5 ms·

Can someone better explain the privacy outrage? - These are University resources? - Any corporation you work for would be monitoring their email systems and le

by dpweb 11y ago

Can someone better explain the privacy outrage? - These are University resources? - Any corporation you work for would be monitoring their email systems and letting users know that. Why are these Univ. resources owned by the people? - There's many legitimate reasons for monitoring. Security, legal defense, etc.. I'll admit trying to sneak this through over objections was probably not handled in the best way from a PR perspective. And if you're privacy minded you should already know - most privacy debates that make the news - are moot. If you have something truly secret - you must encrypt - so no man in the middle can read. If you think you have privacy sending any unencrypted email over any public network you're dreaming. Assume that anyone with the key - has your data. Ask the guys that lost millions with Mt. Gox.

maxerickson 11y ago
The emails focus a little bit on the system not letting users know. Also, I imagine some of the faculty would have concerns beyond their personal privacy; things like academic freedom.
rhizome 11y ago
If you enlist Mt. Gox to rationalize this as, "huh, what do you expect when you use the word 'privacy?', I'm not sure that's a strong position. And if you're privacy minded you should already know - most privacy debates that make the news - are moot. Mooted by what? The fragility of privacy itself?
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>Why are these Univ. resources owned by the people? Why wouldn't these Univ. resources be owned by the people? Check the title of UniversityOfCalifornia.edu: >University of California | The only world-class public research university for, by and of California. The University is established by the California constitution. Article 9. Section. 9. (a) The University of California shall constitute a public trust, to be administered by the existing corporation known as "The Regents of the University of California," with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services.
intopieces 11y ago
Is privacy a luxury we only afford to the technologically savvy? Previously we considered privacy a right of all people to be free of unreasonable searches. Your attitude displayed here says otherwise: if you can't encrypt everything from start to end, you don't deserve privacy. If you are not up to date with the absolute latest way of sending data without it being monitored, you don't deserve privacy. In the past, those with these abilities fought hard to protect those who didn't. When did that change?
- dpweb 11y ago
  Everyone deserves privacy and it must be defended, and if I have my computer data at home, the government should not be able to search it without a warrant. But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. You may willingly give up privacy, but many users do so unwittingly. Their ignorance does not make the current state of affairs just. >Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The article and controversy are attempting to call attention to the mechanisms in place that are a threat to privacy of all users. Your response was "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." This is a disturbing attitude.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The general public is at least somewhat aware of these problems. People pushing a surveillance agenda (esp. marketing) often extrapolate this awareness, suggesting that people are surrendering privacy willingly either because they don't care or as part of a "trade' for services. In reality[1], people often feel powerless. Without the necessary technical knowledge to create alternatives, the aggressively pushed surveillance option seems like the only choice. > "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." That's classic victim blaming. I think the common "this isn't surprising" response has some victim blaming in it, too, when it becomes a thought-terminating cliche. Jacob Appelbaum's is probably right[2] in his interpretation: that saying something isn't surprising is a coping mechanism that probably means "I can't do anything about it". Unfortunately, sometimes it's used to shut down discussion. [1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-fallacy-how-marketers-are-misrepresenting-american-consumers-and https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594
lvs 11y ago
A school is not a typical corporation. You can't justify intrusion in the same way.

by dpweb 11y ago

maxerickson 11y ago

The emails focus a little bit on the system not letting users know. Also, I imagine some of the faculty would have concerns beyond their personal privacy; things like academic freedom.

rhizome 11y ago

If you enlist Mt. Gox to rationalize this as, "huh, what do you expect when you use the word 'privacy?', I'm not sure that's a strong position. And if you're privacy minded you should already know - most privacy debates that make the news - are moot. Mooted by what? The fragility of privacy itself?

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>Why are these Univ. resources owned by the people? Why wouldn't these Univ. resources be owned by the people? Check the title of UniversityOfCalifornia.edu: >University of California | The only world-class public research university for, by and of California. The University is established by the California constitution. Article 9. Section. 9. (a) The University of California shall constitute a public trust, to be administered by the existing corporation known as "The Regents of the University of California," with full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure the security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services.

intopieces 11y ago

Is privacy a luxury we only afford to the technologically savvy? Previously we considered privacy a right of all people to be free of unreasonable searches. Your attitude displayed here says otherwise: if you can't encrypt everything from start to end, you don't deserve privacy. If you are not up to date with the absolute latest way of sending data without it being monitored, you don't deserve privacy. In the past, those with these abilities fought hard to protect those who didn't. When did that change?

dpweb 11y ago
Everyone deserves privacy and it must be defended, and if I have my computer data at home, the government should not be able to search it without a warrant. But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >But when I send that data over public networks unencrypted, I willingly give up that privacy. You may willingly give up privacy, but many users do so unwittingly. Their ignorance does not make the current state of affairs just. >Pretending like the transmitted data was safe in the first place, before they set up these servers - is a lie, and only plays into the hands of those who would snoop on you Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The article and controversy are attempting to call attention to the mechanisms in place that are a threat to privacy of all users. Your response was "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." This is a disturbing attitude.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The general public is at least somewhat aware of these problems. People pushing a surveillance agenda (esp. marketing) often extrapolate this awareness, suggesting that people are surrendering privacy willingly either because they don't care or as part of a "trade' for services. In reality[1], people often feel powerless. Without the necessary technical knowledge to create alternatives, the aggressively pushed surveillance option seems like the only choice. > "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." That's classic victim blaming. I think the common "this isn't surprising" response has some victim blaming in it, too, when it becomes a thought-terminating cliche. Jacob Appelbaum's is probably right[2] in his interpretation: that saying something isn't surprising is a coping mechanism that probably means "I can't do anything about it". Unfortunately, sometimes it's used to shut down discussion. [1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-fallacy-how-marketers-are-misrepresenting-american-consumers-and https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594

lvs 11y ago

A school is not a typical corporation. You can't justify intrusion in the same way.