cases. More than anything the problem is how shit the police are at this sort of thing - I'd not want to give my phone up because I'd have no faith that it'd help me in any way and I'd almost certainly be without my phone for an unreasonably long time. Perhaps a 'can you go through your phone with me' approach is better.
>> No. 19171 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 7:05 am
19171 spacer
>>19170
>However, it's undeniable that a victim's phone data is an incredibly useful tool, and I don't think the question should be whether or not the police should be using that data, but rather the question should be how we properly regulate the use of that data.

There was a case where a woman was raped by someone pretending to be a taxi driver and the police asked for the entire history of her phone, going back about seven years, in case there was sexting or pictures of her being intimate with other men; the police claimed her full sexual history was potentially relevant.

I guess what's actually relevant to a case and what a defence lawyer claims is relevant to a case may be two separate things, with the latter far more intrusive.
>> No. 19172 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 10:14 am
19172 spacer
>>19171
Defence lawyers in sexual offences cases have a nasty habit of blaming the victim by suggesting they were putting it about. It's understandable that the police and CPS would want to shut that down from the offset.
>> No. 19173 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 11:30 am
19173 spacer
>>19172

It's like their job is to throw doubt on the guilt of their client or something.
>> No. 19174 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:12 pm
19174 spacer
>>19167
>Are you going to let rapists walk free just because they raped someone who sells a bit of pot and therefore doesnt want to incriminate themselves.
Yes, of course. Criminals who want out of the kitchen because it gets too hot and snitch to the police to rescue them are the lowest of the low.

Besides, everyone knows it's prudent to separate your professional and private lives.


>> No. 19175 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:15 pm
19175 spacer
>>19174
Wow.
>> No. 19176 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:17 pm
19176 spacer
>>19167

Are you saying you want a drug dealer to go free just because someone raped them?

What about if they were a murderer? Okay, murder isn't a good example because in today's moral hierarchy rape is seemingly worse than murder. What if they were a barpetcagger?
>> No. 19177 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:21 pm
19177 spacer
>>19174

The video clearly shows that he has four phones. I'm not sure that this character is entirely trustworthy.
>> No. 19180 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:30 pm
19180 spacer
>>19177
He has two phones, one for the plug and one for the load. He has two phones, one for the bitches and one for the dough. Like he says, four phones. I'm not sure you can do the simplest of addition.

You can't have a hook about four phones, one for the plug, one for the load, one for the bitches and one for the dough. That's just bad songwriting.
>> No. 19181 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:32 pm
19181 spacer
>>19176

I'm suggesting real police work rather than getting someone to incriminate themselves is needed. What you are suggesting is what causes societal break downs and organised crime to gain power because people can't trust the system. If people are afraid to report things to the police because they might be arrested for something else the system breaks down. Also nothing the police love more than snitches and you've got to give them a sane reason to come forward.
>> No. 19182 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 6:38 pm
19182 spacer
>>19181

So you're fine with an innocent person going to jail because they're not allowed to look on someone else's phone to get the evidence that would prove their innocence?

You can't do "proper police work" about sexual assault, that's why it's in such a clusterfuck to begin with. Unless you're suggesting we invent the technology from fucking Minority Report, how do you suppose we sort those cases of one person's word against another out?
>> No. 19183 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 7:04 pm
19183 spacer
>>19182
Why don't they have that same evidence on their own phone? I'm assuming you mean texts of some sort.
>> No. 19186 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 7:43 pm
19186 spacer
>>19183

Stuff gets deleted, phones get lost, things intentionally self-destruct (Snapchat etc). The relevant evidence isn't necessarily communication between the defendant and the plaintiff - it could be a location log showing that they were in different places at the time of the alleged assault, it could be a communication between the plaintiff and a third party, it could be a photo or a video. Getting that data off a phone might be a simple case of scrolling through their recent texts, or it might require sophisticated digital forensics techniques.

Rape and sexual assault are really hard to prove and always have been. Digital data can be hugely useful to both the defence and prosecution, but the problem is the vast amounts of data that might be relevant. A case that would once have been a straightforward matter of your word versus mine could now be as complex as a major fraud investigation, with tens of thousands of items of evidence that could prove or disprove the allegation.
>> No. 19191 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 11:17 pm
19191 spacer
>>19186

>it could be a location log showing that they were in different places at the time of the alleged assault


I think it's safe to say I am not the only person who is greatly uncomfortable with that thought. The only way to obtain such a location log is to store that data before a crime was even committed in the first place that a person may have been involved in. So effectively you are going to have to log the location of every single person in the country continuously, criminal or no, and what you are doing with that is you're weakening the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy.

In a free country, I maintain that it simply isn't any of the government's business to either know my current whereabouts at all times or keep a continuous log of where I have been. If somebody becomes a prime suspect in a crime, then that's a different thing altogether and it's arguably in the public's interest to monitor that person to find out if they are dirty. But to keep an eye on every law-abiding average citizen like that isn't the surveillance state, it's looking at the surveillance state in the rear view mirror.
>> No. 19192 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 11:32 pm
19192 spacer
>>19191

Most people's phones store that data by default, whether they realise it or not. We don't need a centralised database to get that data, just a USB cable and the right software. That's part of the reason why drug dealers prefer old Nokias to smartphones - the very things that make smartphones smart also make them a massive hoard of evidence.

RIPA gives the police the right to extract that data on a suspect's device (and to charge you with an offence if you refuse to unlock your device). I disagree with that, but it is currently the law of the land. If that evidence can be used by the prosecution, then it must also be available to the defence.
>> No. 19194 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 11:49 pm
19194 spacer
>>19192

I can't quite remember how, but I believe I deactivated location logging when I got my Samsung S9 a while ago.
>> No. 19195 Anonymous
9th May 2019
Thursday 11:59 pm
19195 spacer
>>19194

There's an option to turn off location history in the device settings, but most people never use it. A lot of features don't work unless you have it turned on. The camera app will also store the GPS location in the EXIF data unless you turn off geotagging, as many celebrities (and a handful of soldiers and daft militant wogs) have found out to their cost.

There are also non-obvious sources of metadata such as fitness trackers. FitBit continually measures and stores your heart rate, which has been used as evidence in a couple of murder cases in the US.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/25/us/fitbit-womans-death-investigation-trnd/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.html
>> No. 19196 Anonymous
10th May 2019
Friday 12:23 am
19196 spacer
>>19191

I've got bad news for you mate. Do you remember the wierd Orwellian streak our government had ten years or so back, wanting ID cards and cameras everywhere? Why do you think they dropped it? Google helpfully stepped in to do it for them.
>> No. 19198 Anonymous
10th May 2019
Friday 1:55 am
19198 spacer
>>19191

>I think it's safe to say I am not the only person who is greatly uncomfortable with that thought. The only way to obtain such a location log is to store that data before a crime was even committed in the first place that a person may have been involved in.

Do yourself a favour, log into your google account on https://www.google.co.uk/maps/timeline

I'm sure Apple has their own equivalent.
>> No. 19201 Anonymous
10th May 2019
Friday 11:46 am
19201 spacer
>>19198

It tells me that the timeline feature is deactivated on my phone. And then when I activate it, it tells me that there is no timeline data for my device.

Check mate.

I also normally keep GPS switched off. This causes issues with apps that refuse to function without GPS location data, but it's a small price to pay.
>> No. 19203 Anonymous
10th May 2019
Friday 12:45 pm
19203 spacer
>>19201
>Check mate.
I did mate.
>> No. 19204 Anonymous
10th May 2019
Friday 3:06 pm
19204 spacer
>>19201

Send a FOI request to Google.

They know, mate. They don't need your permission or your GPS turned on, that information can be obtained by the cross-reference of dozens of other sources, and that's exactly what the algorithms do.
>> No. 19205 Anonymous
10th May 2019
Friday 3:42 pm
19205 spacer
>>19201

Well, good. But my point is that most people have it on.

Despite being a privacy nutjob myself I do actually see the appeal in that feature, in a weird way. It'd be nice to look back on your trips and adventures in that way. Mine would have loads of dots all over the place. But mine's disabled too, obviously.
>> No. 19206 Anonymous
10th May 2019
Friday 4:05 pm
19206 spacer
>>19205

A friend who likes to go on all kinds of holidays to remote places in Asia says he always makes sure he geotags all his pictures on his phone and stand alone camera. I'm not sure that's necessary to remember all the places you have visited. All the major landmarks you photograph can be looked up quickly online, and I don't see the point of knowing within a few feet the exact location where you took a photo of a sleeping elephant or a nondescript river bank out in the jungle.
>> No. 19212 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 7:57 am
19212 spacer
I think the thing I don't get about the location history thing, is that for most people it would just be a depressing circuit between home, their workplace, and their supermarket. Even as someone who likes to travel and go hiking and so on, probably 95% of my time is spent between those three places. Even if you think of yourself as pretty adventurous, in the grand scheme of things you're probably not as much as you think- The deviations to new locations are going to be a tiny fraction compared to the time you spend between your workplace and at home.
>> No. 19213 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 10:26 am
19213 spacer
>>19212

Google Assistant can still do some useful stuff with that data. It can warn you that you need to leave for work early because of traffic. You can say "Hey Google, remind me to buy bin bags when I'm at the supermarket" and it'll do that. If you've got a Nest thermostat, it can automatically turn your heating on when you leave work so it'll be warm by the time you get home. If you ask "Hey Google, do I need an umbrella today?" it'll check the weather for both your current location and your expected locations later in the day.

That's the quid pro quo - it'll do some slightly convenient things if you hand over all of your personal information. The sales figures for Google Home and Amazon Echo suggest that it's quite a popular tradeoff.
>> No. 19215 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 1:31 pm
19215 spacer
>>19213

>It can warn you that you need to leave for work early because of traffic.

If you've worked at your job any length of time, you will know to allow an extra 20 minutes a day because traffic can be dense every other day where you need to go.

>If you've got a Nest thermostat, it can automatically turn your heating on when you leave work so it'll be warm by the time you get home.

The horror of sitting in an unheated flat for 20 minutes after you come home.

>"Hey Google, do I need an umbrella today?" it'll check the weather for both your current location and your expected locations later in the day.

You could just look out the window, or ask weather.com. Or invest in one of those miniature umbrellas that fit in a briefcase.

Honestly, today's generation is doomed. If you put a bunch of them in the desert for a week without all their electronic gadgets, none of them would survive. Even if you provide enough food and water.
>> No. 19221 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 4:45 pm
19221 spacer
>>1921

There's a difference between taking advantage of convenient technology and being completely reliant on it. I don't think there's anyone in the world who couldnt find put if they need a brolly if Alexa hadnt told them.
>> No. 19222 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 6:19 pm
19222 spacer

12b.jpg
192221922219222
>>19215
>Honestly, today's generation is doomed. If you put a bunch of them in the desert for a week without all their electronic gadgets, none of them would survive. Even if you provide enough food and water.


They've been saying that for centuries, what makes it true this time?
>> No. 19223 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 6:26 pm
19223 spacer
>>19222
In the past people have learned to take a lot of things for granted, people generally don't know how to do manual tasks like start a fire, or skin a rabbit, but most people are more than capable of learning with a bit of effort.
What concerns me about the current direction technology has moved in, is that people are getting used to now having to think for themselves, they don't know how to learn.
>> No. 19224 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 6:27 pm
19224 spacer
>>19222
I assume we're contemporaries and I'd just like to ask that you don't post shitty 4chan memes when speaking on behalf of all of us.
>> No. 19225 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 6:30 pm
19225 spacer
>>19222

Arguably it's true now and always has been. You'd die of exposure in a desert even if you had food and water.
>> No. 19228 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 6:46 pm
19228 spacer
>>19225
Nah, mate, my nan, right, she could could just make a Jabba the Hut skiff out of empty water bottles and used Kendall Mint cake wrappers. That's how she escaped the Krauts during the war. Me? I'm not even sure which war she was on about. Penisular I think, but it's anyone's guess the way her mind's gone.
>> No. 19229 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 7:16 pm
19229 spacer
>>19223

>they don't know how to learn

Are you on crack?

I know how to wire my house up, I know how to tear apart and rebuild an engine, I know how to survive in the wilderness, I know how to build a shed, and I learned all of this by googling it. When you search "how to top up my oil" it doesn't do it for you, it tells you how to do it, then you do it. It's utterly incomprehensible to me that people think the entire wealth of human knowledge being available at all times to everyone with a phone or computer is somehow detrimental to learning. Asking Alexa what the weather like is no different to looking it up on teletext or watching whatshisface run around on that floating map - it's just faster.

I'll concede I'm worse at spelling now that autocorrect exists, mind.
>> No. 19233 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 7:39 pm
19233 spacer
>>19228

My nan can't reliably play a DVD without accidentally turning on the Danish subtitles or the director's commentary. My mum doesn't know how to use keyboard shortcuts in Word, despite the fact that she's used Word all day every day for the last 20 years. When I used to work in an office, the older workers looked at me like I was a wizard because I could unjam the printer and use Pivot Tables in Excel.

Everyone over 50 is thick as mince. Most people under 50 are also thick as mince, but at least some of them aren't completely bewildered by any technology more advanced than a Bic Biro.
>> No. 19236 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 8:12 pm
19236 spacer
My mum mentioned off hand in a conversation with me that she needed a new car because hers didn't have enough power and she was struggling to make gaps in roundabouts etc because it was so slow. It's a 1.6 Micra so it should be nippy enough, so I went to have a look at it, assuming the brakes were binding or the engine was knackered. It seemed fine to me, and after a while, and many questions, I finally worked out that the issue was that she wasn't pressing the accelerator pedal down far enough.

I don't understand how people are like this. She's genuinely quite a practical woman, but when it comes to something she decides is 'too complicated' then there's immediately a barrier there. She never even considered trying to change the way she was driving.

It's the same story with computers, and I see it in my grandad too. He's the sort of bloke who takes something apart just to see how it works, yet refuses to do even a fraction of the same thing inside Windows. I've told him many times that's how I learned - I tried stuff out. Back in those days it was easier to knack something (I did manage to format a hard drive via BIOS) but now, I reckon even if you tried to break Windows entirely you'd have a hard job without disabling all of the automatic protection. But I think they just decide that they simply can't ever learn it. I just don't get it. If I shoved my modular synth in front of him he'd suss out exactly how it worked within an hour or so, but just can't even begin to try to work out how to log in to his Barclays account online.

Honestly, the older generation is doomed. If they can't even work out how to ask Alexa where the nearest McDonalds is, how are they going to fend off the scammers after their pensions?
>> No. 19237 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 8:15 pm
19237 spacer
>>19233

I guess in the end, it's all about adaptation to your contemporary environment. In today's world as a functioning adult, you simply aren't viable if you don't know how to use a mobile phone or a number of other electronic devices and gadgets. And people past a certain age who aren't digital natives just struggle to keep up.

But if you with your smartphone and your Alexa pod were transported back to a farmstead in the 1600s where you had to be self sufficient and know how to do such things as sow wheat so you would have food over the winter, or fix a broken cartwheel on your own without which you couldn't take your other produce to the town market to earn a few shillings, or if you didn't know what herbs to collect if you had stomach problems (and avoid the ones that are poisonous while doing so), you would be dead in the water.

I read an article some time ago about the "Mediaeval" scene, you know, where people's idea of weekend fun is to dress in chain mail, wield swords, drink mead from cow horns and attempt to speak Middle English. They asked a historian whose area of expertise was actually the English Middle Ages, and that historian said that the overwhelming majority of them wouldn't survive more than a few days if they were actually teleported back to that period.

Serves them right. Tossers.
>> No. 19239 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 9:06 pm
19239 spacer
>>19237

We don't live in the 1600s though, we live in 2019. Those people from the 1600s would be totally fucked if they were transported to paleolithic Africa, because they wouldn't recognise any of the flora and fauna and wouldn't know how to knap flint tools or start a fire without a steel.

If for some reason I desperately needed a stone axe, I could learn how to make one in about an hour on YouTube. Same story if I need to mend an 18th century sewing machine or build a blacksmith's forge. The whole point of modernity is that we don't all need to know the most primitive skills of survival - we each specialise in something to collectively facilitate a far better standard of life. Old people are highly adapted to a world that doesn't exist any more and don't have the willingness or the cognitive flexibility to adapt.

IMO the most important skill in the modern world is knowing how to learn. I don't actually know much about computers, but I know how to type error messages into Google, which usually amounts to the same thing. I've never owned an iPhone, but I fix them for other people all the time, just because I'm better at Googling than them and have a vague conceptual model of how a computing device works.

My nan is worse at using a computer than my five-year-old nephew, not because of a difference in knowledge, but a difference in attitude. My nan won't touch anything unless she has been given explicit instructions on exactly what to do and she has no idea how to react if those instructions don't work, whereas my nephew will just have a go and see what happens.
>> No. 19242 Anonymous
11th May 2019
Saturday 10:17 pm
19242 spacer
>>19239

I think the Internet has really become a game changer in terms of the acquisition of specialist knowledge. 30 years ago, if you wanted to know how to fix electronics, sure, there were a handful of books on DIY electronics that taught you how to solder in a capacitor or what transistors and LEDs were best suited for a particular project. But it generally couldn't replace professional training as an electronic technician. Nowadays, the same can't necessarily be said anymore. You've got DIYers on youtube who never had any professional training in that field, but who have amassed a wealth of knowledge via online resources that almost matches what you learn during a technical apprenticeship.
>> No. 19254 Anonymous
12th May 2019
Sunday 12:26 pm
19254 spacer
>>19239

>If for some reason I desperately needed a stone axe, I could learn how to make one in about an hour on YouTube

They had youtube in paleolithic Africa?


>The whole point of modernity is that we don't all need to know the most primitive skills of survival

But that's exactly what makes us vulnerable. Many of us only know how to exist and survive in the kind of environment that Western civilisation provides today. If you're hungry, you go to a shop and get something to eat. Or to drink. If you need to travel a bit further afield, you get on a bus or train. Nobody has to walk three hours to get to the other side of town unless they really want to.

The question is, if that narrow band of favourable conditions that civilisation provides for the individual is ever really upset or breaks down, will most people be able to fend for themselves without all their little tech helpers and without all the infrastructure.

It would indeed be a good test to put a handful of people in the desert for a while or on a remote island to see what they are really made of. And I guess for that reason, I actually like shows like The Island With Bear Grylls. Let's leave aside the allegations of scripted reality and fakery for a moment and look at the concept itself. It takes people out of their comfort zone, and confronts them with a world where if you don't know how to make fire by rubbing pieces of wood together and you don't succeed at hunting and killing some wildlife, you simply won't eat. The show still provides a controlled environment where people can be flown out swiftly if they break their foot or are undernourished or dehydrated and where there is always a doctor in the group who has a few medical supplies on hand. But without any of that, you would see pretty quickly who really has what it takes to be a survivor regardless of the environment.
>> No. 19260 Anonymous
12th May 2019
Sunday 2:37 pm
19260 spacer
>>19236
Over the last few years my mum's taught herself to "upcycle" funiture to the point that she's begun selling it commercially, but I still have to show her how to take a screenshot on her laptop. I just don't understand the disconnect some people have, maybe it's like being colour blind or something?
>> No. 19267 Anonymous
13th May 2019
Monday 10:42 am
19267 spacer
>>19191
> The only way to obtain such a location log is to store that data before a crime was even committed in the first place
It's happening already. Data retention laws have been in place for a long time, in many countries.
Not to mention marketing departments who also love this kind of snooping.
>> No. 19268 Anonymous
13th May 2019
Monday 1:03 pm
19268 spacer
>>19267
GDPR has taken care of marketing departments - the big holes are around advertising technology, where it is currently almost impossible to control your own data, and social networks, obviously, where people accidentally/willingly hand over enough information to create such detailed logs of preferences and movement.
>> No. 19272 Anonymous
13th May 2019
Monday 4:10 pm
19272 spacer
>>19268
Europe maybe. Septics still have it up their collective arse. Don't even mention PRC and Russia.
And even with GDPR there's still the whole load of security apparatuses that have clearly shown they're still onto total informational awareness, the only difference being how blatant they are about it.
I can really feel that old Chinese curse now.
>> No. 19273 Anonymous
13th May 2019
Monday 6:42 pm
19273 spacer
>>19272
Part of the reasons the Americans have to put up with it is that big business likes to maintain the illusion of freedom, and the fictions that restrictions on them would Stifle Innovation™ and that they're just a manifestation of the American Dream™. Also, apparently having rules is Communism™.
>> No. 19281 Anonymous
13th May 2019
Monday 11:37 pm
19281 spacer
>>19273

That's about the size of it. People in the U.S. will defend a major corporation's freedom of speech even if that corporation then abuses that freedom of speech to fuck them in the arse worse than Louie Spence on a cocaine binge.

And it's coincidentally the same with free enterprise. Even the most dirt poor white trash redneck in a run-down trailer park will sing praise to American free enterprise, even if he himself will never in a million years see a single dime of profit from it for himself.

In that respect, you almost have to admire the degree of delusion that a lot of Americans have been brainwashed into.
>> No. 19282 Anonymous
14th May 2019
Tuesday 12:23 am
19282 spacer
>>19273
Semi-related, but I realised recently just how bad it is for that lot to be in direct control of all the world's most massive internet companies. I wonder if Alphabet or Disney will win the final war between men.
>> No. 19283 Anonymous
14th May 2019
Tuesday 10:31 am
19283 spacer

rha_20121011_neutralite.png
192831928319283
>>19282

The bigger worry is going to be net neutrality. The Republicans under Trump have seriously endangered it. If the major media corporations in the U.S. had their way, you would get "media packages" with your subscription to an Internet service that would block out smaller and independent news and media web sites that compete with the likes of Time Warner or News Corporation. You would then only be able to read news and information provided by the major media outlets that you have booked with your Internet service subscription.

This would greatly affect the poor, because the most affordable packages would only come with access to a handful of news sites, while you would have to pay a lot extra for full access to all of the Internet. And being that poor people already tend to be undereducated, it would only mean that they would be particularly susceptible to certain types of media propaganda.
>> No. 19284 Anonymous
14th May 2019
Tuesday 4:18 pm
19284 spacer
>>19283
Russia has been acting up recently with its website blocking shite. Looking at your picture I think I vaguely get how they might implement whitelisting.
Sage for veering too far into the East.
>> No. 19288 Anonymous
15th May 2019
Wednesday 4:24 pm
19288 spacer
>>19283

That almost certainly isn't how an absence of net neutrality will work in the US at all. But since you and the tech companies who made up that idea are on the 'right side' I'm not going to poo poo you too much.

All I'm going to say is you probably didn't mind when the mobile shops on the highstreet were offering unlimited pokemon go data.
>> No. 19289 Anonymous
15th May 2019
Wednesday 4:36 pm
19289 spacer
>>19288
What a confusing post.
>> No. 19290 Anonymous
15th May 2019
Wednesday 6:39 pm
19290 spacer

wapo-netflix-comcast-graph.png
192901929019290
>>19288
>That almost certainly isn't how an absence of net neutrality will work in the US at all
No, it almost certainly is how it will work. We know this because it's already happened.
>> No. 19301 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 7:31 am
19301 spacer
>>19290

That graph has literally nothing to do with what was claimed. There is a difference so obvious I shouldn't have to explain between throttling content speed, and blocking it and either only supplying preferred partners or charging a premium to let the content through at all.

I don't know honestly how you can prove exactly what you just quoted correct whilst claiming the opposite. Why are you so insecure about someone saying you are wrong?
>> No. 19302 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 9:29 am
19302 spacer
>>19301

Exactly. Throttling isn't blocking. Throttling is just the inconvenience of content not loading fast enough, blocking is, well, blocking. Even if it's just so you will fork over additional money to have something unblocked.
>> No. 19306 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 2:02 pm
19306 spacer
>>19301

They weren't even throttling, they just had inadequate network capacity. The speed went up because Netflix did a deal with Comcast to create direct links between their networks, bypassing Comcast's overloaded links to the wider internet. Netflix complained because Comcast charged them for these private links, but content distribution networks like Akamai and CloudFlare were already paying for similar arrangements. Everything was slow on Comcast, but Netflix wanted a special first-class service and didn't want to pay for it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-comcast-deal-explained-2014-2
>> No. 19307 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 5:14 pm
19307 spacer
>>19306
>Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and AT&T have all refused to hook their data centers up to Netflix's servers without payment from the video streaming service.
There are two ways to get your network hooked up to another. This arrangement of getting direct links to exchange traffic is called peering. The other network agrees to carry your traffic in return for you carrying theirs. The other way to do it is transit, where you pay the other network to carry your traffic. Comcast basically demanded an arrangement where they got to act like peers but Netflix still paid for transit. Throw in that Comcast owns NBC and Hulu and the motivations become a little clearer. An awful lot of backsliding on the internet has come about from consolidation between comms and media, and the inherent conflicts of interest that come with it.
>> No. 19311 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 6:16 pm
19311 spacer
>>19307

The argument was that peering with Netflix isn't a traditional peering arrangement, because the traffic flow is effectively unidirectional. They're not joining up two networks for their mutual benefit, they're building an express lane for a massive data hog. We can debate the merits of that argument, but it isn't prima facie wrong.
>> No. 19315 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 6:41 pm
19315 spacer
>>19311
>They're not joining up two networks for their mutual benefit
How is it not to Comcast's benefit to provide their customers with a better connection to a service that evidently a significant number of them make significant use of?
>> No. 19317 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 7:07 pm
19317 spacer
>>19315
They don't give a shit about their customers.
>> No. 19318 Anonymous
16th May 2019
Thursday 10:14 pm
19318 spacer
>>19315
>>19317
In many places in Seppoland, there is only one broadband provider; they often use litigation to enforce their monopoly.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/24/17882842/us-internet-broadband-map-isp-fcc-wireless-competition

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password