>At 05:11 PM 2/20/00 -0500, Petro wrote:
>> You're brighter than that DCF. If, say, 20 years from now
>>Insurance Companies get legal access to your shopping records that
>>Mega-Chain-Food stores have, and they find out that you've been
>>buying shrimp weekly, and that shrimp is proven to be
At 05:11 PM 2/20/00 -0500, Petro wrote:
> You're brighter than that DCF. If, say, 20 years from now
>Insurance Companies get legal access to your shopping records that
>Mega-Chain-Food stores have, and they find out that you've been
>buying shrimp weekly, and that shrimp is proven to be
>At 08:55 PM 2/12/00 -0500, Petro wrote:
>Or will bother to look in the future.
>
>> What is considered legal/moral/rational today *might*
>>change in the future. Do you really want to take that chance?
>>
>> It's a lot easier to remove your eye-glasses to hide your
>>in
At 08:10 AM 02/15/2000 -0500, David Honig wrote:
>At 07:02 AM 2/14/00 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>> DNA sniffers can likewise be
>>defeated by giving off a "soup" of multi source DNA replicants.
>
>So, do cypherpunks put locks of hair into a bowl and then
>distribute mixes? Or are there fr
At 07:02 AM 2/14/00 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> DNA sniffers can likewise be
>defeated by giving off a "soup" of multi source DNA replicants.
So, do cypherpunks put locks of hair into a bowl and then
distribute mixes? Or are there friendly barbers out there?
-
"The price of a bag of
MAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FCF's Dean Lauds Congressional Privacy Caucus
>
> If the Congressional Privacy Caucus actually did anything, it could be a
> very dangerous group. It's primarily a collection of folks not kno
At 08:55 PM 2/12/00 -0500, Petro wrote:
Or will bother to look in the future.
> What is considered legal/moral/rational today *might* change in
> the future. Do you really want to take that chance?
>
> It's a lot easier to remove your eye-glasses to hide your
> intelle
At 04:06 PM 2/13/00 -1000, Reese wrote:
> >Active clothing, accessories, and "makeup" defeats camera and other
> >surveillance systems. Not a real problem.
>
>there was discussion, in this forum (cypherpunk list), of cameras that
>would see not only human visible wavelenths - but other wavelenth
At 11:52 PM 2/11/00 -0500, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
"And as most of us already know, most every London intersection and most
major destinations are already under camera surveillance. Society is going
to change with these technologies. Privacy and anonymity can no longer be
taken for granted.
>>If you're an employee of PepsiCo, you might very well want to
>>conceal your personal preference for Coke.
>>
>Assuming anyone is going to bother looking.
Or will bother to look in the future.
What is considered legal/moral/rational today *might* change
in the future. Do you
At 08:01 PM 2/11/00 -0500, Colin A. Reed wrote:
>Actually, the problems you suggest here could actually be seen as good
>things. A lot of these, such as the negative conotations of sexuality
>are functions of seriously disfunctional societies, families, and
>individuals.
Frankly I don't gi
At 12:14 AM 2/12/00 -0500, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Anyone interested in this topic should read Peter Huber's book "Orwells
>>Revenge". Unfortunately, his site seems to have been dropped down the
>>memory hole. :)
>
>It's still available on Peter's web site locat
Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyone interested in this topic should read Peter Huber's book "Orwells
>Revenge". Unfortunately, his site seems to have been dropped down the
>memory hole. :)
It's still available on Peter's web site located at:
http://phuber.com/huber/orwell/orwells.html
R
At 11:52 PM 2/11/00 -0500, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>And as most of us already know, most every London intersection and
>most major destinations are already under camera surveillance.
>Society is going to change with these technologies. Privacy and
>anonymity can no longer be taken for granted.
Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Two things:I have read David Brins arguments. I despise them.
>Unfortunately, I also can't refute them. :) It's annoying to be confronted
>with something you really don't like but also can't logically deny.
I agree. The surveillance state is coming whether we
At 10:34 AM 2/11/00 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
>I'm sure that a lot of people are going to respond,
>but since when has that ever stopped me? :-)
>
>Peter
>
>
>> --
>> From:Lizard[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>> Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
At 05:00 PM 2/11/00 -0800, Colin A. Reed wrote:
>Actually, the problems you suggest here could actually be seen as good
>things. A lot of these, such as the negative conotations of sexuality
>are functions of seriously disfunctional societies, families, and
>individuals. Forcing the dirty la
At 12:47 PM 2/11/00 -0800, Glenn Hauman wrote:
>Going on: you tend to shop and eat in the more, shall we say, flamboyant
parts of Greenwich Village. (Don't try and deny it-- I have records of your
dinner exploits while you were in NYC. Every Thursday night, with a bunch
of "free thinkers". Obvio
Actually, the problems you suggest here could actually be seen as good
things. A lot of these, such as the negative conotations of sexuality
are functions of seriously disfunctional societies, families, and
individuals. Forcing the dirty laundry into the open could improve the
debates on th
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/11/00
at 12:58 AM, Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The Congressional members of this new caucus generally are not known for
>their opposition to recent government invasions of privacy, and bills
>they have championed would rob us of our most cheris
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 7:17 AM
Subject: CDR: Re: FCF's Dean Lauds Congressional Privacy Caucus
> It's not any of the little individual facts. It's the bigger picture that
they
> eventually provide.
>
> It's also not the information they&#
It's not any of the little individual facts. It's the bigger picture that they
eventually provide.
It's also not the information they're collecting, it's the amount of it.
Eventually the feeling is that your every move is being tracked.
Thus said Lizard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Thu, Feb 10, 20
At 10:23 PM -0800 2/10/00, Lizard wrote:
>Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
>somewhere in a corporate database is a notation that you like to buy Coca
>Cola? Corporations don't scare me -- they want me to be alive, free, and
>earning money so that I can buy th
I'm sure that a lot of people are going to respond,
but since when has that ever stopped me? :-)
Peter
> --
> From: Lizard[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
> somewhere in a corporate database is a notation that
At 01:28 AM 2/11/00 -0500, Lizard wrote:
>Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
>somewhere in a corporate database is a notation that you like to buy Coca
>Cola? Corporations don't scare me -- they want me to be alive, free, and
>earning money so that I can buy th
Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
somewhere in a corporate database is a notation that you like to buy Coca
Cola? Corporations don't scare me -- they want me to be alive, free, and
earning money so that I can buy their products. Corpses and prisoners make
lous
If the Congressional Privacy Caucus actually did anything, it could be a
very dangerous group. It's primarily a collection of folks not known for
their commitment to freedom and liberty.
It is not focused on government invasions of privacy, and is instead
intended to lobby for severe restrict
27 matches
Mail list logo
