Message from ikillomega in Subverse #newsroom


2018-07-03 13:12:42 UTC  

You can generate the hash from the fingerprint, but you cant generate the fingerprint fromt he hash

2018-07-03 13:12:51 UTC  

Oh, I agree with you, I just don't trust government or tech firms not to lie about said non-reversibility.

2018-07-03 13:13:05 UTC  

@Grenade123 You're right about that.

2018-07-03 13:13:08 UTC  

Oh neither do i. Fortunately the math behind it doesn't lie

2018-07-03 13:13:23 UTC  

That what makes cryptology such an important asset to protect

2018-07-03 13:13:50 UTC  

Could be true, sure. I know only a bit about cryptography in tech.

2018-07-03 13:14:10 UTC  

My skepticism is fueled by a lack of trust.

2018-07-03 13:14:28 UTC  

...as all skepticism is, I suppose.

2018-07-03 13:14:30 UTC  

I'm certainly no expert in the math.. thats for sure.

2018-07-03 13:14:43 UTC  

Lack of trust?

2018-07-03 13:14:51 UTC  

In government and corporations.

2018-07-03 13:14:52 UTC  

Have you considered a career in Cybersecurity?

2018-07-03 13:14:53 UTC  

😃

2018-07-03 13:14:56 UTC  

Hahahaha

2018-07-03 13:16:03 UTC  

and what is scotland yard using them for? tracking down mean people on twitter

2018-07-03 13:16:18 UTC  

well its a 2 year old article

2018-07-03 13:16:20 UTC  

Yep.. Thats my point

2018-07-03 13:16:32 UTC  

The tech can so easily be used nefariously

2018-07-03 13:16:35 UTC  

usually they do work with ctv

2018-07-03 13:16:47 UTC  

I'm a 100% Free Market Capitalist, therefore I support the average working guy, the small business owner, the freelance Web designer... NOT Google, Wall Street, or the Beltway. So, when I hear about things like "tracking" and "facial recognition", I fear there may be some truth behind it.

2018-07-03 13:16:59 UTC  

Governments are going to use tech to oppress and control. It's what governments do.

2018-07-03 13:17:17 UTC  

Governments gotta government...

2018-07-03 13:17:30 UTC  

Government's natural direction is to grow state power. Freedom limits growth, therefore freedom must be limited.

2018-07-03 13:17:32 UTC  

basicly looking through vast quantitys of convicted criminal photos and comparing them with cvt footage that corrisponds with reported crimes and then compare other ctv with other reported crimes

2018-07-03 13:17:45 UTC  

like i asked earlier, at what point is catching a murder no longer important?

2018-07-03 13:17:54 UTC  

when the murderer is you?

2018-07-03 13:18:09 UTC  

no, but if they have the tools to catch him, they have to tools to find you

2018-07-03 13:18:16 UTC  

@Grenade123 I suppose, in the eyes of the government, it would depend on who the victim is.

2018-07-03 13:18:25 UTC  

i'm not asking about the government

2018-07-03 13:18:30 UTC  

i'm asking about YOU

2018-07-03 13:18:41 UTC  

They managed to solve crimes before mass surveillance...

2018-07-03 13:18:52 UTC  

mass surveillance just makes it industrial.

2018-07-03 13:18:54 UTC  

at what point is the ability to catch a murder not worth it for your own personal privacy

2018-07-03 13:19:34 UTC  

If it's better for 100 guilty people to go free less 1 innocent go to jail... Surely the same should apply to privacy?

2018-07-03 13:19:34 UTC  

@LOLTRON more cameras, means more chances to catch a murder right as it happens, means less likely for there to be mass murders.

2018-07-03 13:19:39 UTC  

in theory, anyway

2018-07-03 13:19:55 UTC  

I would say catching a murderer is important, but we were catching killers before mass Internet surveillance and if you can show me data PROVING this rate of arrest has been improved for the better, I'll believe it. Still, even then I'd have to weigh it against the validity of sacrificing freedoms of everyone to catch about 1% of criminals, which I generally would not do.

2018-07-03 13:19:55 UTC  

^ the evidence suggests that isnt the case

2018-07-03 13:20:05 UTC  

most murders are crimes of passion, not premeditated.

2018-07-03 13:20:15 UTC  

mass murders