4 ms·

> This is factually incorrect. You can have privacy without security, and you can have security without privacy. Security keeps things safe, privacy keeps thing

> This is factually incorrect. You can have privacy without security, and you can have security without privacy. Security keeps things safe, privacy keeps things hidden. Uh that's not factually incorrect. You can definitely have security without privacy, but not the other way around. Without security that means your privacy can't be protected.

peterwwillis 8y ago
"The domain of privacy partially overlaps security (confidentiality), which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information." [1] It does not, however, implicitly provide security. If I send and receive e-mails with a reporter off the record, we are communicating privately. But the communication may not be strictly confidential, nor secure, unless I take additional steps to ensure it. If I keep files in my home directory, on my own hard disk, with permissions so only my user can access the files, then my files are private. They are not, however, implicitly secure. Another example: an SSH private key. Without a password on the key, the key is private, but not secure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy
checkyoursudo 8y ago
The fact that your privacy isn't secured doesn't automatically mean that it is automatically compromised, does it? I mean, sure, maybe you assume it is for any real purpose, but that doesn't mean your privacy is actually compromised. For example, my first iPhone, I didn't have a password (I think -- maybe that was my first ipad). It was insecure, but I'm reasonably sure that everything on there was private (in that more physical sense; I have no idea about internal security of those first generations of iphone/ipad). A weaker claim that is probably true might be: you cannot guarantee your privacy without security. That you cannot have privacy seems like too strong of a claim?
- hvidgaard 8y ago
  I think it's bit of a nitpick, but the iPad was under physical security. I do agree with you though. Privacy is having your information to yourself. You don't need security for that, just that everyone else keep their nose to them self. But if you want to guarantee your privacy, you need some form of security.
  - checkyoursudo 8y ago
    If you knew my kids, you might not say that my iDevices are always under the best of physical security.
pvorb 8y ago
A system that doesn’t collect certain kinds of data also doesn’t need to protect (i.e. secure) it. (Of course it’s impossible to tell that a system hasn’t been manipulated if it’s insecure and that makes the argument bollocks.)

peterwwillis 8y ago

"The domain of privacy partially overlaps security (confidentiality), which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information." [1] It does not, however, implicitly provide security. If I send and receive e-mails with a reporter off the record, we are communicating privately. But the communication may not be strictly confidential, nor secure, unless I take additional steps to ensure it. If I keep files in my home directory, on my own hard disk, with permissions so only my user can access the files, then my files are private. They are not, however, implicitly secure. Another example: an SSH private key. Without a password on the key, the key is private, but not secure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

checkyoursudo 8y ago

The fact that your privacy isn't secured doesn't automatically mean that it is automatically compromised, does it? I mean, sure, maybe you assume it is for any real purpose, but that doesn't mean your privacy is actually compromised. For example, my first iPhone, I didn't have a password (I think -- maybe that was my first ipad). It was insecure, but I'm reasonably sure that everything on there was private (in that more physical sense; I have no idea about internal security of those first generations of iphone/ipad). A weaker claim that is probably true might be: you cannot guarantee your privacy without security. That you cannot have privacy seems like too strong of a claim?

hvidgaard 8y ago
I think it's bit of a nitpick, but the iPad was under physical security. I do agree with you though. Privacy is having your information to yourself. You don't need security for that, just that everyone else keep their nose to them self. But if you want to guarantee your privacy, you need some form of security.
- checkyoursudo 8y ago
  If you knew my kids, you might not say that my iDevices are always under the best of physical security.

pvorb 8y ago

A system that doesn’t collect certain kinds of data also doesn’t need to protect (i.e. secure) it. (Of course it’s impossible to tell that a system hasn’t been manipulated if it’s insecure and that makes the argument bollocks.)