If you haven't considered the potential for (and potential dangers of) total lack of privacy in the information age, go watch this before reading the rest of this post
( Read more... )
I pretty much instinctively use the singular "they" in my writing, and totally didn't notice anything unusual about the construction of this post. Consider that a +1 for the venerable singular they. Personally I think GNPs generally border on the absurd, as they make the writer look like they learned their English from Allo Allo or Dad's Army. For you ze war ist over!
what this gives you is better defined as deniability than privacy
I think that as the proportion of complete fabrications increases, the difference between deniability and privacy approaches zero.
Let's say you want to keep your sexuality secret. You can try to keep all information about all your romantic relationships off the net - and then, as soon as someone posts one thing, there's enough to speculate on. Or, imagine if you could arrange for there to be an enormous amount of conflicting information - people claiming that you've engaged in relationships of every conceivable type, duration and intensity. If there's no other way of trusting some of those reports over the rest, then what you get is white noise, with a similar information content to silence.
the candidate basically has to admit that for a long period of time, they completely neglected to perform that most basic of common-sense security activitiesYup. Now I'm pretty sure that my friend didn't neglect that measure in an act of calculated purpose. But I'm also pretty
( ... )
It's a variant on a denial of service attack, in a way. Trouble is that if its done properly then no-one will know what is real or fake and so you may as well not bother.
There is something there...
You'd be better off with lots of fake namesakes I think
Friends of Privacy
anonymous
February 2 2010, 19:47:57 UTC
Vernor Vinge's "Rainbows End" has a "Friends of Privacy" organization which blizzards false information to create societal pseudo-privacy.
But it's not clear any approach like this can cope with signature analysis unless data availability is also restricted. Privacy may not be a lost cause, but patching it onto a system where it hasn't been designed in, may be.
And it's unclear which would be less robust - a society which lacks oversight capability, or one which gains it.
Comments 5
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I think that as the proportion of complete fabrications increases, the difference between deniability and privacy approaches zero.
Let's say you want to keep your sexuality secret. You can try to keep all information about all your romantic relationships off the net - and then, as soon as someone posts one thing, there's enough to speculate on. Or, imagine if you could arrange for there to be an enormous amount of conflicting information - people claiming that you've engaged in relationships of every conceivable type, duration and intensity. If there's no other way of trusting some of those reports over the rest, then what you get is white noise, with a similar information content to silence.
the candidate basically has to admit that for a long period of time, they completely neglected to perform that most basic of common-sense security activitiesYup. Now I'm pretty sure that my friend didn't neglect that measure in an act of calculated purpose. But I'm also pretty ( ... )
Reply
There is something there...
You'd be better off with lots of fake namesakes I think
Reply
But it's not clear any approach like this can cope with signature analysis unless data availability is also restricted. Privacy may not be a lost cause, but patching it onto a system where it hasn't been designed in, may be.
And it's unclear which would be less robust - a society which lacks oversight capability, or one which gains it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment