On 19/04/14 07:55, Joe wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:48:13 -0500
> John Hasler <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Karl E. Jorgensen writes:
>>> Obviously, they had no need to save the actual *traffic*, merely the
>>> access point MAC address, signal strength and streetview car
>>> location to do this.
>> In any case, the traffic was broadcast into public space.
> As is the light originating inside peoples' homes and passing out of
> their windows. In which case it is arguable that it is perfectly
> acceptable to collect and record that light with a camera without
> asking the permission of those who own the home and/or who have
> modified the light...
Most countries don't provide legislative protection from the gaze of
people passing by. For reasons of sanity, and something to do with the
concept of free will (and personal responsibility).
> ...which was my point. I'm constantly amazed (I'm not a security
> expert) when network information I would consider pretty harmless is
> gathered and used to obtain access to the network. It seems to me that
> a lot of information which can be routinely gathered and seems
> individually harmless might well be used for wrongdoing, either by
> public or private organisations.
That's the nature of information. All information. Ignorance is not safety.
Stopping people from seeing open gates doesn't improve security. People
closing gates does. Legislation that compels people to close their gates
doesn't improve security - insurance penalties for those that leave them
open (thereby compromising their own security) does.
As long as someone believes information about you can be profitable,
someone will offer to sell it.
As long as information about us is sold 'we' will always feel robbed of
something - and want 'protection'.
Unless ignorance is *not* regarded as an excuse 'we' will always 'give
away' information about ourselves that other will see as marketable.
Perhaps the solution is not greater bureaucracy to safeguard data
ignorance, but greater personal responsibility and a reassessment of
what privacy "rights" are unreasonable expectations?