XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: mariasophia@comprehension.com   
      
   Chris wrote:   
   >>> Since I put together systems for a living, and since I used to have an   
   >>> engineering-level TSSI special access designation,   
   >   
   > As per usual this person can't stop self-aggrandising themselves as a   
   > pretence for authority. And as per usual gets it wrong. There's no such   
   > thing as TSSI. He probably means TS/SCI   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._security_clearance_terms   
      
   Chris,   
   I know EXACTLY what it is. And just like nobody who is a caver ever calls   
   it 'spelunking', nor do bikers call it 'driving', nobody calls it TS/SCI.   
      
   If you run a search, you'll see I've formally called it that for years.   
   But, when speaking casually, we use the flow of initials (e.g., TSSI).   
      
   Just like bimmer drivers and beemer riders don't call their vehicle a   
   BeeEmDoubleYou in casual speech because people are just supposed to know.   
      
   If this were a formal discussion, we'd use BMW instead.   
   And maybe even add the "registered trademark" symbol, i.e., BMW(R)   
   to indicate the mark is officially registered with a trademark office.   
      
   Just like chemistry is a million things, of which most people only know a   
   half dozen, privacy is a million things of which most people know six.   
      
   Take the case of octane ratings, for example, in organic chemistry, where I   
   was taught in the 1960's what it meant so ever since I could drive, I would   
   nonchalantly innocently and inquisitively ask the person filling up next to   
   me "What's the difference between regular and premium?".   
      
   In decades of asking that question, I've only gotten the correct answer   
   about a half dozen times, which fits with my hypothesis that people only   
   know about six of the million things that they need to know about anything.   
      
   Privacy is a million things.   
   Not six.   
      
   The point is I've been trained as an apprentice in privacy by one of the   
   most secretive orgs on the planet in windowless brick buildings, and my   
   main observation is that they look at a LOT more than we think they do.   
      
   Take the well-known Cessna snooping, for example, where to protect against   
   it you have to know they're doing it first, where that's why you learn to   
   protect against what they 'can' do, instead of what you 'think' they do.   
      
   My header-based privacy is to protect from what they "can" do, although,   
   truth be told, I told them who I was when Rod Speed threatened my life.   
      
   >> I'm likely more tuned to   
   >>> privacy holes than most people, as I've seen "how they work out there".   
   >   
   > Working with restricted data is NOT the same as handling people's phone   
   > numbers in a phone book.   
      
   Privacy is a million things, of which people only know about a half dozen.   
      
   You don't protect against what you "think" they'll do.   
   You protect against what you know they 'can' do.   
      
   If you knew how much hoovering they did, oh, way back in the 80's,   
   you'd likely be shocked with what they can do today on the Internet.   
   --   
   Often those who most deprecate privacy are those who least understand it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)