RE: Nerve: Anonymity, Consequence and Dunbar’s Number
I saw Nerve but I still like The Net better :). One of my guilty pleasures I suppose. Despite how dated it has become (and even when it was new there were technical inaccuracies to put it kindly) I still like that movie. I feel much the same about Hackers.
Also, expectation of privacy IS implied by law but it doesn't really apply in this case. First, expectation of privacy has more to do with the government (e.g. the government can't obtain and use information against you that you have a reasonable expectation to be private without getting a warrant to obtain that information) and second you don't have any such expectation (or should not reasonably) to information you have put on publicly accessible social networks and/or agreed by contract (user agreement/terms of service/etc.) to share. Of course, none of that justifies harassment or assault.
Exactly. Also in the US the Right to Privacy is largely established through Supreme Court decisions and penumbrances of amendments that deal largely with medical information and sexual activity. (Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas, for who think Roe v. Wade is only about abortion) But in Nerve it's shown as a malicious abuse of publicly shared information, but even in Parks & Rec data-mining was shown as, although not legally wrong, ethically wrong and morally suspect.
Also yes, The Net is almost quaint in its vision of the Internet, and the idea that Pizza.com would be available as a domain even in 1995. :)
The right to privacy is in part established through Supreme Court decisions but the most important element is the 4th amendment.
Whether data mining is ethically wrong I think depends on the data being mined and whether you have voluntarily made such data public. The most common use is still probably automated scripts than search public posts in order to deliver targeted advertising. I don't see that is particularly immoral but that's probably not the most nefarious example either. On the other hand, Google scanning your e-mail to do the same is more questionable ethically though I'm sure you signed away your expectation of privacy in the user agreement when you signed up. Where the real issue arises though is when the government asks for your e-mails from Google. In my view your e-mail is your data (the same as if it was your "papers") and google should not give them to the government without a warrant (replace Google with AT&T, etc.). If I placed notes or a USB drive in a safety deposit box I would expect the same from a bank. Those expectations aren't always reality though. The reality of the internet is that the only way to ensure privacy (and even then it's a somewhat temporary measure) is to use the strongest encryption possible. Even if companies like Google and Facebook or anyone else don't give up your data voluntarily, hacks happen on a daily basis where information assumed to be private is released.
I think it's kind of funny that pizza.com isn't actually owned by any of the major pizza chains. I remember when I first started creating web pages I would put a little pi symbol at the bottom of the page. I forget what I linked it to. Probably traffic statistics or something.
Also, re: Hackers, it's dated as Hell, but I still love the soundtrack.
I think the biggest reason Hackers appealed to me at the time was Angelina Jolie.
Have you watched Mr. Robot? It's basically a more up to date Hackers...without Angelina Jolie.
I've watched the first few episodes, but I don't have Amazon to catch up :(
Rami Malek was fantastic, though, in what I did see.