GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
But, "those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."
The Nazis, for example, vacuumed-up the Jews in Europe by using their (public ...) telephone records.
And we are today collecting far more information about people than just what is readily available in the public databases. We have made this information "promiscuously available," without pausing to soberly study both faces of this coin. (One of the two sides isn't shiny.)
Yes, we must "go with the current," but we also need to be the ones to pro-actively question just exactly what does that mean, what new risks does it expose us to, and does our existing body of law (and social practice) properly consider it? Today, we have gone vastly too-far, and I do not see sober examination of what that may imply. No one is being a "Luddite" here. As I said, this isn't our first rodeo. But maybe it is the first rodeo of this type. And since it is basically our industry that first uncovered this funny-looking bottle and then took the cork out of it . . .
Exactly!
[Ignore the last line of my previous post- I was just quoting the last line of The Great Gatsby, to indicate that my epic tome had finally come to an end]
When has information ever been collected by force, and then not used against the people it was collected from? Never!
Be it car registrations or gun registrations- the excuse is always "for your own safety"; the outcome is always to effect governmental control.
You'd think that it would be pretty obvious to everyone by now where all this data collection is leading......but yet the majority seem to trudge on, like Uncle Tom.
Bah, either we're damned if we do or we're lucky if we do; fix education (WW (world-wide or(?))) first! And, please don't shoot at me before running me down.
You'd think that it would be pretty obvious to everyone by now where all this data collection is leading......but yet the majority seem to trudge on, like Uncle Tom.
The truth indeed!
It seems that it might be leading this way: (just one perception on this, BTW)
Data Collection + more privacy infringed upon + A higher power (Government taking over)+ An agenda of the highest put into motion (sustainable development)='s a product of Agenda 21--
You know what else is a little on the ridiculous side--
You can't return any kind of merchandise anymore (even tho you paid cash and have a receipt) without being hassled for your id.
Folks already have a stack of catalogs overflowing in the magazine rack to begin with that most times they never even look at but maybe once.
Why is it so darn important to know if we use Puffs or Kleenex?
This thread has gotten pretty long, I wonder if it's the longest thread here?
Like I said, it is not "the guv'mint" (any "guv'mint") that worries me here. "Guv'mints" generally know how to deal with secret information ...
(Because, to them, generally everything is some kind of "secret" ... that way you don't know what they're spending your money on! )
... but vast amounts of information, including exactly where (within ±7 feet or so) you, or at least your phone, are standing rightnow, is being "promiscuously captured" by private companies who have no suitable data-security practices at all. And who, in my view, have utterly no reason to be holding "such profoundly-sensitive data" atall.
We know that Ed Snowden walked out of a top-secret installation, because he was disgusted with what he found there, and he basically did it to make an extremely important point. But, never-mind Ed. He's not our biggest problem right now.
Somewhere out there, there's a shleb who's being paid to be a data-analyst, and he's a good one, but, unbeknownst to anyone around him, he's got a coal-black heart. In fact, he has no heart at all. But he has no criminal record ... yet. He's got access to "all that data" because he legitimately needs it to do his job. Unfortunately for you, he's just not a nice guy.
That's the easiest scenario to deal with . . . it goes downhill very rapidly from there.
The threat that I am speaking of here is entirely credible. I hate to say "it's merely a matter of time," but.
And that's precisely why I think that now is the time for us, within this industry, to drag our heads out of the sand-dunes and start mashing the fire-alarms everywhere we can find them to mash. This level of data-access isn't justifiable, and it profoundly isn't safe.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-22-2014 at 06:37 AM.
FWIW the reaction has already begun. There are now things that my bank will not do online or over the phone. I have to go in, in person. What a concept!
Speaking of banks, it seems to be all-the-rage right now that banks should let you do banking of all kinds on your cell-phone ... including, for instance, photographing a check in order to deposit it. Someone seems to have forgotten that (a) a portable phone is neither a secure nor a securable device, and that (b) a customer is not a trusted-employee.
This, to me, is exactly the same kind of "promiscuous foolhardiness" that we see when people (generally, unknowingly) share their so-called private worlds with the world ... only, this time, in reverse. Banks, who of all companies ought to know a little about data security and accountability, seem to be throwing caution to the winds. And the only reason I can think of for doing it is that maybe someone hopes thereby to be able to get rid of "expensive" bank tellers?
Speaking of banks, it seems to be all-the-rage right now that banks should let you do banking of all kinds on your cell-phone ... including, for instance, photographing a check in order to deposit it. Someone seems to have forgotten that (a) a portable phone is neither a secure nor a securable device, and that (b) a customer is not a trusted-employee.
This, to me, is exactly the same kind of "promiscuous foolhardiness" that we see when people (generally, unknowingly) share their so-called private worlds with the world ... only, this time, in reverse. Banks, who of all companies ought to know a little about data security and accountability, seem to be throwing caution to the winds. And the only reason I can think of for doing it is that maybe someone hopes thereby to be able to get rid of "expensive" bank tellers?
Speaking of accountability HSBC denied customers what they wanted to withdrawl.
The bank explained that the customer would have to show proof or receipts.
One lady had to show the bank her invoices/quotes in regard to the work that a Contractor/Builder completed on her home. If this isn't calling the kettle black and overstepping boundaries than I don't know what is-
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
))) first! And, please don't shoot at me before running me down. 
