Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #26457 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> - 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-16 21:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 23:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 09:26 -0800
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-17 22:23 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:20 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-19 07:32 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-02-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:10 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:23 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 17:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:29 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 05:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:34 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 10:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 23:12 +0100
OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:31 -0300
Re: OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-27 21:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:48 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 06:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 13:39 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 22:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 17:54 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:16 +0100
education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:55 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 22:00 -0300
Re: education Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-08 03:47 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 18:27 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-09 02:08 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 02:58 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-10 18:38 +0000
Re: education cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:13 +0000
Re: education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:30 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:17 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-25 19:12 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 02:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-26 09:06 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 18:09 -0400
the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:46 -0300
Re: the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-27 03:31 -0400
Re: the command line is language Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:10 -0300
Re: the command line is language D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:38 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 22:34 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 18:50 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:11 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:18 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:04 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 18:53 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:16 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 12:36 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:07 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:05 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 15:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:31 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-02 12:34 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-26 12:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:38 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:55 -0300
Re: more on broken schools kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:00 -0500
OT: a personal note to Stefan Ram (Was: Re: more on broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 09:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:03 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:30 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:43 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:33 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:00 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:50 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:46 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:05 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-14 23:46 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:43 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-17 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 17:06 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:32 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:34 +0100
fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 13:18 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:53 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:23 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:10 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:09 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:41 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:32 +0100
UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:10 -0300
Re: UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:54 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 09:08 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:09 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:17 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-16 00:03 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 10:50 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 16:26 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> - 2025-03-21 19:53 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-21 23:37 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:34 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 21:49 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-26 23:24 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-29 22:31 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:40 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-22 10:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-25 17:40 -0400
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 23:04 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Charles Dagny <1800@DEV.NULL> - 2025-03-28 21:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-10 15:06 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-11 11:58 -0300
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-11 15:49 +0042
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 15:25 +0000
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-11 16:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 17:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-12 22:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-12 23:23 +0042
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-13 20:40 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:04 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 21:26 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:23 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 01:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-12 01:38 -0300
Re: UNIX systems snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-03-12 14:03 +0000
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-12 22:19 +0100
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-11 19:09 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-04 02:44 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2025-03-04 17:50 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:56 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:45 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:02 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:01 +0100
broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:46 -0300
Re: broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:18 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:34 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:38 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300
Re: broken schools yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-18 03:00 +0000
Re: broken schools Eva Lu <evalu@tor.soy> - 2025-03-18 21:20 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 11:17 +0100
OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-19 13:51 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-19 23:20 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 11:52 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-23 00:31 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:50 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-01 16:43 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-04 11:20 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-06 23:17 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-10 15:19 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-12 21:05 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-13 13:10 -0300
lifestyles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:20 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:40 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:57 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-17 18:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 00:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-18 00:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 01:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:27 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:07 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:35 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:31 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:06 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 13:48 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 14:05 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:14 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:47 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 22:12 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:15 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:04 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:21 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:46 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-25 14:20 +0300
small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:57 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:49 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-02-26 13:50 +0042
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:13 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:41 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:33 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:12 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:03 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:51 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:49 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-22 17:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-23 00:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:49 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:24 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:28 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 21:58 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:26 +0100
OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 11:58 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:04 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:49 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 00:43 +0042
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:46 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:45 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:37 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-25 13:17 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
| From | Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy |
| Message-ID | <67b21894$14$17$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
From the «doom I say» department: Title: Nearly 10 years after Data and Goliath, Bruce Schneier says: Privacy’s still screwed Author: Iain Thomson Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:44:13 +0000 Link: https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/02/15/interview_bruce_schneier/ 'In 50 years, I think we'll view these business practices like we view sweatshops today' Interview It has been nearly a decade since famed cryptographer and privacy expert Bruce Schneier released the book Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World - an examination of how government agencies and tech giants exploit personal data. Today, his predictions feel eerily accurate.…
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 21:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <28416cc3-e819-886a-4025-2b2588f88663@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26457 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Retrograde wrote: > From the «doom I say» department: > Title: Nearly 10 years after Data and Goliath, Bruce Schneier says: Privacy’s still screwed > Author: Iain Thomson > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:44:13 +0000 > Link: https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/02/15/interview_bruce_schneier/ > > 'In 50 years, I think we'll view these business practices like we view > sweatshops today' > > Interview It has been nearly a decade since famed cryptographer and privacy > expert Bruce Schneier released the book Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to > Collect Your Data and Control Your World - an examination of how government > agencies and tech giants exploit personal data. Today, his predictions feel > eerily accurate.… > Yes, it is difficult to be optimistic about privacy in this day and age. =(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 23:55 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87a5ale0vg.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26458 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Retrograde wrote: > >> From the «doom I say» department: >> Title: Nearly 10 years after Data and Goliath, Bruce Schneier says: Privacy’s still screwed >> Author: Iain Thomson >> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:44:13 +0000 >> Link: https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/02/15/interview_bruce_schneier/ >> >> 'In 50 years, I think we'll view these business practices like we view >> sweatshops today' >> >> Interview It has been nearly a decade since famed cryptographer and privacy >> expert Bruce Schneier released the book Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to >> Collect Your Data and Control Your World - an examination of how government >> agencies and tech giants exploit personal data. Today, his predictions feel >> eerily accurate.… >> > > Yes, it is difficult to be optimistic about privacy in this day and > age. =( Legislation has always been slow. The industry has always taken advantage of that. We just need to say no---if we knew how to. Optimistically, we'll get there, but, of course, by then the industry will most likely have found another niche somewhere else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-17 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0310a638-3153-f886-5206-9bc8453c1f8e@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26462 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> writes: > >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Retrograde wrote: >> >>> From the «doom I say» department: >>> Title: Nearly 10 years after Data and Goliath, Bruce Schneier says: Privacy’s still screwed >>> Author: Iain Thomson >>> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:44:13 +0000 >>> Link: https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/02/15/interview_bruce_schneier/ >>> >>> 'In 50 years, I think we'll view these business practices like we view >>> sweatshops today' >>> >>> Interview It has been nearly a decade since famed cryptographer and privacy >>> expert Bruce Schneier released the book Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to >>> Collect Your Data and Control Your World - an examination of how government >>> agencies and tech giants exploit personal data. Today, his predictions feel >>> eerily accurate.… >>> >> >> Yes, it is difficult to be optimistic about privacy in this day and >> age. =( > > Legislation has always been slow. The industry has always taken > advantage of that. We just need to say no---if we knew how to. > Optimistically, we'll get there, but, of course, by then the industry > will most likely have found another niche somewhere else. > I'm more scared about the government than the industry. With industry I always have the choice of not using it, and they depend on customers, so in the end, that protects me. The government on the other hand, is based ultimately on violence and is an inherently unethical and revolting institution, and so are the people working for it promoting its power. This is what scares me the most.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-17 09:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <RiKsP.173075$l629.51307@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #26465 |
D wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >> D <nospam@example.net> writes: >> >>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Retrograde wrote: >>> >>>> From the «doom I say» department: >>>> Title: Nearly 10 years after Data and Goliath, Bruce Schneier says: >>>> Privacy’s still screwed >>>> Author: Iain Thomson >>>> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:44:13 +0000 >>>> Link: >>>> https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/02/15/interview_bruce_schneier/ >>>> >>>> >>>> 'In 50 years, I think we'll view these business practices like we view >>>> sweatshops today' >>>> >>>> Interview It has been nearly a decade since famed cryptographer and >>>> privacy >>>> expert Bruce Schneier released the book Data and Goliath: The Hidden >>>> Battles to >>>> Collect Your Data and Control Your World - an examination of how >>>> government >>>> agencies and tech giants exploit personal data. Today, his >>>> predictions feel >>>> eerily accurate.… >>>> >>> >>> Yes, it is difficult to be optimistic about privacy in this day and >>> age. =( >> >> Legislation has always been slow. The industry has always taken >> advantage of that. We just need to say no---if we knew how to. >> Optimistically, we'll get there, but, of course, by then the industry >> will most likely have found another niche somewhere else. >> > > I'm more scared about the government than the industry. With industry I > always have the choice of not using it, and they depend on customers, so > in the end, that protects me. It's got pretty hard to avoid some of these businesses. Google, Facebook, Microsoft are examples of companies that are very hard to avoid. > > The government on the other hand, is based ultimately on violence and is > an inherently unethical and revolting institution, and so are the people > working for it promoting its power. This is what scares me the most. What scares me is companies using the power of government to advance their agendas. Reading about how Musk leverages the Chinese courts to silence criticism and how it looks like the same thing is coming here Dave.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-17 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ae0c61cc-9814-04ab-75d4-f8d4cacdc9cd@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26467 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Dave Yeo wrote: > D wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> >>> D <nospam@example.net> writes: >>> >>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, Retrograde wrote: >>>> >>>>> From the «doom I say» department: >>>>> Title: Nearly 10 years after Data and Goliath, Bruce Schneier says: >>>>> Privacy’s still screwed >>>>> Author: Iain Thomson >>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:44:13 +0000 >>>>> Link: >>>>> https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/02/15/interview_bruce_schneier/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 'In 50 years, I think we'll view these business practices like we view >>>>> sweatshops today' >>>>> >>>>> Interview It has been nearly a decade since famed cryptographer and >>>>> privacy >>>>> expert Bruce Schneier released the book Data and Goliath: The Hidden >>>>> Battles to >>>>> Collect Your Data and Control Your World - an examination of how >>>>> government >>>>> agencies and tech giants exploit personal data. Today, his >>>>> predictions feel >>>>> eerily accurate.… >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, it is difficult to be optimistic about privacy in this day and >>>> age. =( >>> >>> Legislation has always been slow. The industry has always taken >>> advantage of that. We just need to say no---if we knew how to. >>> Optimistically, we'll get there, but, of course, by then the industry >>> will most likely have found another niche somewhere else. >>> >> >> I'm more scared about the government than the industry. With industry I >> always have the choice of not using it, and they depend on customers, so >> in the end, that protects me. > > It's got pretty hard to avoid some of these businesses. Google, Facebook, > Microsoft are examples of companies that are very hard to avoid. ? Facebook is super easy to avoid. Just don't use it. They make nothing of value. If you have a job at a global mega-corp I agree, M$ and Google are difficult to avoid. =( In private you can do just fine to avoid them as well. There is libreoffice which takes care of all your office needs, and there's graphene os, dumbphones and kaios which eliminates the need for an android phone. >> >> The government on the other hand, is based ultimately on violence and is >> an inherently unethical and revolting institution, and so are the people >> working for it promoting its power. This is what scares me the most. > > What scares me is companies using the power of government to advance their > agendas. Reading about how Musk leverages the Chinese courts to silence > criticism and how it looks like the same thing is coming here > Dave. I agree... this unholy combination is the worst of all! It is difficult to say where the government starts and where the company ends. They merge into one demon from hell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-17 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vp0csc$kak$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26471 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, >> It's got pretty hard to avoid some of these businesses. Google, Facebook, >> Microsoft are examples of companies that are very hard to avoid. > >? Facebook is super easy to avoid. Just don't use it. They make nothing of >value. It doesn't work that way. First of all, even if you don't use it, people are putting your personal information up on it when they are talking to their friends about you. Secondly, if you are running a business, you may need to have a facebook presence for advertising just because that is the first place that many people look for some services. You can avoid using it but not without losing a lot of customers. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 10:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4aaca412-c852-0653-ce50-920562b02886@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26475 |
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, >>> It's got pretty hard to avoid some of these businesses. Google, Facebook, >>> Microsoft are examples of companies that are very hard to avoid. >> >> ? Facebook is super easy to avoid. Just don't use it. They make nothing of >> value. > > It doesn't work that way. First of all, even if you don't use it, people > are putting your personal information up on it when they are talking to > their friends about you. This I addressed in another post. > Secondly, if you are running a business, you may need to have a facebook > presence for advertising just because that is the first place that many > people look for some services. You can avoid using it but not without > losing a lot of customers. Or not. I've asked marketing to prove their claims for decades in the global IT corporation space, and zero times have they been able to do it. A lot of "I have to be on X" (pun intended!) is just FOMO. If you're a small local shop, and do a good job, your customers will do your marketing job for you. Actually not having a FB page, could be more powerful than having one, since it adds a bit of mystique, artisanship and secrecy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-19 07:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67b4fc88@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #26471 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Dave Yeo wrote: >> It's got pretty hard to avoid some of these businesses. Google, Facebook, >> Microsoft are examples of companies that are very hard to avoid. > > ? Facebook is super easy to avoid. Just don't use it. They make nothing of > value. Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. > If you have a job at a global mega-corp I agree, M$ and Google are > difficult to avoid. =( > > In private you can do just fine to avoid them as well. No, Google can track you via their Captchas, which I guess even many NoScript users allow by default because the three page reloads to let them through when a website requires it is a real pain in the neck. Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 23:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$2502181846@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #26488 |
In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on > otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close > friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting photos of you on there.) > Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source > software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned > by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now > very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and > especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely > unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in 2018. Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to Codeberg. I started using it recently, but haven't moved my old projects there, at least yet. Elijah ------ doesn't use public repositories for much anyway
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-19 09:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <34090a5d-bb61-26da-d430-5bc10cb8dfe9@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26489 |
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, Eli the Bearded wrote: > In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. > > Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting > photos of you on there.) That's an absurd argument. In no world, in no universe can you reasonably expect people to not talk about you, think about you, write about you, if they so choose. Publishing photos and videos of you, without your consent, on the other hand, is illegal, and can be punished severely. I have on several occasions asked web sites to remove information about me, sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't. I found a workaround by de-registering myself from the country I live in, and this removed my data from a hueg nr of linked systems. Then I can just live as a non-registered person, and that works quite alright to be honest. >> Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source >> software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned >> by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now >> very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and >> especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely >> unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. > > Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in > 2018. Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to > Codeberg. I started using it recently, but haven't moved my old projects > there, at least yet. You are a good man! > Elijah > ------ > doesn't use public repositories for much anyway >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-06 07:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cxFzokWeW10f9QT5@violet.siamics.net> |
| In reply to | #26493 |
>>>>> On 2025-02-19, D wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, Eli the Bearded wrote: >>>>> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. >> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, >> posting photos of you on there.) > That's an absurd argument. In no world, in no universe can you > reasonably expect people to not talk about you, think about you, > write about you, if they so choose. Such worlds and universes are perhaps imaginable, but so far as I can tell, they aren't ones we're living in. > Publishing photos and videos of you, without your consent, on the > other hand, is illegal, and can be punished severely. I'm an amateur photographer myself, and this runs contrary to what I know about relevant legislation. My understanding is that, basically, there're two reasonable grounds to object against photography: * privacy; for example, photographying a person in a restroom without their explicit consent is likely to be deemed illegal (under "reasonable expectations of privacy"); * property; if an owner can decide who can or cannot enter, they can also decide who can or cannot photograph there. Photographying a person in a public place, as a rule, will be deemed legal, and so will be distributing the photographs. About the only exception I can think of would be exploiting the likeness of an /identifiable/ person for profit, such as using a close-up of someone for an ad. This applies to distribution specifically, however, not to being allowed to take a photo. Same goes for photographying someone's property /from/ a public place, such as photographying someone's house from the street. With regards to workplace, unless being photographed is part of your contract, your employer may /request/ your photograph (including for their webpage), but can't require you to provide one. (Though if they cannot issue you a company photo ID and hence allow you to be on your assigned workplace during working hours, well, tough luck.) Said employer would have the right to allow photography on the premises, but is ought to inform the employees about this in advance, allowing those unwilling to opt out from being photographed. There's a relevant article on Wikipedia; and a web search provides for further reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law http://duckduckgo.com/html/?kd=-1&q=photography+and+privacy+rights
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-07 20:44 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <878qpgiex6.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26493 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, Eli the Bearded wrote: > >> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. >> >> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting >> photos of you on there.) > > That's an absurd argument. In no world, in no universe can you > reasonably expect people to not talk about you, think about you, write > about you, if they so choose. > > Publishing photos and videos of you, without your consent, on the > other hand, is illegal, and can be punished severely. I have on > several occasions asked web sites to remove information about me, > sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't. I found a workaround by > de-registering myself from the country I live in, and this removed my > data from a hueg nr of linked systems. > > Then I can just live as a non-registered person, and that works quite > alright to be honest. Nice hack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-08 23:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3bb9a732-cbae-7e4b-3922-6e9bbbdc4625@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26826 |
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> writes: > >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, Eli the Bearded wrote: >> >>> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >>>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >>>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. >>> >>> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting >>> photos of you on there.) >> >> That's an absurd argument. In no world, in no universe can you >> reasonably expect people to not talk about you, think about you, write >> about you, if they so choose. >> >> Publishing photos and videos of you, without your consent, on the >> other hand, is illegal, and can be punished severely. I have on >> several occasions asked web sites to remove information about me, >> sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't. I found a workaround by >> de-registering myself from the country I live in, and this removed my >> data from a hueg nr of linked systems. >> >> Then I can just live as a non-registered person, and that works quite >> alright to be honest. > > Nice hack. Thank you! =) It does have its drawbacks of course, when it comes to health care which is either expensive, or slow (I have to travel back to the country I am written in), but at my age it is definitely worth it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 08:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67b659f8@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #26489 |
Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote: > In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. > > Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting > photos of you on there.) What I don't tell, they can't post, and the same with what they don't photograph. Although I guess that does leave a bit of an information vacuum there which some nutcase could exploit to make up missing personal info/photos on me if they so desired. >> Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source >> software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned >> by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now >> very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and >> especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely >> unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. > > Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in > 2018. For software projects I use, many more seem to have moved to there since 2018 than before. You'd think they like the M$ acquisition. Occasionally I object and am ignored. > Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to > Codeberg. I don't know about Codeberg, but there have been lots of alternatives all along. Tons of projects switched from SourceForge to GitHub. Many projects have their own websites too, so why not self-host? GitHub do offer a lot of extra features for free, but that's dealing with the devil IMHO. Especially as the more tied in to GitHub-specific systems a project gets, the less practical it is to move away if M$ get more greedy later on. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-19 22:22 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87tt8pjtq8.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26498 |
not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes: [...] >> Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to >> Codeberg. > > I don't know about Codeberg, but there have been lots of > alternatives all along. Tons of projects switched from SourceForge > to GitHub. Many projects have their own websites too, so why not > self-host? GitHub do offer a lot of extra features for free, but > that's dealing with the devil IMHO. Especially as the more tied in > to GitHub-specific systems a project gets, the less practical it is > to move away if M$ get more greedy later on. We have no idea what the future of Github will be, so it's time to stop investing on it. I think we really need to produce software (and entire systems) that we can use on a peer-to-peer basis. Instead of Github or Codeberg, I think we need to create a web of Forgejo, Gitea et cetera. Similarly, NNTP servers and IRC servers instead of Discord et cetera. I think the best things we've done have been decentralized. I know that this grass roots things never look as shiny as the commercial ones, but I'm certain that they're much better in the relevant aspects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 15:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bf5148ef-af79-b5e5-0c95-3c3da83cbd67@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26498 |
On Wed, 20 Feb 2025, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote: >> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. >> >> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting >> photos of you on there.) > > What I don't tell, they can't post, and the same with what they > don't photograph. Although I guess that does leave a bit of an > information vacuum there which some nutcase could exploit to make > up missing personal info/photos on me if they so desired. > >>> Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source >>> software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned >>> by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now >>> very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and >>> especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely >>> unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. >> >> Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in >> 2018. > > For software projects I use, many more seem to have moved to there > since 2018 than before. You'd think they like the M$ acquisition. > Occasionally I object and am ignored. You have been heard! I will not be hosting my stuff on github. On the other hand, I have nothing interesting to host, so perhaps a moot point. ;) My home made scripts and little utilities live on my laptop and sometimes on my server, and are shared upon request. >> Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to >> Codeberg. > > I don't know about Codeberg, but there have been lots of > alternatives all along. Tons of projects switched from SourceForge > to GitHub. Many projects have their own websites too, so why not > self-host? GitHub do offer a lot of extra features for free, but > that's dealing with the devil IMHO. Especially as the more tied in > to GitHub-specific systems a project gets, the less practical it is > to move away if M$ get more greedy later on. I have heard about gitea. It seems as if it allows you to setup graphical git hosting yourself. I personally use a fossil repository accessible only over ssh. I don't use any of the wiki/ticket/chat functionality included in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 17:59 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mseggwo1.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26518 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2025, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote: >>> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >>>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >>>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. >>> >>> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting >>> photos of you on there.) >> >> What I don't tell, they can't post, and the same with what they >> don't photograph. Although I guess that does leave a bit of an >> information vacuum there which some nutcase could exploit to make >> up missing personal info/photos on me if they so desired. >> >>>> Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source >>>> software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned >>>> by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now >>>> very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and >>>> especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely >>>> unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. >>> >>> Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in >>> 2018. >> >> For software projects I use, many more seem to have moved to there >> since 2018 than before. You'd think they like the M$ acquisition. >> Occasionally I object and am ignored. > > You have been heard! I will not be hosting my stuff on github. On the > other hand, I have nothing interesting to host, so perhaps a moot > point. ;) My home made scripts and little utilities live on my laptop > and sometimes on my server, and are shared upon request. I think most little scripts should be documented (with a manual) and put online. It will make it easier for others to use and it will certainly encourage others to improve it and share the improvement. So you could see your little script turn into a nice polished program simply because someone saw the idea and knew what to do to make it a lot better. Could be a good source of joy. One time I wrote a function---just a function---and added to some archive online. This was a pretty niche programming language. Years later, I looked it up---I was still called the author of the function, but the code was completely rewritten, with much more expertise knowledge. I thought it was ironic that my name was still there. We value the pioneer perhaps too much. >>> Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to >>> Codeberg. >> >> I don't know about Codeberg, but there have been lots of >> alternatives all along. Tons of projects switched from SourceForge >> to GitHub. Many projects have their own websites too, so why not >> self-host? GitHub do offer a lot of extra features for free, but >> that's dealing with the devil IMHO. Especially as the more tied in >> to GitHub-specific systems a project gets, the less practical it is >> to move away if M$ get more greedy later on. > > I have heard about gitea. It seems as if it allows you to setup > graphical git hosting yourself. I personally use a fossil repository > accessible only over ssh. I don't use any of the wiki/ticket/chat > functionality included in it. There's Forgejo, too. It looks very good. Like in Github, you can disable all such modules---wiki, ticket system et cetera.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 18:01 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87frk8gwji.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26527 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> writes: > D <nospam@example.net> writes: > >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2025, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> >>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote: >>>> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >>>>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >>>>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. >>>> >>>> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting >>>> photos of you on there.) >>> >>> What I don't tell, they can't post, and the same with what they >>> don't photograph. Although I guess that does leave a bit of an >>> information vacuum there which some nutcase could exploit to make >>> up missing personal info/photos on me if they so desired. >>> >>>>> Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source >>>>> software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned >>>>> by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now >>>>> very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and >>>>> especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely >>>>> unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. >>>> >>>> Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in >>>> 2018. >>> >>> For software projects I use, many more seem to have moved to there >>> since 2018 than before. You'd think they like the M$ acquisition. >>> Occasionally I object and am ignored. >> >> You have been heard! I will not be hosting my stuff on github. On the >> other hand, I have nothing interesting to host, so perhaps a moot >> point. ;) My home made scripts and little utilities live on my laptop >> and sometimes on my server, and are shared upon request. > > I think most little scripts should be documented (with a manual) and put > online. It will make it easier for others to use and it will certainly > encourage others to improve it and share the improvement. So you could > see your little script turn into a nice polished program simply because > someone saw the idea and knew what to do to make it a lot better. Could > be a good source of joy. > > One time I wrote a function---just a function---and added to some > archive online. This was a pretty niche programming language. Years > later, I looked it up---I was still called the author of the function, > but the code was completely rewritten, with much more expertise > knowledge. I thought it was ironic that my name was still there. We > value the pioneer perhaps too much. > >>>> Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to >>>> Codeberg. >>> >>> I don't know about Codeberg, but there have been lots of >>> alternatives all along. Tons of projects switched from SourceForge >>> to GitHub. Many projects have their own websites too, so why not >>> self-host? GitHub do offer a lot of extra features for free, but >>> that's dealing with the devil IMHO. Especially as the more tied in >>> to GitHub-specific systems a project gets, the less practical it is >>> to move away if M$ get more greedy later on. >> >> I have heard about gitea. It seems as if it allows you to setup >> graphical git hosting yourself. I personally use a fossil repository >> accessible only over ssh. I don't use any of the wiki/ticket/chat >> functionality included in it. > > There's Forgejo, too. It looks very good. Like in Github, you can > disable all such modules---wiki, ticket system et cetera. Sorry---you'd have to switch to git. I don't think Gitea or Forgejo work with fossil. But fossil has its own web server, so you'd be fine with it, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 22:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <05f9e6d7-ae71-d73e-9244-2638790780ef@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26528 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> writes: > >> D <nospam@example.net> writes: >> >>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2025, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> >>>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote: >>>>> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on >>>>>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close >>>>>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage. >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting >>>>> photos of you on there.) >>>> >>>> What I don't tell, they can't post, and the same with what they >>>> don't photograph. Although I guess that does leave a bit of an >>>> information vacuum there which some nutcase could exploit to make >>>> up missing personal info/photos on me if they so desired. >>>> >>>>>> Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source >>>>>> software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned >>>>>> by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now >>>>>> very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and >>>>>> especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely >>>>>> unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it. >>>>> >>>>> Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in >>>>> 2018. >>>> >>>> For software projects I use, many more seem to have moved to there >>>> since 2018 than before. You'd think they like the M$ acquisition. >>>> Occasionally I object and am ignored. >>> >>> You have been heard! I will not be hosting my stuff on github. On the >>> other hand, I have nothing interesting to host, so perhaps a moot >>> point. ;) My home made scripts and little utilities live on my laptop >>> and sometimes on my server, and are shared upon request. >> >> I think most little scripts should be documented (with a manual) and put >> online. It will make it easier for others to use and it will certainly >> encourage others to improve it and share the improvement. So you could >> see your little script turn into a nice polished program simply because >> someone saw the idea and knew what to do to make it a lot better. Could >> be a good source of joy. >> >> One time I wrote a function---just a function---and added to some >> archive online. This was a pretty niche programming language. Years >> later, I looked it up---I was still called the author of the function, >> but the code was completely rewritten, with much more expertise >> knowledge. I thought it was ironic that my name was still there. We >> value the pioneer perhaps too much. >> >>>>> Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to >>>>> Codeberg. >>>> >>>> I don't know about Codeberg, but there have been lots of >>>> alternatives all along. Tons of projects switched from SourceForge >>>> to GitHub. Many projects have their own websites too, so why not >>>> self-host? GitHub do offer a lot of extra features for free, but >>>> that's dealing with the devil IMHO. Especially as the more tied in >>>> to GitHub-specific systems a project gets, the less practical it is >>>> to move away if M$ get more greedy later on. >>> >>> I have heard about gitea. It seems as if it allows you to setup >>> graphical git hosting yourself. I personally use a fossil repository >>> accessible only over ssh. I don't use any of the wiki/ticket/chat >>> functionality included in it. >> >> There's Forgejo, too. It looks very good. Like in Github, you can >> disable all such modules---wiki, ticket system et cetera. > > Sorry---you'd have to switch to git. I don't think Gitea or Forgejo > work with fossil. But fossil has its own web server, so you'd be fine > with it, too. > This is the truth. I'm a contrarian kind of guy, so when the world goes git, I go fossil. ;) Jokes aside, I like the concept of one binary and how it works for my own personal use case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web