97a45c18
From: khormin@bigpond.com
On 17/02/10 21:03, gishzida wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:28 pm, Sourcerer wrote:
> {snip}
>>
>> The problem is worse than systemic, it is inbuilt because the operating
>> systems, the protocols, the platforms, the servers were designed with
>> hardly any attention to privacy and security issues. Basically, people
>> will have to route around the impediments such as Google, because
>> neither the technikis, nor the admins, nor the politicians, nor the
>> corporate boardrooms have the slightest interest in preserving anyone's
>> privacy or enhancing their security.
>>
>> The product of our society is turning people into "information".
>>
>> --
>> (__) Sourcerer
>> /(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O
>> \../ |OO|||O|||O|| Mirroring the shadows of futurity
>> || OO|||OO||O||O since 1993
>
> The assumption of privacy or the illusional right to possess privacy
> is a modern day fable.
>
> Get over it. It's way too Late. Your knickers are showing. You can be
> traced. Even with Triple-DES, GPG, Blowfish, "extra-nets" and all of
> those other hide me" from the glaring eye of anyone and everyone that
> wants to know what I've been doing, to and with whom." Your motion
> thru the ethernet and thru livfe itself leaves patterns of data and
> entropy that anyone with the time and money can read.
>
> We all love to talk about privacy. We demand it for ourselves but not
> for anyone else. We expect Google, Yahoo, MS, Mommy and Daddy. the
> Constitution, An Activist Conservative Supreme Court. Objectivist
> Philosophy, Tea Party handouts, campaign slogans, National Security
> Agencies, and (lord knows why) Politicians to protect us from "being
> exposed" or our social connections revealed... Who are you kidding?
>
> There is no demand from the "Social Masters" ('Civil Servant' being as
> Heinlein stated an oxymoron), to protect anyone else -- they will be
> unable to protect their jobs (Who knows whom the next threat will be?
> Terrorist Prevention has now become the cottage industry ju Jour. --
> "And now for the Today's Threat Level Forecast brought to you by your
> favorite MilSpec Industrial Complex: Today is Orange and Continued
> Orange until Glints of Red about Dawn...").
>
> There is no demand from the Boardrooms except that "Trade Secrets" and
> "Intellectual Property" must be protected... unfortunately they are
> dependent on certain a company (nobody ever got fired for buying
> Microsoft Products: they're cheaper and TCO is better except...) that
> have decided to turn their flagship browser into a data collection
> station on your corporate network (Are you using IE8? They know who
> you are and where you've been. ). You see how that recently played our
> with Google and the Hackers from the Middle Kingdom.
>
> And as for Admins... (assuming you mean network admins) We have access
> to "your stuff" but we don't really care that much about you. You
> aren't really worth the effort... after all you are a luser. [I speak
> as a professional who has worked in the financial sector for the last
> 14 years. (first for CPAs in Hollywood then for a financial
> institution).] Yes, TCP/IP, e-mail, Usenet were not designed for
> security--- because they were designed by "thinking adults" who mostly
> trusted one another... It really wasn't intended for use by the
> teeming "me too" masses of AOL except that the whole thing got sold
> (at fire sale prices) as the new bread and circuses.
>
> Be assured that the company I work for does care about what the
> regulators / laws demand and like the threat forecast above there is a
> whole industry of folks that will sell products that "meet industry
> regulatory requirements". Most regulatory requirements for privacy
> related issues will in no way impede a determined assault... but then
> again the most clever hacks (and the most damaging) are social hacks.
>
> Even so your mere presence on-line leaves traces. There is no such
> thing as an anonymous IP address and while MAC addresses can be
> spoofed the behavior of the device it is assigned to cannot be
> spoofed. Your privacy online is an illusion. I once traced Bill
> Palmer's postings as coming from a dial up in Southern California
> based on the usenet headers of his postings and reverse look-ups of
> the headers... not that I really cared to ever meet Bill... At one
> point in time we Chatsubo-ites thought he might be a new version of
> Racter {a schizophrenic Eliza probably written in Prolog).
>
> Pohl and Kornbluth's SF books from the '50s (The Space Merchants and
> Gladiator at Law) and Phillip K. Dick (in the 60s and 70s) pointed the
> way to what has become part and parcel of the modern world: You are
> for sale. Your thoughts. Your consumption. Your privacy. We sell you
> by the packet.
>
> Quick Cash. An offer from an affiliate to Your Bank, Other Customers
> who bought your book bought what you're thinking about. On Click
> Purchase. One Click Sale.
>
> Accept that you are wearing the emperor's new clothes--- All your
> privacy are belong to us.
>
> -Troubadour
>
>
2 months too late for the bandwagon. Meh, seems the board needs it.
Pohl was depressing. Heinlein was repetative, and even Gibson showed
holes in his creativity by the time that book came out recently. Didn't
finish it, something about a girl who could 'read' advertising like a
schizophrenic reads static on a tv.
Reality check inbound. You are right - there IS no privacy, but there
never has been, never will be. You think your fence keeps people out? It
only stops those who aren't determined to go further. My reply-to won't
stop people determined to find my email. My ISP or firewall won't stop
people determined to break into my computer. It's as with one of the two
laws of the net.
1) A determined hacker will get through anything.
2) Most hackers are to lazy to bother.
There are laws against privacy invasion - but that's just another fence.
There's guns against home invasion - but that's just another fence. All
it takes is someone with a bigger gun, less respect for the law. More
determination to get to you.
I work with investigations, tracking people down for a living. It's a
rough job - but the people I track try to avoid debts, family payments,
court orders, warrants for their arrest. So I know what you say - that
in the end, information is always for sale about you.
But let's step back 200 years. Say... Venice. Or York, 1800. You
couldn't just find a beggar to follow someone, right? Or to find a local
fishwife and learn everything there is to know about someone? 'Cause
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
