I noticed that you're in need of a tin-foil hat by reading your emails. I have several designs of varying degrees of effectiveness available on my store. I've already charged your credit card so if you fancy dropping by I'll get you set up.
And the reason people refer to email as like a postcard as opposed to a letter is because the content of the message is visible to anybody who fancies looking at it while it's in their possession - such as the postman. The difference between the To: header and the envelope-to is akin to the difference between the postcard's destination address (envelope-to) and the salutation used in the message (the to: header). On 13 September 2013 20:04, Brad Rogers <b...@fineby.me.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:27:26 +0100 > Samuel Penn <s...@glendale.org.uk> wrote: > > Hello Samuel, > > >On Friday 13 Sep 2013 14:30:11 Brad Rogers wrote: > >> They always have. They've never hidden that fact. That's why, like > >> you, I prefer to avoid them. > >Technically, most ISPs do, even if it's just scanning for SPAM. > > They *can*, certainly. Whether most do, IDK. > > >If it's simply deciding what advert to show to you, that's one thing, > >and not something I'd consider an invasion of privacy. YMMV. > > Surveying/scanning email for clues as to preferences, etc. is an > invasion of privacy in the same way that somebody opening a letter > addressed to you is an invasion. Now, I know some consider email like a > postcard, but I don't, mostly because there's a To header and also an > Envelope-To header. Pedantry perhaps, but that's the way I look at > it. In any case, in other medium does an advertiser have any way of > piking out your preferences. > > >If it's to forward juicy looking conversations to humans so they can > >have a laugh about your private life, that's something completely > >different. > > This actually happened to my sister-in-law (SiL). How do we know? > Because the legal secretary that forwarded it to one of her > colleagues with a snide remark, stupidly (accidentally) Cc'd my SiL. > Lots of egg on face, some big apologies, and a *huge* reduction in the > bill. Whether that person kept their job, IDK. We're not likely to > find out since that firm is longer used by aforesaid SiL. > > >It's perfectly possible for 'Google' to do something that 'Google' > >hadn't meant to do (whether it was accidental or not, I have no > >idea, but it *is* possible for it to have been). > > Many things are possible to do accidentally. However, fitting wifi > capable detector kit to the company camera cars, looking for wifi > leakage, recording all the data it's possible to slurp from any leaks > found, and later decoding said data simply cannot happen accidentally. > Whether it's what the big-wigs intended or not, when things get to that > point, is irrelevant. It then becomes an act of malfeasance. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > But they didn't tell him the first two didn't count > Tin Soldiers - Stiff Little Fingers > > -- > Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk > Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire > LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Daniel Llewellyn
-- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------
