An ultimate solution to the internet and data collection problem

I have to say that video with cheesy music in the background and slow narrator is kinda boring, just my opinion.

And about the solution, who can guarantee that only government will be able to see collected data? I’m not sure even government is able to do that.

What about political opponents? It is againt prinicples of democracy to collect data about political opponents, while they can’t collect data about current government in the same way.

Basic human rights are violated in this solution, someone maybe doesn’t want government to collect his personal data, officials are able to misuse collected data in their favor.

With great freedom and power comes great responsibility, and specially USA government isn’t ready to get that right from their citizens, we all know that.

I don’t know, this sound a bit childish to me. Who will supervise that they follow the rules?
What about things such as NSA not sharing information it got with law enforcement agencies without a judge order?
Or not sharing with other governments?
And beside what is the difference between china and USA? Both has a legal system that forbid certain things, and agencies that follow people around to make sure the abide to those rules. How can you decide when is it morally right or wrong to follow people?

not a bad Idea, but even paid net wont stop the goverment from doing what they please,

http://thehackernews.com/2015/02/hard-drive-firmware-hacking.html

Just one more example of how far they will go to get information about you and your systems.

I agree with @souvarine and @nakee**. It is a very naive solution.

The problems with data collection is not just that data might be leaked/hacked. It’s a much more general concern about privacy, including privacy from the government.

Besides, what’s the deal with making the internet free but allow for privacy with tools or money? How is this a solution to anything? You seem to be completely ignoring the reason why there is data collection. All it would do is unjustly punish the poor and privacy-ignorant people, while the rich and evil just take the more secure road.

(Disclaimer: didn’t watch the video.)

@souvarine and @nakee

[quote=author]who can guarantee that only government will be able to see collected data? [/quote]
Which is different than right now because?
The fact of the matter is, you’re fighting against both ad companies and the gov from collecting info. I’m taking it one step at a time and trying to get the bigger of the 2 from collecting stuff.
Plus, basic measures can prevent this. On top of that, this would be solving a bigger problem that is coming up fast. (data caps, and most people still don’t have any net)

[quote=author]What about political opponents?[/quote]
There is already laws in place for this. Plus, the abuse of the current laws is already happening.

So this problem is already there, and this is more about fixing the net and taking it one step at a time.

(We can reverse the ruling on how info is collected. But, you can’t reverse the data cap and internet being everywhere thing once the infrastructure is already in place.
And even if it wasn’t, the bigger problem people are going to face is the net issue. This can and does effect jobs, families, and everything in between.)

[quote=author]Who will supervise that they follow the rules?[/quote]

This is an interesting question, and I’m happy someone brought it up (I just wish it was more of a public area). Currently the group that rules what the NSA can and can’t do needs to be fixed. If I have my way, we would fixed 3 birds with 1 stone.
This would mean fixing the yin and yang effect within the current ruling system.
But to answer your question, the same people that already say yes or no to what the NSA does.

[quote=author]What about things such as NSA not sharing information it got with law enforcement agencies without a judge order?[/quote]

This is something I think should be allowed if it follows under strict rules. If the crime does harm someone physically or financially, then it should be allowed for the info to be turned over without request. (Obviously, this would have to be worked in such a way that it’s air tight.)
Otherwise, the info would need to be requested with a PUBLIC warrant.

Imagine how many people wouldn’t be put in jail wrongfully with this. (This means the NSA can’t tamper with the info)

[quote=author]sharing with other governments?[/quote]

This should also be allowed with similar guidelines as above. However, all info requested must be brought through the ringer before they get it. Also, the USA should be allow to deny any request for any reason (such as we don’t have the info).

[quote=author]what is the difference between china and USA? Both has a legal system that forbid certain things, and agencies that follow people around to make sure the abide to those rules. How can you decide when is it morally right or wrong to follow people?[/quote]

First off, we don’t live in a moral society. If we did then people would still be getting stone to death, and you could take someones stuff if you fight in a war.
We live in a legal society.

But I think you’re getting at is how would this matter since they already break the rules. We might as well get something out of it. I think that something is a better net.
(Some my say lower taxes or more jobs. But, this is the only intensive that I could think of that the Govs and spy departments would jump over hills to make happen. And because of this, there would be a stupid high likely this would work if the ISP don’t block it.)

@michael.vanstaden9208 and @dloser

[quote=author]but even paid net wont stop the goverment from doing what they please,[/quote]

This is 100% true, but what are we getting out of it right now.
Plus, we could easily let this data collection thing sit on the back burner for a bit, but we have to address the internet problem now.

This would force ISP to do the right thing since they would be in direct composition with the government itself. This would eliminate ALL data caps and low speed nets overnight. The ISP would be forced to allow people a high speed internet with no data cap.

The more people that moves over to the paid plans, the faster the government internet will get (because they love data)

So basically the government would get the carrot and the ISP would get the stick for now.

[quote=author]what’s the deal with making the internet free but allow for privacy with tools or money? How is this a solution to anything? You seem to be completely ignoring the reason why there is data collection. [/quote]

This is more about fixing the net than data collection itself. Also, data collection seems like it’s going to happen no matter what at this time. So, we might as well get something out of it.

As far as the tools, one thing I explained in the video is those tools are used for work in many places. By this happening, this would massively increase remote jobs, and maybe the overall economy.

As far as the video. It’s cool, I only got in a bit more detail about how this would work.

To everyone:
This is just an idea. An idea can be improved on, taken as is, or rejected. But at the end of the day, this is the only answer that I can think of and a realistic one that can happen.

At this time, the only other solution that I can find out there is to dismantle the NSA and other areas. But, that’s no where near being realistic. At least my method has an insensitive for the government to do their job.

Ah, so your “solution to the net and data collection problem” is really only a “solution” to the (undefined) “net problem”…

[quote=crua9]First off, we don’t live in a moral society. If we did then people would still be getting stone to death, and you could take someones stuff if you fight in a war.
We live in a legal society.[/quote]
And here I was thinking laws were codified morals and it were just the morals that have changed over time.

[quote=crua9]This would force ISP to do the right thing since they would be in direct composition with the government itself. This would eliminate ALL data caps and low speed nets overnight. The ISP would be forced to allow people a high speed internet with no data cap.

The more people that moves over to the paid plans, the faster the government internet will get (because they love data)[/quote]
Yeah… don’t kid yourself. The government is not giving up “data” just because you pay for it. That defeats the entire purpose of collecting data. And even if it would work this way, it would basically be a complex way of nationalising internet access. Good luck with that in the US.

There are more fundamental problems in the US; what we are talking about here are symptoms of the broken ideology and political system there. (Not that the same isn’t true in various degrees elsewhere, but you seem focussed on the US.)

[quote=Dloser]And here I was thinking laws were codified morals and it were just the morals that have changed over time.[/quote]

Some are, but most aren’t. Keep in mind, there is a lot of laws like it’s illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket, it being illegal to feed or even help the homeless, at times it’s illegal to even be homeless. (Look up the camps that was going on last year with this)

Like it or not, sometimes the bad guys can get away with what they done, and the honest guy can go to jail for doing the right thing. Again, we are in a legal society. Legal and illegal has taken the place of right and wrong.

[quote=Dloser]Ah, so your “solution to the net and data collection problem” is really only a “solution” to the (undefined) “net problem”…[/quote]

Actually this solves some of the issues with the data collection problem. While this won’t stop it, this will bring it out of the shadows.

As far as the undefined net problem. I only have to assume that you’re in a major city or in one of the lucky places. Many places around the USA doesn’t have worth while net (below 3mbs). Almost the entire USA has some type of data cap or is about to get one within the next few months.
As I said in the video and a few times in my post. This is a giant thing that is stopping virtual jobs, and it is hurting many people and places.

[quote=Dloser]Yeah… don’t kid yourself. The government is not giving up “data” just because you pay for it. [/quote]

Maybe not, but what are you getting for it right now?

I don’t see anyone else coming up with a solution other than getting rid of these agencies. And, we all know that’s not going to happen.

[quote=Dloser]There are more fundamental problems in the US; what we are talking about here are symptoms of the broken ideology and political system there. (Not that the same isn’t true in various degrees elsewhere, but you seem focussed on the US.)[/quote]

You are right about there being a deeper problem. But, technology is moving to fast and most can’t understand the deeper problem.

So, you can pick to try to fix a root problem that may never be fixed or will take several hundred years to fix. And then these symptoms may still be around.

Again
[quote=crua9]This is just an idea. An idea can be improved on, taken as is, or rejected. But at the end of the day, this is the only answer that I can think of and a realistic one that can happen.[/quote]

[quote=crua9]
[quote=dloser]
And here I was thinking laws were codified morals and it were just the morals that have changed over time.
[/quote]
Some are, but most aren’t. Keep in mind, there is a lot of laws like it’s illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket, it being illegal to feed or even help the homeless, at times it’s illegal to even be homeless. (Look up the camps that was going on last year with this)
[/quote]
What I said was obvious a simplification. You, however, made it seem like the only thing holding us back from stoning people is that for some mysterious reason there is a law against it. Even the examples you mention are not about random amoral laws. There usually is some reasoning behind it that it is for the greater good.

[quote=crua9]
As far as the undefined net problem. I only have to assume that you’re in a major city or in one of the lucky places. Many places around the USA doesn’t have worth while net (below 3mbs). Almost the entire USA has some type of data cap or is about to get one within the next few months.
[/quote]

‘undefined’ != ‘non-existing’. I was just referring to the fact that you didn’t mention what it was. (And you suddenly didn’t seem to care about the “data problem”, which seemed to be a major, if not the main, focus before.)

[quote=crua9]
[quote=dloser]
Yeah… don’t kid yourself. The government is not giving up “data” just because you pay for it.
[/quote]
Maybe not, but what are you getting for it right now?

I don’t see anyone else coming up with a solution other than getting rid of these agencies. And, we all know that’s not going to happen.
[/quote]
You keep reacting to critism like that. People are pointing out problems with what you are saying and you just reply “Yeah? Well, it sucks now too! So let’s do what I said!”

[quote=crua9]
Again
[quote=crua9]
This is just an idea. An idea can be improved on, taken as is, or rejected. But at the end of the day, this is the only answer that I can think of and a realistic one that can happen.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Except that it is in no single way realistic. Also, how did you imagine implementing this “solution” of yours? You figured you could just bypass all these “root problems”?

Just because you are not aware of other solutions, doesn’t mean they aren’t there. There are many people fighting against the things we are talking about. Sometimes there are no easy or quick solutions.

Geez, This escalated quickly…

Maybe a good Idea would be for all to point out the flaws and obstacles, and together think of a solution/game plan to each problem individually working towards the main “Goal”.

eliminating the smaller aspects, thus allowing the overall issue to be whipped without complications?

Just a suggestion…

@dloser laws are often got nothing to do with moral. Actually it’s the job of the constitution to make sure laws do not become too immoral.
The situation becomes even worse when big cooperation or national security comes into play.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin

@crua9 The fact that we don’t know of better solution, doesn’t make it a good solution.
That is why we should demand governments to find solutions that balance our privacy and security.
If not we can end up with a world that is much worse than 1984…

@nakee, did you read my response to @crua9’s similar statement?

@michael.vanstaden9208**, I think the solutions are already there. The real problem lies in implementing them in the current climate of ignorance, misinformation and indifference.

@dloser Yes, I read what you wrote I just didn’t agree. I wanted to better emphasis that law makers are not necessarily more moral oriented than the simple person one the street, and a lot of times even less (power corrupts).
I do agree that the problem is mostly people’s ignorance and lack of care. And not even only with this specific issue:)

Ok, so you chose to ignore my actual point. Great.

However, aside from that point, the law is in general intended to be an encoding of what is deemed right and wrong. The fact that the system is abused and made by people that don’t share your moral viewpoints doesn’t take anything away from that.

@dloser which point did I ignore? The argument about morality vs consensus is not something I invested.
Actually, democracy assume there is no absolute right and wrong, just what people think is right and wrong.
Sadly enough right and wrong for most people, as you noted, has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with fear and feeling of self preservation somehow this is also true for people who believe in heavenly moral. Personally I have much more respect to people which I don’t agree with than people who see to lack the care about moral subjects.

The point was that what I originally said was a simplification and that it’s not that case that we don’t stone people just because we have laws that keep us from being moral. (Paraphrasing what @crua9 said.)

Morality is what people think is right and wrong. Per definition.

@dloser

If the laws were really more about moral. Why would the banks be able to get away with what they have and are doing to millions of people in the housing market?

As far as the problem is people are ignorant. I’m not sure if that is the case, but even if it was. Didn’t the people task the gov in education and maintaining information (libraries and things of that nature)? So, there has to be an intensive for the government to do the right thing in order for it to do something. Even if you are giving a little bit of the wrong thing.
Some may say the government needs to be dismantle, and this gets into the other half on why I think we have this problem. While there is a ton of people that are ignorant, I think a lot of people try to stay ignorant. That or they don’t think they can change anything, or they know what it’s like without a government.(War loads and so on)

So while fixing the moral of the people maybe the answer, I have no idea how to do that. So, I’m giving everyone my possible solution so you can improve on it

As far as the
[quote=dloser]You keep reacting to critism like that. People are pointing out problems with what you are saying and you just reply “Yeah? Well, it sucks now too! So let’s do what I said!”[/quote]

I guess you can’t answer my question. What are you getting for your troubles now?
Unless if YOU come up with a realistic solution or you don’t want to help improve the idea without doing a scorch Earth on it. Then you aren’t really offering anything that isn’t already there.

@dloser to have morality people need to think, they need to learn and have proper information. When people decide out of ignorance and fear it’s not morality.

@crua9 the price of freedom is constant vigilance, and not many people are willing to pay it. That let people with money power or just plain time to have more influence than others who don’t.

@nakee**, I’m sorry to tell you this, but you don’t get to decide what things mean.

@crua9: Either I’m really bad at saying what I mean or some of you have serious reading-comprehension problems. :p

I’m not saying that all the law allows is good and all else is bad. And I’m definitely not saying that the law corresponds to what you think is right and wrong. All I’m saying is what the main principle of the law is, whilst conceding that it’s far from perfect in practice. But it seems it’s all pretty hopeless given the fact that people invent their own definitions and keep pushing the same “solutions”.

/me crawls back into his cave.

(And for the love of god, it is ‘incentive’!)

@dloser not the site that I would have expected to have this discuss on :-)
but my definition of morality is based on something similar to the normative definition in

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

While most people have some basic moral view most of them do not construct it into a code of conduct. And mostly behave as they find right at the time.

Anyhow, if you do not agree with a definition you can always suggest a better one.

That descriptive definition is what I would consider the general definition. The normative definition is particularly vague and unusable without further clarification of the conditions and what is considered rational (as the article itself also points out). The way you describe your definition also seems pretty elitist to me.