Win 10 - Whats your plan?

[MassHavoc]

Update:

When I did the simple upgrade to win 10, shit was weird. Was having weird stuff with old programs and also with my dual screen setup. I didnt mess with drivers or anything, just went ahead and did a clean install off a flash drive. But anyway, for me, the upgrade seemed wonky and looked like I was gon have to go through a bunch of settings and shit to get it to behave right. imo, its not worth it. Even when just performing the install, shit got wonky. Screen brightness was doing a kind of slow strobe, which maybe is intentional, but it was all laggy... and the fonts looked real low resolution. Probably just driver stuff, but still. Seems like more effort than its worth to get an upgrade to work.

Clean install though was flawless for me. So far, I have had no hiccups. As of right now, I am glad I switched from 7. Boot and shutdown is faster and file transfers from disc to disc and through usb are way faster. I like the clean aesthetic and actually like the new start menu better. Also really liking the virtual desktops. So far my only gripes are that when the search function access a browser, it always uses bing. Cant wait for someone to fix that. Havent tried Cortana. Also, there is less window border color customization than in 8 or 8.1. Oh, I do like how windows can snap to edges or corners faster/easier now.

Have you done any of the steps that all the privacy advocates are suggesting?

 

[botfly10]

I disabled everything during install and then disabled all the other stuff after install too.

But I am a little bit on the fence about the privacy issue. I definitely don't think its evil demonic hell beast that some people do.

Look, yeah, its bullshit that MS makes it hard or obscure to opt out of the shit you can opt out of. And then there is other shit you can't really opt out of at all.

And whats worse is the language in their EULA. Its completely bullshit how wide open and over reaching it is.

What I believe though, is that the EULA language is just lawyer lazy lawyer speak trying to protect the company in what is a wild west, unregulated information space. I personally do not believe there is anything nefarious behind it.

Shit, I bet every person who has posted a complaint about privacy issues in win 10 has a smartphone. And those things have been tracking everything you do and sending it back to the parent company since their inception. Apple, Android, Windows, it doesn't matter. ****, nearly every app you download has permission requirements beyond what win 10 is asking.

So why do people accept it on a phone? Because often times that information sharing provides functionality that people want. Those apps often need that info to perform in a convenient, fast, and accurate way.

The thing is, we are approaching a time with computers where they are starting to dip their toe in AI. They complexity of what they can do is hitting a point where sometimes most users need/want the computer to make some decisions on its own in order to streamline and enhance performance and usability. So that is one pillar.

The other pillar is that we are moving towards a time where you use the same OS across every device you own and access the same data across every device you own. And the interface is nearly identical across every device you own.

Those factors require collection of user habits and tendencies and storage on central servers. So I can see that side of the issue as well.

Imo, the central sin that MS committed is not being upfront about it. They failed to openly disclose what they wanted to gather and why. They have made no attempt to explain how this info will improve the user experience. Not in practical terms anyway. In in todays world, thats fucking stupid because people are going to find out and they are going to be pissed if it looks like you were trying to hide something.

 

[botfly10]

To put it another way, in the future, EVERYTHING will be stored on servers. For the vast majority of people, those servers will be maintained by a second or third part. And all of your devices will become interfaces for whats on those servers rather than storage devices. And you will merely switch through work/personal/cheating husband... etc profiles depending on what terminal you're on and what you want to do.

I just see this as a step in that direction and something we are gonna have to reckon with as a society.

Its why I believe that we need a constitutional amendment that defines our rights in the digital space.

 

[Crystallas]

Bandwidth is struggling to keep up with network demands now. A lot of people take these problems for granted and assume it will forever improve, but the fact is, physics has limits and with growing populations streaming higher and higher resolution content, and playing more demanding MMOs, well configured local storage solutions will be very hard to avoid in an internet of things world. All before ever getting into points about security, privacy, and internet pollution. A mass adoption of light transfered data will barely be able to handle the 4k infrastructure worldwide with today's users, let alone the growing number of users and devices.

Similar to how automobiles were improving so quick in the early part of the 20th century, that consumers felt sometime in the 1950s that we would have some kind of mass adoption of flying cars today. The trends are breaking as we reach limitations.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

Im not a fan of the privacy invasion at all and I am not cool wit the way things are headed in regard to everything being connected and data being stored by third parties. I want to be as off the grid as possible. we are becoming a slave to technology. and no, i do not own a smart phone. shit, this site is the closest I come to engaging in social media.


that said, I am also not a fan of more government as the answer to any problem. the answer is simply not allowing the tech to invade your lives in exchange for a few, IMO, unnecessary services. unfortunately, society as a whole seems to feel differently and blindly follows along. then again, I am an extremely introverted individual living in a extroverted world so I cant really understand the need for the constant connections and social aspects of todays world. also, people, as I said, are becoming extremely lazy and allowing themselves to be enslaved by tech because its too hard to type something on a keyboard or get up and push a button.

Anyway, when I get around to building my pc Ill probably go with ten due to dx12 and by then all the bugs should be taken care of and Ill just make sure to turn all the BS off.

 

[botfly10]

Bandwidth is struggling to keep up with network demands now. A lot of people take these problems for granted and assume it will forever improve, but the fact is, physics has limits and with growing populations streaming higher and higher resolution content, and playing more demanding MMOs, well configured local storage solutions will be very hard to avoid in an internet of things world. All before ever getting into points about security, privacy, and internet pollution. A mass adoption of light transfered data will barely be able to handle the 4k infrastructure worldwide with today's users, let alone the growing number of users and devices.

Similar to how automobiles were improving so quick in the early part of the 20th century, that consumers felt sometime in the 1950s that we would have some kind of mass adoption of flying cars today. The trends are breaking as we reach limitations.

Yeah, internet is the obvious bottle neck right now but its not like flying cars at all because we have the tech right now to upgrade the infrastructure. Someone just has to invest in it. And even now, most consumers have already offloaded significant portions of their media consumption to streaming services.

 

[Ares]

Bandwidth is struggling to keep up with network demands now. A lot of people take these problems for granted and assume it will forever improve, but the fact is, physics has limits and with growing populations streaming higher and higher resolution content, and playing more demanding MMOs, well configured local storage solutions will be very hard to avoid in an internet of things world. All before ever getting into points about security, privacy, and internet pollution. A mass adoption of light transfered data will barely be able to handle the 4k infrastructure worldwide with today's users, let alone the growing number of users and devices.

Similar to how automobiles were improving so quick in the early part of the 20th century, that consumers felt sometime in the 1950s that we would have some kind of mass adoption of flying cars today. The trends are breaking as we reach limitations.

I am curious, what do you think is a path we should be heading down in order to maintain an internet infrastructure that can handle all the traffic demands we produce in the U.S.?

Private companies putting in new lines for the backbone? Or should they work on improving the infrastructure that goes into homes/businesses? Should the government be involved and do something on the National level?

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

I disabled everything during install and then disabled all the other stuff after install too.

But I am a little bit on the fence about the privacy issue. I definitely don't think its evil demonic hell beast that some people do.

Look, yeah, its bullshit that MS makes it hard or obscure to opt out of the shit you can opt out of. And then there is other shit you can't really opt out of at all.

And whats worse is the language in their EULA. Its completely bullshit how wide open and over reaching it is.

What I believe though, is that the EULA language is just lawyer lazy lawyer speak trying to protect the company in what is a wild west, unregulated information space. I personally do not believe there is anything nefarious behind it.

Shit, I bet every person who has posted a complaint about privacy issues in win 10 has a smartphone. And those things have been tracking everything you do and sending it back to the parent company since their inception. Apple, Android, Windows, it doesn't matter. ****, nearly every app you download has permission requirements beyond what win 10 is asking.

So why do people accept it on a phone? Because often times that information sharing provides functionality that people want. Those apps often need that info to perform in a convenient, fast, and accurate way.

The thing is, we are approaching a time with computers where they are starting to dip their toe in AI. They complexity of what they can do is hitting a point where sometimes most users need/want the computer to make some decisions on its own in order to streamline and enhance performance and usability. So that is one pillar.

The other pillar is that we are moving towards a time where you use the same OS across every device you own and access the same data across every device you own. And the interface is nearly identical across every device you own.

Those factors require collection of user habits and tendencies and storage on central servers. So I can see that side of the issue as well.

Imo, the central sin that MS committed is not being upfront about it. They failed to openly disclose what they wanted to gather and why. They have made no attempt to explain how this info will improve the user experience. Not in practical terms anyway. In in todays world, thats fucking stupid because people are going to find out and they are going to be pissed if it looks like you were trying to hide something.

In a sense, MS has been more open about this than any smart phone OS, and at least Win 10 does give you options to disable a lot of this stuff.

I'm with Tirets here though. I'm not interested in being followed across devices or syncing across devices. This is how it is sold to customers, that is for their convenience, and a smoother end user experience. That is only part of it though. We are not just being served products, we have now become products.

 

[Crystallas]

I am curious, what do you think is a path we should be heading down in order to maintain an internet infrastructure that can handle all the traffic demands we produce in the U.S.?

Private companies putting in new lines for the backbone? Or should they work on improving the infrastructure that goes into homes/businesses? Should the government be involved and do something on the National level?

Well, this is an unbelievably large topic. Solutions now are similar to how a man from the 1800s conceptualized the human race going into space. You have a mass amount of curiosity into the sciences throwing out guesswork, but only a tiny tiny handful that are going to make the right projections. It's both a problem with explanations and understanding them, because to draw a few dots to connect, it requires someone who can interpret the nomenclatures and various languages to draw an accurate assessment of the situation. Infrastructural Networking is not for the faint of heart, even for those who work in the field.

Also, I want to do this without any political angles. Because they are irrelevant. Doesn't matter who applies the solution in this case. A truly apolitical topic, and IMO making it political would demonstrate the lack of understanding while assuming someone else will figure it out, yada yada (the point I made above for simply taking things for granted and thinking they will just improve).

The issue isn't putting in more X-solution, nor is it going to be anywhere close to being limited to the US due to materials. The issue is that we have a two fold problem for hardwire and a two fold problem for air communication. Hardwire is still finite, especially fiber, that is one problem. Then you have impatient users who don't understand how the network is built, how the telecom technologies interact, and just want to blow their funds on the latest and greatest without any foresight of the costs and downside of pushing a system that is only shiny like the railroad system seemed 200 years ago(except massively more complex). CNT(carbon nantube) based construction is the most promising, and while abundant(unlike fiber) its adoption and use is projected for 2025 at best, which puts it at a potential 60% UHD subscriber load on networks with a greater population at the early phase. Let alone mass adoption limits. Scale that to a single theoretical population of 1mil over a 40mile radius. 1GB/s from line to house at 0.3% packet loss per mile, and assuming that the geometrical compression for images and video paces similarly(which it wont, as we're hitting walls) then apply the cipher traffic encodes and decodes, just for UHD, that's what, 276%(give or take 2%, depending on if you also apply the end to end encryption data added to all traffic and scale the hash values as they increase in packet size) of all Internet traffic bandwidth in this mock city? So then you assume, like now, some users will use lower resolution when ideal to scale and co-exist on the same network? One ISP line per user, no more households? That's not going to happen.
Air communication is going to run into real interference issues as different signals start reaching the hard-line physical specs(but of course, with significantly more packet loss, as it has always been and may always be, who knows at this point.)
An all of the above solution still hubs, because that is how the Internet is built. We knew that in the 70s when the modern network was being designed over the old network(talking about Bell labs and telephone when I say the old network or the modern network, uses the same concepts).

So really, the solution, like most things, will require a good mix of many. Just like the call for the death of this, the death of that... It's not going to happen. Local storage will be as important as hosted solutions. The issue we have now, was jumping the 2TB barrier on many onboard controllers a few years ago and how that burned a lot of local archivers. So when users filled up their normally reliable drives, they looked for other solutions, many that weren't all that reliable, like the thumbdrives and memory cards, plastic-housed therefore extra-warm-running external disks, etc. And a lot of the same people that get burned with their local storage solutions for buying into short-term solutions for long-term problems(ie: running midrange SSDs for long term archiving of personal data), are naturally going to feel like they are better suited trusting someone else to manage that data for them. But the sheer amount of computer pros that exist(we're talking above and beyond someone that simply games) steadily grows, therefore they are able to get home solutions up and running, along with home network solutions, and realizing that any cloud solution would be using the same kind of hardware anyways.

Ah geez... I'm writing a novel already. I have barely scratched the surface and unfortunately this is one of those topics that entails a lot(millions) of sub-1% factions that wind up adding up in a world full of niche applications.

 

[Crystallas]

In a sense, MS has been more open about this than any smart phone OS, and at least Win 10 does give you options to disable a lot of this stuff.

I'm with Tirets here though. I'm not interested in being followed across devices or syncing across devices. This is how it is sold to customers, that is for their convenience, and a smoother end user experience. That is only part of it though. We are not just being served products, we have now become products.

Just want to add.
Opting out of sharing information is not the same as disabling a backdoor. The backdoor still exists. That is what makes Win10 different, not that MS hasn't before for reporting pirated copies of everything after Server2003. These backdoors are now permanent with a new scope entirely beyond pirated copies and flexible to change even after host config denials(blocking connections from a router or inside the OS itself) are made. It's actually funny, that cracked copies in the future may be the most private and potentially the most stable, but we have seen that trend with overly DRM software since the dawn of the copy command.

 

[botfly10]

I remember when people thought it was insane to transfer all your music to digital. How it was preposterous to have no physical object. Or shit, how about when people thought the idea of buying shit on the internet was insane. Remember how people were scared of using your credit card online? lol

We will keep plugging forward and old people will still think everything is fucked and young people will still think old people are dumb, all while the earth goes on without ever actually ending - as it has always been and always will be.

But whatever. At the end of the day, people have too many devices. And its too annoying to keep your shit synced across all the platforms you use. Its not going to be long before we store most of our files and settings on servers. Its getting to the point where it almost has to happen. Its already pretty damn common. And services line one drive, dropbox, google docs, etc... are all paving the way.

 

[botfly10]

Im not a fan of the privacy invasion at all and I am not cool wit the way things are headed in regard to everything being connected and data being stored by third parties. I want to be as off the grid as possible. we are becoming a slave to technology. and no, i do not own a smart phone. shit, this site is the closest I come to engaging in social media.


that said, I am also not a fan of more government as the answer to any problem. the answer is simply not allowing the tech to invade your lives in exchange for a few, IMO, unnecessary services. unfortunately, society as a whole seems to feel differently and blindly follows along. then again, I am an extremely introverted individual living in a extroverted world so I cant really understand the need for the constant connections and social aspects of todays world. also, people, as I said, are becoming extremely lazy and allowing themselves to be enslaved by tech because its too hard to type something on a keyboard or get up and push a button.

Anyway, when I get around to building my pc Ill probably go with ten due to dx12 and by then all the bugs should be taken care of and Ill just make sure to turn all the BS off.

The point of a constitutional amendment that defines citizen rights in the digital space would be about the people actively making choices about what data we will allow access to and how we will allow it to be used. The point is defining limits to access and use.

You can say you "are not a fan of the government" (lol) but I bet you don't mind the bill of rights. As it is right now, regulation of what data is collected and how it is used is haphazard at best and nonexistent at worst. We are currently basically asking the gov and corporations to police themselves. Which is stupid. Thats sort of the point of the constitution. Limiting power to very defined parameters.

 

[Crystallas]

I remember when people thought it was insane to transfer all your music to digital. How it was preposterous to have no physical object. Or shit, how about when people thought the idea of buying shit on the internet was insane. Remember how people were scared of using your credit card online? lol

We will keep plugging forward and old people will still think everything is fucked and young people will still think old people are dumb, all while the earth goes on without ever actually ending - as it has always been and always will be.

But whatever. At the end of the day, people have too many devices. And its too annoying to keep your shit synced across all the platforms you use. Its not going to be long before we store most of our files and settings on servers. Its getting to the point where it almost has to happen. Its already pretty damn common. And services line one drive, dropbox, google docs, etc... are all paving the way.

Just don't confuse my position of relating physical limitations to some perception on what others prefer for their lifestyle(old vs young, new vs old, etc).

 

[botfly10]

I was more speaking in general terms about how something might be appalling to one generation but readily accepted by the next.

I think a lot of the privacy debate is going to evaporate as young people now place less value on privacy in general. Socially, the US is moving toward a very open society and people are very actively working towards removing shame stigmas. Privacy has long been a strong american value, but that isn't true everywhere. And reduced privacy doesnt automatically equate to authoritarian government. Especially when it comes with tolerance and openness.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

as for reduced privacy not automatically equating to authoritarian government. I disagree. we live in a society were people are more and more willing to blindly allow their privacy to be invaded. thats just opening the door. especially when you consider things can get authoritarian even in the name of tolerance and openness. if only as a guise. hell, theres already hints of it with the political correctness on display today. though regardless of all that, the willingness to devalue privacy amongst individuals today is not a positive regardless of how you look at it imo.

theres also no reason to throw in a snarky "lols"(especially when misquoting, though admittedly i am not a fan of government period). every time someone criticizes government someone throws in "but I bet you like this (fill in the blank)," as if thats all there is to it. And in the case of your bill of rights example weve really only gone in a circle since its largely in place to limit government.

anyway, in the end your words summed things up pretty well, "At the end of the day, people have too many devices. And its too annoying to keep your shit synced." well, they should stop buying every gimmicky device to hit the market. but thats just the opinion of this apparently old out of touch fool.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

I think Bot is a bit off here, and his cynical use of ageism is cliche, and is in sharp contrast to his idealistic trust in openness and tolerance.

In my experience, more and more young people are concerned about privacy issues, as much as older people are. It's a very hot discussion point at universities here. I don't think the interest in privacy is an age thing at all. As usual in these matters, the majority of people will likely take notice when it is too late for anything to be done. Which is likely the case already.

I did notice that Bot shut all the stuff off in Win 10, so not sure what he's really on about. Perhaps he is still in the young idealist phase.

 

[botfly10]

as for reduced privacy not automatically equating to authoritarian government. I disagree. we live in a society were people are more and more willing to blindly allow their privacy to be invaded. thats just opening the door. especially when you consider things can get authoritarian even in the name of tolerance and openness. if only as a guise. hell, theres already hints of it with the political correctness on display today. though regardless of all that, the willingness to devalue privacy amongst individuals today is not a positive regardless of how you look at it imo.

theres also no reason to throw in a snarky "lols"(especially when misquoting, though admittedly i am not a fan of government period). every time someone criticizes government someone throws in "but I bet you like this (fill in the blank)," as if thats all there is to it. And in the case of your bill of rights example weve really only gone in a circle since its largely in place to limit government.

anyway, in the end your words summed things up pretty well, "At the end of the day, people have too many devices. And its too annoying to keep your shit synced." well, they should stop buying every gimmicky device to hit the market. but thats just the opinion of this apparently old out of touch fool.

Its not about gimmicky devices. Not at all. Its about a work computer, a home desktop, a latop, and a smartphone. All of which are used every day. All of which require file management as things are edited across the different platforms. Maybe this doesn't describe your experience, but it is common for most people. Its why every singe productivity software there is has begun moving towards server based storage. Its a real thing.

I am not suggesting that you have to participate in that kind of workflow. Just saying that many people do. And that we already are moving toward server based storage. Its happening right now. And windows and apple both are moving towards becoming an integrated UI that can access all of your files from every device and edit one file across all devices. Shit, corporations have already been doing this for years.

Also you say this:

"every time someone criticizes government someone throws in "but I bet you like this (fill in the blank)," as if thats all there is to it."

But come on man. I am talking about the constitution. That is not negligible. You are being a bit flippant.

Finnally, you mention people blindly opening the door to privacy invasion. Imo, that is a half-truth at best. I think people know what they are doing when they turn the gps on in their phone so they can use google maps, for example.

I guess my question would be why are you afraid of reduced privacy? What specifically, in practical terms, are you afraid of?

 

[botfly10]

I think Bot is a bit off here, and his cynical use of ageism is cliche, and is in sharp contrast to his idealistic trust in openness and tolerance.

In my experience, more and more young people are concerned about privacy issues, as much as older people are. It's a very hot discussion point at universities here. I don't think the interest in privacy is an age thing at all. As usual in these matters, the majority of people will likely take notice when it is too late for anything to be done. Which is likely the case already.

I did notice that Bot shut all the stuff off in Win 10, so not sure what he's really on about. Perhaps he is still in the young idealist phase.

I was not trying to present a unilateral view of privacy. Just presenting more than one side. I think there are important points on both sides. If you look at my posts, I am advocating a constitutional amendment that limits access and use of personal information. I just take issue with the idea that reduced privacy is universally bad and comes with no benefits. Thats just not true.

Its also why, imo, we need to make active decisions about what we permit instead of letting corporations make the choice for us. And as citizens of the united states of america, our mechanism for power is the constitution.

 

[botfly10]

Here is a pretty cool op ed:

How to protect privacy in the digital age: a constitutional amendment

It’s time to reassess the balance between privacy and security.
By Alex Alben
Special to The Times

WE live under surveillance. In our homes. In our offices. In our public spaces. With the widespread deployment of GPS devices, digital networks and global satellites, our digital footprints are tracked and recorded to a degree we never anticipated and can’t completely understand.

Even before Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency’s clandestine programs to intercept large amounts of our phone calls and emails, we had ceded ground to local police, whose cameras track us both in public spaces and as our vehicles move in traffic. Even before the Patriot Act and creation of toothless Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts, we had ceded too much liberty in favor of theoretical increases in security. And even before the transition to new mobile devices such as smartphones, our data were too vulnerable and too exposed.

It is time to reassess the balance between privacy and security in our laws and our culture and give the public a powerful new legal tool to protect personal data, especially with respect to the communication devices and digital networks that we have come to rely upon.

While most Americans assume that “privacy” is a long-standing legal concept enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, they are, in fact, mistaken. The Founding Fathers drafted amendments in the Bill of Rights that cover a very limited scope of protection of personal space. The Third Amendment prevents the government from quartering troops in our homes, which was a major concern after British colonial rule. The Fourth Amendment seeks to create zones of security in our persons and papers “against unreasonable searches and seizures” and introduces the concept of “probable cause” before judges can issue warrants.

Apart from these protections ratified in December of 1791, federal law has only haltingly moved to protect personal privacy. A hodgepodge of 20 federal statutes protect narrow slices of private information, ranging from health-care information (HIPAA) to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which was prompted by embarrassing disclosures of Judge Robert Bork’s personal video rentals during his Supreme Court nomination hearing. Congress has chartered several federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to enforce consumer protection.

Not until 1965 did Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas find a “right to privacy” inherent in the “penumbra” of the Constitution. And it wasn’t until last year that the Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 ruling, declared in Riley v. California that the police cannot search an individual’s cellphone during an arrest without first obtaining a warrant.

This particular case arose when San Diego police seized a man’s cellphone at a traffic stop and searched it both on the scene and at the police station, gleaning information that linked him to a gang-related shooting. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated about mobile phones: “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life.’ ”

Given the accelerating pace of technical change and the collection of information — by government at local, state and federal levels — our personal data will be placed at growing risk for the foreseeable future. With the advent of drones and Google Glass and ubiquitous video cameras, we can’t even imagine what mashup of recording devices and databases will next threaten our “privacies of life.”

Our state and federal courts should not have to infer privacy rights derived from the Third or Fourth amendments, nor be limited to making narrow rulings based on narrow precedents. Isn’t it time, 223 years after the original Bill of Rights, to emphatically establish the protection of the privacy of American citizens as a starting principle for our law and civil society?

In short, the abuses of power of the federal government and the unrestrained data-collection practices of modern culture argue for a new amendment to the Constitution that explicitly protects our privacy. With privacy as a starting point, courts and legislatures could then evaluate public-safety and national-security exceptions to a general pro-privacy bias. The onus, in short, should be on government to prove its right to our personal data and not on citizens to attempt to stop complex and rampant data-interception practices.

Our Bill of Rights was not perfect and our Constitution has required amendments of various degrees of gravitas over two centuries. First introduced in September of 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights package, the most recent amendment — pertaining to congressional salaries — was not ratified until 1992. Given the new consensus around privacy rights and the accelerating pace of technical change, we should ask our members of Congress to secure the two-thirds votes of both the U.S. House and Senate to propose an amendment to the Constitution to safeguard privacy as a first principle of American law.

Alex Alben is an author and technology policy expert. He lives in Seattle and currently lectures on privacy in the digital age for Humanities Washington.

 

[Crystallas]

A Constitutional Amendment would only limit the government from surveillance, and there is already one there, but isn't followed. Privacy regulations(which wouldn't be part of the Constitution) have been drawn up, and security experts in the security field(most privacy activists) pretty much destroy the idea and how it would work and/or be enforced(mainly because in order to enforce it, everyone would need to give up their privacy, thus why it's not a well thought out idea). Pie in the sky. Although I know many who are against privacy for their reasons are actually in favor of such laws, and there may be a push for it because of them.

Unfortunately like most policies today. We'll see some kind of divide between people who just want to see laws written and those who don't. And instead of focusing on real solutions, we'll get sucked into rooting for shitty solutions. ie: Net Neutrality, the Net Act.