gmail initiations

[Oren Beck]

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: kclug-bounces at kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces at kclug.org] On Behalf Of
Oren Beck
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:15 PM
To: Brian Densmore
Cc: kclug at kclug.org
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