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

Re: Heartbleed

This discussion would be best continued here:


Scott Ferguson grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> 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.

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

Reply to: