Anonymity vs Privacy vs Security

[oldtimer]

Thank goodness there hasn't been any problem along those lines in the recent past.

[Jeff Matthews]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

yep.  And perhaps even more capricious.

They've consistently refused Alex Jones White House press credentials.

[oldtimer]

back to optics now?

[Jeff Matthews]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

back to optics now?

Just sayin'.  There really isn't such a thing as equal treatment for all members of the press.  They have always kept out the riff-raff.

[oldtimer]

Or at least kept them right where they want them.  Still, two separate issues.  One is official blessing or not, the other is hiring private contractors for national security interests (or at least so-called national security interests).  Like I pointed out earlier, the link is non-specific regarding domestic journalism, only stating "world-wide."

[Jeff Matthews]

Just now, oldtimer said:

Or at least kept them right where they want them.  Still, two separate issues.  One is official blessing or not, the other is hiring private contractors for national security interests (or at least so-called national security interests).  Like I pointed out earlier, the link is non-specific regarding domestic journalism, only stating "world-wide."

Yeah, if they are truly concerned, they are probably just wasting their time.  There's too much data, too many conflicting opinions, too much freedom of speech, etc.  Everyone knows there is a "game" being played, but I don't think they will stamp out free press.  Heck, we even care what the Kardashians think.

[oldtimer]

Who's we?

[Jeff Matthews]

4 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Who's we?

You and a couple others around here.  

[Zen Traveler]

53 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

55 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

No. As I mentioned earlier, the 13 person indictment came out before the Cambridge Analytica scandal came out and with the new revelations compared to what has already been exposed feel the Mueller team isn't done on this front.

That's my point.  You are quick to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Cambridge.  Cambridge is likely not the same facts and likely involves entirely different laws.  You should make no judgment concerning Cambridge at this point.  As I said, not even the NYT or Vox articles offer any insight as to why anything Cambridge did might be criminal.

Jeff. You seem to be parsing out various topics being discussed but not looking at the big picture. Evidently you still don't understand what a pivotal person Steve Bannon is in the whole scheme of things but keep in mind not only what I reminded you below but the guy was also President Trump's Chief of Staff and he was fired after the "Fire and Fury" was released and has been questioned by the Mueller team--That may be important for the legal ramifications but the propaganda/psychological warfare IS what I feel you have missed.

21 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

 I still think you are missing my point. You may live as boring of life as myself but we have a history...In a nutshell, you had no idea who Steve Bannon was but I pointed out it was you who was bringing Breitbart to our discussions and now we find out he also was a key player in Cambridge Analytica and both had a hand in spreading propaganda to the degree that Special Council Mueller has questioned and is still looking at them.  It's not about your life being "so boring" but you are the only one who felt comfortable for actually supporting your candidate (who won the election) that I debated.  I showed him and you respect every step of the way while bringing up what is being exposed today--That's not "speculation" to address @BigStewMan concerns. It seemed weird to me at the time the subjects that folks were bringing to the table and now we are finding out why.

 

21 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

You try to present that argument as if it's a big deal.  If you define your life or obtain your entertainment by what a bunch of politicos are doing to try to gain power and milk it for whatever it might yield, then, be entertained or alarmed as you see fit.  Me?  I know what you are describing, but this is something that always has been and always will be.  Only the names change.  

 

You expect me to take alarm because I read an article posted on a website by a guy of questionable ethics, if not a criminal?  Myeh.  Watergate does not bother me.  Does your conscience bother you?  Tell me true.

21 hours ago you still didn't seem to realize who Steve Bannon was in the whole scheme of our discussion-- let me break it down: 1) He was President Trump's Chief of Staff and was on the cover of several magazines and newspapers because of their relationship. 2) He was one of the founders of Cambridge Analytica. 3) You may call him "a guy with questionable ethics, if not a criminal" now, but when I brought to your attention several years ago that it was him and Breitbart as to where you were getting your information you said that you didn't recognize the name but searched for likeminded information to bring to the table. 

 

Again, this is why having access to our written record could be beneficial. 

[Jeff Matthews]

2 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Evidently you still don't understand what a pivotal person Steve Bannon is in the whole scheme of things...

I saw the connection.  As I said, I didn't see any claim of a particular law being broken.  Without that, all I can say is, "It's a small world, isn't it?"

[oldtimer]

Small and slimy.

[Zen Traveler]

37 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Everyone knows there is a "game" being played, but I don't think they will stamp out free press.  Heck, we even care what the Kardashians think.

I don't care what the Kardashians think and this discussion isn't about the "free press," although I understand your point insofar as Freedom of Speech is concerned. Otoh, what we didn't realize at the time was how much "fake news," along with contrived incidents to appear as news, was being disseminated on the internet and bots and trolls from another country, along with some of our own was responsible for a mass propaganda campaign to disrupt our government--THAT is what the Mueller team is investigating and to my knowledge the actual "Media" aren't the ones being investigated. {Note: Prior to the last election most people including Zuckerberg didn't consider Facebook as a news source, yet as I pointed out more Americans seem to get their news from there than any other outlet.}

[Zen Traveler]

 

39 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I saw the connection.  As I said, I didn't see any claim of a particular law being broken.  Without that, all I can say is, "It's a small world, isn't it?"

 

37 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Small and slimy.

Fwiw, I don't feel that way about the world, but the status quo has change insofar as what some people expect from our President (and elected officials).

[MyOwn]

So did you know about Cellebrite and Grayshift ??

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/03/01/apple-iphone-vulnerabilities-kept-secret-by-cellebrite/#531fb81c67fa

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/03/05/apple-iphone-x-graykey-hack/#40ad8ade2950

[Jeff Matthews]

2 hours ago, Steve_S said:

So did you know about Cellebrite and Grayshift ??

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/03/01/apple-iphone-vulnerabilities-kept-secret-by-cellebrite/#531fb81c67fa

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/03/05/apple-iphone-x-graykey-hack/#40ad8ade2950

Not by name, but the article reminded me of the FBI's dismissal of its suit against Apple after it used a contractor to breach the terrorist's iPhone.  This is not much different than hiring locksmiths to break into homes, buildings, safes and cars.  I would hope the contractors refuse to assist in criminal hacking.

[MerkinMuffley]

Is it implicit in the citizen compact that there is no ultimate right to privacy? I believe it would be trivial for Apple, or MS or Samsumg to build a uncrackable phone. 

 

[MyOwn]

On 4/13/2018 at 9:04 AM, MerkinMuffley said:

Is it implicit in the citizen compact that there is no ultimate right to privacy? I believe it would be trivial for Apple, or MS or Samsumg to build a uncrackable phone. 

 

 

Cellebrite...They get the phones before you and I do. Before they come to market.

[MyOwn]

On 1/19/2018 at 5:09 AM, MyOwn said:

I found this to be a good read. I think in today's world very important....

 

https://highspeedexperts.com/online-security-privacy/anonymity-vs-privacy-vs-security/

 

https://highspeedexperts.com/online-security-privacy/what-are-vpns-and-why-do-i-need-one/

 

Still good reads...

 

Privacy

This primarily involves you controlling who (if anyone) sees what activities you engage in online. In other words, “they” can see who you are, but not what information or websites you access or seek out.

Anonymity

This is essentially when you opt to have your online actions seen, but keep your identity hidden. In short, “they” can see what you do, but not who you are.

Security

Internet security involves you’re being safeguarded while browsing sites or filling in a Web form. This essentially means you’re safe from online threats, regardless of privacy or anonymity.

[Jeff Matthews]

Speaking of security, here is an interesting estate-planning tool in the Texas Estates Code:

 

"Digital assets" are online records, such as banking records, purchases, retirement investing, etc.

 

Sec. 2001.051. USER DIRECTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF DIGITAL ASSETS.

 

(a) A user may use an online tool to direct the custodian to disclose or not to disclose to a designated recipient some or all of the user's digital assets, including the content of an electronic communication. If the online tool allows the user to modify or delete a direction at all times, a direction regarding disclosure using an online tool overrides a contrary direction by the user in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.

 

(b) If a user has not used an online tool to give direction under Subsection (a) or if the custodian has not provided an online tool, the user may allow or prohibit disclosure to a fiduciary of some or all of the user's digital assets, including the content of an electronic communication sent or received by the user, in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.

 

(c) A user's direction under Subsection (a) or (b) overrides a contrary provision in a terms-of-service agreement that does not require the user to act affirmatively and distinctly from the user's assent to the terms of service.

 

Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 400 (S.B. 1193), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2017.

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:49 PM, MyOwn said:

Privacy

This primarily involves you controlling who (if anyone) sees what activities you engage in online. In other words, “they” can see who you are, but not what information or websites you access or seek out.

Anonymity

This is essentially when you opt to have your online actions seen, but keep your identity hidden. In short, “they” can see what you do, but not who you are.

These two issues are why the Cambridge Anayltica situation is so troubling. It appears most people on Facebook feel they weren't the ones manipulated but when you consider the evidence it would  at least appear they were fed a lot of Fake News garbage. Facebook Ads bought by Russians Sowing Racial Discord and some of those links were shared here on the Klipsch Forum.