Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Problem With How We Think Of Surveillance

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the watching-you dept.

Government 96

blastboy writes "Here's a great essay on Snowden, technology and the problem with how we think of surveillance. From the article: 'Why do we give them our data? For the same reason that prompted the protesters to pull out their phones amid a swirl of tear gas: digital channels are one of the easiest ways we have to talk to one another, and sometimes the only way. There are few things more powerful and rewarding than communicating with another person. It’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment short of the death penalty in modern states is solitary confinement. Humans are social animals; social interaction is at our core. Yet the more we connect to each other online, the more our actions become visible to governments and corporations. It feels like a loss of independence. But as I stood in Gezi Park, I saw how digital communication had become a form of organization. I saw it enable dissent, discord, and protest.'"

cancel ×

96 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 8 months ago | (#46242995)

"Why do we give them our data?"

Wrong question, because it incorrectly assumes that something is willingly "given." More properly, "Why do they take our privacy?"

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243043)

No, you give them your data. Well, maybe not you personally, but in general, we do. We insert Facebook in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to, and everything people do on FB was done without FB for a few decades online before that.

We put all our photos up on social network sites, instead of just sharing them with our friends, we share them with data mining companies.

Fill in your own example - there are thousands upon thousands. But yes, we give them our data. We GAVE those companies the power to data-mine us to hell. We MADE those companies succeed financially.

Captcha: consent. We gave them our consent, and routed all our communications through them. They took advantage of it, but what did we expect?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243057)

Yeah and you don't always have to give real data. But many do anyway.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243485)

It makes no difference. You give your false number; five of your friends give a wrong number. fifty of your friends give your right number and label you with your correct name and address. Facebook does the statistics and knows exactly who you are.

This is why the original parent post is wrong "we" give the data about "you". There is no escape. Facebook has a shadow profile about you which they even admit to, but that's just a placeholder which links a bunch of data your friends hold about you which facebook will never admit to because, ironically, "that would be a breach" of your friends data privacy.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243729)

Free fake friends are cheap.

Bots are cheap

indians are CHEAPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Free intercept is seldom cheep.
I am a liar.

Analysis is exponentially expensive.

I
AM
A ROBOT

BREAK BREAK bREAK BREAK

Re:Huh? (1)

msauve (701917) | about 8 months ago | (#46243177)

I don't have a FB account, speak only for your own foolishness.

Re:Huh? (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 8 months ago | (#46243441)

You are a statistical outlier. This is not about you. Sit back and learn about the majority of people, who are different from you. Yes, such people exist, and make up the vast sea of humanity.

They aren't on Facebook? Non sequitur, they would be if they chose poorly between an internet connection vs. a pot to shit in.

Re:Huh? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243533)

You are a statistical outlier. This is not about you. Sit back and learn about the majority of people, who are different from you.

The majority of people are idiots.

And you are an idiot too if you actually believe that I "should" care even slightly
about the fact that idiots do idiotic things, particularly when I have absolutely
no control nor even any influence over the behavior of those idiots.

By the way, fuck you and your sanctimonious bullshit, you holier-than-thou
prick.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243791)

Step 1. Call other people idiots.
Step 2. Call other people holier-than-thou
Step 3. Make Irony MilkShake

Re:Huh? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#46243807)

You are a statistical outlier.

And you are just a plain lire.

The majority of people do not have facebook accounts.
Oh, and here's another tip for you: your little circle jerk of facebook friends does not represent the real world.

Re:Huh? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 8 months ago | (#46245573)

And you are just a plain lire.

He is a misspelled musical instrument?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46247631)

That's 'lyre' - he's actually a unit of Italian currency, the 'lire'

Sigh

Re:Huh? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 8 months ago | (#46247415)

And you are just a plain lire.

The majority of people do not have facebook accounts.
Oh, and here's another tip for you: your little circle jerk of facebook friends does not represent the real world.

Actually, Facebook gathers "shadow profiles" of people who don't have accounts but friends talk about anyways (and the information is "public" - so it's advantageous to create an account if nothing other than to mark it private).

And while the vast majority of the world doesn't have a Facebook account, the ones of interest to data miners do. If I wanted to market to people who had money, I don't care about the billions of people in third world countries who can't afford computers, nevermind get on Facebook.

More specifically, If I wanted to target the top 15% wealthiest people or so (about a billion), you can bet a good chunk of them are on Facebook. The rest? Well, they've got other problems that aren't of interest and not worth spending money marketing or getting data about.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46254649)

Well, we are 7 billions in this world and just 500 millions are on Facebook, less than 7.15%. I really don't think Facebook is relevant and believe me, will not be in the future as people change products more frequently nowadays and Facebook is just another product!

Re: Huh? (1)

Badblackdog (1211452) | about 8 months ago | (#46243343)

Finally, a decent ironic captcha. Most are pretty much a stretch, at best, some, I don't get at all.

Re: Huh? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#46243815)

Finally, a decent ironic captcha.
Most are pretty much a stretch, at best, some, I don't get at all.

If you were referring to TFA you are not alone in your bewilderment. It is neither a great article (as the summary suggests), nor does it have a particularly well structured chain of thought. It is, at best, tangential to what the summary claims, and the entire purpose seems to be the self aggrandizement of an urban anarchist and his photographer buddy.

I'd like my 10 minutes back please.

Re: Huh? (1)

RespekMyAthorati (798091) | about 7 months ago | (#46256531)

That is , it says nothing at all. Didn't the poster read it?

Re:Huh? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 8 months ago | (#46243389)

It also flows from various stages of life: higher education, car use, phone records, medical needs, unemployment insurance, buying books/internet use.
Most of that can be shared between govs once you become interesting or bought on the open market by govs to index and sort until they find you interesting.
Add in local mil mercenary data firms, contractors with clearances - all the classic privacy firewalls are gone between the public, private and a globally connected intelligence community.
The good aspect is the press and law reform groups 'finally' know what they are been subjected to and just get on with their reporting.
What can the State do? Show their parallel construction methods in court as a chilling method for the press? Sooner or later the 'free' press knows its working in a digital East Germany 2.0 with all the expectations of self-censorship.

Re:Huh? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46243407)

There are two different "we"s in some languages (IIRC Finnish being one of them). An inclusive one and an exclusive one, i.e. including or excluding the one you're talking to.

I sincerely hope you meant the excluding one. For I don't feel like I am part of that "we" you talk about. For the very reason you mention I neither have a FB account nor did I ever consent to my picture being smeared across any pages.

The problem I have with the whole shit is that even if I decide not to give away my data, you may rest assured that there will be some idiot who will, by accident or chance, because I happen to be part of his "we", despite my best efforts. I try to steer clear of people who feel the urge to tell everyone what texture the latest dump they took had, but you don't always find out before it's too late.

Now, governments around the world take away our freedom for the pretense to "protect" us. From drugs to terrorism, they're never short on reasons to tell us that we can't do something because it's their job to protect us.

Oddly, it doesn't seem to be their job to protect us from exploitation by data miners. Why could this possibly be...

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243411)

I do none of the things you suggest; I don't have accounts on social networks, I don't even login to my /. account anymore to reduce trackability. Yet I'm being watched and my footprints online mined.

I've given them nothing. They've taken it anyway.

To understand where OP is coming from you need to realize this is not something that's limited to tech companies. It's a part of our culture. Acquisition of valuable assets is put before any other considerations. We *COULD* have social network tools that are under our own control, there's certainly no technical reason why they don't exist. But it isn't in the interests of our masters to allow that, so we're left only with the options they can use for their gain.

blame facebook (3, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | about 8 months ago | (#46243515)

IMHO, you're giving facebook.com and others a pass.

They have the **factors of production**...facebook wasn't ONLY some kids in a dorm room. They were from rich families who could support them for years before they made any profit directly. They had family connections to high level attorneys. They had the protection of our laws paid by all of our taxes.

You can't be consistent and just cross your arms and say, "Hey, its their system, you agreed to it...if you dont like it dont use it"....that's only half an argument. It's a complaint masked as an argument. Anyone who says this is thinking like a slave.

It's inconsistent because its not a free market. Any facebook.com competitor faces ***SEVERE*** barriers to entry that are by facebook.com's design.

There is an artificial scarcity of competition with facebook.com.

Re:Huh? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#46243577)

Just because people do that doesn't mean that facebook/nsa et al don't TAKE that communication.. They could choose to anonymize it. They don't.

Re:Huh? (1)

guises (2423402) | about 8 months ago | (#46243823)

Exactly. you could rewrite that sentence any number of other ways:

"We insert the internet in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
"We insert phones in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
"We insert pencil and paper in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."

Facebook is just another communications medium and doesn't have to be the privacy blackhole that it is. When you post your personal information you're doing it because you want to share with your friends and family, and the fact that Facebook then turns around and sells it to advertisers is entirely on them.

I'm not giving the people who use Facebook a pass here, at some point a person has to take responsibility for their own actions, but there's nothing inherently wrong with social networking.

Re:Huh? (1)

Evtim (1022085) | about 8 months ago | (#46243625)

I've got nothing of this. Nothing. No Facebook, no tweeter, no nothing. Not even a picture of me on the public Internet can be found. /. and Linkedin , that is all [I regret the latter and perhaps I am beginning to regret the former too].

Now, do you think that the contacts from my phone are not pulled hundred times already by everyone and their dog? Do you think that I have no file somewhere based only on my /. posts? Do you think my I-net queries and everything I do online is not followed? Do you think that in the rare occasions I have used navigation the data is not stored somewhere "for my convenience"?

After the Iron Curtain fell I saw my file. I was 16 years old when the system collapsed and I did have a file. WTF, I was just a youngster in high school! Everyone did have a file apparently. You want to tell me that today it is any different? If anything it is easier to realize and the paranoia of the western powers is just as large as the one of the communists with the added "bonus" that now both the government and the businesses are fucking us...

Re:Huh? (1)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about 8 months ago | (#46244099)

You give them your data the same way you give the road your tires. There's some strange expectation that the rest of your vehicle isn't being consumed / sold / exploited when you do so.

Re: Huh? (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about 8 months ago | (#46245857)

You know what really bothers me? I don't have Facebook for the exact reasons you've mentioned. But under current laws and social norms someone could take a picture of me and give it to Facebook who will keep it forever, use face recognition software on it, etc, etc, all without me even agreeing to their ridiculous EULA. That should be illegal.

Re:Huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243051)

Because F U C K B E T A.

Re:Huh? (2)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 8 months ago | (#46243077)

Where does "our" data end end "theirs" begin? The question has no clear answer. If I do something in public, do I own everyone else's knowledge of what I did? Is it a violation of my privacy if someone sees me in the street and tells a friend about it?

Re:Huh? (2)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 8 months ago | (#46243199)

I care little that some stranger I've never seen before happens to notice that I leave a bar. I do care when I realize that someone is following me everywhere I go.

Re:Huh? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46243401)

And omnipresent CCTV is pretty much "someone following every single step you take".

If I do something like that, I'd be in jail for stalking. If the government does it millions of times every single day, it's "protection".

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46245213)

It's even worse than that. It's not just "someone," but potentially many people in the government.

Re:Huh? (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 8 months ago | (#46244521)

A good point, this is where I eventually arrived in my own ruminations. If I post on Facebook that I like gardening, and Facebook shows me gardening related ads, well that is their business model isn't it? It is when they use web referers off of their ubiquitous tracking bugs that I think they cross over into a bad place.

websites are not public space! (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 8 months ago | (#46243537)

Where does "our" data end end "theirs" begin? The question has no clear answer.

I have to differ for several reasons.

First, the 'data' is 1's and 0's stored on any number of servers. It completely technically possible to isolate where exactly your digital data is stored.

2nd, it's easy to define and protect a person's personal information by law. It's called 'unreasonable search and seizure' of 'personal papers, etc' in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that people make false distinctions between digital & non-digital information!!!

Third, If I do something in public, do I own everyone else's knowledge of what I did? Is it a violation of my privacy if someone sees me in the street and tells a friend about it?

facebook.com is not public space!!! it is a private company with privately owned servers that hold your 1s & 0s that operates under the ***LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES***

private companies are subject to regulation

end of story

we can define & have the legal authority to limit how companies use our information

Re:websites are not public space! (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 8 months ago | (#46244497)

So you want to be able to give information to some other party, and then dictate what they can and cannot do with it? Isn't this what we call DRM? My point is that is it not your information any more than it would be if your neighbor observed that you like gardening.

Re:websites are not public space! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46245231)

You clearly don't know what DRM is if you think it's the same as having laws that protect people's privacy.

Actually, government owns everything (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 8 months ago | (#46243145)

Those with power get to do whatever they want to those with less power.

It is how life works.

In life, you actually CAN'T do what you want. You can only do what those in power allow you to do.

This is a basic fact-of-life that libertarians do not comprehend. They mistakenly assume life comes for free, because they were mistakenly taught that way. They do not know about the real power structure in society, that they are of limited power, and that those in power have no interest in giving away their powers.

The most useful takeaway from this for libertarians is to understand that, no, you are not a precious snowflake. There are powers greater than you. You are worthless scum, and your only hope in life is to attach yourself to those of greater power.

We big-government socialists understand that. We know that, hey, individuals are insignificant, that corporations are powerful, and that government is most powerful. We therefore use the powers of government to fight against corporations. That is why we get free shit like healthcare and other government stuff.

I would encourage you to think how this structure applies to your privacy rights. Corporations want to eliminate your privacy for the purposes of profit. Your only hope to fight against that is to consider how government can protect you.

You already saw how government protects you through the Snowden disclosures, where the NSA actually has filters to protect US citizens' privacy. (because fuck foreigners).

If the government wasn't interested in your privacy rights, why would they have a classified system designed to protect and filter your private data in the first place? "huuurrr durrr but NSA is scary hurrr!"

So, get over yourselves and your precious snowflakeness, and quickly figure out how you use government to your advantage, because you're worthless on your own.

Re:Actually, government owns everything (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46243397)

You can do whatever you want. You may only get to try once, but you can.

Re:Actually, government owns everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243567)

In life, you actually CAN'T do what you want. You can only do what those in power allow you to do.

You're wrong, you pathetic brainwashed sheep-like pretense of a human being.

The TRUTH is that in life anyone can do whatever he likes. There may be consequences,
but each and every human on this planet is nonetheless able to do whatever he or she wants to
do.

Steve Jobs did what HE liked. He sold boxes that allowed illegal use of WATS trunk lines
which allowed people to make free phone calls. Then he went legit and the rest is history.
Steve Jobs did not wait around for permission to be given. You want another example ?
Stalin. You might not like what he did but he didn't wait around for permission to be given.

Winners in life do what they like in ways which are clever enough that they gain more control
and thus can do even more things as they damned well please.

Losers like you ask for permission and are paralyzed until permission is given.

Re:Actually, government owns everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46249279)

One can argue that a person does have complete liverty of action, pending consequences.

However, this conveniently ignores the implicit fact that acts which should not have consequences - speaking out, for example, against the government, in a society which is putatively free - are in fact actions which are circumscribed by custom and de facto behavior. So by doing so, a person might move themselves outside the social mean, and secondly, people holding power may take unethical or unlawful action in an attempt to circumscribe speech, without being held to account for their behavior.

Steve Jobs and Stalin are poor examples, I'm afraid. Steve Jobs basically took a vision of user-friendly computing and sold it to the masses. And Stalin misused his power to silence people with whom he disagreed, in complete violation of the putative laws of the Soviet Union, and was never held to account. Better to think of someone like Alexander Solzenitzhn, who spoke forthrightly and suffered for it.

Mozumder Doesn't Get It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243743)

We therefore use the powers of government to fight against corporations.

How's that working for ya? What's that you say, not so well? Maybe maximizing the power of the government isn't such a good idea after all eh, but that would mean admitting that we libertarians are on to something with the smaller government angle. Who do you think will best grasp the levers of power in your overbearing government, you or the corporations and billionaires whom you claim to despise? To whom will you complain when the powerful state that you helped create is turned against you? The difference between libertarians and statists like you is that we recognize that the world is not perfect and will never be perfect and we're willing to accept a less bad situation because we understand that that's all that we can realistically expect. Do you not see that by empowering the government you are merely handing a powerful weapon to your enemies? So who's the greater fool? I submit that it's statists like you who are the useful idiots for those in power, not us "precious snowflake" libertarians. BTW, "precious snowflake" is really wide of the mark. It's libertarians who humbly accept their own limitations and the limitations of of their fellow man, unlike you statists who think that you know how to run other people's lives better than they do and are willing to use whatever means necessary, including force, to do it.

Re:Mozumder Doesn't Get It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46244423)

How's that working for ya?

The same way nuclear fusion is working for ya, I'd imagine.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243149)

"Why do we give them our data?"

Wrong question, because it incorrectly assumes that something is willingly "given." More properly, "Why do they take our privacy?"

yeah, we dont give em anything, they steal it, plain and simple. and thers nothing like security or privacy. measures taken work only as a placebo. what we see as internet its only lan for them. and also this guy suggests we re social. thats a delusion. social creatures can share. not we. and that thing w/snowden isnt a bit overrated anyway? smart people know for decades now what gives w/ surveillance and govts even before the internet. he blowed the whistle for the ignorants, its more like a hoax...

*let them take* (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 8 months ago | (#46243491)

More properly, "Why do they take our privacy?"

Yes.

IMHO, it's better said, "Why do we **let them** take our privacy"

Here in America, we still have a democracy. It can function theoretically. We need to ***elect better leaders***.

The people who wrote the Digital Millenium Copyright Act could barely check their own email....think about that.

Re:*let them take* (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 8 months ago | (#46245927)

Here in America, we still have a democracy.

Today this is very questionable, thirty years ago I would have agreed with you. I am not saying that we don't, but rather that the last few tests have failed so I have no confidence. You can investigate Ross Perot and what happened to him just as easy as the next guy. You can also investigate Ron Paul and see what happened to him, including the leader of Iowa's Republican caucus stating on public radio "Ron Paul will not win in Iowa" a week before the primaries followed by numerous problems and suspicious events during Iowa's primary.

The propaganda spread by media of "if you don't vote Republican or Democrat you waste your vote" gets repeated by everyone with an interest in holding power, which is a powerful piece of rhetoric that people fall for. That, and media refusing to cover anyone except for who the establishment want's in office together mean the only way to get entrenched people out of power is by word of mouth balloting and promoting. With Ron Paul this happened, and the media outlets all started repeating the message "Ron Paul is Crazy" without ever providing evidence to this claim which swayed the public. During interviews, the would merely ask Ron Paul "What do you think of being so-and-so's running mate?" and during televised debates he was cut off or not shown for "commercial breaks".

My son had no difficulty catching on to the games being played against Ron Paul, so if you can think critically you should have also.

FWIW, I may be wrong about 30 years ago as well. Reagan was a douche that massively deregulated and made sure that rich people kept more of their money. He started the chain of moving manufacturing over seas, bank monopolization, etc... in addition of course to spending our tax dollars on illegal wars and backing illegal acts of the CIA (Iran/Contra). His administration also set the stage for the banana wars in Venezuela, where Dole mercenaries massacred thousands.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243721)

Free intercept is seldom cheep.
I am a liar.

Analysis is exponentially expensive.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46245465)

Read the article. The fact that you can't read past the description shouldn't be considered "insightful".

Not all humans are social animals. (3, Insightful)

hamster_nz (656572) | about 8 months ago | (#46243039)

I'm sure a fair percentage of Slashdot readers would like nothing more than a nice quite room, limted exercise and regular meals. The only thing missing is a laptop, and good wifi github access. ... and please firewall off Facebook and Twitter - pretty please.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#46243075)

And still all of us are here interacting with each other willingly... So you can say that at least by your example your assumption is quite wrong.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (2)

hamster_nz (656572) | about 8 months ago | (#46243111)

I'm stuck at work... I'ld rather be home coding :-)

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243227)

There are varying degrees of it. For instance, while I interact with people in this minimal way, I wouldn't care if this was gone. I'd just find something else to do. There is a difference between consuming content and actually caring about other people.

Not all humans are social animals. That is the truth, even if a grand majority of people are.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#46244417)

All humans are social animals. You would certainly care if all people are gone. You would get insane pretty quickly as anybody else.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46245409)

All humans are social animals.

You can't decide that for other people. Some people would be perfectly fine without others, even though you'll foolishly deny that simple fact.

You would certainly care if all people are gone.

Only because there wouldn't be new content for me to consume to cure my boredom, and also because they help maintain infrastructure. Other than that, I literally feel nothing for other people. Give me those few things without humans and I'd be 100% happy.

Now stop deciding things for other people and just vanish, you insect.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#46247111)

I can't and don't decide anything for "other people", Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.

Only because there wouldn't be new content for me to consume to cure my boredom.

Exactly and by this you admit that you need interaction to other people in the form of absorbing information generated by them.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 8 months ago | (#46248995)

Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.

You enjoy having feces rubbed all over your face. Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.

Stop generalizing. Just because most people are like that doesn't mean 100% of all people on the planet are. Believe it or not, mutations actually occur, and there people born with various genetic and psychological defects. Are you saying it is impossible for someone to not be a "social animal" (a disgusting term, by the way)?

Exactly and by this you admit that you need interaction to other people in the form of absorbing information generated by them.

"need" is different from want. But if being sociopathic and thinking of other human beings as nothing more than insects who deliver content to you is what you meant by interaction, then maybe that guy finds interaction enjoyable.

But I don't think that is what is often meant by "human beings are social animals."

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#46250671)

Mutations do occur, but it takes a long while and a selecting environment to produce this kind of result. Find me a person that can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration and I promise to change my mind. As far as I know there is no case registered yet.

You may think yourself as different and unique as you want, but you still have the same biological characteristics of your species. You will be exactly as successful in being the exception while trying to completely isolate yourself from interaction with other human beings as you would trying to drink a cup of concentrated sulfuric acid

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 8 months ago | (#46250797)

Find me a person that can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration and I promise to change my mind.

That depends on what you mean by "mental degeneration." I find most people utterly idiotic and I'd even say that their minds are diseased. One person's "crazy" is another's "genius."

As far as I know there is no case registered yet.

That's because they have no chance to be isolated. If they go out of society, they lose all the benefits. And again, being a "social animal" is quite different from being an antisocial animal who only sees other people as providers of entertainment, like that guy claimed to be above.

You may think yourself as different and unique as you want

I'm not even talking about myself.

Think what you want, but you absolutely adore the taste of feces. Accept it.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#46251297)

That depends on what you mean by "mental degeneration."

I mean things like acquiring multiple personalities, schizophrenia, acute clinical depression etc.

That's because they have no chance to be isolated

So you basically have absolutely no evidence supporting your position. Cute.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 8 months ago | (#46251371)

I mean things like acquiring multiple personalities, schizophrenia, acute clinical depression etc.

Most people could have all of those things and they wouldn't be any less annoying than they are currently.

So you basically have absolutely no evidence supporting your position. Cute.

So you basically have absolutely no evidence supporting your position. Cute.

And what position? You mean the one where I accept that it is possible for such people to exist, rather than arrogantly claim that none do?

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#46254341)

Oh I do have quite a lot of evidence supporting my position. my friend. No one exists in recorded history that disprove this theory and all cases of forced isolation produced results that further corroborates it.

Sure it may be wrong as any scientific theory, but the likelihood of this being the case is the same of Darwin`s Evolution or Einstein's General Relativity being wrong. It is not arrogance to stick to the most probable explanation for the evidence you have, it is common sense and one of the basic principles of Science.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46254607)

Oh I do have quite a lot of evidence supporting my position. my friend. No one exists in recorded history that disprove this theory and all cases of forced isolation produced results that further corroborates it.

Ignorance is not the same as evidence.

Sure it may be wrong as any scientific theory

You have no scientific theory; just ignorance of the answer, same as me. All I did was say that it was possible for someone to have such a mentality, not that I know it happened. If you keep opposing this in such a desperate fashion, I'll start thinking you're a religious fundamentalist.

it is common sense and one of the basic principles of Science.

"common sense" is often garbage, so please don't mention that tripe. Whether something is common is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it makes sense, and only you can decide that for yourself.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#46256019)

Oh, I do have evidence and a scientific theory on my side. Theory backed up by all psychologists and psychiatrists and based on a huge amount of evidence. You on the other hand have only wishful thinking and ignorance at your side.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46256289)

Psychology is mostly pseudoscience to begin with, as the testing is often subjective, subject to bias, and not nearly as rigorous and repeatable as, say physics.

Oh, I do have evidence and a scientific theory on my side.

You have evidence that shows it's impossible for someone is be a complete loner? Do tell. Either that, you make an attempt to understand my position.

You on the other hand have only wishful thinking and ignorance at your side.

Such as? Are you so opposed to accepting that the possibility is there? What exactly do you think my position is that you would call it "wishful thinking" and "ignorance"? Explain.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#46258887)

I am not opposed to accept the possibility is there, in the same way I am not opposed in accepting that the possibility that Natural Evolution and Gravity Theories are wrong. In science it is impossible to prove that something is right, but it is usually trivial to prove that something is wrong. In this case you just have to provide a single example of someone that managed to live in total isolation for a few decades without ending with serious psychiatric problems. As nobody was capable of producing such counter-example yet I will stick with the best explanation given the evidence we have, that evidence being that all cases of people that lived in isolation for long periods of time ended with very serious psychiatric problems, in the very same way I stick with Natural Evolution, Einstein's General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc...

Saying that it is wrong without any evidence to support, just because it may be wrong, like you are trying to do, is pure ignorance on how Science works, on the other hand. If you accept this idea you will be force to invalidate any and all scientific theories.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46258999)

In this case you just have to provide a single example of someone that managed to live in total isolation for a few decades without ending with serious psychiatric problems.

What is and is not a problem is completely subjective. Those "psychiatric problems" of which you speak are nothing more than us passing judgement on people with different thought patterns, or describing them, because we believe them to be harmful.

With that said, that isn't even what I was talking about. I've been talking about the possibility of being a complete loner, not the possibility of being a complete loner that ends up as normal as every other human. I don't really care about the latter.

I will stick with the best explanation given the evidence we have, that evidence being that all cases of people that lived in isolation for long periods of time ended with very serious psychiatric problems

Given the sheer number of people who lived throughout history, the sheer number of people who live now that we don't pay attention to, and the fact that we really only started paying attention to this sort of thing not much more than a century ago, I'm more hesitant to say that it is extremely unlikely that someone, at some point, had the mentality of a complete loner.

Saying that it is wrong without any evidence to support, just because it may be wrong, like you are trying to do, is pure ignorance on how Science works, on the other hand.

Actually, I didn't say it is wrong, just that the possibility is there. That's a mere straw man.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#46260257)

What is and is not a problem is completely subjective.

No it is not. Although some psychological problems are indeed badly defined and too broad to mean anything, there are a fair number of them that are very well defined and documented. These are sufficiently objective to be determined with reasonable precision by true doctors (psychiatrists) and not psychologists. And all people who were isolated were found presenting problems in the second category.

Given the sheer number of people who lived throughout history, the sheer number of people who live now that we don't pay attention to, and the fact that we really only started paying attention to this sort of thing not much more than a century ago, I'm more hesitant to say that it is extremely unlikely that someone, at some point, had the mentality of a complete loner.

Given the sheer number of beings and species who lived from the down on life in this world, the very limited number of evidences we found about evolution, and the time since when we started to pay attention at it, you should be reluctant in believing this theory too, for example. But that is a false assumption. When all evidence you find points to something you have no reason to believe otherwise, no matter how much other study cases may exist, at least until more, contrary evidence is brought into light.

Actually, I didn't say it is wrong, just that the possibility is there. That's a mere straw man.

Oh, you did, and since the beginning. The fallacy is on your part, by trying to argue that because some theory may be untrue it is untrue.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46260361)

No it is not.

One person's idea of a problem is a good thing to someone else. Describing behaviors and states of mind isn't the problem to me, but saying that these things are bad is subjective.

Given the sheer number of beings and species who lived from the down on life in this world, the very limited number of evidences we found about evolution, and the time since when we started to pay attention at it, you should be reluctant in believing this theory too, for example.

We have *lots* of evidence for evolution, not just ignorance.

You claimed you didn't deny that it was possible, and in that case, you actually agree with me, even though you keep making comments that seem as if they're attacking my position.

Oh, you did, and since the beginning. The fallacy is on your part, by trying to argue that because some theory may be untrue it is untrue.

Actually, that's all a straw man on your part. If my position wasn't clear then, it should be 100% clear now. Stop trying to save face.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46260381)

Screw it. It's getting boring toying with you. Argue with me using your imagination from now on, because I'm done; that's all you've been doing, anyway.

Reply to me again and all you'll get is a copied and pasted version of this reply, just to further obliterate your drone-like mind.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#46260433)

You don't have any argument anymore, my friend, and you are desperately trying to save face here (a quite futile effort considering just we two are likely reading this exchange by now). May that serve to you as a lesson about discussing about a subject you don't have any clue about.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46260533)

Screw it. It's getting boring toying with you. Argue with me using your imagination from now on, because I'm done; that's all you've been doing, anyway.

Reply to me again and all you'll get is a copied and pasted version of this reply, just to further obliterate your drone-like mind.'

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46257285)

Mutations do occur, but it takes a long while and a selecting environment to produce this kind of result. Find me a person that can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration and I promise to change my mind. As far as I know there is no case registered yet.

You may think yourself as different and unique as you want, but you still have the same biological characteristics of your species. You will be exactly as successful in being the exception while trying to completely isolate yourself from interaction with other human beings as you would trying to drink a cup of concentrated sulfuric acid

Wow you seem like a scientific guy!

One suggestion for the proposed studies and experimentation:

inÂdefÂiÂnite (Än-dÄfâÉ(TM)-nÄt)
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
c. Uncertain; undecided: indefinite about their plans.

An indefinite amount of time would not be used! Rather you would want to know the time clearly, and possibly, controlled. I.e., you want the time quantified.

I can "can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration" because "indefinitely" might mean 5 minutes. Quantify! Quantify! Quantify! Then you can come back here and preach the same word three times over.

captcha: counsels [yes, I do]

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46243395)

It's a difference between interacting with people you enjoy interacting with and having to interact with people. Work is the latter, usually, unless you're REALLY lucky.

There's a good reason my circle of friends contains no marketing people. I can choose who I socialize with in my spare time. Sadly, no such luck at work.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 8 months ago | (#46244431)

Which is perfectly fine, but although it may make you less social than some, you are still a social being and dependent on social interaction as all other human beings.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46244557)

Possible, but I know from experience that I can do without human contact for quite a while. Having SAD sure helps with it.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 8 months ago | (#46244097)

I'm sure a fair percentage of Slashdot readers would like nothing more than a nice quite room, limted exercise and regular meals.

Except for the quiet, you can get that for free in prison.

Re:Not all humans are social animals. (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about 8 months ago | (#46252377)

Slashdot is social media.

Comment on this story... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243049)

Why do we virtually sign EULA's and don't read them? Don't people know that they are the law of the land and basically you give concent to them to use YOUR data in a manner that is outlined within said document. Obviously it's written in legaleese and not ment to be read by anybody except lawyers. If you don't want them to have your data, don't give it to them. The service is FREE for a reason, and YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THEY ARE SELLING.

Re: Comment on this story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243471)

My option was to agree to EULA thst was unehica, immoral, and probably illegal, or not even look at the paperwork for the I was being offered.

Re:Comment on this story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243709)

Why do we virtually sign EULA's and don't read them? Don't people know that they are the law of the land and basically you give concent to them to use YOUR data in a manner that is outlined within said document. Obviously it's written in legaleese and not ment to be read by anybody except lawyers.

Actually no, EULA's aren't automatically law. There have been several instances where EULA's have been deemed invalid for various reasons. This will however vary depending on where in the world you live. (Multinational companies have a hard time understanding that contract law differs between nations.)
Where I live contract law has clauses to make sure that it isn't used for scamming less educated people. This includes a clause that makes it the obligation of those involved to make sure that the other party understands the contract. I have yet to see a one-click agreement that actually does this.
It is also necessary that the contract can be interpreted as beneficial for everyone involved. A one-sided contract where only one part reasonably can benefit from it will be invalidated.

As a result, legalese walls of texts in a contract is not something you want to put in an EULA since it is very likely that the non-lawyer who "signed" the EULA interpreted the text in a different way than your corporate lawyer and the court will find that since it was reasonable that your interpretation was different the clause will be invalidated.
Keep you contracts in simple language and non-ambiguous. Contracts are there for formalizing an agreement between two people, not to trick someone into agreeing to something they don't understand.

Problem with Medium (2)

oldhack (1037484) | about 8 months ago | (#46243093)

The problem with Medium is that they are a buncha pompous jackholes.

Re:Problem with Medium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243369)

...entirely unlike Slashdot.

fuck this unreadable beta shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243107)

the problem is really with beta not anything else

Privacy Myths (2)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 8 months ago | (#46243141)

In order to be private no item may be mentioned or made visible to any other human being. When we communicate or do business with others we throw away privacy in hope of some sort of gain or comfort. People just don't understand that notion. It is like the girl at the beach in a string bikini who gets angry because the wrong guy sees her body. She obviously gave everyone the right to look at her by simply being in public in a bikini. A convict is punished by simply being in prison. That is to say that he is away from normal, free, society. No judge or law has implied that any additional sorrow be heaped upon the convict. Things like isolation, sensory deprivation, and denial of access to media or forced labor are not part of his punishments. those additional miseries are heaped upon convicts under the excuse of budgets or security. Depraved notions by jailers that include such logic as denial of books or newspapers to convicts under the excuse that set afire the paper becomes a weapon are absurd. Just like strip searching a man held in total isolation every thirty minutes around the clock is nothing more than brutal torture by keepers who are more depraved than the convicts they guard. Then after instilling the worst rage and anger they possibly can in the convict they let him out of prison to wreck mayhem and havoc on the innocents. We live in a psychotic society.

Re:Privacy Myths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243449)

The first statement is a given; ultimate, pure privacy and industrialized society are incompatible to the core. There's not much debate out there about that. Being out in public in a string bikini of course provides people access to see you in that bikini, however it is limited to that. Nothing can be done about the gawkers from across the beach. You take that chance. It's behavior above and beyond that which impacts the real notion of privacy at hand here: that ones own mind is truly there's and unwanted attention that creates a distraction for that persons mind is a violation of that (cat calls, leers, etc.).

Well, anyway, I'm not gonna keep going down this bottomless rabbit hole.

TL;DR -- you're conflating many different ideas here only to end with a conclusion that is so overly generalized, the various parts don't support it.

websites are not **public space** (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 8 months ago | (#46243549)

It is like the girl at the beach in a string bikini who gets angry because the wrong guy sees her body. She obviously gave everyone the right to look at her by simply being in public in a bikini.

wrong analogy by a mile

facebook.com is not publicly owned like the beach!!!!

facebook.com is a **private business** located on 1s & 0s on privately owned servers and they sure as hell can be regulated by law

your whole 'privacy myth' idea is a total cop out....you're thinking like a passive consumer in a dictatorship....fucking stop it!

**we** run this country...**we** elect its leaders...**we** can demand commerce be regulated how **we** see fit, including basic protections for how **private companies** use our data!

Re:websites are not **public space** (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46246755)

"**we** run this country...**we** elect its leaders...**we** can demand commerce be regulated how **we** see fit"

All these years and people still buy into that shit! Stop it!

Re:Privacy Myths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243651)

So, what you're saying, is that it's alright to take out my camera and make pictures then sell them on the internet to various websites? I mean, she's on display, I'm only taking data that's freely available, right?

Re:Privacy Myths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46244923)

That would be wrong. You should give them away for free.

How much data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243219)

Seems mind blowing to put a number to how much data there is being collected.
At what point is privacy just a road bump to someone's clandestine agenda anyway?

Re:How much data? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46243387)

Somehow I fear we passed that point a few miles ago. Most people didn't even wake up from the bump.

Kill Switch. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46243355)

Hence the ulterior motive of the legislation being pushed in California to put kill switches in all mobiles.. they say it's for theft but they want the ability to control us.

That's why we need to control it (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46243383)

I saw it enable dissent, discord, and protest.

And now you know why the powers that are want to have a communication kill-switch without oversight.

How "They" think of surveillance is the problem... (2)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 8 months ago | (#46243539)

More information on you? More ways for greed within ranks of power to prey upon you. Simple as that...

On teh flip side of that coin.. (1)

3seas (184403) | about 8 months ago | (#46245681)

Mass surveillance allows the few who have access to the results to manipulate the public. Thsi was done regarding 9/11 and there was a lawsuit against the telcos for it but the ones that got them to do it also dismissed that case.

Such information is used in a feedback loop for manipulation. The other part of that loop is the main stream media which is controlled by a few as well.

A lot of people do not think very highly of FOX news but what I saw regarding 9/11 was news that was so out of it that I have to suspect it was their way of saying to the public, wake up. Instead a lot of people were glued to the tube with teh repetitive "go to war on iraq" drilled into their head. And today everyone know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

So there it is, intentional manipulation of the masses via a feedback loop that makes use of spying on the people.
NOW- read the Declaration of Independence for the Instructions the Founders of the United Sates left for the people - instructions are in fact there.
 

Its a bit of a long read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46251739)

Its a bit of a long read, but is *damn* well written, makes its ideas forcefully, and leaves the reader with more to think about than the article mentions. I haven't read something this good in a long time. Maybe I'm just reading /. and that's my problem.

Correction (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 8 months ago | (#46252773)

it’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment short of the death penalty in modern states is solitary confinement.

It should probably have said:

it’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment in modern states is solitary confinement.

I can't do the NSA etc.: However, I can (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46268857)

Block out corporate level stuff via 3 tools: Your native firewall + Nir Sofer's "Network Latency" tool ( http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/n... [nirsoft.net] (like my tool below this also comes in portable 32 + 64-bit versions ) - & IT spots the things you DON'T See *trying* to connect to you, ala e.g. on Slashdot + others:

---

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\SharedAccess\Parameters\FirewallPolicy\FirewallRules]
"{346B1D1D-C17E-40CF-8362-2104B30FE05F}"="v2.10|Action=Allow|Active=TRUE|Dir=In||RA4=272.21.91.29|RA4=205.188.201.176|RA4=216.137.41.144|RA4=65.55.57.27|RA4=74.125.228.59|RA4=74.125.228.35|RA4=74.125.228.124|RA4=74.125.228.101|RA4=74.125.228.105|RA4=74.125.228.41|RA4=199.30.80.32|RA4=31.13.71.33|RA4=74.125.29.121|RA4=74.125.228.42|RA4=74.50.120.10|RA4=74.125.228.106|RA4=74.125.29.191|RA4=74.125.228.108|RA4=74.125.228.107|RA4=23.76.230.135|RA4=178.255.83.1|RA4=199.27.76.184|RA4=199.27.72.185|RA4=23.0.160.16|RA4=184.51.126.59|RA4=184.51.126.25|RA4=184.51.126.11|RA4=184.51.126.34|RA4=206.204.54.93|RA4=23.52.155.27|RA4=50.22.232.74|RA4=184.172.2.117|RA4=23.67.250.99|RA4=23.67.250.106|RA4=23.67.250.138|RA4=23.67.250.121|RA4=71.6.170.45|RA4=74.125.228.110|RA4=23.67.250.122|RA4=63.117.14.248|RA4=23.50.75.27|RA4=199.27.76.133|RA4=199.27.78.133|RA4=199.27.72.133|RA4=207.123.55.126|RA4=23.67.250.130|RA4=166.98.6.29|RA4=23.50.69.163|RA4=23.67.250.146|RA4=23.67.250.114|RA4=131.253.13.21|RA4=23.76.218.156|RA4=74.125.228.92|RA4=72.21.91.29|RA4=134.170.188.84|RA4=74.125.228.78|RA4=23.67.250.89|RA4=131.253.40.1|RA4=74.125.226.92|RA4=74.125.226.91|RA4=74.125.228.66|RA4=74.125.226.59|RA4=23.66.196.230|RA4=31.13.71.49|RA4=131.253.61.98|RA4=131.253.61.82|RA4=208.87.24.17|RA4=23.67.244.193|RA4=23.67.244.192|RA4=23.67.242.42|RA4=23.67.242.48|RA4=23.67.242.82|RA4=23.67.242.24|RA4=67.215.67.10|RA4=72.247.10.33|RA4=72.247.9.250|RA4=131.253.61.80|RA4=74.125.228.74|RA4=74.125.228.75|RA4=66.228.40.169|RA4=192.254.190.197|RA4=72.21.92.79|RA4=174.36.2.242|RA4=208.80.154.240|RA4=74.82.175.46|RA4=198.78.201.126|RA4=192.254.234.92|RA4=46.165.250.30|RA4=207.58.178.6|RA4=88.214.195.64|RA4=173.254.28.37|RA4=54.228.200.178|RA4=46.4.74.34|RA4=192.185.226.145|RA4=209.17.80.100|RA4=209.17.68.100|RA4=74.63.161.162|RA4=23.67.244.24|RA4=66.147.244.110|RA4=23.67.244.16|RA4=74.125.228.76|RA4=74.125.228.72|RA4=94.23.241.106|RA4=74.125.228.71|RA4=72.51.51.9|RA4=74.125.228.70|RA4=74.125.228.68|RA4=74.125.228.73|RA4=74.125.226.79|RA4=74.125.226.66|RA4=74.125.226.65|RA4=74.125.226.69|RA4=74.125.228.91|RA4=774.125.228.92|Name=SLASHDOTBLOCKERSIntBound|"

"{0A9D9B6F-7AEB-4D7B-9BD6-7ECDEAE97815}"="v2.10|Action=Block|Active=TRUE|Dir=Out|RA4=272.21.91.29|RA4=205.188.201.176|RA4=216.137.41.144|RA4=65.55.57.27|RA4=74.125.228.59|RA4=74.125.228.35|RA4=74.125.228.124|RA4=74.125.228.101|RA4=74.125.228.105|RA4=74.125.228.41|RA4=199.30.80.32|RA4=31.13.71.33|RA4=74.125.29.121|RA4=74.125.228.42|RA4=74.50.120.10|RA4=74.125.228.106|RA4=74.125.29.191|RA4=74.125.228.108|RA4=74.125.228.107|RA4=23.76.230.135|RA4=178.255.83.1|RA4=199.27.76.184|RA4=199.27.72.185|RA4=23.0.160.16|RA4=184.51.126.59|RA4=184.51.126.25|RA4=184.51.126.11|RA4=184.51.126.34|RA4=206.204.54.93|RA4=23.52.155.27|RA4=50.22.232.74|RA4=184.172.2.117|RA4=23.67.250.99|RA4=23.67.250.106|RA4=23.67.250.138|RA4=23.67.250.121|RA4=71.6.170.45|RA4=74.125.228.110|RA4=23.67.250.122|RA4=63.117.14.248|RA4=23.50.75.27|RA4=199.27.76.133|RA4=199.27.78.133|RA4=199.27.72.133|RA4=207.123.55.126|RA4=23.67.250.130|RA4=166.98.6.29|RA4=23.50.69.163|RA4=23.67.250.146|RA4=23.67.250.114|RA4=131.253.13.21|RA4=23.76.218.156|RA4=74.125.228.92|RA4=72.21.91.29|RA4=134.170.188.84|RA4=74.125.228.78|RA4=23.67.250.89|RA4=131.253.40.1|RA4=74.125.226.92|RA4=74.125.226.91|RA4=74.125.228.66|RA4=74.125.226.59|RA4=23.66.196.230|RA4=31.13.71.49|RA4=131.253.61.98|RA4=131.253.61.82|RA4=208.87.24.17|RA4=23.67.244.193|RA4=23.67.244.192|RA4=23.67.242.42|RA4=23.67.242.48|RA4=23.67.242.82|RA4=23.67.242.24|RA4=67.215.67.10|RA4=72.247.10.33|RA4=72.247.9.250|RA4=131.253.61.80|RA4=74.125.228.74|RA4=74.125.228.75|RA4=66.228.40.169|RA4=192.254.190.197|RA4=72.21.92.79|RA4=174.36.2.242|RA4=208.80.154.240|RA4=74.82.175.46|RA4=198.78.201.126|RA4=192.254.234.92|RA4=46.165.250.30|RA4=207.58.178.6|RA4=88.214.195.64|RA4=173.254.28.37|RA4=54.228.200.178|RA4=46.4.74.34|RA4=192.185.226.145|RA4=209.17.80.100|RA4=209.17.68.100|RA4=74.63.161.162|RA4=23.67.244.24|RA4=66.147.244.110|RA4=23.67.244.16|RA4=74.125.228.76|RA4=74.125.228.72|RA4=94.23.241.106|RA4=74.125.228.71|RA4=72.51.51.9|RA4=74.125.228.70|RA4=74.125.228.68|RA4=74.125.228.73|RA4=74.125.226.79|RA4=74.125.226.66|RA4=74.125.226.65|RA4=74.125.226.69|RA4=74.125.228.91|RA4=774.125.228.92|Name=SLASHDOTBLOCKERSOutBound|"

---

(The .reg merge file you can create from this, or manually enter as both inbound/outbound custom firewall rules is faster & easier than manual entry + even EASIER than scripted additions imo - the way I used to do it in fact for faster imports to end point nodes on a network/LAN-WAN - which IS imo, the ONLY 'real weakness' in Windows 7's native firewall GUI interface (stupid really - easy to EXPORT, impossible to import there, afaik @ least...)

They CAN'T connect to me anymore & yet I operate here on /., just fine... so can you.

(Mr. Sofer's tool's pretty much a GUI version of netstat -ano really)

In addition to those, I created & use a tool I built to layer on added defenses noted @ it's download page (& it's in BOTH 32 + 64-bit Windows PE form) -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details on what it offers you in GREAT DETAIL for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity over "so-called 'solutions'" like AdBlock, Ghostery (2 foxes in the henhouse 'souled-out' to advertisers), RequestPolicy, & even shoring up DNS faults).

APK

P.S.=> So, My tool does the host-domain level blocking & between Nir Sofer's tools + Windows' Firewall, you can create BOTH inbound & outbound custom rulesets working @ the IP address level vs. (per some examples above) the very things noted by many on this page I stated above, + in a "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" methodogy - the BEST thing we have going currently for better online speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (to a lesser extent than the 3 previous)...

... apk

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?