On November 2, 2004 13:25, Ian Bruseker wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:48:03 -0700, Kevin Anderson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So what kind of food you prefer, which restaurants and frequency will all > > be there for marketing purposes. > > Which can also be found out by analyzing my credit card and debit card > usage. Nothing new here.
which is why there ought to be tighter privacy reigns put on these companies too. just because it's bad in more places than one doesn't make them all good. > > Frequency of your workouts. Do you do it at home, or away from home. > > Stuff like that. > > Or they could just watch me walk into the Talisman Centre and know it > that way. Again, hardly private information. If someone was really > out to get me they'd really be out to get me, tailing me around and > all that. I'm just not that paranoid. the cost of Google following everyone around makes it impractical. sorting through digital text is very practical. cost effective even. and very salable. > Do you have a Safeway Club card? An > Airmiles card? A store brand credit card like Canadian Tire or the > Bay? no, no and no. why? same reason i won't use GMail/Hotmail/etc: i respect my privacy. > Then that information's already been collected. Too late. If > you don't and you pay cash for absolutely everything and live off the > grid, well then I don't believe you because you have an email address > so you are so on the grid. :-) "You've already been collated, it's too late, just accept it." Not only is that defeatist, it's a lie we are told by the companies who are increasingly collecting our data. go back 10, 15, 30 and 50 years and take a look at the privacy differences. it's all reversible, and without getting rid of the "grid" > > But nobody follows this, nor should they need to if they choose more > > private information repositories to start with. > > But I do follow this. :-) And yes, they would still need to follow > this with their so-called "private" email accounts on, say, Shaw. You > would honestly send personal information in an email just because yu > thought it wasn't going to be stored on a webmail server? It's not > about where it's stored, it's about how it gets there. does Shaw store your mail when it goes over their server? do they colate it? do they use it for market research? if yes, then don't use them. if no, which almost certainly the case, then your argument is a Chicken Little argument of absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. > > I bet you can't find out anything about the child I sponsor in Mexico, in > But now I do know you sponsor a child in Mexico, ok, re-read what he said: what do you know ABOUT that child? where in Mexico are they? what sex? through which charity (if any) is he doing the sponsorship? c'mon... let's see it. > So it's not GMail's fault that information just leaked, it's your own. > Again, postcard thing. of course it's not GMail's fault. it's OUR fault. i'm not sure what part of that is escaping you: we have the choice to use or not to use things. if we choose not to use things that destroy privacy, we protect it. but just because those things exist, doesn't man we may as well use them because they exist. that's such an amazingly illogical string of thinking. > > The truth is, that this is much like leaving credit card carbon paper > > laying around. Generally, it isn't a problem. But the potential > > certainly is there for it to turn into a problem, so why on earth would > > you do it? > > With this I couldn't agree more, but it's not just GMail, that's what > I'm saying, it's all email. Every email you send leaves a trail. wrong. > That email from your foster child passed through a mail server or two, > each one, even if it didn't store the contents of the email, stored > the fact that that email passed from them to you. on today's Internet mail transfers are almost ALWAYS source <-> destination. the days of multiple hops through mail gateways is over. multiple routers, yes. multiple mail gateways, no. > trail. Think Microsoft and their anti-trust trial. They didn't use > Hotmail accounts to talk to each other, but the information was still > there. this is corporate mail, on corporate servers. it was not searchable by anyone outside of Microsoft (and those they sent email to), and had to be gathered with a court order. > Getting all paranoid about GMail is silly. The whole concept > of email has taken us so far down the road of lack of privacy that > it's too late to call GMail an invasion of it. no, the whole "i don't care about privacy and don't care to educate myself on how to protect it" is what has taken us so far down that road. email is trivial to keep private. -- Aaron J. Seigo Society is Geometric
pgprVSr2kNj4L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
