 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 15:02, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
> I disagree. Open is not the problem, it's the solution.
> Google is not open. My data are that: "Mine". Until i openly grant
> someone access to my habit on my system, nobody should try to read it.
A moot point but I'm not arguing, yet ...
> But that's not the approach of the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Or do you mean every intelligence agency in the world? Putin has
admitted cyber-espionage, the Chinese - despite their denials - have
been caught red-handed etc etc. Quite honestly, I'd think little of the
security services of a country or company which was not trying.
> "Better apologize than ask permission" is a strong step to try and build
> a project. But that's just plain wrong with privacy.
>
Where's the difference?
> For once, I'm ok with the Dilbert solution (1998 May 07):
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-05-07/
>
> I just have weak hands... and who could seize google's ankles ?
>
> Later version...
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2004-05-31/
>
My favourite cartoon series :-) Thanks for making me smile
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/05/2014 16:20, Doctor John nous fit lire :
>> > "Better apologize than ask permission" is a strong step to try and build
>> > a project. But that's just plain wrong with privacy.
>> >
> Where's the difference?
>
Well, it's also plain wrong with rape. Or murder.
Of course, if we have no problem with "I apologize for the
mass-mutilation at the kindergarten, I thought that helping them all to
get ride of their left hand was nice thing to do in this world designed
with tools made for right hand.", what about these toes nobody seems to
need ?
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 16:25, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Well, it's also plain wrong with rape. Or murder.
>
> Of course, if we have no problem with "I apologize for the
> mass-mutilation at the kindergarten, I thought that helping them all to
> get ride of their left hand was nice thing to do in this world designed
> with tools made for right hand.", what about these toes nobody seems to
> need ?
>
Hmm. We seem to have a disconnect in our assumptions. As far as I am
concerned, knowledge (information) is not property. However, life and
all things connected thereto are. I will not steal or otherwise
interfere with your property.
Can I be cognisant of information connected intrinsically with your
existence (eg your feelings on first realising that Amelie Hollande
rather liked you or the day you had your first orgasm)? No. I don't have
the back story of your upbringing and never will. Your back story is, in
part, your property.
Can I be cognisant of the fact that you posted a message to this
newsgroup? Yes and, unless you have an encryption method far superior to
those I know about, you can wave goodbye to your assumptions of privacy
of communication when using a publicly accessible medium.
I will defend unto death your right to exist, but I also defend my right
to detect possible threats to my existence.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 May 2014 16:02:57 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Open is not the problem, it's the solution.
> Google is not open. My data are that: "Mine". Until i openly grant
> someone access to my habit on my system, nobody should try to read it.
Except that if you use Google, you're openly granting them access to your
data.
Google makes it possible to review the data they have about you as well,
through your account settings. But the basic premise is if you want to
keep something private, don't share it.
I use Google extensively, and I'm OK with them having the data on me they
have. I occasionally review that data, and if there's something that I
would rather they not have, I deal with it - but I'm under no illusions
about whether or not they may have retained a copy of it, even if I
removed it.
Just like Facebook.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/05/2014 17:52, Doctor John nous fit lire :
> On 29/05/14 16:25, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Well, it's also plain wrong with rape. Or murder.
>>
>> Of course, if we have no problem with "I apologize for the
>> mass-mutilation at the kindergarten, I thought that helping them all to
>> get ride of their left hand was nice thing to do in this world designed
>> with tools made for right hand.", what about these toes nobody seems to
>> need ?
>>
>
> Hmm. We seem to have a disconnect in our assumptions. As far as I am
> concerned, knowledge (information) is not property.
The DMCA (and the RIAA and similar) do not agree with you and had its
way to the law. Information is property, even if immaterial.
Same with patent (and patent-troll). That's the law, you can have it
changed but you have to live in its current version.
Have you no problem with that remote-camera in your dressing and your
bathroom ? We also connected your toilet. It's just information. (and we
sell it to your insurance company and tailor... your bank is also
interested in your health analysis from the pattern of the flush on the
toilet).
> However, life and
> all things connected thereto are. I will not steal or otherwise
> interfere with your property.
>
You cannot hold that promise, as even extracting oil & gas for your car
might affect my life.
>
> Can I be cognisant of the fact that you posted a message to this
> newsgroup? Yes and, unless you have an encryption method far superior to
> those I know about, you can wave goodbye to your assumptions of privacy
> of communication when using a publicly accessible medium.
Posting to a newsgroup is a public action, no privacy problem here. But
even the pattern of using a software is not that public. Therefore, I
expect my pattern to not be available to someone else. This is not your
to know, not without an opt-in from me.
You can have my pattern for posting, but should not have the one of my
reading. That's the boundary Google is crossing since a bit of time.
Pragmatism should be balanced with reflection at philosophic level. It
seems so far money is more than anything else, and I'm afraid the
Christians and maybe others have some quotes already about that being
not so good.
>
> I will defend unto death your right to exist, but I also defend my right
> to detect possible threats to my existence.
I remember a quote from a Benjamin about trading liberty and security. I
will always stand on the side of liberty, even if I'm ready to hit with
a nuke the one caught threatening my security. I do not have a
proportional response curve.
Show a knife, get nuked; In the meantime, you're welcome.
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 19:01, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
> The DMCA (and the RIAA and similar) do not agree with you and had its
> way to the law. Information is property, even if immaterial.
> Same with patent (and patent-troll). That's the law, you can have it
> changed but you have to live in its current version.
>
Sorry, I live in the UK. US legislation is not applicable here. Note
also that that within this legislation area there is no such thing as
software copyright.
> Have you no problem with that remote-camera in your dressing and your
> bathroom ? We also connected your toilet. It's just information. (and we
> sell it to your insurance company and tailor... your bank is also
> interested in your health analysis from the pattern of the flush on the
> toilet).
What? Get real not paranoid.
>
> You cannot hold that promise, as even extracting oil & gas for your car
> might affect my life.
>
Indeed. And your refusal to accept that research is not always bad may
affect my life. Your logic, not mine.
>
> Posting to a newsgroup is a public action, no privacy problem here. But
> even the pattern of using a software is not that public. Therefore, I
> expect my pattern to not be available to someone else. This is not your
> to know, not without an opt-in from me.
>
> You can have my pattern for posting, but should not have the one of my
> reading. That's the boundary Google is crossing since a bit of time.
>
For $YOURDEITY's sake, when reading a post on a newsgroup, an email or a
page on the intarwebs, you have sent a publicly readable request for
such information.
If a policeman notes that you consistently visit different banks and/or
loiter near ATMs, he cannot be criticised for suspecting that you may be
engaged in or planning to be engaged in illegal activity.
Ditto those who monitor the webs.
>>
>> I will defend unto death your right to exist, but I also defend my right
>> to detect possible threats to my existence.
>
> I remember a quote from a Benjamin about trading liberty and security. I
> will always stand on the side of liberty, even if I'm ready to hit with
> a nuke the one caught threatening my security. I do not have a
> proportional response curve.
> Show a knife, get nuked; In the meantime, you're welcome.
>
That is not what I said.
I will give my life to defend your existence. I will, however, continue
to watch you; if I detect a threat to me then I will seek to nullify it.
My actions will always stop short of ending your life.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To give my tu'pence worth.
I remember my old Grannie (long dead now) saying:
"Never write anything you don't want everyone to read."
She was right. As long as human nature is human nature, someone will
have something to hide and someone will want to know it.
Open source is a wonderful idea for a perfect world. I commend it. But
until we develop telepathy. Forget it. There will always be someone
trying to screw you over.
It distresses me the way people display their lives on "Social Media"
what ever the feck that means.
As John Brunner, wrote: "The Sheep Look Up"
Phew! I got that off my chest. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/05/14 23:38, Stephen wrote:
> To give my tu'pence worth.
>
Your tu'pence is worth twice that.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I disagree. Open is not the problem, it's the solution.
> Google is not open. My data are that: "Mine". Until i openly grant
> someone access to my habit on my system, nobody should try to read it.
Even in all companies and governments acted in a legally and morally
correct way, there will *always* be criminals that don't - either
directly or indirectly through other companies/governments. You should
therefore assume that any data you have on a machine connected to the
internet *could* be read by anyone. That is why it is not recommended to
store passwords in a plain text file on your computer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-5-2014 15:38, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> For the second time within a couple of months I get a strange problem
>> with google. Last month it just stopped by itself after a few days, now
>> I don't know.
>>
>> - It starts with my firewall refusing access to:
>> http://tools.google.com/service/update2?
>> which is followed by a long string of (changing) characters.
>>
>> - It tells me that the it is blocked by internal black list.
>>
>
> Please post exact error message, even if it's in Dutch, Swahili or Klingon.
It says this:
30-5-2014 9:10:23
http://tools.google.com/service/update2?w=6:OB0uOgy6aOiP05eNOkxg0Gm7_R7kgeODhPDFhAaRltfunxs0_0rKhfA4L-M3jT0Y2jYobBuNPd20b7RbKqNZ9RFZXsviIt0YlWSQ4ElJ785idYyaM2hkVE9B1_Vb4dsT8kTsO6eB-Qi-LLD6DbnQKXRPycbUFtF1atiNJlu7-lzHJy_gUPOt1W9xGWV9KieBmTptKbLCq0oY9Dm1vOIl_nj4cJRSNtSOgb46iy1Y-G0gvHu3hZ7JNqcgFeiZznXH-wM-vMzGDZPcxqMPixjTe_VG3yqDUWpSzo_h1lVdrDgY2_JxPRT8a4Kn3aXVwOU9GX8pQ9sDBEBkPP7VOPzUWw
Geblokkeerd door interne zwarte lijst C:\Program Files
(x86)\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>
>> - It concerns the x86 program file Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe
>>
>
> Find the file in question and check its digital signature (right-click
> properties, etc, etc...)
>
> Mine has a valid verisign certificate issued in 2008. If yours does
> not, it was probably hijacked by some malware. Delete it from your system.
It has a verisign certificate valid from 2007 to 2010.
>
>> - the user given is NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
>>
>> - Access to google is blocked.
>>
>
> All access to google, or just access to the tools.google.com url?
When trying to open a google window, nothing happens and Firefox tells
me it cannot make a connection.
Direct access to tools.google.com is refused as shown here:
28-5-2014 16:28:25 http://tools.google.com Geblokkeerd door interne
zwarte lijst C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe
Thomas-HP\Thomas
@ DrJohn: [quote]Check your router. Without knowing its make, it's hard
to give general instructions but try to find a blocked sites list.
If you can't do that, can you borrow another machine which you can
connect through your router?[/quote]
I have controlled my modem/router (Eminent EM456x;
www.eminent-online.com) which seems all right. URL Filter lists are
empty and/or disabled.
Thoughts up till now:
IT seems to me that either google is blocked at the firewall but I have
yet been able to find where the mentioned 'black list' is hidden, or
firefox is blocking google.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'eset quarantine 28-5-2014.xcf.dat' (612 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
