BS: Is Privacy dead?

Subject: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 10:41 AM

About a year ago using twentieth century technology of paper, stamp and ink I sent two letters to Through the Wormhole producers and Morgan Freeman c/o TTW about the subject of he watched being changed by the observer. (a 40 year old idea I've had) I had posted a thread here about this issue titled 'Collapse of the Wave Function'' with zero response.

The new season of through the wormhole starts with an episode called is privacy dead, which my idea that a watched 'slit or double slit experiment' demonstrates the effect that watching has on an outcome of a wave collapse and narrowing possible outcomes.

I never got an answer back from the letters but I am interested to see if they cover the speculation of changing multiple states to a polarizing few states by watching and recording almost everything in our society today.

Are cameras destroying privacy and do you also suspect there are costs not expected by this constant watching/recording ?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 11:26 AM

Man. Don, your opening post demonstrates to me that I need to broaden my television?/film? viewing habits. I'll be watching (no pun intended) to see whether the more erudite among us understand your postulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 01:04 PM

Privacy has always been dying. Whisper, rumour, gossip, stalking, CIA, MI5.
Technology will be the coup de gras. The upside is that criminals will find it harder to hide in "plain sight".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 06:56 PM

Through the wormhole is a rare example of what Ed Murrow hoped TV might become. My DVR is full mainly due to Morgan Freeman's show.
Whoever is interviewed also comes with a biography so you get a full understanding of their outlook, prejudice and acquired point of view.

Ebbie you would not like having a brain too reliant upon visual learning. The things I pick up audibly are flawed and lyrics rarely sink in and almost never remembered. Thinking in visual story boards without many words is a bit what it is like. This viewpoint can be developed into amazing possibilities but I presume it is better living in a world of words and pictures.

Although my postulation here involves the most basic demonstration of an unintuitive quantum effect taught in 7th grade, the split beam particle wave experiment, it is what it is.

The watched being changed by the watchers is a bit hard to swallow but I think it is part of the fabric of reality as real as a wave pattern being reduced from 8 possibilities to 2.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 07:32 PM

Just in case the 'more erudite people' do not chime in; their argument against would be that people are too macro to be influenced by quantum events, which in turn I would respond that our thoughts and dreams are on the scale of the quantum field.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: leeneia
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 08:01 PM

You've got me thinking about privacy, Donuel, so I just googled my name and found that the Internet doesn't know about me. Good! Others with the same name appeared, but not me.

Take heart. It's still possible to be a private person.

I even have a Facebook account, but I only use it to look for concerts. I don't post.

So far, Google has thought I live in the following places:

England
Germany
Minnesota
a wealthy county 30 miles from my home
St Louis
Boston

So the all-seeing eye isn't as scarey as some people think.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 08:12 PM

If privacy isn't dead its damn near, and the idiots that post on FarceBook & the other narcissist sites every time they take a crap or pick their nose are largely complicit.

Morons r us.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 09:29 PM

Having been in the military and been investigated by the FBI for my security clearance, I realized that people who want to know stuff do, or they can find out, and it's too much futile effort to try to hide. Also, one sure way to get people interested in finding stuff out about you is to try to hide. I take a sane amount of precautions, but when the worrying about it is worse than what nosy people might do, I don't worry about it.

As for changing my behavior because people may be observing me, I try not to pick my nose in public.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Sep 16 - 10:00 PM

You've never had privacy. Anyone who cared enough could find out all you do and all you have done -- and possibly extrapolate what you will do.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

I remember in the 1960s some of the more radical types thought that telephone calls and letters were always confidential! Now people think what they put online is confidential and some even thing that encrypting it will make it even more so.

Believe this: if someone whats to find out, they can and if they care enough they will. Don't assume you can hide from a government. Shredding your correspondence is a waste as it can be reconstructed if doing so would be worthwhile (burning it is another story, but be sure to wet and stir the ashes).

Legally you have no expectation of privacy in the workplace. In your home, well, if they care enough....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 01:44 AM

The true nature of how much stored data and photographs is phenomenal.
The quality on one hand is far greater than you have been led to believe for decades. On the other hand there will never be enough people to reconstruct their meaning. Ed Snowden knows better than me.

If this endeavor of watching and its a big if, changes outcomes down to a near binary this or that, with us or against us, stop or go, you would probably have no clue that your free will has been limited or compromised in any way.

Now for the biggest if of all; if this imposed simplification of outcomes is known to be caused by constant and overwhelming watching,
to what purpose? Even worse suppose this phenomenon is virtually unknown and we are unwittingly entering into a 50-50 reality field.

Easiest of all, consider ourselves immune to quantum field phenomena and stupid notions like wave function collapse.

One thing is for sure, when even Rap gives you only two choices "agree with me and be rational or disagree and be delusional" the plot begins to clot. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 02:08 AM

If you think of privacy in terms of "is this information truly secret?" Then it certainly doesn't exist now and arguably never existed. There is a saying the Icelandic elder edda: "It is safe to tell a secret to one, risky to tell it to two. To tell it to three is foolhardy: everyone will know." And I dare say a biblical proverb about privacy would be easy to look up.

But there's a different way of thinking about privacy, which is that two people are involved. There is you and there is the person you are tryibg to conceal the information from. The difficulty of detecting terrorist activity lies in the sheer quantity of information available. Sorting out the relevant from the irrelivant is an immensely labour intensive task even with lots of automation.

But in most cases, that is not the privacy you need to worry about: it is the more personal ones of identity theft, cyber bullying or an abusing partner tracking you down at a refuge. And for these, document shreading and encryption are certainly important.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 02:22 AM

I don't think you can really draw a parallel between quantum mechanics and observation in society, Donuel. It is an interesting analogy but that is as far as it goes, I think. After all, if you are walking past a stranger in an otherwise deserted street you are still observed by that stranger and them by you: it does not require a photograph or third party observer.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 03:53 AM

I seem to remember a TV programme presented by Professor Brian Cox (swoon....I think he's absolutely gorgeous!) using two slits and a light beam. But I couldn't quite understand the concept. He usually explains things is a simple way, but I must have been extra-dim that evening.

My view on privacy is that the more one raises one's profile online and in the Press etc, the more there is of you 'out there'. And if one is utterly boring to the snoopers (as I am), there's not much to discover. However, I do worry about scammers getting hold of my bank details and identity. I heard that it's not difficult to find someone's password, and that there are 'strong' and 'weak' ones.

When my husband applied for a British passport many years ago, we noticed a car parked at the T junction facing our bungalow, with a chap watching our comings and goings. When my husband popped out to the corner shop for the paper, the chap drove off. In a small village he was very conspicuous. Sure enough, at the Passport interview, the very same man was behind the desk! I found this quite sinister, but they needed to know the residential address was correct.
I can't imagine what pleasure people get from Facebook or Twitter etc.
I'm not a bit interested in photos of people's cute dog or new baby, or their choice of wallpaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 05:34 AM

The two slit experiment is shattering for several reasons, one of which is oftern talked about and another very rarely. The one that is talked about is that wave-particle duality. The other one that is less discussed is that up to then (and also Einstein) science worked hard to reduce the significance of the observer, whether we are talking laws of motion, biological laws operating before people existed, earth being just another planet in the solar system .... always moving away from the person being of as little criticality as possible. Relativity made a serious dent in that approach, but it is the two slit experiment that really puts that specific act of observation central. And we haven't fully got to the bottom of this aspect, though sticking to the maths does allow us not to reflect on it too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 08:39 AM

As for changing my behavior because people may be observing me, I try not to pick my nose in public.

Then there is the opposite tack of always picking your nose in public. It causes adults* to look the other way in disgust and avoid you in general. If someone is observing you, nose-picking is guaranteed to get them to transfer their attention to someone else. It also helps repel pickpockets since the perception is that a nose-picker couldn't possibly have anything in his pockets worth stealing.

Smearing brown shoe polish on the backs of your trousers can have a similar effect. Talking loudly to yourself used to work, but nowadays most people will just assume you're talking on your mobile phone using Blue-tooth.


*The nose-picking strategy does not work with children. They find an adult nose-picker to be an endless form of fascination.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 09:34 AM

The two slit experiment was shown to me at a very impressionable age and was the first authentic mystery I ever encountered.

When I combine this with the concept of pilot waves acting upon particles, the high weirdness really begins. I have fun playing with concepts that defy logic. It actually feels good.

When some nut said that electricity and magnetism is just light, no one could see the light that Faraday nut was talking about. Like Faraday, if one adds one overarching force with two seemingly impossible properties, one can tame the illogical, unaskable mystery. But that took Maxwell to prove with math.

I too assume this is nonsense because I am not that smart or lucky.
Besides, sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 09:57 AM

Wikipedia, of all places, has a decent entry on the double-slit experiment. Perhaps the section on hydrodynamics is more achievable than the math!

I like the idea of plot rot. I've encountered it often in both reading and in life.

What I was trying to say was that "three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."   Ol' Ben Franklin said that. Of course, if the remaining person spills the secret then no one can keep one.

Sometimes what is known weighs so heavily that a secret must be told to others or simply committed to paper and the paper burned.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 10:59 AM

In my experience, the more you think about particle physics, the more confused you get.

Physics as it applies to the visible world - cars, water, billiard balls - is good. Quantum physics:forget it!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 11:20 AM

I agree leeneia. I managed to pass O Level Physics, but all this Quantum stuff just shows how thick I really am!

Hmmmm... Brian Cox....I wonder if he does private tutorials?.... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 07:24 PM

The watched being changed by the watchers

Well we all present as different people to a range of people. And knowing we are being watched has its analogue in quantum mechanics, the minute you know you are being watched you become a noticeably different person.

Of course: I might or might not be wrong, and am both until someone comments..................

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 08:14 PM

I'm not watchin mind ya, but yeah that's what I'm talkin about.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Sep 16 - 09:27 PM

The problem I'm having is that it's ridiculous to compare the observer effect in experiments to how mostly-sentient humans behave when watched. We're aware. Particles/waves are not.

...I hope they aren't, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 03:51 PM

Rap is right about the extinction of privacy.

Its just as ridiculous that we are atoms that know we are composed of atoms and light and magnetism and waves and the unknown.

I get conflicted by things others don't. Just taking a child to the Pediatrician is conflicting because they are located right next door to a drone warfare facility.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 11:03 PM

Privacy is an overrated luxury... imho. But then again, not much of what I do cannot be shared.

But on the other hand, one sends an email and suddenly one gets ads for something mentioned in that email? Really, nosy neighbor, must you sell me things all the time?

Anybody seen that South Park, I think - "does she know she's an ad?"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

The show brought up most of the points you guys wrote about but there were some shocking research findings.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 01:23 PM

My daughter was in Pprtugal and needed a work permit. In the process they brought up her details, then all the details of my wife and I, all her siblings and all their partners. That all that information is just on hand to a local policeman in another country immediately is what you would expect, perhaps, but it still feels a bit startling when they do it. But startling, I would say, rather than shocking.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 01:35 PM

For my husband's British Passport application, they explained he'd need to give the names and dates of birth of his paternal and maternal grandparents. The difficulty was that they all have the date of birth of January 1st and an 'approximate year of birth' as no-one knows when they were born! The chap during the interview was very kind, and understood the problems. But he said all these details would be stored at the Passport Office and would be used as means of further ID, in case anyone stole the passport.
It's interesting that in my husband's country, there can't be much personal information stored, as no-one knows much about their own details, and no-one actually even has an address. It's usual to ask the 'chief resident' of a neighbourhood to show you the house of the person you're seeking. There isn't any postal service. And no utility bills. It's so different here in UK.One can be traced by any number of details.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 02:19 PM

Meanwhile, Trump will film you peeing:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/News/14724623.Rambler_accused_of_urinating_on_Donald_Trump_s_golf_course_to_sue_US_Presidential_candidate/

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Stu
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 06:10 AM

Its just as ridiculous that we are atoms that know we are composed of atoms and light and magnetism and waves and the unknown.

We are the children of stars, made of starstuff. We are the universe made conscious, contemplating and curious about it's own nature. Is there anything more beautiful and profound than that? If there is, I haven't heard, seen or read about it and the implications for how we live together and on this planet are immense and inescapable.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 06:26 AM

Ah Stu, those were my feelings entirely after watching (and trying to understand) Brian Cox's programme. He said, as you do, that we are made up of atoms and elements from distant stars, and the only 'added extra' is life itself. It made me feel very small and insignificant, but also I felt a great responsibility somehow, to live my life in a worthy way, using the gift of 'conscious being' wisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 08:37 AM

Gent SHOULD have urinated directly on Trump, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 08:53 AM

The life of Brians. Brian Greene & Brian Cox.

While Greene is in the upper echelon of advanced physics by way of strings even Albert Einstein would wax poetic about the Cosmos made conscious. Al once noted that people sort of go against the flow of spacetime with their consciousness. In Al's day his writings about linking cosmology and social issues on Earth was viewed as an embarrassment by many academics. We could use that kind of embarrassment today.

Today you can make a public relations career for yourself with physics like Neil deGrass Tyson.
Some of these ambassadors from science like Feynman and Carl Sagan were in a league of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Iains
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 10:05 AM

If you have an internet connection, a mobile phone, a passport, a bank account, a driving licence, you have zero privacy. Also in many places camera surveillance coupled with facial recognition and gps on a phone enables continuous tracking.
Unless you are a terrorist privacy is an anachronism.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Stu
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 10:19 AM

When you use the internet (and the things Iains mentions above) then you essentially enter into a contract where you essentially forgo your right to privacy. Expect in the early days of the net, it's ever been thus.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 01:05 PM

I find those cookie things quite sinister. If I've been looking at, say, winter cardigans online, a load of adverts for woollies appear in one corner of my screen from various clothing outlets. My husband is very techno-savvy and gets rid of them for me. (I think he's worried I'll be tempted to buy some.)

Worse are the spam e mails. I'm always having 'hot' ladies offering to 'play' with me!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 08:09 PM

Well you know how you get those ads on Mudcat? Well for weeks now I've been getting ads trying to persuade me that I need a girlfriend from China/Asia/Russia/Ukraine. My right thumb must have inadvertently clicked on something (oh yeah?). When I contemplate my extremely rickety 65-year-old frame, then view those sumptuous young ladies on offer as my prospective girlfriends (I could see an ample nipple through a flimsy sari on one photo!), I begin to think that, just maybe, everything is not yet lost. Mrs Steve, on the other hand, thinks I've totally lost it. Dunno though. Use it or lose it, say I!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Senoufou
Date: 09 Sep 16 - 04:08 AM

Hahaha Steve! Mrs Steve should smack your bottom and stand you in the Naughty Corner.
I can't say I'm ever tempted to 'play' with these hot Asian ladies. But if Sir David Attenborough or Prof Brian Cox offered, I might consider it...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 16 - 05:38 AM

Sharing those remarks, Steve, seems to confirm privacy is at least very ill!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Privacy dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 16 - 05:55 PM

Edward Snowden is more well known by Americans it seems
He made clear that every cell communication world wide is stored by the NSA. Satellite surveillance is approaching 90%.

There is a whole lot more watchin goin on than many seem to realize.