Obama on NSA Surveillance
Locked
12
12
 
|
Is the problem of surveillance to find the right tradeoff between privacy and security, as president Obama says? What do you think? -Jochen Sent from Android ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 09:37 +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> Is the problem of surveillance to find the right tradeoff between > privacy and security, as president Obama says? What do you think? No. That's a false dichotomy. I think what's really happening is the ongoing negotiation between distributed versus centralized control. e.g. In my city, most of the citizens are in favor of the photo radar van. I am not. Despite my objections, however, I have to admit that I know the Chief of Police, personally. I know the Sheriff. I know some of the city councilors and sporadically meet the mayor for pints. This access gives me a sense of "locality" to the surveillance. It feels much less like a passel of morlocks spying on us eloi and more like me spying on myself, or us spying on ourselves. The problem of the surveillance state (or any accusations against "the state") lies in the otherness of the state. If you trust the representative democracy to be what it claims to be, then that mitigates against the feeling that _they_ are spying on _us_. It makes it feel more like _we_ are spying on _us_ ... And proprioception is a healthy part of any organism. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella The moon crashed into the desert ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Glen,
Your arguments are very considered, deliberate - even careful - and polite. However, let me pile on with this screed: I thought that the kind of general governmental overreach that we are talking about here was the reason we took on the USSR as an enemy during the 1950s+ (not to mention Viet Nam +). Didn't we unconditionally denounce "the commies" because of it? Wasn't "that kind of government" the reason we were supposed not to like "the commies"? Didn't we (humans) almost bombed ourselves out of existence - and take the planet with us - ultimately because we didn't like it? Wasn't our national identity arrayed against that kind of "totalitarian" behavior? Didn't we scribe a range of artworks (e.g. Orwell) against it in our culture? When Rand Paul and the ACLU agree on a topic, something is up. What was that famous quote about security vs liberty issued by Thomas Jefferson? Ok, back to your civilized discussion now. Grant On 6/14/13 6:02 AM, glen wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 09:37 +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote: >> Is the problem of surveillance to find the right tradeoff between >> privacy and security, as president Obama says? What do you think? > No. That's a false dichotomy. I think what's really happening is the > ongoing negotiation between distributed versus centralized control. > > e.g. In my city, most of the citizens are in favor of the photo radar > van. I am not. Despite my objections, however, I have to admit that I > know the Chief of Police, personally. I know the Sheriff. I know some > of the city councilors and sporadically meet the mayor for pints. This > access gives me a sense of "locality" to the surveillance. It feels > much less like a passel of morlocks spying on us eloi and more like me > spying on myself, or us spying on ourselves. > > The problem of the surveillance state (or any accusations against "the > state") lies in the otherness of the state. If you trust the > representative democracy to be what it claims to be, then that mitigates > against the feeling that _they_ are spying on _us_. It makes it feel > more like _we_ are spying on _us_ ... > > And proprioception is a healthy part of any organism. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Obama on NSA Surveillance
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
Glen wrote:
> I think what's really happening is the > ongoing negotiation between distributed versus centralized control. Keep in mind that it (e.g. SCI) necessarily leads to distributed control mechanisms. So it's not a simple distinction between citizens opting for strong/big vs. weak/small government. Marcus -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 12:30 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
> Keep in mind that it (e.g. SCI) necessarily leads to distributed control > mechanisms. So it's not a simple distinction between citizens opting for > strong/big vs. weak/small government. Technology encourages the concentration of control in the same way that it encourages the concentration of wealth. As the state is more tightly coupled with technology (including legal entities like the corporation) it encourages centralized control. It can be (approximately) simplified into a citizen's choice between exploiting that economy of scale versus trying to isolate themselves from the state. Again, it's not a simple dichotomy because engagement with the state can be regulated by the individual. The only sense in which Obama (and Ben Franklin) can be right that it's a tradeoff between privacy and security is if we allow trivial and banal things to be classified as "freedoms". Personally, I'm a bit tired of _entitled_ people running around complaining when anything bad happens to them. Oh my God, I have the _right_ to buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream at my local grocery store and don't you dare take that away!!! Rights are not inborn or granted by some sacred document held in some museum. They are earned and defended. Some are worth the effort. Most are not. In other words, if people want their privacy, then they need to work to ensure it. If we don't see them work to ensure it, then we can conclude that they don't actually want it. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Come to me i'm your living crop circle...yeah ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Obama on NSA Surveillance
|
|
On 6/17/13 6:24 AM, glen wrote:
> Technology encourages the concentration of control in the same way that > it encourages the concentration of wealth. > In other words, if people want their privacy, then they need to work > to ensure it. If we don't see them work to ensure it, then we can > conclude that they don't actually want it. Technology can also ensure privacy, e.g. strong encryption. That might lead to the technology being made illegal, e.g. "The only reason to have a radar detector is to break the law." But so long as that doesn't happen, that would be a mechanism to force use of legal process to get at content. Even identity, i.e. metadata, can be disguised using Tor. > If we don't see them work to ensure it, then we > can conclude that they don't actually want it. I think if encryption and anonymizing techniques were made illegal, it's not even an inference, it's that people have decided not to have privacy. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Glen and Marcus -
> >> Technology encourages the concentration of control in the same way that >> it encourages the concentration of wealth. I agree that this *can* happen and often *does* happen. I'd be interested in a broader discussion of the mechanisms. The "simple" answers seem obvious to me, but I suspect there are more subtle/complex ones? > Technology can also ensure privacy, e.g. strong encryption. I also agree that this can happen. I think the point of asymmetric warfare, even from the earliest days, this has been true. I *think* a bow in the hands of a single renegade gave him more leverage than the entire phalanx of bowmen. They still had all the advantages of scale, but ... and the classic stories of the American Revolution, all Guerilla actions, etc. One perspective is probably simply the differences between centralized control and distributed control in systems in general? >> If we don't see them work to ensure it, then we >> can conclude that they don't actually want it. I think this is a useful warning but I think it misses something. I think there are forms of complacence and natural asymmetries in the perception of risk that allow us (encourage?) to exchange the threat we know (images of planes flying into buildings) for threats we only imagine (becoming a victim of a dishonest or incompetent (or both) state security apparatus with too much power and not enough checks/balances). > I think if encryption and anonymizing techniques were made illegal, > it's not even an inference, it's that people have decided not to have > privacy. Or they have allowed themselves to be convinced that A) the threats from terrorism, etc are greater than the threats from loss of privacy; or B) that their privacy is already lost, they might as well have "security". A slippery slope to be sure. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Obama on NSA Surveillance
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
Steve wrote:
``Or they have allowed themselves to be convinced that A) the threats from terrorism, etc are greater than the threats from loss of privacy; or B) that their privacy is already lost, they might as well have "security". A slippery slope to be sure.'' Going back to the government contractor vs. employee issue. What I imagine will happen is that the legally questionable work will be compartmentalized to contractors (BAH, Chertoff group) and they will `advise' the government on imminent risks. That way, if/when the contractors do illegal things they can have their contracts revoked, be fined, etc. but the capability remains (perhaps in the hands of another contractor if needed). This has the added benefit that the officials that run the government organizations during some administration have a nice and profitable place to continue their work in later years. Marcus -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 09:19 -0600, Steve Smith wrote:
> > > >> Technology encourages the concentration of control in the same way that > >> it encourages the concentration of wealth. > I agree that this *can* happen and often *does* happen. I'd be > interested in a broader discussion of the mechanisms. The "simple" > answers seem obvious to me, but I suspect there are more subtle/complex > ones? Well, I don't know how subtle it is. But it seems to me that the trend of "steadily giving up our privacy via technology" isn't at all a conscious act. People simply didn't/don't think very hard about what they're giving up when they, e.g., upload pictures of their food or retweet tweets from @anonymous (or whoever). I often argue that more ubiquitous technology like mortgage loans systemically centralize power into the hands of the people who understand how mortgages work. Even the people growing in power (loan officers, real estate agents, etc.) usually don't realize that the technology is what gives them their power, much less that the power is being concentrated into them. Another point is highlighted by the article Owen posted. The mere concept that Google, Apple, or Microsoft might be _defending_ us vassals from the government by publishing the government requests for data is laughable ... to me. But I am often wrong. And I know lots of people who are implicitly pro-corporation. They're loyalty runs very deep to some corporations or their "faces" in the sense of a brand. "Great taste! No! Less filling!" comes to mind. Or the provincial loyalty to Ford vs. Chevy or Coke vs. Pepsi. The process grows more complex with "green" or non-GMO food labeling, or charity-based corporations like neuman's own or ben & jerry's and ideology-proximal corporations like credo or progressive insurance. This "corporations vs. the government" vibe is great for stoking those old brand loyalties. But all it really does (I think) is concentrate power into the hands of the corporations. And since there's only the thinnest veil between corporations and government, it brings us closer to fascism. Yes, I just asserted that if you claim to like Miller better than Budweiser, or vice versa, then you support a fascist government. ;-) I have to go to great extents to keep my non-sequitur master certification. The only way out is to claim both are garbage beer and head over to 2nd Street for some real beer. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Root up the trees caress the dirt ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
I'd be impressed if they managed this. From what I've seen, once a project loses funding, it atrophies and is either cannibalized for funded projects or dies (slowly). But I could see that as long as the black budget stays black and if it grows, then a project could receive a minimum of sustenance from black sources until it can be rebranded and get larger funding from a more transparent source. Hell, for all I know some of the black budget is already used for this sort of thing. On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 12:34 -0400, [hidden email] wrote: > Going back to the government contractor vs. employee issue. What I imagine > will happen is that the legally questionable work will be compartmentalized > to contractors (BAH, Chertoff group) and they will `advise' the government > on imminent risks. That way, if/when the contractors do illegal things > they can have their contracts revoked, be fined, etc. but the capability > remains (perhaps in the hands of another contractor if needed). This has > the added benefit that the officials that run the government organizations > during some administration have a nice and profitable place to continue > their work in later years. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I pinned my baby into yanking satan's crank ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Obama on NSA Surveillance
|
|
On 6/18/13 6:18 AM, glen wrote:
> I'd be impressed if they managed this. From what I've seen, once a > project loses funding, it atrophies and is either cannibalized for > funded projects or dies (slowly). Building a hammer could be decoupled from using a hammer. The contractor could be motivated to be especially aggressive or reckless with the hammer [1], but when they step over the line (e.g. get caught), the government takes away the hammer and gives it to someone else. Risk mitigated. In terms of enduring companies that misuse hammers, I'm thinking Blackwater. Marcus [1] Hammer Attack! http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3070201.shtml?cat=504 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Obama on NSA Surveillance
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 6/18/13 6:12 AM, glen wrote:
> The mere concept that Google, Apple, or Microsoft might be _defending_ > us vassals from the government by publishing the government requests > for data is laughable ... to me. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower "They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?" ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 06:53 -0600, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Building a hammer could be decoupled from using a hammer. [...] > > In terms of enduring companies that misuse hammers, I'm thinking > Blackwater. In the abstract, I agree. But in the concrete, these systems (mostly computer-based systems, but including meat-space social networks) require continual energy input. Their half-life is much much shorter than that of a hammer. The only reason Xe/Blackwater is able to maintain their abuse is because the government and Xe are very very competent at the transitioning/rebranding. Those involved are masters at their gaming of the system. Such mastery is more of an exception than a rule. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I can tell just by the climate, and I can tell just by the style ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 07:37 -0600, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower > > "They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in > regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from > ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and > Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence > Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?" I think Snowden is being a bit naive: ----------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_for_NSA_spying "Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, convicted of insider trading in April 2007, alleged in appeal documents that the NSA requested that Qwest participate in its wiretapping program more than six months before September 11, 2001. Nacchio recalls the meeting as occurring on February 27, 2001. Nacchio further claims that the NSA cancelled a lucrative contract with Qwest as a result of Qwest's refusal to participate in the wiretapping program.[13] Nacchio surrendered April 14, 2009 to a federal prison camp in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania to begin serving a six-year sentence for the insider trading conviction. The United States Supreme Court denied bail pending appeal the same day." ------------------------- The beauty of the corporation, is that it can survive the removal of the humans involved, it's open to material flow. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I said children of the atom I'm gonna set you right ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Holland
Very nice screed, indeed. And I'll infer the questions are rhetorical
and, then, infer the rhetoric. You're saying that we've based our identity on contrasts with this monster and have been fighting this same monster, perhaps in slightly different guises, for decades. But, for some reason, now, even when it's placed right in front of the public, roughly 1/2 the population is at least blase', if not comfortable, with the NSA collecting metadata on us. Your position seems to split into 2: 1) How has our government changed so as to cause (most important), motivate, and justify the metadata collection? 2) How has our populace changed so that we (1/2 of us, anyway) accept that our government collects this data? My answer to (1) follows from a naive requirements analysis of the problem with which they're faced. The simplest way to discover socio political trends is to index communications. That's what they're doing and it's what I'd do if I wanted to solve that problem. The ethical question: "Is it ethical to index communications?" isn't asked within the rank and file because these people think of their work as _jobs_ or careers. Ethical choice doesn't flow down through the ranks. You either do your _job_ or quit. My answer to (2) is population density and the speed of information flow. As long as the wealthy (including anyone not facing starvation on a daily basis) can exercise the freedoms they're aware of, the majority will be satisfied to donate their energy to unevaluated ends. They'll continue to work their jobs, complain about their boss, yell at the other commuters from the isolation of their cars, etc. ... just as long as they can buy their iphones, "choose" between all the flavors provided by Unilever and Proctor & Gamble, and be passively entertained by dancing rabbits selling toilet paper. [*] On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 10:12 -0600, Grant Holland wrote: > I thought that the kind of general governmental overreach that we are > talking about here was the reason we took on the USSR as an enemy during > the 1950s+ (not to mention Viet Nam +). Didn't we unconditionally > denounce "the commies" because of it? Wasn't "that kind of government" > the reason we were supposed not to like "the commies"? Didn't we > (humans) almost bombed ourselves out of existence - and take the planet > with us - ultimately because we didn't like it? Wasn't our national > identity arrayed against that kind of "totalitarian" behavior? Didn't we > scribe a range of artworks (e.g. Orwell) against it in our culture? When > Rand Paul and the ACLU agree on a topic, something is up. What was that > famous quote about security vs liberty issued by Thomas Jefferson? -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I have gazed beyond today -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Brainstorm, here I go, Brainstorm, here I go, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Obama on NSA Surveillance
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 6/18/13 7:51 AM, glen wrote:
> But in the concrete, these systems (mostly computer-based systems, but > including meat-space social networks) require continual energy input. > Their half-life is much much shorter than that of a hammer. Probably because `nail gun' is in development at the same time `hammer' is being mastered in various ways by various groups. :-) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen -
>>>> Technology encourages the concentration of control in the same way that >>>> it encourages the concentration of wealth. >> I agree that this *can* happen and often *does* happen. I'd be >> interested in a broader discussion of the mechanisms. The "simple" >> answers seem obvious to me, but I suspect there are more subtle/complex >> ones? > Well, I don't know how subtle it is. But it seems to me that the trend > of "steadily giving up our privacy via technology" isn't at all a > conscious act. People simply didn't/don't think very hard about what > they're giving up when they, e.g., upload pictures of their food or > retweet tweets from @anonymous (or whoever). I often argue that more > ubiquitous technology like mortgage loans systemically centralize power > into the hands of the people who understand how mortgages work. Even > the people growing in power (loan officers, real estate agents, etc.) > usually don't realize that the technology is what gives them their > power, much less that the power is being concentrated into them. this, but I'm still noodling on just what the mechanisms are. My own "glib" answer would be something about a ratchet mechanism... that the technology has a tendency to make sure that "those who understand it systematically" tend to "always" benefit from it while those who don't understand it or understand it casually tend to lose over the long run. Advantages gained by the system tend to "hold" shile advantages gained by the individual tend to be isolated and transitory? One way of explaining it might be a little like the "house advantage" in casinos and the additional "hidden" advantage of deep pockets? Even in a "fair' game of chance, the random walk of the individuals pile of chips will eventually walk them into bankruptcy while the casino can't be bankrupted (without orders of magnitude longer walks)? > > Another point is highlighted by the article Owen posted. The mere > concept that Google, Apple, or Microsoft might be _defending_ us vassals > from the government by publishing the government requests for data is > laughable ... to me. But I am often wrong. And I know lots of people > who are implicitly pro-corporation. They're loyalty runs very deep to > some corporations or their "faces" in the sense of a brand. "Great > taste! No! Less filling!" comes to mind. Or the provincial loyalty to > Ford vs. Chevy or Coke vs. Pepsi. The process grows more complex with > "green" or non-GMO food labeling, or charity-based corporations like > neuman's own or ben & jerry's and ideology-proximal corporations like > credo or progressive insurance. This "corporations vs. the government" > vibe is great for stoking those old brand loyalties. But all it really > does (I think) is concentrate power into the hands of the corporations. > And since there's only the thinnest veil between corporations and > government, it brings us closer to fascism. two bullies who pretend not to know or like eachother and a "good cop/bad cop" game. > > Yes, I just asserted that if you claim to like Miller better than > Budweiser, or vice versa, then you support a fascist government. ;-) I > have to go to great extents to keep my non-sequitur master > certification. The only way out is to claim both are garbage beer and > head over to 2nd Street for some real beer. Done! > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
Administrator
|
I'm starting to think the Root Cause is simply ignorance. I don't mean that to be as harsh as it sounds. It's simply that not only the core tech changes rapidly, but now the whole web-app ecology has caught people by surprise.
I know this via two recent family events.
One was that we found a web site that simply did not run with Snow Leopard. Obsolescence and upgrade is a sneaky way to push folks into unfamiliar territory, and much more likely to make mistakes. This is especially true with Apple's "Back To The Mac" approach which tries to converge the iPhone/Pad/Pod/TV world with the more standard desktop. And behind this BTTM is much more use of the "cloud", and more exposure.
The second was a lament by a family member that they couldn't do things as easily as they once could. And this is a person who put together a Linux system a in the '90s! The problem here was similar. Way too many accounts, logins, passwords .. and lack of password standards .. along with the evolution away from the computer to the cloud .. and with so many devices to keep coordinated.
Although similar to the first obsolescence, I think the second is more subtle. Do you remember migrating from your first computer to a second? Surprised all your email disappeared? And all the subtle configurations that had to also be migrated? Then the shock when you had both a desktop and a laptop and the email got split between the two until you grok'd IMAP and/or gmail/yahoo/ms .. all of whom "took care of you" but to whom you gave huge access to your information? Remember changing ISPs in the early days and having to tell everyone you have a new email address? .. and you then figured out you needed your own DNS? It goes on.
The fact is that we need to license use of the web just as we do driving or amateur radio. Yup. An internet merit badge! I'm quite serious .. we somehow have migrated slowly but surely into the hands of a not very nice future via the lack of reasonable internet education. And every computer with poor security hygiene is a threat to me, not just the computer's owner.
-- Owen
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Glen - ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Obama on NSA Surveillance
|
|
On 6/18/13 10:48 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Then the shock when you had both a desktop and a laptop and the email > got split between the two until you grok'd IMAP and/or gmail/yahoo/ms > .. all of whom "took care of you" but to whom you gave huge access to > your information? [..] > The fact is that we need to license use of the web just as we do > driving or amateur radio. Uh huh. And what trustworthy entity will issue the licenses? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
A big problem with teaching internet literacy is that it would amount to teaching moving target: change is so hard to teach, since it keeps changing :-)
On a tangential note, I'm trying to come out of retirement (sabbatical :-) after about five years, and whoa, it's incredible how much has changed, even though I've tried to stay more or less current the whole time. Forget SourceForge, it's all on GitHub now! Does anyone even consider the possibility that a user might have JavaScript disabled in their browser? You wouldn't get very far these days. What's this cloud thing again? Makes me want to give up and go back to watching X-Files reruns :-) ;; Gary On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |