3 ms·
The more I think about this, I am convinced that the only way to avoid private data snooping is to pollute / poison the data. If all channels of communication
by hrjet 13y ago
The more I think about this, I am convinced that the only way to avoid private data snooping is to pollute / poison the data.
If all channels of communication are flooded with poisoned messages, it wouldn't matter who / what snoops the data. The poisoning needs to be obvious so that the intended recipient can immediately ignore it. At the same time, it needs to be ubiquitous so that machines can't filter it.
- moconnor 13y agoIf the poisoning is obvious to the intended recipient, at some stage it will also be obvious to anybody collecting enough (poisoned) data on them. This is a bit like the spam / spam filter arms race.
- hrjet 13y agoYeah, human recipients and snoopers would both be able to filter out the poison. But it would make automated collection difficult. Another idea could be a reverse captcha. All messages by default could be coded as images. (Hey in fact I think this is a brilliant idea if I say so myself!) Combine that with poisoning, and we can be safe from automated collection for atleast a decade. Combine that with encryption and other security measures and that would be awesome. In fact I am on a idea spree. What if messages were encoded with a captcha? Enter the captcha to decode the message. This encoding is purely to eliminate automated collectors and indexers. Spam is easier to tackle since a spammer can be tainted for ever. But a poisoned feed still needs to be processed every single time
- kordless 13y agoOr move it around a lot.