This discussion would be best continued here: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Scott Ferguson grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > On 19/04/14 19:04, Joe wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:33:43 +1000 >> Scott Ferguson <scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Perhaps the solution is not greater bureaucracy to safeguard data >>> ignorance, >>> >> >> I certainly wasn't suggesting bureaucracy, > > Nor did I understand you to be - just commenting on the subject on which > so many are passionate and that most of the OOT posts in this thread are > about, and how the only way to assuage "their" fears is to create > beaurocracy. i.e. I don't trust what companies can suck from the > air/scrape from my data etc, the only remedies are:-stop caring;police > offenders;or somewhere between the two extremes. > >> my country has more than >> enough already, and we all know that laws are framed to allow >> governments to do exactly what they forbid other people to do. > > Exactly. The bureaucracy itself relies upon increasing "invasive" practices. > >> >>> but greater personal responsibility and a reassessment of >>> what privacy "rights" are unreasonable expectations? >> >> I was suggesting that perhaps many people are leaking more information >> about themselves than they think, > > Yes. They/we are all ignorant of what data and what it's value - or > potential losses that could result from it's loss. > Most people don't care - that's why we have bureaucracies. > > Maybe I'm "too cynical" to expect people's level of Consciousness to be > raised instead of their level of Fear? Maybe optimism has failed to > triumph the entire history of human experience when it comes to > discression and OpSec - particularly in a gamified era of online ego and > Multimedia Attention Deficiency where telling and showing yourself is > increasingly considered the norm. > >> a lot of it with long expiry dates. >> I don't really care about people knowing that I was a Scout in my >> childhood, or what I bought in one of my local supermarkets last week, >> but I'd rather not publish the list of organisations I belonged to last >> week. (No, there aren't any embarrassing ones, but that's not the >> point). > > I can think of a number of scenarios where you might reasonably want to > do that - but it's always a *risk*. > >> >> Collectively that leaked data could cause unexpected harm to them, >> either financially or otherwise. Yes, 'responsibility'. Every now and >> then, I Google my full name in various combinations, and no personal >> reference to me ever appears in at least the first ten pages. I like it >> that way. > > I'm not sure how relevant Google is in this instance. Would they be more > relevant than Bing or DuckDuckDuck? > > Maybe the responsible thing to do is don't join organisations whose > reputation would suffer if some people learned of your membership - just > in case the information leaked? > >> >> We may have wandered off the point. > > > Very, very much so. Most of the posts in this thread (including the > outstanding "I see nothing in the press about this") have been far from > the point. > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
