On 5/19/06, R.A. Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com> wrote:
...
You would think that if they wanted to lure customers into their spiderweb, they would simply offer free internet access, and burry a 'we have the right to spy on your' clause somewhere in the agreement.
There's a name for something like that. It's called "Google".
hah, indeed. they even took it a step further with the new "search across computers" feature that sucks your hard drive into this spiderweb of mining. i trust individuals, not corporations or governments. you can't expect privacy from entities you don't trust. from http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html """ Information we collect and how we use it: ... Information you provide ... [ED: anything in the GET/POST of your request] Google cookies... Log information... User communications... Links... [ED: what you click on] . . Information sharing: Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances: - We have your consent... - We provide such information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses or persons... - We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request... """ "limited" circumstances, LOL
On 2006-05-19T14:37:55-0700, coderman wrote:
i trust individuals, not corporations or governments.
Big mistake. Individuals are corrupt, too. Even people with good morals often do bad things by mistake or through carelessness. -- The six phases of a project: I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty. II. Disillusionment. V. Punishment of the Innocent. III. Panic. VI. Praise & Honor for the Nonparticipants.
On 5/19/06, Justin <justin-cypherpunks@soze.net> wrote:
On 2006-05-19T14:37:55-0700, coderman wrote:
i trust individuals, not corporations or governments.
Big mistake. Individuals are corrupt, too. Even people with good morals often do bad things by mistake or through carelessness.
true. depending on the context i would need to trust not only the personal integrity/morals of the person but also technical capability and responsibility (so that careless mistakes would not be made). the key is the direct individual relationship that can provide trust, rather than an amorphous and distant relationship with a large opaque organization. quorums are an interesting group organization that can be trusted perhaps, and allow more collaboration / social exchange than direct individual interactions yet avoid the diffusion of responsibility and lack of accountability present in larger organizational structures. that's a longer discussion and i'm not sure i could do a good job explaining my thoughts on it yet... reputation and trust, my favorite crux :) [and i thought the technical aspects were difficult! heh]
participants (2)
-
coderman -
Justin