funsec mailing list archives

Re: [privacy] The Internet Anonymity Experiment


From: Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:35:35 -0600 (CST)

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Via PopSci.com.

[snip]

In 2006, David Holtzman decided to do an experiment. Holtzman, a security
consultant and former intelligence analyst, was working on a book about
privacy, and he wanted to see how much he could find out about himself from
sources available to any tenacious stalker.

So he did background checks. He pulled his credit file. He looked at
Amazon.com transactions and his credit-card and telephone bills. He got his
DNA analyzed and kept a log of all the people he called and e-mailed, along
with the Web sites he visited. When he put the information together, he was
able to discover so much about himself—from detailed financial
information to the fact that he was circumcised—that his publisher,
concerned about his privacy, didn’t let him include it all in the book.

I’m no intelligence analyst, but stories like Holtzman’s freak me out.

Give me a break. We live in a world where privacy has been redefined, assume it is all public or easily attainable, and keep what you want private, secret.

Privacy in the sense of what you do in your own home or choose to think about, is your concern. Privacy as far as your reading preferences doesn't exist. Privacy as far as your DNA goes may be a concern, but it is not one you can protect if someone wants it and is willing to spend resources on getting it.

What privacy policies those entitites you give information to follow, is a valid concern, but can not be treated as a secret when so many have access. It is the same as expectation of privacy from friends, are they aware and are willing to follow your expectations? What do you do when breaches happen?

The reason privacy nutters such as us can't get around the fact privacy in the old sense no longer exists, so we can defend what we can, is because nutters like you refuse to acknowledge what's already gone, is gone. As we say in Hebrew, what was was, was was.

"The avalanche has already fallen, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh, Babylon 5 (I think episode 8 of season 1)

Leaving practical sensibilities aside, I know many ideologists who believe being "here" where privacy in most senses no longer exists is reversible and they will refuse to travel by the air as 30 years ago you didn't have to show an ID. I respect them (John Gilmore and friends) and I follow the same path, but my take on it is different.

I am an idelologist, and believe ideologists in a world of oposing extremists on everything from toilet paper colour and email client to terrorism, is necessary. Things even themselves out. I combine it with a sense of functionality, practicality and the world around us. I am just happy we could last without an ID for that, for so long, ans choose to look at the world around me and deal with reality.

This does not mean I am not hoping for days where privacy is once again there, and it does not mean I won't work to make it more common-place. That, of course, if privacy is not something we invented and future generations will live better without--I hope not.

        Gadi.
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy

Current thread: