XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: mariasophia@comprehension.com   
      
   John wrote:   
   >>'He changes it often for "privacy" reasons.' ..... "privacy" reasons,   
   >>sure .... if He/She/it keeps changing it, nobody will ever be able to   
   >>locate him and his advise.   
   >   
   >  How does changing your 'Nym enhance privacy? Surely one can be   
   > attacked just as easily no matter *what* 'Nym one uses? The idea of   
   > using one is sound, as it slightly obscures your real name and place   
   > of residence a littly bit, but going all "Dave The Boater" is surely   
   > stupid.   
      
   Hi John,   
      
   I am an extremely logical person so I will never disagree with a logically   
   stated viewpoint that reasonably fits all the data that we know about.   
      
   I have higher degrees so I know a *lot* of things nobody on this newsgroup   
   would know. For example, I know that a 'tox' virus (actual a phage) has to   
   infect corynebacterium in order for us to get diphtheria. So if I mention   
   that you can't get diphtheria without the bacterium being lysogenized, it's   
   because I know a lot more about hygiene than most people know.   
      
   You could say if there are a million things to know about hygiene, then   
   most people know only about three or four of those things, in other words.   
      
   Take the Covid disease, for another example. I studied Coronaviruses way   
   back in the late 1960s, where we already knew then that immunity wanes   
   after only a couple of years (as they cause the vast majority of "colds").   
      
   Yet, people think it's a new viral family & the "shot" confers immunity.   
   It's not. And it doesn't.   
      
   Again, my point is that if there are a million things to know about viral   
   immunology, most people only know about a half dozen of them.   
      
   It's the same with privacy.   
   I've been professionally trained in privacy.   
      
   I worked with the USA hoovering agencies for years in Fort Meade in those   
   windowless brick buildings before they moved into their current HQ.   
      
   If there are a million things we need to know about privacy, they do a   
   billion of them, which means that will never even know what "they" do.   
      
   Hence, we don't protect against what we "think" they will do.   
   We protect against what they "can" do.   
      
   For a trivial example, everyone who posts images to this newsgroup knows to   
   obfuscate the digital fingerprint, right? It's just basic privacy hygiene.   
      
   If there are a million things to know about basic privacy hygiene, I   
   understand that most people know only about a half dozen of those.   
      
   And, as you're noting, header privacy isn't one of those things they know,   
   but we all will note that many people obfuscate who they are in the header.   
      
   Chris is assuming that only criminals care about privacy, but I can't   
   change his mind so all I can do is let Chris know that he needs to learn   
   that there's this 700-year old concept first expressed by Aristotle &   
   Aquinas but which is most remembered after being formalized by William of   
   Ockham.   
      
   Everything Chris said about privacy failed Occam's Razor by a mile.   
      
   Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is usually the best one as long   
   as it accounts for *all the known facts*. It doesn't mean "pick only one   
   explanation that fits only one detail and ignore the rest".   
      
   I have been trying to teach Chris Occam's Razor for quite a long time.   
   I'll be successful, eventually, especially since I'm being quite nice.   
      
   It just takes time for some people to incorporate Occam's Razor into their   
   logically sentient thoughts, such that it makes all those wacky conspiracy   
   theories look downright silly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)