Have read about it 2 minutes ago in a Swedish News paper

As an expert said. Do not press the "Voice" button on the remote control, while you speak to friends etc. Only use when "Talking" to TV.

Markus

No, I do get what you mean and I don't like it either, but generally speaking it's only used in extreme examples, namely terrorism cases. What defines terrorism is another good question, and that's a slippery slope alright, but as it stands with the risk of extremists coming back from the likes of Syria and that, how on Earth do you combat this breed of terrorism without having to intrude deeply into peoples private lives?
The average domestic police, at least in the UK, have limits on their technology, which can be detrimental to their case. For example, I did jury service recently, and we had the case of a chap caught in procession of three counts of Class A narcotics, and one Class B, he'd confessed to intention to supply the Class B, but denied intention to supply two of the Class A. However, the police had seized two mobile phone devices and were able to retrieve text messages which they used in their case against him, however they were unable to retrieve the contents of vocal phone calls, only the existence and length of them, and they were also unable to retrieve CCTV footage from the betting shops he'd claimed to have visited (he was arrested with two amounts of cash which he'd claimed to be from betting shops which he provided slips from...but honestly they could equally have been collected from someone else and just used as defence) because the footage is only kept for a week before being overwritten and the police didn't get the receipts given to them for a month or so after the initial arrest.
Now, if they had had as much evidence as people think the police are capable of getting then they would have had a much tighter case and we wouldn't have debated for six and a half hours over whether or not he was intending to supply Class A drugs.


I concur, but the genie is out of the bottle. Catfish asks when was too late...well, I'd say it was too late post-9/11 when things like the Patriot Act started appearing and the anti-Terrorism measures went into full swing. If there was a time to protest loss of freedoms that would have been it, but we were all too intimidated by the spectre of the Twin Towers collapsing and the Pentagon in flames and we meekly accepted (well, the majority of the public) that such measures were necessary to protect us from the spectre of terrorism. From those measures the big businesses leapt onto the bandwagon, as they are want to do, and brought in information gathering systems through the guise of convenience, and from that we slowly shuffled to where we are now, and will continue to shuffle on. Some people will turn away, will be scared of where this will go, just as many have done in the past with other forms of technology. Other people will work within the system to try and make them secure from businesses snooping, and others will just carry on as normal.
Let's face it, by logging on to the internet you're already giving up a fair sized chunk of privacy, by logging onto Subsim that's more information going out into the ether and by posting your political viewpoints that's another clump of information for whoever is interested to hoover up.
As Dowly put it, the internet is a two way street, you receive information but you also put it out, in ever increasing quantities.

You watch your TV.
Your TV watches you.

Wait! Whut?!?!:timeout:

A strategically placed piece of electrical tape should cure the problem.:up:

Here's a funny story from the good old days and it's from the real life- My ancestors life

Before I was born my Grand dad and Grandmom got a TV. Every evening before they sad down to watch TV-They toke on Sunday clothes, like they were in church-they believed that people in the TV could see them







Markus

In my 2nd last year at school, when I was 17, this recommended reading had a jubilee, and thus was talked about back and forth in the media, and we also read it at school, in English class.

LINK

Back then, I hated it, and found it completely idiotic, and exaggerated.

Later I learned to not hate it - but to fear the pace at which it turned out to become reality more and more. And that goes far beyond omnipresent surveillance.

But don't you see, Skybird, we've always been at war with Islam.

Hm?

:doh: And I haven't even read the book!

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/w...h-eastasia.png

:03:

I hated the book back then because I did not understand its relevance, or did not know tech development and social trends, considered the book to be exaggerated, and when that lack of understanding changed, I liked it more, seeing its visionary relevance.

I did not care for Islam back then and saw no evil in it back then, because I was not interested and again not educated on it. When that changed, I learned to not stand aside and realised how dangerous it really is.

My views do change over time sometimes. But usually not without good reason.

Does that clear it for you? :stare:

:hmmm: I refer to Transferred nationalism.

It's not just the state surveillence issues of today that echos 1984.

What?! You must read this book! :yep:

I really must, I am its generation after all. :hmmm:

If your PC has a camera it is possible for it as well as any attached microphone to be hacked so it records when the user is not aware.

They hide bugs inside two by fours so don't shop at Lowes man.

It is typical corporate stuff at work. While the governments (in functional democracy) are accountable to the people, companies are accountable only to their shareholders, thus they would go to any lengths to produce profit.

At least in case of Samsung they inform about them gathering information on yourself (not really on purpose of spying as such, but for voice recognition service they offer, which appears to be outsourced).