[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Heartbleed


Scott Ferguson grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> On 19/04/14 16:51, Tom Furie wrote:> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 02:33:43PM
> +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 19/04/14 07:55, Joe wrote:
>>>> 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).
>> There is a very large difference between the gaze of passers-by and 
>> actively attempting to see something, especially where recording 
>> equipment is involved.
> Yes. And in most cases the legislation reflects that. i.e. it's legal to
> photograph you sunning yourself through you window - if I take the
> picture from the street (public place) - but not if I use a telescopic
> lens. Not dissimilar from the difference between recording wireless
> broadcasts and recording the (resonant) response from wireless equipment
> when you transmit a high power signal at it. Note that in some places
> it's perfectly legal for an individual to WARdrive, and in some cases
> the local police have done so as "community relations" - but when a
> Google Maps car does the same thing the courts decide it's punishable
> with a fine.
> Regards of the medium or means - it seems the individual is arguing that
> what they do in public space is private. Whereas I propose that what you
> do behind curtains or a faraday cage *is* private[*1] - what you do in
> public space, or on the networks and resources of others is not.
> [*1] private as in "on private property", not as in "I don't wish to
> share". There is a belief that any gathering of information without the
> express permission of the individual is "invasive". When that belief
> extends to information that is publicly *disseminated* that belief is
> oxymoronic. "unwanted" != "invasive". Taking DNA samples from me *is*
> invasive (it invades my personal space), taking DNA samples from cells I
> drop in public spaces *is not* invasive (it's just creepy).
>> Cheers, Tom
> That's not to say I have nothing to hide (I wear pants and use
> curtains), just that I don't believe pissing up a rope or relying on
> mind over matter are productive exercises.
> Kind regards.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply to: