Beginning of the End of Privacy on the Internet

[Mugwump]

^ TP, the thing about May and police numbers has been worked to death, with political claims and counter-claims. The truth would require a public inquiry, so soaked is it in politics. Firearms officers are certainly irrelevant, as they are only useful when murders have already taken place. The three borough market attackers were killed within eight minutes, which was about as good as could be expected. Intelligence officers are what is needed, and it is often claimed that these have risen in number.

In truth the U.K., for all its supposed austerity, runs a higher tax take than Australia and still has a 5% of GDP deficit each year. Public sector debt is around 85% of GDP, the level at which it starts to be dangerous according to the OECD. There is no real austerity, just continually loose fiscal policy, racking up debts for later generations to pay off.

[think positive]

Gee that's depressing

[HAL]

Do you like talking to me?

[David]

[Mugwump]

^ as an alternative, one could choose not to act shamefully, and accept the responsibility and risk when one has done so. I know it is unfashionably difficult. Wishing away shame from the human race is less likely to succeed than trying to change oneself.

[David]

[Mugwump]

^ no, they do not deserve it. The punishment way outstrips the "crime". But most people do not "deserve" to get cancer, or car accidents, or the many interpersonal injustices that happen to them. Still, acting recklessly will always have consequences. If I could, I would stop these types of hackers, but we cannot. So the best response is simply not to use these sites, recognizing too that they are mostly an evil committed against love, sexuality and against women. We are all capable of avoiding them, and we will all fail occasionally because of our biology, but I don't think that wishing away shame is a better strategy than self-discipline. That is not the same as saying that people deserve excessive consequences for venial social sins ("sin" here being a metaphor, not meant literally).

[Tannin]

^ That is one of the most blandly evil and judgmental posts I've seen here in quite a while.

David's spam scam is incredibly badly executed. You'd have to be an illiterate moron to fall for it. (Not that there is any great shortage of illiterate morons in this country.) And the sender's grasp of technology is very poor.

The most obvious lesson here (among many others) is that webcams should always be physically obscured except when you are actually using the device. (If you do ever use it - most people don't.) All it takes is 0.01 cents worth of sticky tape. (There are neater and more sophisticated methods, of course, but even with zero technical knowledge you can use sticky tape effectively.)

[David]

Not electrical tape? Isn't sticky tape still transparent?

[Mugwump]

^ That is one of the most blandly evil and judgmental posts I've seen here in quite a while.

If you think that a post which points out that consumption of the kind of porn found on the internet is damaging, risky, probably inevitable for most of us, and best avoided is "evil", then your sense of evil is deranged. Libertarianism does that after a while.

[Tannin]

Not electrical tape? Isn't sticky tape still transparent?

No. It is translucent. Like a frosted window, it is sufficient to provide privacy. But by all means check and use an extra layer if required.

[Tannin]

^ That is one of the most blandly evil and judgmental posts I've seen here in quite a while.

If you think that a post which points out that consumption of the kind of porn found on the internet is damaging, risky, probably inevitable for most of us, and best avoided is "evil", then your sense of evil is deranged. Libertarianism does that after a while.

Very poor attempt at a logical answer. Go to the bottom of the class.

What you have tried to do here (consciously or unconsciously) is

(a) imply the worst possible interpretation (your phrase "of the kind of porn found on the internet") in order to pretend that the whole is equal to some selected (and quite likely imaginary) "worst" kind.

(b) preach your own outdated conservative mores as if there was something "right" or "moral" about them.

(c) pretend that a post (of mine) decrying your view that people who don't share your outmoded views deserve whatever evil befalls them was defending the likes and habits of those people, when in fact (of course) it was decrying your vengeful attitude to victims of crime.

What is your next trick? "She is a prostitute, she deserves to be raped?" That (unquestionably nasty) statement is based on exactly the same logic you applied in the post I objected to. Either you agree with both of them, or neither of them. No other possibility can exist. (Short of being content with wildly inconsistent logic between the two statements, of course, which does not strike me as your style.)

[Mugwump]

I am not going to bother defending myself against that disgusting attack. Nothing I wrote remotely resembles the attribution you have placed upon it, let alone the vile view you invented for me to hold. You should have the decency to read what I actually wrote and then apologise, but I recognise that its unlikely you will.

[Tannin]

I read exactly what you wrote the first time. That's why I felt compelled to call you out on it. What a disgraceful blame-the-victim attitude it takes.

[David]