Privacy Is Dead (and why you should care)
bear...@cruller.invalid
d.html>
Still wondering what all the fuss is about with companies asking for
personal information?
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> <http://www.kiplinger.com:80/magazine/archives/2001/March/managing/idfraud.html>
>
> Still wondering what all the fuss is about with companies asking for
> personal information?
Does this mean I can post my personal info to the 'net, then go nuts at
Fry's Electronics, and blame the credit card charges on L33T H@X0RX D00DZ?
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> On the cans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
bear...@cruller.invalid
"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <j...@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
> Does this mean I can post my personal info to the 'net, then go nuts at
> Fry's Electronics, and blame the credit card charges on L33T H@X0RX D00DZ?
I dunno, but I'm willing for you to experiment. Let us know the results,
okay?
vj...@biostrategist.com
Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive.
All those euronazis who talk about privacy are just out to hide their own
filthy misdeeds.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CSI.Com|Panix.Com|BioStrategist.Com} VP...@Columbia.Edu
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
--{vjp2 was formerly on dorsai (1995-2000), delphi (1994) and bix (1989)}--
<< Cigar smoke belongs in the vegetable food group >>
<< Fooey on GUI, {MS,X} Windows are for Bimbos >>
Merlin Dorfman
: Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive.
: All those euronazis who talk about privacy are just out to hide their own
: filthy misdeeds.
How about privacy related to things about your life other
than what you say; your financial and medical records, for
instance?
John Gilmer
"Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:9jkems$e06$1...@samba.rahul.net...
There are two aspects of privacy.
The most important part is the right to just close your doors and cover your
windows and be left alone. Free speech doesn't impact these rights.
The second part is the "right" to keep others from taking notes of your
coming and going or what you spend in the market and passing these notes on
to others who may want to deal with you. This "right" is BS and can only
be affirmed at the expense of the right of someone else.
>
Netty
All the info goes to my real email address and my identity stays
private.
Here's the service link = Mailshell -
http://www.mailshell.com/?advsource=G12
They also give me 20MB of hard drive space.
"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <j...@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message news:<tlosl46...@corp.supernews.com>...
Merlin Dorfman
: "Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
There is at least a third aspect...though you may consider
it part of the first. It is your dealings with others which you
may reasonably expect will be kept private--such as, again,
financial and medical records.
John Gilmer
> There is at least a third aspect...though you may consider
> it part of the first. It is your dealings with others which you
> may reasonably expect will be kept private--such as, again,
> financial and medical records.
In practice it is foolish to expect such privacy.
Foolish people go for laws that "restrict" the distribution of financial and
medical records. BUT these restriction just about NEVER apply to the
government itself!
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive.
>
> All those euronazis who talk about privacy are just out to hide their own
> filthy misdeeds.
Like blowing the whistle on euronazis' filthy misdeeds? Remember, the
Reich-wing death squads demand "accountability" for all "free speech".
Sleep tight!
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=applications
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=philosophy
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> Sacrament R2-45 <http://www.xenu.net/>
Philip J. Koenig
ik...@uknow2.mailshell.com (Netty) writes...
> I use anonymous, disposable email addresses for registration forms.
> All the info goes to my real email address and my identity stays
> private.
All depends on the privacy policies of the "anonymous" email
provider.
Remember that the Scientologists managed to convince Interpol
to raid and essentially shutdown the most famous "anonymous
server" of all time, based on questionable "copyright violation"
pretenses.
Many free email systems also stick identifying information into
every email sent using their system. (the IP address of the
computer you are using to access the site, usually)
There are some truly secure/anonymous email systems out there
(hushmail comes to mind off the top of my head) but don't be
thinking Hotmail qualifies.
Then of course we have the issue of nosy ISPs (or ISP
employees) that may decide to snoop on your packets.
OK, enough paranoia for one day. <g>
--
Philip J. Koenig The Electric Kahuna Organization [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium-------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkunet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Vision impaired? Try taking off the blacklist-colored glasses. *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Philip J. Koenig
(vj...@biostrategist.com) writes...
>
> Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive.
>
> All those euronazis who talk about privacy are just out to hide their own
> filthy misdeeds.
Since you so nicely decided to set followups to additional
groups such as "alt.society.conservatism", allow me to point
out that the vast majority of congresspeople that have made
a big stink about privacy issues recently have been conservative
Republicans. (Ashcroft, Armey and Hatch for starters)
I wonder what they want to hide?
Steve Fenwick
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <9jigv3$sih$1...@news.panix.com>, vj...@biostrategist.com
> (vj...@biostrategist.com) writes...
> >
> > Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive.
> >
> > All those euronazis who talk about privacy are just out to hide their own
> > filthy misdeeds.
>
>
> Since you so nicely decided to set followups to additional
> groups such as "alt.society.conservatism", allow me to point
> out that the vast majority of congresspeople that have made
> a big stink about privacy issues recently have been conservative
> Republicans. (Ashcroft, Armey and Hatch for starters)
>
> I wonder what they want to hide?
Their contributor lists?
ObBAInternet: Covad is being dropped to OTCBB coverage, from National
Market.
Steve
--
Steve Fenwick ab...@w0x0f.com
Philip J. Koenig
[newsgroups snipped back to ba.internet]
In article <abuse-09D55C....@nntp.concentric.net>, ab...@w0x0f.com
(Steve Fenwick) writes...
> In article <MPG.15c9b22d4...@207.126.101.100>,
> Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <9jigv3$sih$1...@news.panix.com>, vj...@biostrategist.com
> > (vj...@biostrategist.com) writes...
> > >
> > > Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive.
> > >
> > > All those euronazis who talk about privacy are just out to hide their own
> > > filthy misdeeds.
> >
> >
> > Since you so nicely decided to set followups to additional
> > groups such as "alt.society.conservatism", allow me to point
> > out that the vast majority of congresspeople that have made
> > a big stink about privacy issues recently have been conservative
> > Republicans. (Ashcroft, Armey and Hatch for starters)
> >
> > I wonder what they want to hide?
>
> Their contributor lists?
No doubt. Don't forget all the extramarital affairs of
those "family values" flag-wavers.
Just for the sake of balance, I see that Clinton was putting
together one last massive soft-money benefit, presumably to
get under the wire in the event some miracle happens and
Congress bans soft-money.
> ObBAInternet: Covad is being dropped to OTCBB coverage, from National
> Market.
Hm, not good, but not surprising. Then again, Wall Street has
blindly trashed all sorts of good tech companies into oblivion
after their previous stupidity of funding any dot-com that
moved. They need to be recognized for their part in this mess.
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
<news:MPG.15d16e0dd...@207.126.101.100>...
> In article <abuse-09D55C....@nntp.concentric.net>, ab...@w0x0f.com
> (Steve Fenwick) writes...
> > ObBAInternet: Covad is being dropped to OTCBB coverage, from National
> > Market.
> Hm, not good, but not surprising. Then again, Wall Street has
> blindly trashed all sorts of good tech companies into oblivion
> after their previous stupidity of funding any dot-com that
> moved. They need to be recognized for their part in this mess.
Don't be silly! Wall Street is hardly composed of weasels and lemmings.
In point of fact, they are "mink" and are best treated as such.
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> DC8s in Spaace: <http://www.xenu.net/>
Philip J. Koenig
<j...@bftsi0.UUCP> ("Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <j...@bftsi0.UUCP>) writes...
> "Philip J. Koenig" <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in message
> <news:MPG.15d16e0dd...@207.126.101.100>...
>
> > In article <abuse-09D55C....@nntp.concentric.net>, ab...@w0x0f.com
> > (Steve Fenwick) writes...
>
> > > ObBAInternet: Covad is being dropped to OTCBB coverage, from National
> > > Market.
>
> > Hm, not good, but not surprising. Then again, Wall Street has
> > blindly trashed all sorts of good tech companies into oblivion
> > after their previous stupidity of funding any dot-com that
> > moved. They need to be recognized for their part in this mess.
>
> Don't be silly! Wall Street is hardly composed of weasels and lemmings.
> In point of fact, they are "mink" and are best treated as such.
I'm told that left to their own devices, mink in the wild
have a nasty habit of destroying their entire habitat. Lends
a new angle to those anti-furrier arguments. :-)
John Navas
In <MPG.15d16e0dd...@207.126.101.100> on Wed, 1 Aug 2001
02:39:02 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <abuse-09D55C....@nntp.concentric.net>, ab...@w0x0f.com
>(Steve Fenwick) writes...
>> ObBAInternet: Covad is being dropped to OTCBB coverage, from National
>> Market.
>
>Hm, not good, but not surprising. Then again, Wall Street has
>blindly trashed all sorts of good tech companies into oblivion
>after their previous stupidity of funding any dot-com that
>moved.
I'd hardly call this "blind trashing" -- the prospects and financials of
the wholesale DSL companies, Covad included, are horrific. What makes
you think Covad qualifies as a "good tech company" rather than a
"dot-com that moved" (other than the desire for low-cost non-telco DSL)?
>They need to be recognized for their part in this mess.
And now they're cleaning it up. Painfully, but it's hard to come up
with reasonable scenarios for a soft landing. Throwing good money after
bad isn't one of them.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
Philip J. Koenig
spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <MPG.15d16e0dd...@207.126.101.100> on Wed, 1 Aug 2001
> 02:39:02 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
> <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <abuse-09D55C....@nntp.concentric.net>, ab...@w0x0f.com
> >(Steve Fenwick) writes...
>
> >> ObBAInternet: Covad is being dropped to OTCBB coverage, from National
> >> Market.
> >
> >Hm, not good, but not surprising. Then again, Wall Street has
> >blindly trashed all sorts of good tech companies into oblivion
> >after their previous stupidity of funding any dot-com that
> >moved.
>
> I'd hardly call this "blind trashing" -- the prospects and financials of
> the wholesale DSL companies, Covad included, are horrific. What makes
> you think Covad qualifies as a "good tech company" rather than a
> "dot-com that moved" (other than the desire for low-cost non-telco DSL)?
I'm thinking more about companies like Worldcom, Level3,
Global Crossing, Northern Telecom, Cisco, etc.. all of
whose stock is at tiny fractions of what it was 6-12 months
ago.
John Navas
In <MPG.15d6dc3d5...@207.126.101.100> on Sun, 5 Aug 2001
05:30:23 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <BtIa7.4728$P15....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
>> I'd hardly call this "blind trashing" -- the prospects and financials of
>> the wholesale DSL companies, Covad included, are horrific. What makes
>> you think Covad qualifies as a "good tech company" rather than a
>> "dot-com that moved" (other than the desire for low-cost non-telco DSL)?
>
>I'm thinking more about companies like Worldcom, Level3,
>Global Crossing, Northern Telecom, Cisco, etc.. all of
>whose stock is at tiny fractions of what it was 6-12 months
>ago.
Let's take Cisco. $2.7 BILLION loss last quarter. Some analysts say
more BILLIONS of bad investments are still on the books. Sales expected
to be down. Still lots of problems, with no end in sight. Looks to me
like fair treatment by the market.
Philip J. Koenig
> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <MPG.15d6dc3d5...@207.126.101.100> on Sun, 5 Aug 2001
> 05:30:23 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
> <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <BtIa7.4728$P15....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> >spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
>
> >> I'd hardly call this "blind trashing" -- the prospects and financials of
> >> the wholesale DSL companies, Covad included, are horrific. What makes
> >> you think Covad qualifies as a "good tech company" rather than a
> >> "dot-com that moved" (other than the desire for low-cost non-telco DSL)?
> >
> >I'm thinking more about companies like Worldcom, Level3,
> >Global Crossing, Northern Telecom, Cisco, etc.. all of
> >whose stock is at tiny fractions of what it was 6-12 months
> >ago.
>
> Let's take Cisco. $2.7 BILLION loss last quarter. Some analysts say
> more BILLIONS of bad investments are still on the books. Sales expected
> to be down. Still lots of problems, with no end in sight. Looks to me
> like fair treatment by the market.
My understanding is that they didn't handle well something which
they've never had to do: dump massive amounts of inventory and
works in progress because the market just evaporated overnight.
Which leads us to: why did the market evaporate overnight? I
personally think a lot of it was just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You look to your left and you see a big dotcom go down in flames,
you look to your right and you see another dotcom go down in
flames, and then you panic, start firing people, spending freeze,
etc. until the whole industry is in a panic and then it goes
downhill from there. The investors fanned the flames of course.
I really *really* don't think that telecom business from the
vast majority of NON-big-newsmaking-dotcoms just evaporated
overnight. There was *definitely* a panic factor. Cisco
probably could have dealt with it a little better, but then
again this was the 200-year-flood. That company hasn't seen
a significant downturn in their business, AFAIK, since their
inception.
John Navas
In <MPG.15d7e3ae6...@207.126.101.100> on Mon, 6 Aug 2001
00:14:26 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <DMdb7.4969$P15....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
>> Let's take Cisco. $2.7 BILLION loss last quarter. Some analysts say
>> more BILLIONS of bad investments are still on the books. Sales expected
>> to be down. Still lots of problems, with no end in sight. Looks to me
>> like fair treatment by the market.
>
>My understanding is that they didn't handle well something which
>they've never had to do: dump massive amounts of inventory and
>works in progress because the market just evaporated overnight.
Whereas I think Cisco became so smug and complacent that it ignored all
of the many warning signs that sky high growth might not continue
forever. Hubris.
>Which leads us to: why did the market evaporate overnight? I
>personally think a lot of it was just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Whereas I think it was massive overbuilding based on a unrealistic
expectation that massive growth would continue indefinitely.
>You look to your left and you see a big dotcom go down in flames,
>you look to your right and you see another dotcom go down in
>flames, and then you panic, start firing people, spending freeze,
>etc. until the whole industry is in a panic and then it goes
>downhill from there. The investors fanned the flames of course.
True, there was a big negative swing, just as there had been a big
positive swing. Business cycles are hardly a new phenomenon.
>I really *really* don't think that telecom business from the
>vast majority of NON-big-newsmaking-dotcoms just evaporated
>overnight. There was *definitely* a panic factor.
I think the panic (in telecom) resulted from the realization of the
massive overcapacity.
>Cisco
>probably could have dealt with it a little better, but then
>again this was the 200-year-flood. That company hasn't seen
>a significant downturn in their business, AFAIK, since their
>inception.
With all due respect, the mark of good management is the ability to
perform well in bad times, not just good times.
Regardless, we've drifted away from the original point. The stock
market didn't "trash" Cisco -- it just revalued Cisco based on its not
so terrific performance in the new environment.
John Navas
In <DMdb7.4969$P15....@typhoon.sonic.net> on Sun, 05 Aug 2001 15:39:15
GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <MPG.15d6dc3d5...@207.126.101.100> on Sun, 5 Aug 2001
>05:30:23 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
><See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <BtIa7.4728$P15....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
>
>>> I'd hardly call this "blind trashing" -- the prospects and financials of
>>> the wholesale DSL companies, Covad included, are horrific. What makes
>>> you think Covad qualifies as a "good tech company" rather than a
>>> "dot-com that moved" (other than the desire for low-cost non-telco DSL)?
>>
>>I'm thinking more about companies like Worldcom, Level3,
>>Global Crossing, Northern Telecom, Cisco, etc.. all of
>>whose stock is at tiny fractions of what it was 6-12 months
>>ago.
>
>Let's take Cisco. $2.7 BILLION loss last quarter. Some analysts say
>more BILLIONS of bad investments are still on the books. Sales expected
>to be down. Still lots of problems, with no end in sight. Looks to me
>like fair treatment by the market.
"Cisco revenue falls 25 percent"
<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-6805830.html?tag=mn_hd>
... revenue dropped 25 percent and profits fell 86 percent.
John Navas
In <miyb7.5167$P15....@typhoon.sonic.net> on Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:00:34
GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <MPG.15d7e3ae6...@207.126.101.100> on Mon, 6 Aug 2001
>00:14:26 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
><See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <DMdb7.4969$P15....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>spamf...@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
>
>>> Let's take Cisco. $2.7 BILLION loss last quarter. Some analysts say
>>> more BILLIONS of bad investments are still on the books. Sales expected
>>> to be down. Still lots of problems, with no end in sight. Looks to me
>>> like fair treatment by the market.
>>
>>My understanding is that they didn't handle well something which
>>they've never had to do: dump massive amounts of inventory and
>>works in progress because the market just evaporated overnight.
>
>Whereas I think Cisco became so smug and complacent that it ignored all
>of the many warning signs that sky high growth might not continue
>forever. Hubris.
"Cisco revenue falls 25 percent"
<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-6805830.html?tag=mn_hd>
...
Chambers remained optimistic.
"The long-term outlook for this industry and the role that Cisco
plays in it has not dramatically changed," he said.
...
Hubris.