Data Privacy

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

HensVassal wrote: »

A monitored man is not a free man.

“When I discover who I am, I’ll be free.”
― Ralph Ellison,

Freeing yourself was one thing, claiming ownership of that freed self was another.”
― Toni Morrison,

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me...I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

“You see, freedom has a way of destroying things.”
― Scott Westerfeld,

“He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.”
― Aristotle


And your point is?

HensVassal

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

If the government wants to read about my spicy poos, then let them. They will get bored fairly fast.

If facebook wants to read my data and target ads at me, let them, I'll never click an online ad anyway.


I should care about my data being protected but it's too much effort and the vast majority of us are extremely boring people with nothing worth spying on.

I think a lot of it is tin foil hattery though.

How do you feel about the East German Stasi opening peoples letters to "check" things and do you think the people who didn't like that were "tinfoilers" ?

HensVassal

andekwarhola wrote: »

I pity the agents of evil that have to catalogue - and find worth in - the inane drivel that compromises most of my online discourse.

Hadoop takes care of that.

Dravokivich

Overall privacy is something that needs the potential to be respected. Regardless of the naivety of someone who may discount it, without consideration to its value.

I keep things very fragmented to prevent different social networks pooling their APIs to create a combined profile of me. I use different email addresses depending on the type of service, I never merge contacts. I haven't displayed my name in the same manner on various sites.

I am concerned of how Facebook seems to retain details you expressly tell it to delete.

When I was in college I wrote an essay on Marxism and digital privacy. I got a B- and a wry comment pencilled beside it, "I didn't even know they had computers in the 19th century".

It's an interesting thread, but as with any quasi-political discussion, it attracts extremist arguments.

There has to be a balance drawn between individual rights and the need for society to regulate pornography and illicit activity, and to protect against terrorism and (ironically) data theft.

I'd personally veer more to the rights of the individual, but having said that, I do not take issue with aggregate data such as that processed by the NSA, so long as it does not encroach on the privacy of those who are law-abiding, or at least, are not committing or conspiring to commit very serious crimes.

My biggest problem with the NSA is that it isn't audited in any meaningful way, or so it seems. Its privacy is the problem for me, not the work it undertakes.

Snowden seems to be one of those libertarian extremists who think they have a right to be left alone when online, under all circumstances, and that just isn't a tenable position in that it would turn the internet into the wild west and it would set online criminality and terrorism beyond reproach.

CMOTDibbler

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

When I was in college I wrote an essay on Marxism and digital privacy. I got a B- and a wry comment pencilled beside it, "I didn't even know they had computers in the 19th century".

It's an interesting thread, but as with any quasi-political discussion, it attracts extremist arguments.

There has to be a balance drawn between individual rights and the need for society to regulate pornography and illicit activity, and to protect against terrorism and (ironically) data theft.

I'd personally veer more to the rights of the individual, but having said that, I do not take issue with aggregate data such as that processed by the NSA, so long as it does not encroach on the privacy of those who are law-abiding, or at least, are not committing or conspiring to commit very serious crimes.

My biggest problem with the NSA is that it isn't audited in any meaningful way, or so it seems. Its privacy is the problem for me, not the work it undertakes.

Snowden seems to be one of those libertarian extremists who think they have a right to be left alone when online, under all circumstances, and that just isn't a tenable position in that it would turn the internet into the wild west and it would set online criminality and terrorism beyond reproach.

Yes it is a balance. Freedom is always a balancing act between the rights of the individual and the rights of the whole.

Dravokivich has the right attitude I think. People need to be more aware of what their overall online profile is and how it links up or potentially links up. People have been fired from jobs because of Twitter or Facebook posts. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's one example of how your online persona can be used against you in a very real way.

Your Face

Nice novel there OP. Hope you get published.

Capt'n Midnight

Karson Stocky Guru wrote: »

f you talk about data privacy with any friends they are generally clueless about it. I typically ask them to use different apps rather than WhatsApp to communicate with me because I hate the idea of the government reading all my messages.

If you think routine monitoring of communications is new then I've news for you.

http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html - blatant microwave intercept tower from 1990, probably because the other spooks weren't sharing. Most of our comms companies are foreign owned , use equipment that has backdoors and pretty much all international traffic is routed through ECHELON countries. And it's likely there's malware somewhere on the way.


There's been tape recorders triggered by voice recognition since the 1980's. The only difference is that now data storage is so cheap they can just record all of it.


Over a hundred years ago the French showed you didn't need to decrypt electronic comms to make use of the information. They figured out who was the most talkative and thus dropped an artillery barrage on German Headquarters.

OneOfThem Stumbled

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

You must have a big roll of tin foil.

Oh with a reply like that... you're really putting up a red flag about yourself that you probably casually leave information that will provide the answer to your security question in plain view online.

I already know the general location of where you probably live, where you went to college, where you went to school, what approximate age you are and at least one previous business you worked in. No, I mean seriously (this was without any effort, and within the space of one minute). But it's one thing putting your life up online, it's another thing saying that because you don't care, that data security isn't important.

Why someone wouldn't care whether someone was spying on them or not is more weird than any tinfoil hatter.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Treasure Rotten Scanner wrote: »

And your point is?

Saying that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Saying that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever and has nothing to do with the 'monitored man' quote. I don't care about the price of cat food but my dog has to eat, makes as much sense.

20Cent

Wasn't there a case of it recently here. Erica Fleming's private interactions with Dublin City Council published to discredit her because she her campaigning about homelessness was embarrassing the government.

(Whatever you think about her case and don't want to derail the thread But it is an example of what the op is talking about).

scamalert

no one gives a $hit about data privacy online,since whoever monitors and its not people in most cases the billions of messages,searches,emails,pictures that flow online everyday its like your a drop in an ocean,or more like piss in a wind importance.

wanna go full tin foil had -then recommend start disconnecting from internet,and electricity and so on.

Only people who should be scared are either IT clueless where they share stupid stuff online that someone might use to scam them or make stupid of themselves,or people that do darkweb crap and def need to be gotten to.But as we see even with all monitoring going on its always after events that they say oh this person seemed mentally unstable to be a pilot or blow some building etc.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Treasure Rotten Scanner wrote: »

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever and has nothing to do with the 'monitored man' quote. I don't care about the price of cat food but my dog has to eat, makes as much sense.

To explain the analogy: it's about logical non sequiturs.

To explain the quote about the monitored man: people, when stared at or watched, tend to feel uncomfortable and tend to act in unnatural (or unfree) ways. In terms of the internet and data privacy, it could mean not saying that you think Tibet should be independent because the Chinese government would throw you in jail for saying that (if you live in China, that is- I don't, which is why I was free to type that sentence).

But I'm sure you already know all this, which leads me to wonder what the real reason is for your defence of citizen surveillance.

scamalert wrote: »

no one gives a $hit about data privacy online,since whoever monitors and its not people in most cases the billions of messages,searches,emails,pictures that flow online everyday its like your a drop in an ocean,or more like piss in a wind importance.

Type this on Twitter. Go straight to jail. Pissing in the wind?

"Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

But whatever, better go full tin foil hat on those terrorists, amiright?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

But I'm sure you already know all this, which leads me to wonder what the real reason is for your defence of citizen surveillance.

Oh for heavens sake. Can somebody not have a point of view without you pigeonholing them to some extreme or other? I do not, and did not, defend surveillance. I said it didn't bother me and wouldn't bother me. Big difference. But that doesn't suit your M.O. of arguing for the sake of it.


So, I'll exit now least someone is monitoring my activity here.

scamalert

Well this is called retarded,its not much different then going into airport and shouting ill blow it up is it,or getting drunk on plane and then having emergency landing,then saying oh i was joking.

Seen many examples online in years now where someone applies for job employer looks up their facebook,which is full of $hitfaced pictures of the person and then they wonder why they didnt get a job - theres stuff that you keep for yourslef or in circle and no one wants to hire some drunk idiot that goes full mental every weekend.

Personally work with private data every day,and to say the least there's few points to note,even government data is useless,to the point where you dont give a f what it contains,and another trend is peoples stupidity when it comes to whole IT some dont have clue how to setup their mail account yet send them message crying for help and they are likely to respond or get scared they are being hacked,but let them use facebook and it will be: going on hols in two weeks time whole family catalog included and every friend name relative attached in single profile,for public viewing.

learn_more

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There has to be a balance drawn between individual rights and the need for society to regulate pornography and illicit activity, and to protect against terrorism and (ironically) data theft.

I'd personally veer more to the rights of the individual, but having said that, I do not take issue with aggregate data such as that processed by the NSA, so long as it does not encroach on the privacy of those who are law-abiding, or at least, are not committing or conspiring to commit very serious crimes.

Nobody is saying, certainly not me, that the illegal activities to which you refer should not be countered.

It's the way it's being done is what I object to. The NSA and GCHQ take an approach of saying "well lets monitor everyone and we'll pick out the bad guys".

Before computers, lets say video cameras were placed everywhere. Everyone would be monitored in an effort to find the baddies.

But that simplistic strategy means you agree that everything you do in you life is monitored. I don't know how anyone could be happy with that. I've nothing to hide but I've nothing I want to show either.

learn_more

Further to what I said in my last post, did anyone watch the latest James Bond movie 'spectre'. Who would have though a James Bond movie would tackle current 'issues' but it did...

One of the baddies who had infiltrated MI5 was hell bent of getting rid of the 'agents' ie Bond, the man on the ground, and replacing them with a sophisticated computer intelligence system. The idea being well if you can monitor everyone we can catch all criminals.

How could domestic violence or adult rape, or pub brawl violence, or bad driving resulting in death, be caught by computer surveillance? So only a small fraction of crimes can be caught by computer data surveillance. But we're expected to give up our anonymity for those few crimes that are conducted over the internet.

HensVassal

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If the government wants to see photos of my dogs, and read my stimulating thoughts on highly significant occurrences throughout the day, (for example, today I asked my dog where his bum was and he chased his tail) they're more than welcome to read it. I'm actually pretty boring really. Arguing with the OH or talking about whatever's caught my eye that day, I can't imagine they'll be queing up to read it.

I think people worry they might be more interesting than they actually are. Unless you're smuggling drugs and hustlin bitches, I doubt they'll even care enough to read your hey wua xx text.

Would it bother you that someone from the government could legally accesss your house while you were at work and go through all your stuff, sniff around in your knicker drawer, check what's in your fridge and under your bed and in your cabinets, etc?

Would you be ok with that? Would you say "well my house is pretty boring. My kaks are all clean and the place isn't a mess, so they can snoop around all they like."?

OneOfThem Stumbled

scamalert wrote: »

Well this is called retarded,its not much different then going into airport and shouting ill blow it up is it,or getting drunk on plane and then having emergency landing,then saying oh i was joking.

No it's like going to the pub, saying to some friends "If I find my flight is delayed one more time I'll blow that airport to the moon!" and then having the cops call to your house a week later. He wasn't arrested when he made that public tweet, not the same day, not at the airport, but about a week later.

Retarded? Perhaps, but I'd shy away from that word, which is becoming politically incorrect to use. Not as dangerous as googling something about bombs, but still...

scamalert wrote: »

Seen many examples online in years now where someone applies for a job an employer looks up their Facebook profile,which is full of $hitfaced pictures of the person, and then they wonder why they didn't get a job: there's stuff that you keep for yourself or in-circle. No one wants to hire some drunk idiot that goes full mental every weekend.

Well, yes, that's why people only share things with their Facebook friends. We are talking about where people who you haven't approved of get access to such pictures. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

scamalert wrote: »

Personally work with private data every day,and to say the least there's few points to note,even government data is useless,to the point where you dont give a f what it contains,and another trend is peoples stupidity when it comes to whole IT some dont have clue how to setup their mail account yet send them message crying for help and they are likely to respond or get scared they are being hacked,but let them use facebook and it will be: going on hols in two weeks time whole family catalog included and every friend name relative attached in single profile,for public viewing.

So people shouldn't publish things on a private network, but granting other people access to their email accounts is a-ok? That's a really strange perspective. You've already given a clear example of where we aren't necessarily shielded by the noise of data generated, but then you ignore it.

Besides which, the whole point of Data Mining is to make the volume and variety of vast quantities of data an irrelevance when trying to extrapolate information about it.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Treasure Rotten Scanner wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. Can somebody not have a point of view without you pigeonholing them to some extreme or other? I do not, and did not, defend surveillance. I said it didn't bother me and wouldn't bother me. Big difference. But that doesn't suit your M.O. of arguing for the sake of it.

You're implicitly supportive of it.

The following paragraph is written satirically:

It wouldn't bother me if Donald Trump were elected POTUS. Don't see how it bothers you, and the things you're saying about him make no sense. Only tinfoil hat wearers say that if Trump becomes president that things will go to crap. Oh ffs why are you pigeonholing me a a supporter of Donald Trump I never once said I supported him. :rolleyes:

The preceding paragraph was sarcastic.

zSparc

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

the vast majority of us are extremely boring people with nothing worth spying on.

You don't know what of the sh*te you share now may come up in a few years, when you decide to apply for a well paid civil service job or if your child will run for a TD one day...

Another thing is global data mining and analysis, which allow governments/others to predict behaviour and use the knowledge to control masses. In this scenario your data as an individual mean nothing, but as part of the whole - a lot. This is what i.e. FB "likes" are for. Having enough data, correct analysis of trends, moods and reactions is extremely powerful tool, that can be used (and already is) to manipulate human behaviour.

If you think it's a tin foil hat paranoia then you must be very happy and oblivious in the fairyland you live in.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

You're implicitly supportive of it.

It wouldn't bother me if Donald Trump were elected POTUS. Don't see how it bothers you, and the things you're saying about him make no sense. Only tinfoil hat wearers say that if Trump becomes president that things will go to crap. Oh ffs why are you pigeonholing me a a supporter of Donald Trump I never once said I supported him. :rolleyes:

Where did I ever refer to Trump? I have never discussed him on any thread. What did I say about him????

scamalert

HensVassal wrote: »

Would it bother you that someone from the government could legally accesss your house while you were at work and go through all your stuff, sniff around in your knicker drawer, check what's in your fridge and under your bed and in your cabinets, etc?

Would you be ok with that? Would you say "well my house is pretty boring. My kaks are all clean and the place isn't a mess, so they can snoop around all they like."?

would be fine with me if they left the place as they found it and no traces of them being there-maybe just some clean up on place.
btw its been done for few decades now,around world if your suspected of anything illegal they dont need surveillance a call from neighbor is enough to get a visit .

as someone online mentioned if you want best security ever then put up couple isis flags in your front garden,and you wont need to worry about locking your house when leaving ever again,plus free 24/7 escorts and security on your premises all free.

HensVassal

Treasure Rotten Scanner wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell. No more than I have a problem with CCTV cameras in public places. Nothing to see, nothing to hide, nothing to dig up.

Therein lies the problem. Acquiescence. Lack of defence of one's individual independence. This clarion call of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is the safety blanket for those who have a problem with the concept of not being babysat by the state. I myself have nothing to hide and everything to hide. It's my call, nobody else's.

If I walk along the street with a box under my arm and somebody demands to know what's in the box they will be met with a curt "fcuk off and leave me be and mind your own business". If they insist that if I have nothing to hide then I should reveal the contents of the box they will get the same retort. Even if the box is empty I will not say what's (or not) inside. I don't have to and I won't.

HensVassal

Treasure Rotten Scanner wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell. No more than I have a problem with CCTV cameras in public places. Nothing to see, nothing to hide, nothing to dig up.

If you were sitting in your back garden and noticed multiple telescopes trained on you and your family with blokes looking through them, would you be comfortable with that?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

HensVassal wrote: »

If you were sitting in your back garden and noticed multiple telescopes trained on you and your family with blokes looking through them, would you be comfortable with that?

No comparison to the subject in hand.

HensVassal

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Well thats great once we have benevolent governments in place. The danger is that we give away too much freedom and somewhere down the line somebody gets into power who uses it for nefarious purposes. Everything is grand until its isnt grand, and the problem is you can't just opt-out after the fact

"Give away too much freedom"

?????

HensVassal

Treasure Rotten Scanner wrote: »

“When I discover who I am, I’ll be free.”
― Ralph Ellison,

Freeing yourself was one thing, claiming ownership of that freed self was another.”
― Toni Morrison,

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me...I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

“You see, freedom has a way of destroying things.”
― Scott Westerfeld,

“He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.”
― Aristotle


And your point is?

My point is simple. A monitored man is not a free man.
A man who can be alone or among many without scrutiny or suspicion or the interference of any is a free man.

scamalert

HensVassal wrote: »

If you were sitting in your back garden and noticed multiple telescopes trained on you and your family with blokes looking through them, would you be comfortable with that?

More like your sitting in your back garden with your tin hat foil on, and Hubble telescope is taking pictures of earth type of would you give a **** situation