Worried about google: was -> Re: chrome, Google DNS

[bill-CIZd1d4GmLheoWH0uzbU5w at public.gmane.org (Bill Horne)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
On 1/18/2010 9:36 AM, theBlueSage wrote:
> but it appears that apathy wins over concerns for privacy, and freenet
> is still unknow by 99.9999% of the population.
>
>  

As is/was W.A.S.T.E. a few years back. Systematic methods of
protecting privacy only work if /everyone/ I deal with electronically
will participate, and that isn't going to happen.

The only people who realize that they need to protect their privacy
are those who can foresee the cost of having to do without it: the
record of what videos you rent isn't generally available because
Robert Bork's viewing choices became public during his candidacy for
the Supreme Court, and the Congress reacted swiftly and decisively to
prevent anyone from finding out which kinds of pornography are popular
on Capitol Hill. From Wikipedia:

    During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was
    leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable,
    and included such harmless titles as /A Day at the Races
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_at_the_Races_%28film%29>/,
    /Ruthless People <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthless_People>/,
    and /The Man Who Knew Too Much
  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Knew_Too_Much_%281956_film%29>/.
    Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list
    of rentals, wrote waggishly about it for the /Washington City
    Paper <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_City_Paper>/.^[17]
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#cite_note-16> Dolan
    justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had
    stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded
    them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of
    the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act>.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork)


Of course, we _could_ start up W.A.S.T.E. or Freenet in the BLU, but
we'd all start off wondering what, exactly, we were trying to hide,
and that's the rub: it isn't until you do without it that you find out
how important it can be to keep your privacy. The arguments run both
ways: if everyone's taste in pornography is pretty much the same, why
would a Congressman be afraid we'd find that out? OTOH, if I'm out at
night visiting a woman who isn't my wife, am I having a love affair,
am I ferrying a deserter to the next stop on the Underground Railroad,
or am I taking a donation to a battered women's shelter? (The location
needs to stay secret no matter which, and I'd say that the fact I was
out of my home is also worth hiding).

Here's the nub: only those who are aware that their actions might have
serious and undesirable consequences will employ encryption or other
electronic privacy measures, and any code can be cracked given enough
computer power and time; the less there is to wade through, the more
quickly the NSA arrives at the result. Unless "Walled Garden" systems
like W.A.S.T.E. or Freenet become commonplace, someone will always be
able to find out what's inside them.

FWIW. YMMV.

Bill "When's the next keysigning?" Horne
GSWot Introducer

- -- 

"When the search for the truth is conducted with a wink and a nod
 when power and position are equated with the Grace of God"
                         - Jackson Browne

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAktUrDwACgkQEgIaxumS9uJgMQCfY/jUZn1DLfmce+hRhOCNHR7R
QUoAn1nqSMDGTTqx/ijwCrThifNfzv4+
=sKtz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----