[FoRK] Apple collecting, sharing iPhone users' precise locations

Frank Hegyesi frankpdx at gmail.com
Mon Jun 21 23:12:03 PDT 2010


We live in a world where if our bank account information gets hacked
it is ultimately our responsibility to clean it up.  The banks are
getting more sly and covering their ass(et)s but they still make sure
they are untouchable.

Encrypting sensitive data is not the norm for way to many institutions
in my book, but I am strict and think any private data should be
encrypted.

Policies did not arise as quickly as the move from physical to
electronic data, and unfortunately since our society is so litigious
no one wants to be truly responsible for their own data or create true
policies.

The DK album title of "Give Me Convenience or Give me Death" becomes
more true each and every day.

I bet most users will not care.

Frank

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> On 6/21/10 7:51 PM, Jeremy Apthorp wrote:
>>
>> On 22 June 2010 12:33, Jeff Bone<jbone at place.org>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 8:18 PM, "Michael Cummins"<michael at i-magery.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What have we wrought, for good or ill?
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Loss of privacy isn't just inevitable, it seems a fait accompli and quite
>>> possibly irreversible sans massive loss of technology base.  If you make
>>> that assumption, then it's a matter of protecting what you can and ensuring
>>> that the transparency is as totally symmetrical as we can manage.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> The current generation have a culture of publish-everything-fast as both an
> invitation for support from friends and perhaps as a defense against anyone
> being able to tell a secret about them first.  Privacy was more important
> when social norms were very narrow and strongly policed by mother hens and
> father authoritarians in every family and community.  Deviancy, in weak
> through strong forms, was nearly universal however society worked hard to
> maintain the fiction of near-perfection to the straight and narrow as so as
> to protect and purify the youth.  (See "Golden Compass" / "His Dark
> Materials" series.)  All that is pretty much blown to bits.  It's not
> complete yet, but it is drastically reformed from just 20 years ago, let
> alone when I was a teenager.
>
> We still have significant pockets of LTBeaverism, however there is a wide
> range of people who feel comfortable "letting it all hang out" regardless.
>  Those people have enough acceptance of each other and tolerance with a wide
> enough range of society that it is now an acceptable-enough thing in general
> to be known to operate anywhere within a wider range than before.
>
>> I have seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance put forward as
>> some sort of resolution of this issue by a number of singularitarians.
>>
>
> That's good for helping to prevent abuse of surveillance and power and for
> increasing tolerance of little gaffes.  It doesn't really change the social
> dynamic that's pushing people to publish early and often.
>
>> Personally, I don't know where to stand on the privacy scale. After
>> having thought about it for some time, I still don't even really
>> understand what privacy *is*, or  whether it's inherently important.
>> The question I try to ask myself is: what would a society with no
>> privacy look like? Would that be a good society?
>>
>
> We're partway there.  However, you really have to compare to 20 years ago
> and before.  See Mad Men et al or talk to someone from that era.
>
>> It's also worth noting that privacy is a relatively new concept. As
>> far as I can tell, it started being important to people around the
>> mid-1700s:
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=timeline-a-history-of-privacy
>>
>> Why did privacy not matter to people before then?
>>
>
> I'm sure it did, however in many cases it was customary not to allow it in
> any organized group of people.  During the Kingdom era, Kings generally
> didn't need privacy and no one was allowed privacy from the King/Queen or
> their representatives.  Religious groups acted pretty much the same.  If you
> were the tyrant at the top, you could carve out a little privacy.  For the
> rest of the "loyal subjects", forget it.
>
>> j
>>
>
> sdw
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>



More information about the FoRK mailing list