The mysterious case of Ms. Carrie Prejean

[--Pete]

Hi,

As an aside, . . .

There are always tight resources that drive what has to be done. The trick is to keep up to date with what resources are tight. Nowadays, the tightest resource is qualified programmer's time. And that is what leads to lack of care and to bloatware.

. . . the standards of newsworthiness, and content of the news itself has fallen into the toilet.

So, ignore it. Which is why I said, and repeat, "Yawn!"

--Pete

[kandrathe]

So, ignore it. Which is why I said, and repeat, "Yawn!"

It's more fun behind the throne (pun intended), where you can pull on the strings of power without actually getting crapped on by the press. So far, I've been able to keep myself away from the stink.

[kandrathe]

... it sure sounded to me that you were going well beyond defending existing rights (which I agree with) and proposing the adoption of a whole new bunch of 'rights'.

Not so much "new" but viewed with the WWW in mind. Never has it been so easy to discover almost everything you would ever want to about an individual just using a home computer attached to the internet. Couple that with the ability to publish whatever you like, without regard to social consequence or law, because it is impossible to figure out who you are, where you are, and what laws apply.

I'm a big fan of NCIS, even though most of the technical jargon is mostly crap it is based loosely on a glimmer of truth, which I suppose is equally true about the demeanor of this law enforcement team. It is funny for me to watch when they need to go hack into someone's data, because invariably they have to go through all these layers of protection including often some active intrusion detection device. And, it seems they frequently get noticed when there is drama to be gained by it. The reality is that most corporate and government information systems are rather porous, and intrusion when done by professionals would never be visible or traceable. Pretty much, just as you described with encryption/decryption, the only safe way to prevent hacking is to keep your machine off the net, and in an RF dampened environment. Even then, there is the old fashioned way of actual intrusion through subterfuge, or proxy.

So, the long and the short of it to me is that the only way to really protect our privacy is through the application of laws that insure we "have the right to be left alone".

[--Pete]

Hi,

Never has it been so easy to discover almost everything you would ever want to about an individual just using a home computer attached to the internet. Couple that with the ability to publish whatever you like, without regard to social consequence or law, because it is impossible to figure out who you are, where you are, and what laws apply.

OK, but this does say two things that you are ignoring or overlooking.

The first is that all that 'information' is useless because it is not verified. Since, as you say, people have " . . . the ability to publish whatever you like . . . ", then there is no way to determine if something is true or not. So, we, as a society, need to learn to just ignore the crap like we (at least most of us) ignore tabloid crap.

Second, as you say " . . . it is impossible to figure out who you are, where you are . . . ". That makes " . . . what laws apply . . . " rather moot. Law enforcement is pretty much based on the concepts of identifying and apprehending the lawbreakers. If you can't do those two things, then why bother passing the law?

I'm a big fan of NCIS, . . .

Yep, me too. Good show.

. . . even though most of the technical jargon is mostly crap it is based loosely on a glimmer of truth,

Hey, it's fiction, and much of their technology is science fiction.

The reality is that most corporate and government information systems are rather porous, and intrusion when done by professionals would never be visible or traceable. Pretty much, just as you described with encryption/decryption, the only safe way to prevent hacking is to keep your machine off the net, and in an RF dampened environment. Even then, there is the old fashioned way of actual intrusion through subterfuge, or proxy.

Yep. Which is why some information is kept on removable drives which are stored in a locked safe in a secure room in a secured facility. It takes a minimum of two people with the physical keys and the combination to get into the safe. It takes two people, each with his own password, to access the files. The computer is not connected to any network (including the power distribution grid; 1:1 power transformers and notch filters take care of that). And the room is a Faraday cage, interior room, soundproofed, etc. And, in some places, to get in, the guards actually have to touch your badge and they either have to recognize you or you have to be accompanied by someone they do recognize who will vouch for you. And the sign on the fence reads, "The Use of Lethal Force is Authorized Beyond This Point." And your work schedule is coordinated with satellite activity.

Been there. Hell, *lived* there.

So, the long and the short of it to me is that the only way to really protect our privacy is through the application of laws that insure we "have the right to be left alone".

Because, of course, people are scrupulous about observing laws which can only be sporadically enforced. Like the speed limit. :whistling:

--Pete

[Rhydderch Hael]

...There's a reason "Think of the children!" is Maude Flanders' catchphrase.

Actually, it is Mrs. Lovejoy who says that.

Maude's catcphrase was "Incoming!", I think. Or was that just her last thoughts?

[Jester]

I had to laugh when I saw the news article recently where Chavez gave Obama the book, "Open Veins of Latin America", because it was required reading in 1984 for my Latin American literature class.

I was rather amused at the resurfacing of that book. It is my go-to example for the excesses of dependency theory. However, just because a book is required reading doesn't mean you're required to agree with it.

I was merely stating that the U of M environment is one that at the time I was there felt pretty hostile to the stereotypical white, hetero, male of European ancestry unless that male was willing to be self loathing. Luckily I wasn't a member of the the CCC (Campus Crusade for Christ) and the College Republicans, or I probably would have been assaulted on a daily basis. I do remember being frequently tagged as an FBI plant trying to infiltrate their leftist plots.

Uh hunh. And how many of these white, Christian folk were assaulted? If there were maybe four people in the CCC and college Republicans combined (assuming, fairly reasonably, that they were white and Christian and whatnot), that's what, 1500 assaults in a year? Multiply by a 4 year degree, and that's 6000? A veritable epidemic!

Or, alternately, the numbers are nothing like that, and you couldn't name more cases than the fingers on your hand, if that, but figure it'd be fun to exaggerate. Definitely not claiming victim status or anything. Just a bad consumer choice, what with the potential assaults and all.

Carrie probably has issues with her contract with Miss Universe Inc. (something she chose to do), but she was the victim of libel by (even by US standards) certain mainstream media outlets (i.e. Perez Hilton, Keith Olbermann).

I'm no big fan of either, but could you spell out where either has libeled her, rather than just saying true-but-uncomfortable things, or giving their opinion? Libel is a pretty serious charge.

Her medical procedure (breast implant) was private information that should not have been released by her employer, so yes, she was victimized by her employer in that case. Her modeling photographs, were under contract for a specific use, and so the people who sold her photo's were violating their contracts with her. Beyond the trite lack of impartial judging, the aftermath has resulted in libel, violations of HIPPA, and multiple breach of contract suits.

I'm not really crying a river here. If her suits get anywhere, all the power to her, but there are already laws for that. She can seek redress there, nothing needs to change.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I was rather amused at the resurfacing of that book. It is my go-to example for the excesses of dependency theory. However, just because a book is required reading doesn't mean you're required to agree with it.

If it makes you feel better, my Mom gave me "See I Told You So" by Rush Limbaugh, and I had just as much trouble not reading that one too. Not that they are comparable in any way other than that they both induced the gag reflex in me. At least I've never had to write a term paper about right wing nuts.