Jason Clinton wrote:

On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 21:15, Oren Beck wrote:

...

Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD .

I forwarded your message on to Steve Norquist for parsing. Awaiting translation.

Lacking comparison on the same page it may indeed seem odd . And perhaps I could have phrased it better . Eloquent phrasing as opposed to saying fish or flesh is my issue .

Reposting below for clarity in comparisons .

The Clinton Assault Weapon ban ends in 4 days. We'll be safe after a buying spree, right? ;-)

-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Oren Beck Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:15 PM To: Brian Densmore Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: gmail initiations

Brian Densmore wrote:

...

Actually, I think that Phoenician's post was aimed at my tongue-in-cheek email and not yours. By the way the Freedom of Information Act doesn't entitle you to get information on other people's information such as SSNs or tax returns, unless that person is a public official. On top of which they are "supposed" to black out certain parts of those documents which you can get, like SSN's. Or were you not referring to the FOIA? But what bother's me the most is that counties sell my information to political candidates. But that's another rant. entirely.

-----Original Message-----
*From:* Allen Darrah

Well I don't want anyone to steal my money, so no.  And the
government already has my social security # of course because they
gave it to me and then can get my pin at any time so really nothing
I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about
it?  And no, I'm really not worried about privacy.

Not to mention:  if anyone in here wanted to they could go to their
local court house and file some paperwork and get my social anyway
along with a ton of other information.  I could do the same to all
of you.  Fun, isn't it?  This thing called free information?
Everyone wants everything to be free (owned property of, say,
Microsoft, or some music artist) except for what few things we
"think" we own, like the number branded on us when we're born.
Well, that # is on loan anyway.  If you think you have ever actually
"owned" anything in your life, especially your privacy, then you're
just silly and you probably already know that, you just never
thought of it.

So the bottom line is:  if somebody out there wants to read my
e-mails and has the ability to do it then that's great.  Whatever
free e-mail service I use isn't going to have any effect on somebody
who's skillful enough to crack, say, Hotmail's e-mail systems in the
first place.  I don't know any launch codes or have knowledge of
who's going to win the Super Bowl so I'll bet nobody is all that
interested anyway.  My e-mails consist of me finding out if we're
all going to play some D&D on Saturday night or something similarly
inane  Especially the government.  Anything they want to know about
me, or you, they already know; more importantly, they couldn't care
less.

Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD .

OOkay - let's parse the O.P and mine together .

...

THEY already know all they want to - lacks delimiters and defaults to

infinite godlike perception . MY delimiter defaults to the statutory operators explicit in the bill of rights . To wit- due process !

Thus my comment about how it SHOULD be may have been better served by qualifing - not either perceived or is.

...

more importantly, they couldn't care less.

IF they "could care less " WHY collect the data ! The sanity of data mining if it's of no intent is what I question !

IF the entity collectively referenced as * THEM * not only mines data for correlating facts to names then the intent to somehow use that database seems quite real . Thus deprecating the concept of THEM not caring less .

...

so really nothing
I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about
it?  And no, I'm really not worried about privacy.

MY counter to that was -

And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD .

Meaning rather bluntly to state that because you have chosen to abdicate concern of YOUR privacy does not arrogate to you the right to call that GOOD - "why worry about it " presumes to be a directive calling their ability as GOOD ! Or am I wrong in so presuming ?

This is getting back to topical in an odd way but Open Source depends on NO secrets in the CODE BASE to assure that secrets secured by O.S software have no exploitable compromises of YOUR secrets ! And THAT is a good thing .

Oren Beck

www.campdownunder.com

"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull " - 1984 by George Orwell

The Clinton Assault Weapon ban ends in 4 days. We'll be safe after a buying spree, right? ;-)

-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Oren Beck Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:15 PM To: Brian Densmore Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: gmail initiations

Brian Densmore wrote:

Actually, I think that Phoenician's post was aimed at my tongue-in-cheek email and not yours. By the way the Freedom of Information Act doesn't entitle you to get information on other people's information such as SSNs or tax returns, unless that person is a public official. On top of which they are "supposed" to black out certain parts of those documents which you can get, like SSN's. Or were you not referring to the FOIA? But what bother's me the most is that counties sell my information to political candidates. But that's another rant. entirely.

-----Original Message-----
*From:* Allen Darrah

Well I don't want anyone to steal my money, so no.  And the
government already has my social security # of course because they
gave it to me and then can get my pin at any time so really nothing
I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about
it?  And no, I'm really not worried about privacy. 

Not to mention:  if anyone in here wanted to they could go to their
local court house and file some paperwork and get my social anyway
along with a ton of other information.  I could do the same to all
of you.  Fun, isn't it?  This thing called free information? 
Everyone wants everything to be free (owned property of, say,
Microsoft, or some music artist) except for what few things we
"think" we own, like the number branded on us when we're born. 
Well, that # is on loan anyway.  If you think you have ever actually
"owned" anything in your life, especially your privacy, then you're
just silly and you probably already know that, you just never
thought of it.

So the bottom line is:  if somebody out there wants to read my
e-mails and has the ability to do it then that's great.  Whatever
free e-mail service I use isn't going to have any effect on somebody
who's skillful enough to crack, say, Hotmail's e-mail systems in the
first place.  I don't know any launch codes or have knowledge of
who's going to win the Super Bowl so I'll bet nobody is all that
interested anyway.  My e-mails consist of me finding out if we're
all going to play some D&D on Saturday night or something similarly
inane  Especially the government.  Anything they want to know about
me, or you, they already know; more importantly, they couldn't care
less.

Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD . Yah - no secrets can exist beyond one's skull in a society willing to do whatever it needs to for preventing secrets . Promoting such a social agenda may shorten the life expectancy of twits doing so too abrasively . John Brunner raised the query of what you get for what you surrender as a catchphrase . " The systems that keep you from cheating on taxes make sure the crash cart has your blood type on it WELL ? "

The bill of rights explicitly states some of the conceptual reasons for privacy violations being unwise . I clarify the data mining issue as ASSOCIATIVE data Vs UN-associated data . One Breakpoint of concern . Either it's a tabulating of N# looked at the website of concern or YOU by NAME did . One Harmless datum of a Odometer style page views incrementing alone is hardly a concern . The persons wanting OTHER data that makes it" YOU" did <Blank> are likely NOT harmless !

The concept of David Brin's " Transparent Society "

http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html

Addresses the tale of 2 cities - creepily evocative of the Open Source worldview Vs Microsoft EULA As bill of rights . Details that the Public persons need to while in Public employ willfully forfeit balanced against an ethos of the privacy cloaking rules that the PRIVATE citizens are granted inviolate WHERE PROPER .

Public money has the string of public access and privacy is secured by private funding one's life . That simple concept has a mundane corollary in Missouri fishing law. If my wife gets fish from the DNR we in exchange surrender right of access refusal . Where if we do NOT take any fish from DNR we can refuse service to anyone . The Gmail social contract seems to me an adherence in kind to that concept . TANSTAAFL . Free per se is oxymoronic in much of social interactions as even the Copyleft/Gpl/Creative Commons ALL impart restrictions . By my humble take common law should allow a full refund of what you paid to Google for their service . And the same sum for damages to your privacy .

To be deadly blunt - Gmail et al that wish to "use" communicated information as a revenue stream need to be transparent in how and where that will be and after a " Read and understood " is agreeed to by ALL parties . Absent such informed consent Evil indeed is afoot here . The core issues are INFORMED and UNDERSTOOD.

Were Gmail to cloak the usages of mined data as Microsoft cloaks the innumerable privacy violations caused in the Windows environment the term " Evil " arguably would be quite justified . In an OS where one is mislead to believe a file deletion renders the file "erased" only to find later that " Delete " causes multiple redundantly hidden copies to be cached in multiple locations on your HD- Gmail becomes the minority worry ! Ignorantia Nhil Excusat ?

Oren Beck

www.campdownunder.com

That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely afterecho of that which was formerly felt to be good - the atavism of an older ideal. - Nietzsche

_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug