On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:33, philip.jack...@nordnet.fr said:
> gpg: invalid item `BZIP2' in preference string
BZIP2 support is optional. If the bzip2 package is not installed you
won't have bzip2 support. You may want to "apt-get install libbz2-dev"
or similar and rebuild gnupg.
> I suppose gnup
| > Is this not the core of the question? In a world of social media
| > and sensor-driven everything, does not the very concept of private
| > information fade, per se? I believe it does.
|
| No. Taking part in social networks and other media is a choice. One can
| a) choose not to take
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2014-08-27 15:02, Mark Rousell wrote:
> No. Taking part in social networks and other media is a choice. One
> can a) choose not to take part at all, or b) choose how one takes
> part and what information one shares.
What can't be controlled is w
On 27/08/14 09:57, Werner Koch wrote:
>
> BZIP2 support is optional. If the bzip2 package is not installed you
> won't have bzip2 support. You may want to "apt-get install libbz2-dev"
> or similar and rebuild gnupg.
>
>> I suppose gnupg-1.4.16 and the new 2.0.26 share the same gpg.conf so I cou
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:46:13AM -0400, d...@geer.org wrote:
>
> | > Is this not the core of the question? In a world of social media
> | > and sensor-driven everything, does not the very concept of private
> | > information fade, per se? I believe it does.
> |
> | No. Taking part in soc
Mark Carousel wrote:
> On 23/08/2014 11:16, d...@geer.org wrote:
>>
>> > On 2014-08-22 at 21:13, Rejo Zenger wrote:
>> >
>> > Open data and transparency should only be about what concerns everybody,
>> > like government actions, trains schedule, etc. not private information.
>>
>> Is this no
Jason Antony wrote:
> On 2014-08-27 15:02, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
>> No. Taking part in social networks and other media is a choice. One
>> can a) choose not to take part at all, or b) choose how one takes
>> part and what information one shares.
>
> What can't be controlled is when people who k
> I fully agree with you, which means that I see few ways to preserve
> the liberty that privacy represents than to withdraw from much of
> civil society while it shares ever more...
I see a couple, but much like Dan, I'm not optimistic about them.
The first is this: *stop talking about privacy*.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:42, philip.jack...@nordnet.fr said:
> My linux distribution already has libbz2-1.0 but it will be elsewhere in the
> file structure and I haven't yet found out how to make use of it for my
> installation of 2.0.26.
As usual you need to install the development package for a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Wednesday 27 August 2014 at 5:15:09 PM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>
> I've run into self-styled privacy advocates here in the
> U.S. who are furious over how the U.S. has been reading
> their email. The only problem is there's very litt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Wednesday 27 August 2014 at 11:16:24 AM, in
, Jason Antony wrote:
> What can't be controlled is when people who know you
> give out your personal details on social networks.
> It could happen because they may not see anything wrong
> with
> Is there really as much of a distinction as some would have us
> believe?
Yes, absolutely. If the problem is X and your advocacy loudly insists
that Y is happening, then you're (a) not solving X (although Y might
need fixing anyway), and (b) all the people you've persuaded to join
your cause w
On 27/08/14 21:06, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:42, philip.jack...@nordnet.fr said:
>
>> My linux distribution already has libbz2-1.0 but it will be elsewhere in the
>> file structure and I haven't yet found out how to make use of it for my
>> installation of 2.0.26.
>
> As usual y
Hi
I only just noticed that among the output of "gpg --version" I get
different lists of supported public key algorithms between versions
1.4.16 and 2.0.26.
1.4.16: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA
2.0.26: RSA, ELG, DSA
Is this actually a change in what is supported, or just how GnuPG
reports it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Wednesday 27 August 2014 at 8:37:10 PM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> Is there really as much of a distinction as some would
>> have us believe?
> Yes, absolutely. If the problem is X and your advocacy
> loudly insists that Y is happen
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:56:11 +0200
Philip Jackson wrote:
> - the email address belongs to a person who does control the key and
> he may or may not be the person named in the email address. I am
> risking my secrets with an unknown person. I had better take care of
> the nature of those secrets
> But there will be significant overlap between the dataset collected by
> somebody harvesting content and the inferences about somebody's life
> that could be drawn by somebody harvesting metadata. I had hoped the
> quote from the EFF website would illustrate this.
For some individuals, yes. For
17 matches
Mail list logo
