[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NSA good guys
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:57:17 -0400
[email protected] wrote:
>
> > Looks like Dan Geer wants to divert attention from the 'legal'
> > masters of corporatism to the corporatists themselves....
>
> It depends on whether you believe that a promise of procedurally
> satisfactory data handling can be relied upon.
If you mean promises from the government, or from their
corporatist partners, no, of course, I don't.
Regarding your quote below,
It may be possible, in the not-so-distant-future, to record
people in ultra high definition from a mile away, but the
'technology' can be rendered rather useless with somthing
like...this
http://ramitia.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/japan-face-masks.jpg
Of course, at that point, google and general dynamics are going
to knock on the pentagon's door and ask them to ban masks.
Quoting (as I'm on
> the record) from "Tradeoffs in Cyber Security," given last October
> at the Univ. of North Carolina, Charlotte.
>
> http://geer.tinho.net/geer.uncc.9x13.txt
>
> <snippet>
>
> Today I observe a couple fornicating on a roof top in circumstances
> where I can never know who the couple are. Do they have privacy?
> The answer is "no" if your definition of privacy is the absence of
> observability. The answer is "yes" if your definition of privacy
> is the absence of identifiability.
>
> Technical progress in image acquisition guarantees observability
> pretty much everywhere now. Standoff biometrics are delivering
> multi-factor identifiability at ever greater distances. We will
> soon live in a society where identity is not an assertion like "My
> name is Dan," but rather an observable like "Sensors confirm that
> is Dan." With enough sensors, concentration camps don't need to
> tatoo their inmates. How many sensors are we installing in normal
> life?
>
> If routine data acquisition kills both privacy as
> impossible-to-observe and privacy as impossible-to-identify, then
> what might be an alternative? If you are an optimist or an
> apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of procedure
> administered by a government you trust or control. If you are a
> pessimist or a hacker/maker, then your answer will tend towards the
> operational, and your definition of a state of privacy will be mine:
> the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself.
>
> </snippet>
>
>
> --dan
> =====
> the above and other material on file under geer.tinho.net/pubs
>
>