Re: Heartbleed
On Saturday 19 April 2014 17:24:20 David Guntner wrote:
> This discussion would be best continued here:
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopi
>c
And these "suggestions" would too. Just kill the thread if it is
annoying you so much, or go to teh off-topic list. These constant
repetitions of yours are becoming annoying. (And yes, I could just
kill-file you, but so far that seems over-dramatic. ;-)
Lisi
> 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.
Reply to: