@7:19PM

    peter sheik's tumblr

"lasers are a young science"

Jun 14
Permalink
Jun 07
Permalink
 

‘The public doesn’t understand,’ (mathematician and former Sun Microsystems engineer Susan Landau) told me, speaking about so-called metadata. ‘It’s much more intrusive than content.’ She explained that the government can learn immense amounts of proprietary information by studying ‘who you call, and who they call. If you can track that, you know exactly what is happening—you don’t need the content.’

For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: ‘You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.’ And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller’s location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. ‘You can see the sources,’ she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied.

Metadata, Landau noted, can also reveal sensitive political information, showing, for instance, if opposition leaders are meeting, who is involved, where they gather, and for how long. Such data can reveal, too, who is romantically involved with whom, by tracking the locations of cell phones at night.





— Jane Mayer, “What’s the Matter With Metadata?” Or, why PRISM’s data collection can learn a lot without hearing the words we speak. (via marathonpacks)
Permalink
 Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?



May 31
Permalink

Because you’re ugly

justhattie:

As sick as I am of hearing “Do you have a husband?” and “I want you to marry me” every single freaking day, it is so incredibly satisfying to be able to tell the man “I won’t marry you because you’re ugly” and have it be 100% culturally acceptable.

That girl Hattie, doin WORK in Senegal. “DENIED because UGLY.” Awesome.

May 18
Permalink
untitled on Flickr.

untitled on Flickr.

Apr 25
Permalink
 Bangladeshis are a people squalid enough that death is an acceptable randomly applied career path, and … dead Bangladeshis are what keep flat-front chinos at $29.99 at the outlet store. Our pants are cheap because their lives are, and cheaper things are innately good.



Apr 09
Permalink
Apr 06
Permalink

Euphoria: Is You For Me?

Apr 05
Permalink
Mar 28
Permalink

wandrlust:

Philadelphia, 1961

Baltimore, 1962

Florida, 1963

— Lee Friedlander: The Little Screens

(via bbook)

Mar 08
Permalink

D E N A is oddly transfixing.

Mar 07
Permalink
Permalink

This is what happens when I’m on the subway with the new Traktor app for IOS and someone pulls the emergency brake.

Feb 25
Permalink
 Ideological meaning and agendas are not incidental to thrilling films and cinematography. Why surgically remove politics from a discussion of a film’s final quality, rendering the argument so purely aesthetic that it becomes low-brow decadent … . Ethical lapses or gaps in movies should be critiqued, along with bad performances or absurd storylines.



Feb 23
Permalink

Nailed it.