Actually, I think that Phoenician's post was aimed at my tongue-in-cheek email and not yours. By the way the Freedom of Information Act doesn't entitle you to get information on other people's information such as SSNs or tax returns, unless that person is a public official. On top of which they are "supposed" to black out certain parts of those documents which you can get, like SSN's. Or were you not referring to the FOIA? But what bother's me the most is that counties sell my information to political candidates. But that's another rant. entirely.
-----Original Message----- From: Allen Darrah
Well I don't want anyone to steal my money, so no. And the government already has my social security # of course because they gave it to me and then can get my pin at any time so really nothing I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about it? And no, I'm really not worried about privacy.
Not to mention: if anyone in here wanted to they could go to their local court house and file some paperwork and get my social anyway along with a ton of other information. I could do the same to all of you. Fun, isn't it? This thing called free information? Everyone wants everything to be free (owned property of, say, Microsoft, or some music artist) except for what few things we "think" we own, like the number branded on us when we're born. Well, that # is on loan anyway. If you think you have ever actually "owned" anything in your life, especially your privacy, then you're just silly and you probably already know that, you just never thought of it.
So the bottom line is: if somebody out there wants to read my e-mails and has the ability to do it then that's great. Whatever free e-mail service I use isn't going to have any effect on somebody who's skillful enough to crack, say, Hotmail's e-mail systems in the first place. I don't know any launch codes or have knowledge of who's going to win the Super Bowl so I'll bet nobody is all that interested anyway. My e-mails consist of me finding out if we're all going to play some D&D on Saturday night or something similarly inane Especially the government. Anything they want to know about me, or you, they already know; more importantly, they couldn't care less.
From: "Phoenician" [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: gmail initiations Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:48:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc1-f7.hotmail.com ([64.4.50.14]) by mc1-s21.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:52:10 -0700 Received: from kclug.org ([139.146.133.42]) by mc1-f7.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:51:36 -0700 Received: from kclug.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by kclug.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC9DAAEFD;Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:51:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com (ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com[24.94.166.129]) by kclug.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38A8AAEE4for [email protected]; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:51:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from benu.PHOENIXCOLONY.COM (CPE-69-76-180-201.kc.rr.com[69.76.180.201])by ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP idi88MpOjE009186for [email protected]; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:51:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Info: HQbIehuYceTCp8pTnyca91M4Nha4pH9WbR6NjYGd+Eg= X-Original-To: [email protected] Delivered-To: [email protected] Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Message-ID: [email protected] X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: gmail initiations Thread-Index: AcSVqad0KziL/xeBSuOMPu+afqLjEwAAVh5gABKlevA= X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-BeenThere: [email protected] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: KCLUG mailing list <kclug.kclug.org> List-Unsubscribe: http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug,mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug List-Post: mailto:[email protected] List-Help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help List-Subscribe: http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug,mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe Errors-To: [email protected] Return-Path: [email protected] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2004 22:51:38.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[6638FA00:01C495F6]
So let me get this straight, because you do not do anything illegal is good enough reason to allow people to collect information and not be concerned about your privacy? Hmm Well if that's the case, would you mind posting you SSN plus your PIN to your bank account?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Densmore Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 8:58 AM To: Allen Darrah; [email protected] Subject: RE: gmail initiations
Dear Mr. Darrah,
Expect a visit from our officers from Homeland Security. We are very concerned about your unpatriotic activities and will be watching you closely from our spy satellite with the GPS tracker we installed secretly in your car with our secret court wiretapping and surveillance warrant.
Sincerely,
The Feds
-----Original Message----- From: Allen Darrah
I want it. I've never been worried about privacy. Mostly because I don't do anything illegal. Except speeding of course. But I don't send a lot of e-mail about that. Except for this one of course.
Al
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_____
Don't just search. Find. http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2737??PS=47575 Check out the new MSN Search!
Brian Densmore wrote:
Actually, I think that Phoenician's post was aimed at my tongue-in-cheek email and not yours. By the way the Freedom of Information Act doesn't entitle you to get information on other people's information such as SSNs or tax returns, unless that person is a public official. On top of which they are "supposed" to black out certain parts of those documents which you can get, like SSN's. Or were you not referring to the FOIA? But what bother's me the most is that counties sell my information to political candidates. But that's another rant. entirely.
-----Original Message----- *From:* Allen Darrah Well I don't want anyone to steal my money, so no. And the government already has my social security # of course because they gave it to me and then can get my pin at any time so really nothing I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about it? And no, I'm really not worried about privacy. Not to mention: if anyone in here wanted to they could go to their local court house and file some paperwork and get my social anyway along with a ton of other information. I could do the same to all of you. Fun, isn't it? This thing called free information? Everyone wants everything to be free (owned property of, say, Microsoft, or some music artist) except for what few things we "think" we own, like the number branded on us when we're born. Well, that # is on loan anyway. If you think you have ever actually "owned" anything in your life, especially your privacy, then you're just silly and you probably already know that, you just never thought of it. So the bottom line is: if somebody out there wants to read my e-mails and has the ability to do it then that's great. Whatever free e-mail service I use isn't going to have any effect on somebody who's skillful enough to crack, say, Hotmail's e-mail systems in the first place. I don't know any launch codes or have knowledge of who's going to win the Super Bowl so I'll bet nobody is all that interested anyway. My e-mails consist of me finding out if we're all going to play some D&D on Saturday night or something similarly inane Especially the government. Anything they want to know about me, or you, they already know; more importantly, they couldn't care less.
Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD . Yah - no secrets can exist beyond one's skull in a society willing to do whatever it needs to for preventing secrets . Promoting such a social agenda may shorten the life expectancy of twits doing so too abrasively . John Brunner raised the query of what you get for what you surrender as a catchphrase . " The systems that keep you from cheating on taxes make sure the crash cart has your blood type on it WELL ? "
The bill of rights explicitly states some of the conceptual reasons for privacy violations being unwise . I clarify the data mining issue as ASSOCIATIVE data Vs UN-associated data . One Breakpoint of concern . Either it's a tabulating of N# looked at the website of concern or YOU by NAME did . One Harmless datum of a Odometer style page views incrementing alone is hardly a concern . The persons wanting OTHER data that makes it" YOU" did <Blank> are likely NOT harmless !
The concept of David Brin's " Transparent Society "
http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html
Addresses the tale of 2 cities - creepily evocative of the Open Source worldview Vs Microsoft EULA As bill of rights . Details that the Public persons need to while in Public employ willfully forfeit balanced against an ethos of the privacy cloaking rules that the PRIVATE citizens are granted inviolate WHERE PROPER .
Public money has the string of public access and privacy is secured by private funding one's life . That simple concept has a mundane corollary in Missouri fishing law. If my wife gets fish from the DNR we in exchange surrender right of access refusal . Where if we do NOT take any fish from DNR we can refuse service to anyone . The Gmail social contract seems to me an adherence in kind to that concept . TANSTAAFL . Free per se is oxymoronic in much of social interactions as even the Copyleft/Gpl/Creative Commons ALL impart restrictions . By my humble take common law should allow a full refund of what you paid to Google for their service . And the same sum for damages to your privacy .
To be deadly blunt - Gmail et al that wish to "use" communicated information as a revenue stream need to be transparent in how and where that will be and after a " Read and understood " is agreeed to by ALL parties . Absent such informed consent Evil indeed is afoot here . The core issues are INFORMED and UNDERSTOOD.
Were Gmail to cloak the usages of mined data as Microsoft cloaks the innumerable privacy violations caused in the Windows environment the term " Evil " arguably would be quite justified . In an OS where one is mislead to believe a file deletion renders the file "erased" only to find later that " Delete " causes multiple redundantly hidden copies to be cached in multiple locations on your HD- Gmail becomes the minority worry ! Ignorantia Nhil Excusat ?
Oren Beck
www.campdownunder.com
That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely afterecho of that which was formerly felt to be good - the atavism of an older ideal. - Nietzsche
On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 21:15, Oren Beck wrote:
Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD .
I forwarded your message on to Steve Norquist for parsing. Awaiting translation.
Jason Clinton wrote:
On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 21:15, Oren Beck wrote:
Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD .
I forwarded your message on to Steve Norquist for parsing. Awaiting translation.
Lacking comparison on the same page it may indeed seem odd . And perhaps I could have phrased it better . Eloquent phrasing as opposed to saying fish or flesh is my issue .
Reposting below for clarity in comparisons .
The Clinton Assault Weapon ban ends in 4 days. We'll be safe after a buying spree, right? ;-)
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Oren Beck Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:15 PM To: Brian Densmore Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: gmail initiations
Brian Densmore wrote:
Actually, I think that Phoenician's post was aimed at my tongue-in-cheek email and not yours. By the way the Freedom of Information Act doesn't entitle you to get information on other people's information such as SSNs or tax returns, unless that person is a public official. On top of which they are "supposed" to black out certain parts of those documents which you can get, like SSN's. Or were you not referring to the FOIA? But what bother's me the most is that counties sell my information to political candidates. But that's another rant. entirely.
-----Original Message----- *From:* Allen Darrah Well I don't want anyone to steal my money, so no. And the government already has my social security # of course because they gave it to me and then can get my pin at any time so really nothing I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about it? And no, I'm really not worried about privacy. Not to mention: if anyone in here wanted to they could go to their local court house and file some paperwork and get my social anyway along with a ton of other information. I could do the same to all of you. Fun, isn't it? This thing called free information? Everyone wants everything to be free (owned property of, say, Microsoft, or some music artist) except for what few things we "think" we own, like the number branded on us when we're born. Well, that # is on loan anyway. If you think you have ever actually "owned" anything in your life, especially your privacy, then you're just silly and you probably already know that, you just never thought of it. So the bottom line is: if somebody out there wants to read my e-mails and has the ability to do it then that's great. Whatever free e-mail service I use isn't going to have any effect on somebody who's skillful enough to crack, say, Hotmail's e-mail systems in the first place. I don't know any launch codes or have knowledge of who's going to win the Super Bowl so I'll bet nobody is all that interested anyway. My e-mails consist of me finding out if we're all going to play some D&D on Saturday night or something similarly inane Especially the government. Anything they want to know about me, or you, they already know; more importantly, they couldn't care less.
Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD .
OOkay - let's parse the O.P and mine together .
THEY already know all they want to - lacks delimiters and defaults to
infinite godlike perception . MY delimiter defaults to the statutory operators explicit in the bill of rights . To wit- due process !
Thus my comment about how it SHOULD be may have been better served by qualifing - not either perceived or is.
more importantly, they couldn't care less.
IF they "could care less " WHY collect the data ! The sanity of data mining if it's of no intent is what I question !
IF the entity collectively referenced as * THEM * not only mines data for correlating facts to names then the intent to somehow use that database seems quite real . Thus deprecating the concept of THEM not caring less .
so really nothing I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about it? And no, I'm really not worried about privacy.
MY counter to that was -
And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD .
Meaning rather bluntly to state that because you have chosen to abdicate concern of YOUR privacy does not arrogate to you the right to call that GOOD - "why worry about it " presumes to be a directive calling their ability as GOOD ! Or am I wrong in so presuming ?
This is getting back to topical in an odd way but Open Source depends on NO secrets in the CODE BASE to assure that secrets secured by O.S software have no exploitable compromises of YOUR secrets ! And THAT is a good thing .
Oren Beck
www.campdownunder.com
"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull " - 1984 by George Orwell
Thanks to my son and husband, I may be rebuilding my new web server. The Compaq DL380 will not boot up. It briefly acquires it's IP address but after about 5 minutes, the IP address "disappears" from my network! I've tried two different monitors, once loads X, it "disappears" from the monitors also!
I can get the server up booting from the CD and using linux rescue. I was able to run backups of MySQL data and backup all the pertinent files. My site is running on a "backup" workstation/server temporarily.
My question is - should I completely scrap this install of Fedora Core 2 on the Compaq DL380? Do I have other alternatives? I plan on tackling this project tomorrow morning, so I hope a few of you will give me some ideas and suggestions.
Baffled,
Jon Moss
The Clinton Assault Weapon ban ends in 4 days. We'll be safe after a buying spree, right? ;-)
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Oren Beck Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:15 PM To: Brian Densmore Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: gmail initiations
Brian Densmore wrote:
Actually, I think that Phoenician's post was aimed at my tongue-in-cheek email and not yours. By the way the Freedom of Information Act doesn't entitle you to get information on other people's information such as SSNs or tax returns, unless that person is a public official. On top of which they are "supposed" to black out certain parts of those documents which you can get, like SSN's. Or were you not referring to the FOIA? But what bother's me the most is that counties sell my information to political candidates. But that's another rant. entirely.
-----Original Message----- *From:* Allen Darrah Well I don't want anyone to steal my money, so no. And the government already has my social security # of course because they gave it to me and then can get my pin at any time so really nothing I do online isn't able to be discovered anyway so why worry about it? And no, I'm really not worried about privacy. Not to mention: if anyone in here wanted to they could go to their local court house and file some paperwork and get my social anyway along with a ton of other information. I could do the same to all of you. Fun, isn't it? This thing called free information? Everyone wants everything to be free (owned property of, say, Microsoft, or some music artist) except for what few things we "think" we own, like the number branded on us when we're born. Well, that # is on loan anyway. If you think you have ever actually "owned" anything in your life, especially your privacy, then you're just silly and you probably already know that, you just never thought of it. So the bottom line is: if somebody out there wants to read my e-mails and has the ability to do it then that's great. Whatever free e-mail service I use isn't going to have any effect on somebody who's skillful enough to crack, say, Hotmail's e-mail systems in the first place. I don't know any launch codes or have knowledge of who's going to win the Super Bowl so I'll bet nobody is all that interested anyway. My e-mails consist of me finding out if we're all going to play some D&D on Saturday night or something similarly inane Especially the government. Anything they want to know about me, or you, they already know; more importantly, they couldn't care less.
Phrase that last line as SHOULD NOT know absent due process - the caring part denotes the sanity or lack of same . And what you invoke about _ability_ to read one's electronic data stores does not correlate to it being GOOD . Yah - no secrets can exist beyond one's skull in a society willing to do whatever it needs to for preventing secrets . Promoting such a social agenda may shorten the life expectancy of twits doing so too abrasively . John Brunner raised the query of what you get for what you surrender as a catchphrase . " The systems that keep you from cheating on taxes make sure the crash cart has your blood type on it WELL ? "
The bill of rights explicitly states some of the conceptual reasons for privacy violations being unwise . I clarify the data mining issue as ASSOCIATIVE data Vs UN-associated data . One Breakpoint of concern . Either it's a tabulating of N# looked at the website of concern or YOU by NAME did . One Harmless datum of a Odometer style page views incrementing alone is hardly a concern . The persons wanting OTHER data that makes it" YOU" did <Blank> are likely NOT harmless !
The concept of David Brin's " Transparent Society "
http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html
Addresses the tale of 2 cities - creepily evocative of the Open Source worldview Vs Microsoft EULA As bill of rights . Details that the Public persons need to while in Public employ willfully forfeit balanced against an ethos of the privacy cloaking rules that the PRIVATE citizens are granted inviolate WHERE PROPER .
Public money has the string of public access and privacy is secured by private funding one's life . That simple concept has a mundane corollary in Missouri fishing law. If my wife gets fish from the DNR we in exchange surrender right of access refusal . Where if we do NOT take any fish from DNR we can refuse service to anyone . The Gmail social contract seems to me an adherence in kind to that concept . TANSTAAFL . Free per se is oxymoronic in much of social interactions as even the Copyleft/Gpl/Creative Commons ALL impart restrictions . By my humble take common law should allow a full refund of what you paid to Google for their service . And the same sum for damages to your privacy .
To be deadly blunt - Gmail et al that wish to "use" communicated information as a revenue stream need to be transparent in how and where that will be and after a " Read and understood " is agreeed to by ALL parties . Absent such informed consent Evil indeed is afoot here . The core issues are INFORMED and UNDERSTOOD.
Were Gmail to cloak the usages of mined data as Microsoft cloaks the innumerable privacy violations caused in the Windows environment the term " Evil " arguably would be quite justified . In an OS where one is mislead to believe a file deletion renders the file "erased" only to find later that " Delete " causes multiple redundantly hidden copies to be cached in multiple locations on your HD- Gmail becomes the minority worry ! Ignorantia Nhil Excusat ?
Oren Beck
www.campdownunder.com
That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely afterecho of that which was formerly felt to be good - the atavism of an older ideal. - Nietzsche
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Taylor Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 10:34 PM To: 'Oren Beck'; 'Brian Densmore' Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: gmail initiations
The Clinton Assault Weapon ban ends in 4 days. We'll be safe after a buying spree, right? ;-)
I'll bite.
That all depends on who ends up holding the weapon I suppose. While our founding fathers probably never expected I should have the right to a high cyclic firing rate (and _without_ an FFL I don't), they hadn't been afforded an opportunity to try crack cocaine back then either.
Boil it down to whatever bumper sticker slogan will fit within your attention buffer, but don't come to me with the age old argument, "If we can spare one innocent life, one accidental death, then banning guns would be worth it." Take that tired mess, and walk west. Eventually, you'll come across this huge hole in the ground called the Grand Canyon. Every year, innocent folks fall into this hole, despite fences in high-traffic areas, and die. Once someone fills in the Grand Canyon, this argument will hold water with me, and I'll gladly relinquish the firearms I own. (And for the record, haven't killed anyone with in 34 years.)
But to pull off the gloves and be civil about all of this - it's just a law. Laws are for _lawless_ people, and describe the bare minimum acceptable standards of living peacefully within our society. Those of us who think ourselves non-criminal are called to live _above_ the law, not within the very letter of it. During this past ten years I am quite sure some folks were arrested for possessing assault weapons - and I'm not talking about Wacky Waco folks here. Some of them were likely hard core criminals, and some were not. You think those hard core mofos cared that they had one more charge piled on? They're probably already looking at five years if they're a felon - the assault weapon just adds gasoline.
Is there a simple answer? No. This is one of those flaming topics we have to return to, when all the other 527 bullshit overloads that bumper-sticker buffer of ours, and we have to change up again. It serves only to divide us as a nation. If you're a big fan of our current two party system, then kudos. This will work perfectly to polarize the majority into red and blue. Again, those parties fit within the bumper sticker buffer. Just my $.02.
Dustin
-
Brian Densmore -
Dustin Decker -
Jason Clinton -
Jon Moss -
Oren Beck -
Paul Taylor