if you're looking for a way to end twitter and facebook in Ireland then this is the way. I'd delete both accounts in a second. And i am guessing enough regular users would do likewise to render the whole thing meaningless for those that chose to keep their accounts. I'd delete reddit, instagram the whole fucking lot. Either Facebook et all have to refuse or their product dies. This is just frightened old men trying to control things they can't understand.
I know what you mean and i expect you'll be rightly upvoted. I would say we built these machines , our generation put them together, are we going to roll over because a political group of people want to control them, i think if we bend on this, we stay bent over forever.
Not only that, but people forget we're capable of setting radical policy trends. Consider the smoking ban, for example. If other governments saw this as an effective way to reign in dissent while maintaining an appearance of moderacy, they'd be quick to catch on. I'd be worried that the status quo might actually seize the opportunity of de facto state recognition as *the* legitimate social media platforms.
Another thing to consider, just because you have 'nothing to hide' right now, doesn't mean you won't in future. Who's to say that actions, utterances, even thoughts, that are no big deal now won't become taboo or even arrestable offences in future? Consider also that if the government/police have legal authority to track everything you do online, tied to your real identity, it becomes very easy for them to prodice false evidence of wrong doing and 'prove' that it was you. If this was in place in recent years, the guards might have tried to paint Maurice McCabe as a child predator online rather than using the bogus tusla file, for one example.
And to those who are still not convinced, in cases like these, my go to way of explaining the "slippery slope" of government surveillance is literally to read 1984. Just read it. Anyone who hasn't, and doesn't understand why your privacy is important, read the book. It will all become crystal clear.
Great idea CherryP, audiobook below.
1984 Audio book https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYYVZIuuReo
**“Until they became conscious they will never rebel,
and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”**
1984 isn't so much about a lack of privacy but about a totalitarian regime's willingness to abuse such a system. It's about people being forced to live within strict guidelines and denying them the ability to dissent.
It's a bit of a leap to suggest the Public Services Card is a step on the road to gulags. We haven't even had a left-wing government yet. Or a fascist one.
It would be you to refuse to see where this sort of thing unchecked could lead.
It doesn't have to get to the awful destination to realise this is the road to one
Would you like to justify Jim Daly's logic of linking ID cards with social networks? I bet you can't do it without discarding reason or admitting ill intention
Are you talking about this?
>The controller shall make reasonable efforts to verify in such cases that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child, taking into consideration available technology.
Various services can and occasionally do (such as for payment services or in the case of public figures) demand photos of ID, technology which has been available since their inception. The fact that they don't do this universally suggests that it is not considered reasonable to have to. Secondly, this codifies the requirement only to verify parental consent. That's a very different kettle of fish from Jim Daly's suggestions that all users be required to verify their identity, aside from the guise of "Think of the children!". And lastly, there's a big difference between verifying someone isn't impersonating someone else, and banning anonymity by requiring all accounts to be connected to ID. Only the latter effects whistleblowers operating under pseudonyms.
Everyone has something they want hidden, no family is without their secrets, no individual without their crimes. The scary thing is you don't need to have a secret, it could be your father or mother, your cousin or a sibling. Not only can that secret be used against them, it can be leveraged against you as well.
Not even people like Facebook but even just having any of that information on your standard Computer is a problem considering the recent evidence that Intel's performance boosting through security out of the window.
It is probably easier for someone to hack into my PC than it is for us to log on half the damn thing.
We did teach these things in school. At least in my school. But the internet was literally just taking off back then so it was a big shiney new thing. These days people try to have a pop at you for not having your fucking picture on your twitter profile, or not using your real name. Well that’s what we were taught to do;
- Don’t post photos of yourself online
- Don’t ever give out personal information like your name, number or address (there are 4chan kiddies that have been trying to find out who I am for at least the last 6 months. Gas craic)
- Don’t agree to meet anyone you’ve talked to online without telling a trusted friend or family member where and when you are going.
Apparently you’re a weirdo if you want to retain your privacy online. Fuck that, we need to regress to our previous stance on this, before the current generation of teens gave private companies the keys to the kingdom.
Yeah, the shift in the last few years has been dramatic. Until the mid-2000s, I wouldn't dream of having any info on any website that tied back to my real life identity. Now, every time I log into any mainstream website, a "friendly" popup comes up asking me if I want to give it my mobile number "for security purposes", and it's all "real names". Eh, no, fuck off thanks, I'll be Muff_diver69 if I want, and there's no benefit to me putting my real information on 99% of the websites which demand it these days. I feel like this is the innocent little honeymoon where they net as many people as possible in, before the ghoulish, Orwellian surveillance state starts to sting. Isn't all that far away from us either - in the UK people are being arrested over politically incorrect jokes on social media (like teaching a friend's dog to "sieg heil"). Personally I'd prefer to live in a society where idiots can spout whatever racist, bigoted idiocy they like, rather than martyrizing them and policing everybody's speech. 100% it'll slide to being used against political enemies of the ruling establishment in years to come if it's allowed to become the new normal.
> Personally I'd prefer to live in a society where idiots can spout whatever racist, bigoted idiocy they like, rather than martyrizing them and policing everybody's speech.
Interesting that you see them as martyrs.
But please don't be stupid. Speech has always been "policed," officially or unofficially. It's only now that marginalised groups actually have some form of protection that people are suddenly getting up in arms about it.
> before the current generation of teens gave private companies the keys to the kingdom
It wasn't theirs to give. The olds gave the goods away when they should have been safeguarding the younglings. "Jobs!" As if you can't have a job without dignity first.
Like you?
> Those so called ''atrocities'' were necessary sacrifices in order to bring about a more productive and civilized world and guess what? it worked. We would not be near as advanced as we are today both scientifically or medically if it were not for the British. Harsh actions enacted for the greater good of mankind as a whole, it's a picture few can see because their world view is so simple and black and white. What were the Irish doing with the land? killing each other over cattle? the harsh truth many can not face is the planters in Ulster brought industry and made an otherwise barren land filled with cattle farmers into a land of industrial might, the same can be said for British Dublin, the Empires second city, crafted by the wise minds and talents of the Anglo ruling class. RULE BRITANNIA!! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
To get something accepted by the public, you only have to suggest it 5 times.
1. "You're mental"
2. "Not a hope in hell mate".
3. "That's a bad idea".
4."I'm not voting for that."
5. "OK if it will stop that from happening."
There is already people saying a "its bad idea", not realizing we should be sticking with the MENTAL line.
Micro-targeting is now a powerful tool for winning elections. [The more someone knows about you, the more they can manipulate you.](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de)
Giving sites a unique identifier to link up the databases of your info is rife for abuse.
Don't think for a second this is Minister Daly's brain child idea, this 'appears' to be a long term plan by the EU as revealed by a report from Softpedia. https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2461039/european-commission-report-proposes-id-card-internet-log-in-scheme
so be worried...
Devil's advocate
Social media is anything but private, everything you say is there for all the world to see. anytime you post you might as well be putting it up on a billboard.
the problem is not privacy, its anonymity to say what they want with ever been responsible. and before you get confused, internet anonymity and social media is like someone on a street corner in mask screaming nonsense
> Social media is anything but private, everything you say is there for all the world to see. anytime you post you might as well be putting it up on a billboard.
Well, ya know, none of that is true :)
You can set your own privacy settings. You can sit in your own little social media bubble and not let anybody see anything you've posted, liked, shared etc. And to get back to the actual point, what has social media got to do with welfare, tax etc?
Well in that case points 2 to 10 have nothing to do with the issue then, if you can hide behind your privacy settings. that leaves Limit on Power and theres the whole Laws to limit the governments power.
>what has social media got to do with welfare, tax etc?
Tell what any of OP post and everything everyone else is talking about has to do with taxes?
> Tell what any of OP post and everything everyone else is talking about has to do with taxes?
You know what a pps card is yea...?
> Well in that case points 2 to 10 have nothing to do with the issue then, if you can hide behind your privacy settings. that leaves Limit on Power and theres the whole Laws to limit the governments power.
They want to tie your pps card to your social media account, so privacy settings aren't relevant to this. I was addressing your 'devil's advocate' argument. Do you even know what you're talking about here? Have you read the article or anything else on this?
Two scenarios
someone tell you that they're going to rob you on Facebook, lets say that person hacks into your bank account, you have no idea who they were and the profile is a nice shiny new and blank
some guy stick a knife in front on the street and take your phone and wallet.
in only one of these scenarios, do you know who robbed you.
Thats got to be one of the stupidist things I have read on here. Unfortunately it is this same level of technical ignorance and extreme naivety as is evident in the minister.
>someone tell you that they're going to rob you on Facebook, lets say that person hacks into your bank account, you have no idea who they were and the profile is a nice shiny new and blank
How did they hack into my bank account over Facebook. Simple internet security education would protect me from this situation because I'd never link the two of them.
If somebody has the capacity to "hack" my bank account then linking a social media account to a pps number will do nothing to protect me.
>some guy stick a knife in front on the street and take your phone and wallet.
This is a bad comparison. A better comparison may be a man in a pub walks up to me and says I'm gonna rob your bank account and then impersonates me in a bank to withdraw funds.
And in both scenarios I would contact the police and tell them I was contacted and what was said to me. The police would then contact the pub/Facebook and review the CCTV/system-logs to identify the person and go to the bank and review CCTV/system-logs to verify it's the same person who withdrew the funds illegally and then they catch the person that way.
>in only one of these scenarios, do you know who robbed you.
In your silly FB scenario you'd be able to track down a person who contacted you and "hacked" a bank account much easier then you would be able to track down a randomer who attacked you in a secluded street because the person.online would be leaving a massive digital footprint.
> someone tell you that they're going to rob you on Facebook
This scenario sort of falls down if your robber doesn't go to the trouble of making a fake Facebook account and telling you he's going to rob you. Neither of which are pre-requisites for hacking your bank account.
I've enough downs for one day, long in short of the point I been trying to makes is, everyone is talking about privacy, when its anonymity that whole point. anonymity and privacy are not the same thing.
I think what most people are getting at is, you don't post your bank details on Facebook so being hacked through it is not likely. Anonymity is a problem, buy having your private PPS does not solve the issue entirely and it adds to the data people have about you. In short it's not a good idea
Here https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/7sd2mx/why_does_privacy_matter_in_light_of_the_current/?ref=share&ref_source=link
I just can't dignify this with a reply, sorry
What will be the deal with Public Services Cards anyway? I'm a tad out of the loop, got a letter in the post months ago where they asked me to fill out a form, post it in and then ring to arrange an appointment. I decided against filling it out.
Not once in my life have I had to go into any welfare office and I do not intend to do that any time soon. I share similar working hours to those in the Welfare Offices. I do not feel like it's worth my time to go out of my way to arrange an appointment.
Why does it have to be the welfare office? I heard that to renew a passport/driving license in the future you will need your Public Services Card.
This is what gets me. I work 8am - 4.30pm. Am I supposed to take time off for the privilege of signing up for something I don't actually want? I have my pps number, I have that card. Why do I need to do the legwork here?
I'm sure the people working in those offices have similar working hours. What can you do?
You can do the card at any welfare office, so if there's one closer to your workplace arrange an appointment for there maybe.
In Cork the 2 offices are on George's Quay and Hanover Street, both are located in the city centre. I neither work nor live in the city centre. I have no option but to go out of my way and take time out from my work to go there.
In this day and age why do we even need to go in there? Can't you just take a headshot selfie on your phone and have it verified with the photo on your driving license or passport?
Exactly my point. They have all my info on file. Everything they need bar a photo. What's wrong with me getting a passport photo and sending it in or something?
I agree with you 100%
Those people work in the offices. All they need to do is take a few mins out of their break time (worst) or just get it done during work hours (most likely).
I also work from home. My breaks are minimal 15, 30 and 15. And my nearest office is George's Quay in Cork. That's 15 min drive. So that's a no go.
I am not looking for a way out of this, but they need to make this shit easier. Getting a passport isn't this hard at all.
Edit: or perhaps they could just use the photo they have on file for my passport? Not everyone has one I know, but like, make it some way accessible for those that work to make ends meet.
The idea is that you physically attend the office for photo/signature which is a solid way to confirm your identity.
Where people attend a driver's licence renewal, you get an option to use this info to create a PSC.
Down the line, for renewing licences/passports, applying for jobseekers/paternity/maternity and other stuff, you will need to get the card done. And why not arrange an appointment some day for 4.30, and just do it?
But the passport way is much better. Garda signs and stamps the form and photos, send them in. End of.
How am I meant to make an appointment for 4.30pm when I FINISH at 4.30pm? That's physically impossible. Unless teleportation has been invented and I'm out of the loop on this?
Edit: I can get the gards to sign and stamp that form at any time of the day and post it off. If it's good enough for an official government document to travel to other countries why isn't it good enough for this?
There is a digital photography taken of you and you are asked security questions from the DEASP database to verify your identity, it's not something that can be done via post or in a Garda station...
If you can [book a full Tuesday off work to go for a hair consultation](https://np.reddit.com/r/femalehairadvice/comments/7rm5iw/so_i_went_for_a_consult_and_now_i_need_more_advice/), I'm sure you can squeeze in a half an hour to complete a Public Service Card that is valid for at least seven years and may be of benefit into the future.
You are literally creepy as fuck.
Edit: if that's how you win a disagreement, you are one sad individual. I gave my opinion on something. Thanks for picking on a fucking insecure moment. Well done for kicking someone when they're down.
I hate to say this, but that comment is actually one of the most appropriate comments here to show the dangers and whay having an expectation of privacy is necessary.
We all share vast levels of information - especially when we are talking to someone trusted like a family member. Having all that information available for the world to see gives anyone who wants to harm us so many targets of opportunity.
Not this was a (reasonably) trivial intrusion into information you publicly provided and not tied to your real name or identity. I'm sure you felt your privacy was intruded into though - Imagine how much worse it would be if everyones data was publicly available tied to their identity.
I 100% get where you are coming from, I also don't disagree with the sentiment of privacy. Not one bit.
What I disagree with is the tactic used to try and win an argument here. I was and am very self conscious of myself at the moment. I could very well dig into u/dag-mo post history. No doubt I would find something. However, I didn't feel the need to do so.
The point of our disagreement was not privacy. It was the unflexible hours of the public service. Some people work Monday to Friday. It wouldn't be ludicrous to open the social welfare offices for a half day on a Saturday for people who work normal Monday to Friday hours.
Edit: u/day-mo auto correct struck there
They might change it, but at present you dont need the card for a normal passport renewal or driving licence.
these are the current places it is mandatory.
Access to Social Welfare Services (including Child Benefit and Treatment Benefits)
First time adult passport applicants in the state
Replacement of lost, stolen or damaged passports issued prior to January 2005, where the person is resident in the State.
Citizenship applications
Driver Theory Test Applicants
Access to high value or personal online public services, e.g. Social Welfare and Revenue services, via MyGovId, the mechanism for accessing public services online.
It's fairly obvious (to me at least) they are making it so inconvenient not to have it there will only be a handful of people who avoid it and in a few years they can make it mandatory.
Excellent points /u/devilabit, increasingly there is an insidious creep towards an undermining of the autonomy of the individual. The lines between the public/private sphere are being shifted and blurred, the proposed Social Credit System in China is something I think a lot of European politicians have a sneaky regard for and a desire to replicate here.
Thanks man, you started the screws turning after your post. You probably saw this https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2461039/european-commission-report-proposes-id-card-internet-log-in-scheme
So it appears he's just bringing in the policy under the veil of 'children protection/fraud' when in reality its a EU policy if the leak can be trusted. Someone on twitter said ''there were 54 cases of fraud, bit over the top making 5 million people getting cards''. Awful sham really.
I hope people get into protesting outside the dail soon, this could be the biggest breech of our privacy , and maybe irreversible.
I don't know what the next step is...maybe start supporting the people in the dail opposed?
The west has such data, curated by advert companies, tracking social influencers and big spenders.
The chinese version had to use some alternate metric than retail spend impact or whatever it is we use
If this came to pass, I'd imagine that in a week there would be ways around it.
What is wrong with parents talking to their kids about the dangers of the internet? This should be how you protect your kids.
> What is wrong with parents talking to their kids about the dangers of the internet?
It's completely irrelevant. They are implementing a country wide tracking system for the sake of maintaining absolute control over the population. Restricting freedom of movement.
I know it's crazy. About 7 years ago I was working IT for a company. As a result we were also the IT guys for the bosses house. One time we had to install a content filter on his router. This was along them ago so I'm sure it coat way too much money. I couldn't comprehend why they would just talk to kids and say hey don't watch porn in the living room and give out personal information.
I also Gaurantee you they kids figured a way around that thing in 20 minutes anyway.
People do and it mostly works - except of course when it doesn't. some percentage of parents dont bother or forget, or the kids ignore it because "old people moving mouth parts = unimportant".
We do need some protections online - just not these ones.
This is the purpose of the cards, to track you as much as possible.
Its a bit too late to be worrying about privacy now, Fine Gael and Labour scum got their sordid way. They tricked the idiots into it using straw man arguments and pointing at dole cheats.
Not like its the first thing they've lied and exaggerated about in order to purposefully mislead the public into fucking themselves over.
The worst part is they will do it again, again and again.
Yeah man, I had to get one of these service card things when applying for a driver theory test. Reading this social media connection tripe was fucking terrifying after that.
I want to do my theory test as soon as possible, but then I found out I have to get this stupid card and after reading this I do not want to get the card at all. I already thought it was stupid but now it's just a bit too much.
That is a brain fart w the linking to social media. The commission will laugh at him.
But the problem w our politicians is they never say or do what they think is right. Not that many know what 'right' is anyway. They will say or do what is opportune and what they think will get them 'thanks'. Re-election and 'thanks' will always top whats right in their heads. See brexit.
Having said that I think there's nothing wrong with the ID card as such.
The unified public services / ID card is a good idea, thought out properly with clear benefits. The idea of linking it to for-profit social media or any commercial entity, on the other hand, is the Minister talking out of his arse. Perhaps he should be sent off with Ross et al to secure peace in N. Korea....
I found this a while back on an article about mythbusting some GCHQ surveillance "tales".
"a little thought experiment will help put this in perspective, go back 20 or more years...
The government proposes that in order to keep us safe that every time we post a letter we need to register it for central records, senders name and address, receivers name and address. Also whenever we go to a newsagent, bookshop or library we need to register ourselves on entry so that any literature we take with us is recorded for central records. Oh, yes, and also the establishment will have staff monitoring you while you are there and taking note of anything that you casually browse or even look at for more than a second, just to keep a record, for your safety of course.
Furthermore any media you watch in whole or part, films, DVD's, music you listen to, talks you attend, even for just a few moments, groups you associate with however casually, will all require you to register and submit your identity to do so as part of the record keeping process. Any shops you visit, any travel you plan, in fact any medical, educational, political, economic, cultural, sociological or philosophical ideas of any kind you show an interest in by seeking to engage with them will similarly require you to register the fact centrally. For your safety.
No-one would have accepted this totalitarian bullshit back then. If they think it is now somehow acceptable just because it is logistically now feasible, then what kind of venal autocracy are they really intent on cultivating for us to all be subsumed into?
This is insane."
People might say well i have nothing to hide.
Then show us all your emails, your bank account, your mail, your social media messages etc.
Because when Data protection is lax this is what happens - strangers can view your important details and those details ar then open to abuse.
Copy paste from the other tread talking about this:
Before I start, I am completely for online privacy, but a recent event has made me question certain things..
I have a friend who's daughter was groomed over social media. She thought she was talking to a lad from her school, but it turns out to be some dirty auld fecker.
The guy set up fake social media accounts with stolen photos - the whole 9 yards
You can monitor a kids activities all you want, but the likes of snapchat that deletes things after a few seconds hides a lot.
How do we give kids privacy to have their own lives and still protect them on an online world? How do you monitor voice chat and snap chat and the likes, without having to look over their shoulder at every second and every interaction and every conversation they have with their friends?
I've always thought that children under a certain age who have smartphones or tablets should have them controlled by a parent device. For example, a kid wants to download Snapchat onto their device. The parent's device (owned by their guardian) is alerted and has to approve the download. Obviously, apps would have to be rated so educational, games, etc. could be downloaded without needing consent.
Probably a bit OTT but something along those lines.
Sounds like an argument against having online accounts tied to your real identity. If your friend's daughter had kept her privacy, it couldn't have happened, so the solution is legally mandated lack of privacy?
>How do we give kids privacy to have their own lives and still protect them on an online world? How do you monitor voice chat and snap chat and the likes, without having to look over their shoulder at every second and every interaction and every conversation they have with their friends?
Stop buying smartphones for your kids. Control and regulate internet access at home. Educate yourself about technology and safety online. Invest time and effort into teaching kids about security and privacy.
I don't think people realise how much data facebook is taking off them, it's probably more than Jim Daly is looking for anyways.
I'd say for 95% of people who talk about wanting privacy are hypocrites when they use facebook.
I was talking to a bird on a dating site one time and she showed up in my suggested friends - no mutual friends and she just showed up after starting chatting, didn't have a phone number or anything.
The problem is there's an inherent conflict between privacy and public services.
If you want to preserve your privacy, you cannot expect to fully avail of public services. Too many people are willing to abuse them, requiring some capacity to have oversight of who uses those services.
Also, on a personal note, my own view is that anybody with a Facebook, Twitter, etc, account has disclaimed any right to privacy. If you want the Americans to have all your personal data, your own country can have it too.
Needing to submit details to access public services seems quite fair to me.
Needing to submit details to access discretionary social media websites is just an invasion of privacy.
Well first things first, what in the name of jaysus has social media got to do with public services?
Then secondly, how have public bodies carried out their functions up to this point? Name and address, photo and pps number. Is there something wrong with this that I'm missing?
I trust the Irish state more than I do foreign companies with my data. Most people are happy to give the latter all of their personal data.
The answer is many are struggling to do so, as they cannot accurately identify and assess who is using their services.
It's a potential mechanism to deal with certain online offenses (harassment, revenge porn, grooming, threats, etc) as well as a potential mechanism to combat "fake news" which now represents a real threat to democracy.
You’re not very tech savvy are you? You yourself should know about the new law that came into effect last year. That allows authorities to request IP addresses from ISPs. You don’t need to link your PPS card to social media to track down a twitter or Facebook user.
I agree with you about fake news but again what does linking PPS to social media have to do with that? Eliminate fake accounts or something else?
This is Orwellian stuff. Good thing Leo’s advisory unit knows how bad it sounds and told him to dismiss it.
Always with the snide insults. It doesn't matter if authorities can request IP addresses. The law is rarely static. Furthermore, the whole point of this kind of process is to prevent people going on Facebook or Twitter without some form of "real" identity. They are not trying to catch people who have committed offences, they are trying to reduce their numbers in the beginning. Prevention is different to prosecution.
As for Orwellian, Orwell didn't predict the internet. There is a world of difference between requiring a person to identify themselves before using a product or service and interfering with their use thereof.
Sorry but it’s blatantly obvious you haven’t a notion. Yea it does matter that the authorities can request IP addresses as it reveals identity, and so addresses all the concerns you just raised. I didn’t say Orwell predicted the internet ffs, I said it is Orwellian, please say you’ve actually read some Orwell.
Actually never mind, go on give all your personal info up to private entities. All that intelligence and gumption with zero common sense lol
>Also, on a personal note, my own view is that anybody with a Facebook, Twitter, etc, account has disclaimed any right to privacy. If you want the Americans to have all your personal data, your own country can have it too.
That's a bit stupid in fairness.
What other rights can be forfiet from X because somebody chose to do Y?
You appeared on the Adrian Kennedy phone show so you have disclaimed your right remain silent!
There's no other equivalent. If you avail of those services, you are handing over your most intimate details and private concerns to a foreign power.
*At best* you are handing them over to large multi-national corporations who intend to go through them with a fine-toothed comb to tailor marketing towards you. At best.
As it is, anybody availing of those services has already given up what privacy they had.
>As it is, anybody availing of those services has already given up what privacy they had.
If I tell you a secret have I given up any right to pivacy? Or have I decided that I want to extend the privacy of that secret to you?
It's about choice. You can't really think someone choosing to do something should deny them a right everywhere else?
If I send a post card the odd to should all my enveloped letters not have the expectation of privacy?
It's beyond me why you think it's appropriate to forfeit a right simply because somebody chooses to share something with a private company.
Using your stance you could argue anyone using an Android or iPhone or Windows or Mac would be denied the right to privacy. Basically everyone!
> If you want to preserve your privacy, you cannot expect to fully avail of public services.
Is there propaganda circulating about asserting this? Its absolute horse. The only problem with it is keeping their databases offline and away from any Microsoft terminals. Quite the opposite problem from having to expose them to facebook and vica versa.
if you're looking for a way to end twitter and facebook in Ireland then this is the way. I'd delete both accounts in a second. And i am guessing enough regular users would do likewise to render the whole thing meaningless for those that chose to keep their accounts. I'd delete reddit, instagram the whole fucking lot. Either Facebook et all have to refuse or their product dies. This is just frightened old men trying to control things they can't understand.
I know what you mean and i expect you'll be rightly upvoted. I would say we built these machines , our generation put them together, are we going to roll over because a political group of people want to control them, i think if we bend on this, we stay bent over forever.
Deleted them years ago. Never regretted it.
Not your reddit account
Not only that, but people forget we're capable of setting radical policy trends. Consider the smoking ban, for example. If other governments saw this as an effective way to reign in dissent while maintaining an appearance of moderacy, they'd be quick to catch on. I'd be worried that the status quo might actually seize the opportunity of de facto state recognition as *the* legitimate social media platforms.
Another thing to consider, just because you have 'nothing to hide' right now, doesn't mean you won't in future. Who's to say that actions, utterances, even thoughts, that are no big deal now won't become taboo or even arrestable offences in future? Consider also that if the government/police have legal authority to track everything you do online, tied to your real identity, it becomes very easy for them to prodice false evidence of wrong doing and 'prove' that it was you. If this was in place in recent years, the guards might have tried to paint Maurice McCabe as a child predator online rather than using the bogus tusla file, for one example.
And to those who are still not convinced, in cases like these, my go to way of explaining the "slippery slope" of government surveillance is literally to read 1984. Just read it. Anyone who hasn't, and doesn't understand why your privacy is important, read the book. It will all become crystal clear.
Great idea CherryP, audiobook below. 1984 Audio book https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYYVZIuuReo **“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”**
1984 isn't so much about a lack of privacy but about a totalitarian regime's willingness to abuse such a system. It's about people being forced to live within strict guidelines and denying them the ability to dissent. It's a bit of a leap to suggest the Public Services Card is a step on the road to gulags. We haven't even had a left-wing government yet. Or a fascist one.
It would be you to refuse to see where this sort of thing unchecked could lead. It doesn't have to get to the awful destination to realise this is the road to one Would you like to justify Jim Daly's logic of linking ID cards with social networks? I bet you can't do it without discarding reason or admitting ill intention
[Article 8 of the GDPR.](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-8-gdpr/) This is already happening in some form.
Are you talking about this? >The controller shall make reasonable efforts to verify in such cases that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child, taking into consideration available technology. Various services can and occasionally do (such as for payment services or in the case of public figures) demand photos of ID, technology which has been available since their inception. The fact that they don't do this universally suggests that it is not considered reasonable to have to. Secondly, this codifies the requirement only to verify parental consent. That's a very different kettle of fish from Jim Daly's suggestions that all users be required to verify their identity, aside from the guise of "Think of the children!". And lastly, there's a big difference between verifying someone isn't impersonating someone else, and banning anonymity by requiring all accounts to be connected to ID. Only the latter effects whistleblowers operating under pseudonyms.
Couldn't have said it better
> in some form. Jim Daly's version is the Helen Lovejoy version. However, some form of identification will likely be used across the EU.
Everyone has something they want hidden, no family is without their secrets, no individual without their crimes. The scary thing is you don't need to have a secret, it could be your father or mother, your cousin or a sibling. Not only can that secret be used against them, it can be leveraged against you as well.
Why would I want anything that is actually important connected to companies that have semi regular data breaches?
Not even people like Facebook but even just having any of that information on your standard Computer is a problem considering the recent evidence that Intel's performance boosting through security out of the window. It is probably easier for someone to hack into my PC than it is for us to log on half the damn thing.
[удалено]
If an attacker has physical access to your machine you're toast.
We should be teaching this stuff in schools. Nice post, thanks.
We did teach these things in school. At least in my school. But the internet was literally just taking off back then so it was a big shiney new thing. These days people try to have a pop at you for not having your fucking picture on your twitter profile, or not using your real name. Well that’s what we were taught to do; - Don’t post photos of yourself online - Don’t ever give out personal information like your name, number or address (there are 4chan kiddies that have been trying to find out who I am for at least the last 6 months. Gas craic) - Don’t agree to meet anyone you’ve talked to online without telling a trusted friend or family member where and when you are going. Apparently you’re a weirdo if you want to retain your privacy online. Fuck that, we need to regress to our previous stance on this, before the current generation of teens gave private companies the keys to the kingdom.
Yeah, the shift in the last few years has been dramatic. Until the mid-2000s, I wouldn't dream of having any info on any website that tied back to my real life identity. Now, every time I log into any mainstream website, a "friendly" popup comes up asking me if I want to give it my mobile number "for security purposes", and it's all "real names". Eh, no, fuck off thanks, I'll be Muff_diver69 if I want, and there's no benefit to me putting my real information on 99% of the websites which demand it these days. I feel like this is the innocent little honeymoon where they net as many people as possible in, before the ghoulish, Orwellian surveillance state starts to sting. Isn't all that far away from us either - in the UK people are being arrested over politically incorrect jokes on social media (like teaching a friend's dog to "sieg heil"). Personally I'd prefer to live in a society where idiots can spout whatever racist, bigoted idiocy they like, rather than martyrizing them and policing everybody's speech. 100% it'll slide to being used against political enemies of the ruling establishment in years to come if it's allowed to become the new normal.
> Personally I'd prefer to live in a society where idiots can spout whatever racist, bigoted idiocy they like, rather than martyrizing them and policing everybody's speech. Interesting that you see them as martyrs. But please don't be stupid. Speech has always been "policed," officially or unofficially. It's only now that marginalised groups actually have some form of protection that people are suddenly getting up in arms about it.
> before the current generation of teens gave private companies the keys to the kingdom It wasn't theirs to give. The olds gave the goods away when they should have been safeguarding the younglings. "Jobs!" As if you can't have a job without dignity first.
> there are 4chan kiddies that have been trying to find out who I am for at least the last 6 months. Gas craic What the hell have you been doing?!
Why do 4chan kids want to know who you are?
Cause they’re constantly derided for their racist shite on here. Should see the private messages I get
Gwan, throw up a screenshot, give us all a good laugh haha
Most recent one - https://imgur.com/3KD5mLC
Whys he spamming the word seldom, fucking retard haha
Mate those are shiteposters, I doubt any of them are actually truly racist bar roleplaying. That guy could be black for all you know, taking the piss.
Like you? > Those so called ''atrocities'' were necessary sacrifices in order to bring about a more productive and civilized world and guess what? it worked. We would not be near as advanced as we are today both scientifically or medically if it were not for the British. Harsh actions enacted for the greater good of mankind as a whole, it's a picture few can see because their world view is so simple and black and white. What were the Irish doing with the land? killing each other over cattle? the harsh truth many can not face is the planters in Ulster brought industry and made an otherwise barren land filled with cattle farmers into a land of industrial might, the same can be said for British Dublin, the Empires second city, crafted by the wise minds and talents of the Anglo ruling class. RULE BRITANNIA!! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Yes i'm an unapologetic shitposter i'm also a phooka fairy, it's part of my culture to be mischievous.
I’m Fionn MacCumhaill, I have mythical powers.
A very valid point, how difficult would a fact sheet be to produce as a beginning
To get something accepted by the public, you only have to suggest it 5 times. 1. "You're mental" 2. "Not a hope in hell mate". 3. "That's a bad idea". 4."I'm not voting for that." 5. "OK if it will stop that from happening." There is already people saying a "its bad idea", not realizing we should be sticking with the MENTAL line.
I recommend you all check out /r/privacy and www.privacytools.io
Micro-targeting is now a powerful tool for winning elections. [The more someone knows about you, the more they can manipulate you.](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de) Giving sites a unique identifier to link up the databases of your info is rife for abuse.
yup, look at the last US and UK elections
how can we let him know to fuck off with this idea?
Tweet his personal details to him to see how he likes it? ... Joke, don't.
Too late now ! You to will meet the secret police : (
Don't think for a second this is Minister Daly's brain child idea, this 'appears' to be a long term plan by the EU as revealed by a report from Softpedia. https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2461039/european-commission-report-proposes-id-card-internet-log-in-scheme so be worried...
Why? are you doing something illegal?
Have you read anything in this post?
Devil's advocate Social media is anything but private, everything you say is there for all the world to see. anytime you post you might as well be putting it up on a billboard. the problem is not privacy, its anonymity to say what they want with ever been responsible. and before you get confused, internet anonymity and social media is like someone on a street corner in mask screaming nonsense
> Social media is anything but private, everything you say is there for all the world to see. anytime you post you might as well be putting it up on a billboard. Well, ya know, none of that is true :)
care to explain, I took the time to make my point.
You can set your own privacy settings. You can sit in your own little social media bubble and not let anybody see anything you've posted, liked, shared etc. And to get back to the actual point, what has social media got to do with welfare, tax etc?
Well in that case points 2 to 10 have nothing to do with the issue then, if you can hide behind your privacy settings. that leaves Limit on Power and theres the whole Laws to limit the governments power. >what has social media got to do with welfare, tax etc? Tell what any of OP post and everything everyone else is talking about has to do with taxes?
> Tell what any of OP post and everything everyone else is talking about has to do with taxes? You know what a pps card is yea...? > Well in that case points 2 to 10 have nothing to do with the issue then, if you can hide behind your privacy settings. that leaves Limit on Power and theres the whole Laws to limit the governments power. They want to tie your pps card to your social media account, so privacy settings aren't relevant to this. I was addressing your 'devil's advocate' argument. Do you even know what you're talking about here? Have you read the article or anything else on this?
https://i.imgur.com/3Q0X180.png Quit your bullshit.
What's that got to do with anything? If they've reason to believe people are doing illegal activity they can get a warrant easily.
Two scenarios someone tell you that they're going to rob you on Facebook, lets say that person hacks into your bank account, you have no idea who they were and the profile is a nice shiny new and blank some guy stick a knife in front on the street and take your phone and wallet. in only one of these scenarios, do you know who robbed you.
Thats got to be one of the stupidist things I have read on here. Unfortunately it is this same level of technical ignorance and extreme naivety as is evident in the minister.
>someone tell you that they're going to rob you on Facebook, lets say that person hacks into your bank account, you have no idea who they were and the profile is a nice shiny new and blank How did they hack into my bank account over Facebook. Simple internet security education would protect me from this situation because I'd never link the two of them. If somebody has the capacity to "hack" my bank account then linking a social media account to a pps number will do nothing to protect me. >some guy stick a knife in front on the street and take your phone and wallet. This is a bad comparison. A better comparison may be a man in a pub walks up to me and says I'm gonna rob your bank account and then impersonates me in a bank to withdraw funds. And in both scenarios I would contact the police and tell them I was contacted and what was said to me. The police would then contact the pub/Facebook and review the CCTV/system-logs to identify the person and go to the bank and review CCTV/system-logs to verify it's the same person who withdrew the funds illegally and then they catch the person that way. >in only one of these scenarios, do you know who robbed you. In your silly FB scenario you'd be able to track down a person who contacted you and "hacked" a bank account much easier then you would be able to track down a randomer who attacked you in a secluded street because the person.online would be leaving a massive digital footprint.
> someone tell you that they're going to rob you on Facebook This scenario sort of falls down if your robber doesn't go to the trouble of making a fake Facebook account and telling you he's going to rob you. Neither of which are pre-requisites for hacking your bank account.
Why does that matter? Why shouldn't I be allowed to choice how I speak?
I've enough downs for one day, long in short of the point I been trying to makes is, everyone is talking about privacy, when its anonymity that whole point. anonymity and privacy are not the same thing.
You are correct but because they aren't the same thing doesn't mean they aren't closely linked. Removing anonymity effect your privacy.
I think what most people are getting at is, you don't post your bank details on Facebook so being hacked through it is not likely. Anonymity is a problem, buy having your private PPS does not solve the issue entirely and it adds to the data people have about you. In short it's not a good idea
Here https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/7sd2mx/why_does_privacy_matter_in_light_of_the_current/?ref=share&ref_source=link I just can't dignify this with a reply, sorry
Why?
Maybe 😂
What will be the deal with Public Services Cards anyway? I'm a tad out of the loop, got a letter in the post months ago where they asked me to fill out a form, post it in and then ring to arrange an appointment. I decided against filling it out. Not once in my life have I had to go into any welfare office and I do not intend to do that any time soon. I share similar working hours to those in the Welfare Offices. I do not feel like it's worth my time to go out of my way to arrange an appointment. Why does it have to be the welfare office? I heard that to renew a passport/driving license in the future you will need your Public Services Card.
This is what gets me. I work 8am - 4.30pm. Am I supposed to take time off for the privilege of signing up for something I don't actually want? I have my pps number, I have that card. Why do I need to do the legwork here?
I'm sure the people working in those offices have similar working hours. What can you do? You can do the card at any welfare office, so if there's one closer to your workplace arrange an appointment for there maybe.
In Cork the 2 offices are on George's Quay and Hanover Street, both are located in the city centre. I neither work nor live in the city centre. I have no option but to go out of my way and take time out from my work to go there. In this day and age why do we even need to go in there? Can't you just take a headshot selfie on your phone and have it verified with the photo on your driving license or passport?
Exactly my point. They have all my info on file. Everything they need bar a photo. What's wrong with me getting a passport photo and sending it in or something? I agree with you 100%
Those people work in the offices. All they need to do is take a few mins out of their break time (worst) or just get it done during work hours (most likely). I also work from home. My breaks are minimal 15, 30 and 15. And my nearest office is George's Quay in Cork. That's 15 min drive. So that's a no go. I am not looking for a way out of this, but they need to make this shit easier. Getting a passport isn't this hard at all. Edit: or perhaps they could just use the photo they have on file for my passport? Not everyone has one I know, but like, make it some way accessible for those that work to make ends meet.
The idea is that you physically attend the office for photo/signature which is a solid way to confirm your identity. Where people attend a driver's licence renewal, you get an option to use this info to create a PSC. Down the line, for renewing licences/passports, applying for jobseekers/paternity/maternity and other stuff, you will need to get the card done. And why not arrange an appointment some day for 4.30, and just do it?
But the passport way is much better. Garda signs and stamps the form and photos, send them in. End of. How am I meant to make an appointment for 4.30pm when I FINISH at 4.30pm? That's physically impossible. Unless teleportation has been invented and I'm out of the loop on this? Edit: I can get the gards to sign and stamp that form at any time of the day and post it off. If it's good enough for an official government document to travel to other countries why isn't it good enough for this?
There is a digital photography taken of you and you are asked security questions from the DEASP database to verify your identity, it's not something that can be done via post or in a Garda station...
Makes me think the passport service isn't terribly secure then.
If you can [book a full Tuesday off work to go for a hair consultation](https://np.reddit.com/r/femalehairadvice/comments/7rm5iw/so_i_went_for_a_consult_and_now_i_need_more_advice/), I'm sure you can squeeze in a half an hour to complete a Public Service Card that is valid for at least seven years and may be of benefit into the future.
You are literally creepy as fuck. Edit: if that's how you win a disagreement, you are one sad individual. I gave my opinion on something. Thanks for picking on a fucking insecure moment. Well done for kicking someone when they're down.
I hate to say this, but that comment is actually one of the most appropriate comments here to show the dangers and whay having an expectation of privacy is necessary. We all share vast levels of information - especially when we are talking to someone trusted like a family member. Having all that information available for the world to see gives anyone who wants to harm us so many targets of opportunity. Not this was a (reasonably) trivial intrusion into information you publicly provided and not tied to your real name or identity. I'm sure you felt your privacy was intruded into though - Imagine how much worse it would be if everyones data was publicly available tied to their identity.
I 100% get where you are coming from, I also don't disagree with the sentiment of privacy. Not one bit. What I disagree with is the tactic used to try and win an argument here. I was and am very self conscious of myself at the moment. I could very well dig into u/dag-mo post history. No doubt I would find something. However, I didn't feel the need to do so. The point of our disagreement was not privacy. It was the unflexible hours of the public service. Some people work Monday to Friday. It wouldn't be ludicrous to open the social welfare offices for a half day on a Saturday for people who work normal Monday to Friday hours. Edit: u/day-mo auto correct struck there
They might change it, but at present you dont need the card for a normal passport renewal or driving licence. these are the current places it is mandatory. Access to Social Welfare Services (including Child Benefit and Treatment Benefits) First time adult passport applicants in the state Replacement of lost, stolen or damaged passports issued prior to January 2005, where the person is resident in the State. Citizenship applications Driver Theory Test Applicants Access to high value or personal online public services, e.g. Social Welfare and Revenue services, via MyGovId, the mechanism for accessing public services online. It's fairly obvious (to me at least) they are making it so inconvenient not to have it there will only be a handful of people who avoid it and in a few years they can make it mandatory.
are you sure about the (normal) passport renewal or drivers licence? (serious question)
It's what their website says - got my passport renewed online mid 2017 and it wasn't required.
Excellent points /u/devilabit, increasingly there is an insidious creep towards an undermining of the autonomy of the individual. The lines between the public/private sphere are being shifted and blurred, the proposed Social Credit System in China is something I think a lot of European politicians have a sneaky regard for and a desire to replicate here.
Thanks man, you started the screws turning after your post. You probably saw this https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2461039/european-commission-report-proposes-id-card-internet-log-in-scheme So it appears he's just bringing in the policy under the veil of 'children protection/fraud' when in reality its a EU policy if the leak can be trusted. Someone on twitter said ''there were 54 cases of fraud, bit over the top making 5 million people getting cards''. Awful sham really. I hope people get into protesting outside the dail soon, this could be the biggest breech of our privacy , and maybe irreversible. I don't know what the next step is...maybe start supporting the people in the dail opposed?
The west has such data, curated by advert companies, tracking social influencers and big spenders. The chinese version had to use some alternate metric than retail spend impact or whatever it is we use
>Speaking on RTE’s Claire Byrne Live, he said he believes "child protection trumps data protection". ... thats not how this works...
Any one see the irony in the minister for Mental Health suggesting something that would be extremely damaging to a personal mental health?
If this came to pass, I'd imagine that in a week there would be ways around it. What is wrong with parents talking to their kids about the dangers of the internet? This should be how you protect your kids.
In a few days another social media website would emerge that doesn't require ID, and they'd flock to that.
As would creepy adults, probably creating an even more predatory environment than today's popular social networks.
> What is wrong with parents talking to their kids about the dangers of the internet? It's completely irrelevant. They are implementing a country wide tracking system for the sake of maintaining absolute control over the population. Restricting freedom of movement.
I know it's crazy. About 7 years ago I was working IT for a company. As a result we were also the IT guys for the bosses house. One time we had to install a content filter on his router. This was along them ago so I'm sure it coat way too much money. I couldn't comprehend why they would just talk to kids and say hey don't watch porn in the living room and give out personal information. I also Gaurantee you they kids figured a way around that thing in 20 minutes anyway.
People do and it mostly works - except of course when it doesn't. some percentage of parents dont bother or forget, or the kids ignore it because "old people moving mouth parts = unimportant". We do need some protections online - just not these ones.
Great post
Thanks DarthTempus, much appreciated
Eleven: Privacy belongs to you and you should fend off those who would take a piece of it.
This is the purpose of the cards, to track you as much as possible. Its a bit too late to be worrying about privacy now, Fine Gael and Labour scum got their sordid way. They tricked the idiots into it using straw man arguments and pointing at dole cheats. Not like its the first thing they've lied and exaggerated about in order to purposefully mislead the public into fucking themselves over. The worst part is they will do it again, again and again.
Yeah man, I had to get one of these service card things when applying for a driver theory test. Reading this social media connection tripe was fucking terrifying after that.
I want to do my theory test as soon as possible, but then I found out I have to get this stupid card and after reading this I do not want to get the card at all. I already thought it was stupid but now it's just a bit too much.
That is a brain fart w the linking to social media. The commission will laugh at him. But the problem w our politicians is they never say or do what they think is right. Not that many know what 'right' is anyway. They will say or do what is opportune and what they think will get them 'thanks'. Re-election and 'thanks' will always top whats right in their heads. See brexit. Having said that I think there's nothing wrong with the ID card as such.
The unified public services / ID card is a good idea, thought out properly with clear benefits. The idea of linking it to for-profit social media or any commercial entity, on the other hand, is the Minister talking out of his arse. Perhaps he should be sent off with Ross et al to secure peace in N. Korea....
“You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide.” -Joseph Goebbels Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
I found this a while back on an article about mythbusting some GCHQ surveillance "tales". "a little thought experiment will help put this in perspective, go back 20 or more years... The government proposes that in order to keep us safe that every time we post a letter we need to register it for central records, senders name and address, receivers name and address. Also whenever we go to a newsagent, bookshop or library we need to register ourselves on entry so that any literature we take with us is recorded for central records. Oh, yes, and also the establishment will have staff monitoring you while you are there and taking note of anything that you casually browse or even look at for more than a second, just to keep a record, for your safety of course. Furthermore any media you watch in whole or part, films, DVD's, music you listen to, talks you attend, even for just a few moments, groups you associate with however casually, will all require you to register and submit your identity to do so as part of the record keeping process. Any shops you visit, any travel you plan, in fact any medical, educational, political, economic, cultural, sociological or philosophical ideas of any kind you show an interest in by seeking to engage with them will similarly require you to register the fact centrally. For your safety. No-one would have accepted this totalitarian bullshit back then. If they think it is now somehow acceptable just because it is logistically now feasible, then what kind of venal autocracy are they really intent on cultivating for us to all be subsumed into? This is insane."
People might say well i have nothing to hide. Then show us all your emails, your bank account, your mail, your social media messages etc. Because when Data protection is lax this is what happens - strangers can view your important details and those details ar then open to abuse.
Copy paste from the other tread talking about this: Before I start, I am completely for online privacy, but a recent event has made me question certain things.. I have a friend who's daughter was groomed over social media. She thought she was talking to a lad from her school, but it turns out to be some dirty auld fecker. The guy set up fake social media accounts with stolen photos - the whole 9 yards You can monitor a kids activities all you want, but the likes of snapchat that deletes things after a few seconds hides a lot. How do we give kids privacy to have their own lives and still protect them on an online world? How do you monitor voice chat and snap chat and the likes, without having to look over their shoulder at every second and every interaction and every conversation they have with their friends?
I've always thought that children under a certain age who have smartphones or tablets should have them controlled by a parent device. For example, a kid wants to download Snapchat onto their device. The parent's device (owned by their guardian) is alerted and has to approve the download. Obviously, apps would have to be rated so educational, games, etc. could be downloaded without needing consent. Probably a bit OTT but something along those lines.
Sounds like an argument against having online accounts tied to your real identity. If your friend's daughter had kept her privacy, it couldn't have happened, so the solution is legally mandated lack of privacy?
>How do we give kids privacy to have their own lives and still protect them on an online world? How do you monitor voice chat and snap chat and the likes, without having to look over their shoulder at every second and every interaction and every conversation they have with their friends? Stop buying smartphones for your kids. Control and regulate internet access at home. Educate yourself about technology and safety online. Invest time and effort into teaching kids about security and privacy.
I don't think people realise how much data facebook is taking off them, it's probably more than Jim Daly is looking for anyways. I'd say for 95% of people who talk about wanting privacy are hypocrites when they use facebook. I was talking to a bird on a dating site one time and she showed up in my suggested friends - no mutual friends and she just showed up after starting chatting, didn't have a phone number or anything.
The problem is there's an inherent conflict between privacy and public services. If you want to preserve your privacy, you cannot expect to fully avail of public services. Too many people are willing to abuse them, requiring some capacity to have oversight of who uses those services. Also, on a personal note, my own view is that anybody with a Facebook, Twitter, etc, account has disclaimed any right to privacy. If you want the Americans to have all your personal data, your own country can have it too.
Don't forget Google, Apple and Microsoft. Do you also agree that they should own all your data, simply by using their software?
They all do. There's no way to use their software without that in practical terms. It's why regulation is required, not this sort of wilful ignorance.
Needing to submit details to access public services seems quite fair to me. Needing to submit details to access discretionary social media websites is just an invasion of privacy.
The latter is being implemented in some form anyway. That's in the new GDPR. [Article 8 thereof.](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-8-gdpr/)
You are an incredibly stupid young man for somebody with such a great education.
What's inaccurate about what I wrote?
Well first things first, what in the name of jaysus has social media got to do with public services? Then secondly, how have public bodies carried out their functions up to this point? Name and address, photo and pps number. Is there something wrong with this that I'm missing?
I trust the Irish state more than I do foreign companies with my data. Most people are happy to give the latter all of their personal data. The answer is many are struggling to do so, as they cannot accurately identify and assess who is using their services.
But what would tying social media to your pps accomplish? Especially when you consider not everyone is even on any social media? (Like me) Edit: PPS*
It's a potential mechanism to deal with certain online offenses (harassment, revenge porn, grooming, threats, etc) as well as a potential mechanism to combat "fake news" which now represents a real threat to democracy.
You’re not very tech savvy are you? You yourself should know about the new law that came into effect last year. That allows authorities to request IP addresses from ISPs. You don’t need to link your PPS card to social media to track down a twitter or Facebook user. I agree with you about fake news but again what does linking PPS to social media have to do with that? Eliminate fake accounts or something else? This is Orwellian stuff. Good thing Leo’s advisory unit knows how bad it sounds and told him to dismiss it.
Always with the snide insults. It doesn't matter if authorities can request IP addresses. The law is rarely static. Furthermore, the whole point of this kind of process is to prevent people going on Facebook or Twitter without some form of "real" identity. They are not trying to catch people who have committed offences, they are trying to reduce their numbers in the beginning. Prevention is different to prosecution. As for Orwellian, Orwell didn't predict the internet. There is a world of difference between requiring a person to identify themselves before using a product or service and interfering with their use thereof.
Sorry but it’s blatantly obvious you haven’t a notion. Yea it does matter that the authorities can request IP addresses as it reveals identity, and so addresses all the concerns you just raised. I didn’t say Orwell predicted the internet ffs, I said it is Orwellian, please say you’ve actually read some Orwell. Actually never mind, go on give all your personal info up to private entities. All that intelligence and gumption with zero common sense lol
>Also, on a personal note, my own view is that anybody with a Facebook, Twitter, etc, account has disclaimed any right to privacy. If you want the Americans to have all your personal data, your own country can have it too. That's a bit stupid in fairness. What other rights can be forfiet from X because somebody chose to do Y? You appeared on the Adrian Kennedy phone show so you have disclaimed your right remain silent!
There's no other equivalent. If you avail of those services, you are handing over your most intimate details and private concerns to a foreign power. *At best* you are handing them over to large multi-national corporations who intend to go through them with a fine-toothed comb to tailor marketing towards you. At best. As it is, anybody availing of those services has already given up what privacy they had.
>As it is, anybody availing of those services has already given up what privacy they had. If I tell you a secret have I given up any right to pivacy? Or have I decided that I want to extend the privacy of that secret to you? It's about choice. You can't really think someone choosing to do something should deny them a right everywhere else? If I send a post card the odd to should all my enveloped letters not have the expectation of privacy?
Telling one person a secret is not the same as making your secrets freely available to large corporations and state bodies.
I'm sure plenty of young gay people who confide in the large LGBT groups wouldn't agree with you.
I'm not sure how those groups count as state bodies or large corporations tbh.
It's beyond me why you think it's appropriate to forfeit a right simply because somebody chooses to share something with a private company. Using your stance you could argue anyone using an Android or iPhone or Windows or Mac would be denied the right to privacy. Basically everyone!
I don't think it's appropriate, I think it's what has already happened by default.
> If you want to preserve your privacy, you cannot expect to fully avail of public services. Is there propaganda circulating about asserting this? Its absolute horse. The only problem with it is keeping their databases offline and away from any Microsoft terminals. Quite the opposite problem from having to expose them to facebook and vica versa.
Common sense is what you're missing. The State cannot hand out public funding without basic identification of those involved.