Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.development > #9376

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 2016-04-02 14:18 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <ndod4d$biu$4@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <ndhljn$7d5$1@dont-email.me> <ndjgkk$eum$2@dont-email.me> <ndl6q3$u0v$1@dont-email.me> <ndm77l$b09$2@dont-email.me> <ndmrf7$tu1$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

James Harris wrote:


> On 01/04/2016 17:25, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>> James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/03/2016 16:47, Bernhard Schornak wrote:
>>>> James Harris wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ndh5y68
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/nsa-surveillance-exposed/
>> http://tinyurl.com/mgsuu4z
>
> Thanks. The first and last links were interesting.
>
> I don't mind the NSA or the UK police getting tracking records for my phone. But I don't want
> Microsoft or Google or any commercial company to know how where my phone goes and when.
> Unfortunately, AIUI, they do, and I expect they use it for commercial profiling.


I do not like if *anyone* tries to track me or my neighbors or
anybody else. Technologies enabling governments to track their
citicens are not developed by the government. In general, most
technologies (including software!) are developed by commercial
companies who want to generate profit with their products. The
most profits can be made with virtual wares like tracking data
of a representative quantity collected from all social classes
populating the country. I bet the big IT companies have a much
denser sieve collecting *much more* data than governments ever
can collect. Data will replace money in the long term.


>>>> „LEWER DOOD AS SLAAV“
>>>>
>>>> (Better dead than slave...)
>>>
>>> :-(
>>>
>>> That is not the choice!
>>
>>
>> Maybe not your's.
>
> ...
>
>> 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?
>
> As said, I don't want commercial companies getting personal profiling data but I don't mind my
> government's security services getting it.
>
> For me, the choice is not between death and slavery (that is far too melodramatic) but it is a
> choice between privacy and safety. I don't mind us losing some privacy (to very specific
> governmental agencies only) if it will help to keep us safe.
>
> This is one of those false choices. People ask if we are willing to have the government access our
> private data. What they don't mention is the limits on what they can see or who can see it, or that
> most of us are totally uninteresting to the security services.
>
> Nor do they mention how it helps protect us from lethal threats - and also, for that matter, helps
> protect us from legitimate fear of danger so that we can go about our lives without worrying about
> where trouble is to strike next.
>
> IIRC they said that _ten_ terror attacks were prevented last year in the UK due to intelligence
> gathering. How would we feel if there had, instead, been ten terrorist attacks?
>
> That's a long way of explaining why I say that, to me, the choice is nothing at all to do with
> slavery(!) but is between privacy and safety.


Wrong. The Belgian autorities and police *got* information and
warnings about planned attacks from secret services and police
of several countries. Nevertheless, they ignored that evidence
and watched how those plans were fulfilled.

As long as we live in democratic countries (in accordance with
the rule of law), we have to obey our laws and cannot allow to
observe and track citicens without enactment of an independent
judge. I'm pretty sure no judge ever enacted the "data mining"
of the NSA or equivalent services in Europe. Safety is the one
face of the coin, breaking laws the other one. We cannot claim
to be the good ones as long as we do not respect our own laws,
and we cannot demand that terrorists have to obey our law when
we do not obey its rules ourselves.

I agree to observe those who act in a suspiciuos way, if there
is evidence they plan any criminal acts. I never will agree to
observe the entire population and collect all data we can get,
because these data *might* become handy if we want to look for
criminal acts (including terrorist attacks).

Allowing data preservation for entire countries turns the rule
of "General Presumption Of Innocence" into "General Suspicion"
(Generalverdacht). I don't think anyone wants such a thing: It
undermines our rights and assumes everyone is a criminal until
the accused can provide evidence s/he is innocent (exactly the
opposite of the rule of law practised in civilised countries).


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

Back to alt.os.development | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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