Talk:Privacy

From Organic Design
Jump to: navigation, search

it should be noted that privacy is a sham. the best privacy breaks down into a challenge, or rephrased: simply "security by obscurity" and provides a false sense of security. Those with resources can always trump those who's resources are less. --Phalseid 16:14, 8 Aug 2006 (NZST)

The project does not impliement sham's - if there's a notion called privacy then that's what it gives you. --Nad 10:34, 9 Aug 2006 (NZST)
that is not quite what i was trying to say. i understand (i think) what rob is saying that that privacy is a basic human right. however, i suggest that Privacy is an illusion. Knots that are secured in a 3D world can be untied in the 4D world without molesting either end of the rope. it is foolish and arrogant to act like privacy is a "right" when in fact that right is not granted by any recongnized authority. If it were granted by such authority, it would trump itself and we end up with a tautology. i understand that in the scope of the project approximation of the Ideal of Privacy may exist, but that ideal can always be compromised by "unauthorized access". And who are we to control or know "who" has access? it boils down to physical access, and that realm is another gateway to the infinite. --Phalseid 17:16, 8 Aug 2006 (NZST)
I know what you're saying, but your always talking about the way things are, not the way we're making them be. The people need a trusted means of real privacy and the principles show the way to that. The problem of physical access is a client-server issue not a p2p one --Nad 11:28, 9 Aug 2006 (NZST)
Actually true privacy is possible even with in a client-server scenario, but more difficult to implement. --Nad 11:31, 9 Aug 2006 (NZST)
i did not know that the project claimed "real privacy". there is a lot i do not know about the project, and you are right in saying that i am stuck in "are" as opposed to "will be". it takes visionaries like you to break the mold, and i don't intend to be a foil. be patient with me as i continue working on transforming myself by absorbing the principals that drive this project. Take heart, i am no longer a capitalist! or at least, im a guilty/reluctant capitalist in the processes of being reformed. That said, the onus is still on the person claiming privacy rights. i don't see how the project can deliver something that hinges on hubris. i have had this "issue" with the project for a while and this is the first i have been able to express it. As they say, security is only as good as your weakest link. Am I right in thinking the human being that uses this system is (paradoxically) the "weakest link?" --Phalseid 18:00, 8 Aug 2006 (NZST)
The project is the formalistion of the spiritual truth which manifests as the absolute ideal in every domain including security. All concepts implemented in accord with the principles are superior to other individual solutions because it incorporates their methods but adds the power of unification with the spectral (time) domain. --Nad 12:14, 9 Aug 2006 (NZST)

a good quote that sums it up for me: "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." — Sun Tzu, from The Art of War, Chapter IV, Tactical Dispositions,#2 --Phalseid 18:11, 8 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Sun Tzu works for the project.

Here's what I think.

  • Privacy, the ability to maintain contol of your personal information, is a basic human right.
  • Authentication, the ability to know with a high degree of certainty, that the person knocking at your door, is who they say they are, is essencial to trust on the internet.
  • Trust is a personal choice made by individuals about individuals. Corporations and governments would compel us to trust them, this is wrong.
  • Security, is a very ambiguous term that has in many cases been bastardised by governments and corporations. In their terms it means trust in the government / corportation, and has nothing to do with individual rights or freedoms. In our terms it means, confidence in the mechanisims of privacy, and trust that our threads of communication are connected accross a medium in the way we expect.
  • Security by obscurity is no security at all. That's like saying, Nobody knows where I live, so no-one will ever try my door to see if it's locked.
agreed...read what i said again, or i missunderstood this comment. --Phalseid 17:27, 8 Aug 2006 (NZST)

--Rob 10:55, 9 Aug 2006 (NZST)

I agree fully with all that - also in the current security model there ahsn't been a need to distinguish between the two words, they're both aliases of the same nodal concept. --Nad 10:58, 9 Aug 2006 (NZST)
in a perfect world, you don't need security, because everyone is trusted. in a perfect world, there are no lies and there is no deceit and there are no fences. such a world dosen't exist. what im pointing out is there is an important difference (in my understanding) between security (not trusting any/somebody) and privacy (trusting that no one will intrude). privacy = faith, security = works. --Phalseid 17:27, 8 Aug 2006 (NZST)
Actually I think that's some kind of agreement - they're different aspects of the concept which in reality must both go hand-in-hand... In any true reality no matter how harmonious it is will need to ensure its concept of privacy with the methods of security. --Nad 11:35, 9 Aug 2006 (NZST)

nomen omen est

so what am I all worked up about? Privacy. In heaven you don't need it and in hell you don't have it.

  • privacy.
  • publicity
  • Exposing the myth/illusion of Security and Privacy. my screen name is phalse-i-d for a very good reason which is not documented here (yet) but it is documented here. (thank you). --Phalseid

Anonymous Internet browsing

I'm really bothered by the trend in facebook, google, and others, to sneakily encode external links so that those clicks are logged before being redirected to the actual destination. I say sneakily, because it isn't apparent until you click on a link that it contains a redirect. There ought to be a browser plugin that scrapes the actual destination url from the encoded redirect url and breaks the chain of continuity to proceed directly to that destination (whether by FoxTor or not).

Speaking of sneaky corporates, did you see Google CEO's comment the other day?!
On the misuse of information for criminal or anti-social purposes: "The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."
He got the word wrong too, he means "asymmetric" not "asynchronous" which would imply that the threats are dangerous because they're not delivered on a schedule! --nad 08:09, 12 August 2010 (NZST)
I see you are referring to the same article here. Love that counterpoint! :-) He also sneakily refuses to use the term "privacy" and uses the more "sinister" term anonymity, then implies that if you have no privacy, you are being "transparent", another misleading use of terms. Surely transparency is something organisations need to strive for (how about it, big G?) if they are to regain the trust of the people? --Milan 10:07, 12 August 2010 (NZST)
On a positive note, most of the comments in response show that people, in this case the smart, tech-savvy crowd that reads RWW, are increasingly distrustful of the kind of propaganda that Schmidt and his elitist ilk are spreading and won't buy it any longer. Some commenters have unmasked Schmidt's hypocrisy and pointed out how he has viciously attacked those who would violate Schmidt's privacy.--Milan 12:58, 12 August 2010 (NZST)

Retroshare

I just read the link on retroshare, and thought, cool, I'll set it up and test it, thinking whoever posted this would be able to connect to my instance. But it was I who added the link (!). Anyone care to try it out? I'm using the PK you already have. --Infomaniac 12:43, 7 August 2011 (PDT)