Re: Heartbleed
On 19/04/14 19:04, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:33:43 +1000
> Scott Ferguson <scott.ferguson.debian.user@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.
Reply to: