A different prospective? [ Your argument isn't analytical ]


------Snip-----
But imagine if the government were to put an Echelon-style content filter on routers and ISPs, where it examines billions of communications and "flags" only a small fraction (based upon, say, indicia of terrorist activity). Even if the filters are perfect and point the finger only completely guilty people, this activity still invades the privacy rights of the billions of innocent individuals whose communications pass the filter.
------/snip------


Say, if there is a program that examines billions of communication and "flags" only a small fraction (based upon, say, indicia of terrorist activity)... that's NO WAY invading the privacy rights of the billions of innocent individuals whose communications pass the filter.

See the basic difference between intercepting communication via an electronic program for a purpose; and the same work done by a group of people is....... COMPUTER'S DON'T REMEMBER any of THOSE billions OF EMAILS which it scan but if it was done by human, HUMANS do... As the computer programmed never remembered anything cauz the content didn?t matched the pattern specified SO, ITS SAME LIKE THE COMPUTER PROGRAM NEVER SAW or WENT through what it was feed . Computers only put a database of suspicious contents, nothing more. Don't forget, computers haven't been smarter enough even to out-smart a baby most of the time. A computer program sees everything as 0'szzz & 1'ssss & neither it has any human logics [social, emotional, cultural...etc] nor it thinks even a 'byte' more than what it is programmed to... nor does it remember anything nomatter how-much and how-long you feed the data into it, UNLESS it matches a particular pattern that what it was programmed for. So, how can you call it violation of privacy if those billion's of people as you argued in...? "I feel, you are are trying to make the readers thrill by putting up the argument "for...billion's of people.....privacy concern..........." kinda......

---Snip---
Simply put, if a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy.
---/snip---

Here your argument is like; DEMANDING a 1 years isolated n' torturous prisonment for a criminal who has already been 'sentenced to death' for another crime.

As i have already argued, .....as the computer programmed 'never remembers' anything cauz the content didn?t matched the pattern specified [ for what it was programmed for] SO, ITS SAME LIKE THE COMPUTER PROGRAM NEVER SAW or WENT through what it was feed .


I agree 'gmail' pushed this issue to a limit but see, if you use email services like hotmail; they have programs that displays add side of your email based on the country/region you specify. Well, if you talk about hotpop.com/tropica.com, they ask you a big deal of personal information and insist you in receiving advertise based on your personal interest. Well, if you talk about search engines... they short the results by, most visited/most relevant etc. They even display appropriate banners beside a search result based on your key word/ and a country reason that I am in.....
Well, they will certainly have a 'user-base' database of "what people are looking for", are people interested in a particular add, the hit counts, they may also try to predict the age-group, their qualification etc...... and all these stuffs can be related to eachother based on sessions/cookee/ip-addresses......... couldn't this be a voilation of privacy as well.....??

-------Lastly--------
A big question is, say: "me a hotmail user" if i send an email to my friend, a 'gmail user......', after the email is received by him, .....who is the owner of that email; 'me' or 'him' and if i am still the owner of that email can I demand "by law" to my 'friend' not to share the content of the email to anyone and delete it immediately after once READ? and if he is the owner of the email now should he be given the freedom 'by the LAW' to share it with the world..... No matter what the content is, cauz 'I willingly' knowing the risks with 'all my common senses in place' send my private information with him. Now is it his moral? or legal? Duty to keep it private.......

Say, if gmail comes up with an feature, to let THE USERS specify whether they want their email to be scanned for keywords or not... would gmail be allowed in California.

Say, if the computer program finds any email with the subject: {'no spy'} gmail add displaying program won't scan the email for keywords... instead display a random advertise based on the interest you specified. Or, if they put a facility of some short of encrypted communication if you want some particular email not to be scanned for keywords.

If anyone are so concerned about their privacy you do have ways to have a secure communication conveniently. Well, gmail should have facilities, say: don't monitor any emails from the list of my "SAFE LIST".


bipin gautam


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/248/26749#26749