NSA good guys

[Juan]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:57:17 -0400
dan at geer.org 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
> 
>