Re: The morality of operating system security

From	Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de>
Newsgroups	alt.os.development
Subject	Re: The morality of operating system security
Date	2016-04-01 18:25 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ndm77l$b09$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<nde25k$bkn$1@dont-email.me> <ndehme$24s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <ndhljn$7d5$1@dont-email.me> <ndjgkk$eum$2@dont-email.me> <ndl6q3$u0v$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

James Harris wrote:

> On 31/03/2016 16:47, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/03/2016 19:01, wolfgang kern wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If Apple would give up, then we all become victims to everyone who like
>>>> to see us in an unprotected world like MSN or Google...
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. You can drink a glass of water without drowning and
>>> you can open data to designated
>>> security services without letting everyone have access. No?
>>
>> No. Those who want to commit crimes have opportunities to
>> hide their masterplans from the eyes of companies as well
>> as from any secret service, but all "average people" with
>> no criminal background will lose a piece of their freedom
>> and privacy. Buying safety comes at the cost of giving up
>> your freedom.
>
> I would counter that by saying that - at least in the free world - the security services are not
> interested in "average people" so we would not lose our privacy. This is not the Stasi.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
>
> That said, an OS can be used by people suffering under repressive regimes.
>
> And, if a benevolent government can get into an OS maybe a repressive one can too. It may be
> impossible to allow, say, the Austrian government to access data without also preventing the North
> Koreans from accessing the same data.

http://tinyurl.com/ndh5y68
http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/nsa-surveillance-exposed/
http://tinyurl.com/mgsuu4z

And these guys are claiming to be the good ones. Now: Imagine
what a(ny) government might do with the collected data. It is
not a question of "if these data were used", it is a question
of "when will the first bureauctrat (ab)use these data". Have
a look at the news, and you will know we *crossed* this point
a long time ago.

They always know where you are and what you're doing, and the
latest gadgets like "smart watches" provide even more control
over those who follow "hypes" without thinking: With personal
data (like your heartbeat) they can calculate if you're doing
allowed things or if you are going to do something illegal (a
good evaluation software can interpret data like an increased
pulse and predict what a person is doing with high accuracy).

I'm surely no one who believes in urban legends or conspiracy
theories - I prefer knowledge over beliefs and speculations -
but we should walk around with open eyes and see the obvious.
It's not about secret societies, it is about human nature and
logical thinking: As long as there is a faint chance to abuse
something, there will be someone who takes this chance sooner
or later...

>> LEWER DOOD AS SLAAV
>>
>> (Better dead than slave...)
>
> :-(
>
> That is not the choice!

Maybe not your's. This sentence is part of *some* old Frisian
emblems. I could not find pages with English translation, so:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liewer_d%C3%BCd_a%C3%9F_Slaawe

"The motto *LEWER DOOD AS SLAAV* (umlaut-free version) is a
  Frisian political motto from the 19th century.

  ..."

For myself - I really preferred death over a life as property
of someone else. It is the European dream to live our life in
dignity and enjoy our freedom, isn't it?

Have a nice weekend!

Bernhard Schornak

Thread

The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 15:09 +0100
  Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-30 00:03 +0700
    Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 19:39 +0200
    Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:54 +0100
      Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-31 06:16 +0700
  Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 20:01 +0200
    Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:59 +0100
      Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-31 17:47 +0200
        Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:11 +0100
          Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-01 18:25 +0200
            Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 23:10 +0100
              Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-02 14:18 +0200
      Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-04-01 09:58 +0200
        Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 10:06 +0100
  Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-29 17:39 -0400
    Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:13 +0100
      Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-30 23:18 -0400
        Re: The morality of operating system security "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:31 -0700
          Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-31 16:57 -0400
        Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 09:22 +0100
          Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 20:24 -0400
            Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 18:25 +0100
              Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-09 18:57 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 09:07 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:01 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 00:05 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:55 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:00 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 17:02 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-05 17:55 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-05-09 14:58 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-12 17:46 -0400
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:11 +0100
                Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:44 +0100

csiph-web