On Saturday 19 April 2014 17:24:20 David Guntner wrote: > This discussion would be best continued here: > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopi >c
And these "suggestions" would too. Just kill the thread if it is annoying you so much, or go to teh off-topic list. These constant repetitions of yours are becoming annoying. (And yes, I could just kill-file you, but so far that seems over-dramatic. ;-) Lisi > 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201404191827.16746.lisi.re...@gmail.com
