Pic related.
To me, this sounds like the future will be a living hell. How do you feel?
>>46775451
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/18/privacy-in-2025-experts-predictions/
Source page.
Powerful players have realized the value of stripping the masses of their privacy. Honestly I would not be surprised to see it mostly gone by 2025. Not completely gone, but close enough for it to not matter in the grand scheme of things. We're living in the dystopian cyberpunk future, but it's nothing like we expected.
>>46775546
>Powerful players have realized the value of stripping the masses of their privacy.
Part of me wonders whether this is done as a matter of power, or merely as the convergence of other factors.
Companies saw a way to profit by taking our privacy
Government saw an avenue to more power by taking data from the companies, also creating incentives for more data to be taken.
People didn't care, even after the Snowden leaks.
Even without a shady conspiracy, we appear to have set ourselves down a path to an awful world, to have passed the peak of society.
Perhaps this is merely a transitioning phase, from individualism to collectivism, to the end of the individual as anything but a component of society.
My primary regret is that I will likely have to live to see this unfold.
>>46775594
>from individualism to collectivism
are we turning into ants?
Gosh, fuckin grandpa.. >:-(
>2025
Linux desktop and laptop users will be looked at suspiciously as criminals. Having a wired internet connection will be synonymous with being an evil hacker / basement dwelling nerd. Using encryption will put you on a government watch list and send alphabet boys to your door. Same with covering the cameras and microphones on your TV, fridge, and toaster. You'll need your phone on hand for identification and will be pulled over if they can't detect you're carrying one. You'll see Drones dotting the sky, recording everyone's movements. If you haven't been tracked leaving your house for more than 5 days, the police will investigate. Employers will start to require you get chipped for workplace security. A quantum computer will exist that breaks all conventional encryption. Stallman is killed in an 'accident' for promoting his free software terrorism. Politicians are moving in cooperation with many g7 nations to ban national companies from providing encryption without providing the keys to the government.
>>46776886
>You will also get a mandatory BrainScan™ chip that transmits your thoughts directly too google and police servers, for better ads and monitoring thought crimes
>the feminism has won
"Internet of Things" all around you, knows everything about you, makes your coffee cheaper if you advertise your purchase on social networks.
>Predictions for privacy in the year 2025
"What's privacy?"
The world will be totalitarist. At the same time, like in 1984 AND "A brave new world".
This society has to fall.
So a topic that interested me was the Mouse Utopia experiment.
With everything but space provided to them, mouse society fell. It fell before hitting the maximum capacity of the space available.
All space was socially defined, causing social problems for later generations of mice. Some withdrew from all social activities, others fought at random. Eventually, they stopped breeding.
One has to wonder what humanity will do, once it is impossible to escape socialization. Once even the decision to have a coffee is public knowledge.
>>46776886
>Linux desktop and laptop users will be looked at suspiciously as criminals.
>Using encryption will put you on a government watch list
>You'll need your phone on hand for identification
>Politicians are moving in cooperation with many g7 nations to ban national companies from providing encryption without providing the keys to the government.
anon, when we say 2025 we don't mean 8:25PM.
>>46778626
>Internet of Things
i hate this phrase with all of my being.
i hope the fucks who pioneer this are the first to have their toasters hacked.
nobody cares, OP.
freedom lost.
>all these paranoid neckbeards
>>46781720
>Literally no privacy, with wide-ranging social changes that result
>Predicted from a wide variety of sources likely to be reasonably accurate on this thing. Almost all of them are normal people
B-But it's the neckbeards right? :^)
>>46781756
yes
>>46781787
Assuming this isn't bait: justify this view.
>>46781806
it was bait
>>46775451
Disconnect from society as much as possible, drink, smoke pot, play vidya.
I have no ambitions. I'm just here to enjoy my time and feel good. Besides, I'd just be a footsoldier whatever side I picked.
The hardest part of my life will be picking a place that's out of the way enough that no one cares and I don't get inconvenienced.
They took the Internet is the wild west mentality and fucked us right up the ass with it and all we got out if it in exchange was some shitty metallica cds and some Hollywood Cape shit and the normals don't mind the trade off.
>thinking privacy exists this year.
I now /g/ gets autistic when people mention it, but if you have nothing significant to hide why is this a bad thing?
The benefits far outweigh the bad unless you're a criminal of some sort.
Has anyone read or seen A Scanner Darkly? The way they plan on and are currently tracking people through cameras and other surveillance systems sound very similar to ones in that book.
>>46782893
Please list the benefits
>>46782893
WOw I never thought about it like that. I'll change now.
>>46782919
Convenience, ability to keep undesirable people out of where they are not wanted (e.g. pedophiles who haven't yet raped a child away from jobs that involve children, people with anger issues out of customer service jobs, etc.), easier ability to find relevant information (this is already being done with search engines), predicting what you want or need to make your life easier, easier to secure your possessions, etc.
>>46782893
Knowledge = power.
When someone knows everything about you, It gives them some control over you.
If I was so inclined, I could easily manipulate my friends. It would be much harder with strangers.
>>46782893
>The benefits far outweigh the bad
Reduced personal agency.
Everything you do being calculated by a computer to produce "optimal pleasure" (we'll assume this is untainted by only suggesting paid methods of entertainment, and works purely as intended. This would never happen.) removes personal choice, reduces the range of experiences in life. Life is about experiencing good and bad things, having a computer merely calculate the bad ones away often removes these experiences.
Life would, in combination with other factors, become trivialized.
>ability to keep undesirable people out of where they are not wanted (e.g. pedophiles who haven't yet raped a child away from jobs that involve children, people with anger issues out of customer service jobs, etc.)
Even in your vaguely positive applications this sounds like it has potential that is completely nightmarish. It would reach the point where people who are merely sub-ideal are rejected, because there is a perfect candidate out there. Let alone applications like "Keep a political candidate who would rock the boat away from power."
In a world where jobs are increasingly automated, the last thing we need is to hand more power to employers.
>easier ability to find relevant information
doesn't have to be and indeed should not be privacy compromising, lest one face an information bubble that shuts them off from new information. (Ie, a communist searching economic figures only receives "relevant" figures from the CPSU fansite).
>predicting what you want or need to make your life easier
see reduced agency, increased corporate control risk.
>easier to secure your possessions
in the internet of things, I look forward to hearing of the first person to have their microwave hacked.
>>46782956
Okay, here's the cons:
Insider Trading
Blackmail material of not-illegal-but-socially-embarrassing knowledge
Theft of inventions
Unnecessary surveillance and abuse by operators
Surveillance of legal movements and abuse of that information to quell unpopular or convenient opinions
Weakening of security safeguards to be exploited by everyone else to make surveillance easier
>>46783079
*inconvenient opinions
>NSA opens their own search engine
>Lets you look up any person by name
>Shows their full history of online browsing, SMS and phone conversations
>Everything you ever did or said online conveniently located in your profile for the world to see
The Google Corporation won't allow this kind of talk in the year 2025
>>46775451
disregard privacy
long live google
improving everyone's lives for free
>>46782893
Everyone has something to hide anon. For instance, your reputation would probably take a hit if it was exposed that you were posting on 4chan, that hive of pedophiles and hate mongers
>>46782893
In addition to what has been said in the other replies to this post: If it is assumed that the government has all your data then if they want to get you down they can just put made-up shit in your records and charge you about that(for example, putting pedo shit in your records and charging you about the pedo shit). After all, they keep books on this stuff?
Another point to consider is that the people who dig through all the info are employees at both public and private companies. Do you want these people to know everything about you? What if one of them starts blackmailing you over something embarrassing and/or sensitive information?
It's better to have the government and various corporations knowing as little as possible about us. I support privacy for these reasons.
>>46783112
ohgodplease.jpg
>>46783112
this
In a Sci-Fi book I read once:
A Corporate exec gets a call from a customer (another corporate exec). Before taking the call he looks up the guy real quick for a summarized psychological profile, quirks, childhood, interests, ect.
In that example, the customer gets a conversation specifically tailored for him. What he doesn't get is an honest viewpoint and info from someone else. So basically, he gets fucked and is happy about it because he doesn't know anything that he might not agree with.
This scenario is where we're headed.
>>46783367
A great book in this vein is Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, it's based in a future where everything is franchised and the landmass that is currently the United States of America is made up of hundreds of budding micronations. The protagonist (called Hiro Protagonist) makes a living by submitting data to the Library of Congress on all manner of things that people can access for a fee. It is a truly spectacular book and a very interesting envisioning of where we are headed, I recommend it to all in this thread.
what's that book again
it's about a company that totally isn't facebook
it's like "the circle" or something
>>46783079
>Theft of inventions
You're part of the problem.
>>46783907
Not in this case, really.
To have access to that data, the one doing the stealing would be a big company, most likely stealing from the "little guy".
>>46783941
Irrelevant. The idea of copyright is harmfull by itself, without it those "big companies" would never get so big.
>>46784083
They're already big, there's no getting off the ride.
If we abolished it today, Google would still be big, and they'd still know you g-mail'd your patents to the patent office.
Now what if there was a little error and rather than [email protected] being the sender, it was [email protected]?
>>46784164
>If we abolished it today, Google would still be big, and they'd still know you g-mail'd your patents to the patent office.
And a hundred other companies with similar services would pop up the same day, making their data incomplete.
>>46784179
>And a hundred other companies with similar services would pop up the same day
Which the mass of the populace wouldn't use or trust.
>>46784192
>Which the mass of the populace wouldn't use or trust.
For a while.
>>46783747
>the circle
Got it in one.
>>46784083
It's one thing to actually build it, have it fail, then have someone else build it better and succeed. It's quite another to have it stolen in its infancy because someone else has access to your email account and you don't know about it.
>>46783112
I have regular nightmares about this.
All the shit posting on 4chan is going to one day catch up to me.
It will be a shamefur dispray to my family...
In this life, nothing is free.
>>46786748
Hey don't worry you can always "have an accident" in the Pacific Islands and start a new life ;)
>>46786782
I already live in the pacific islands...
>>46786801
I know ;)
>>46783722
I would totally join cosa nostra bruh. Miles ahead of narcolumbia.
