Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Best way to get large files from a friend? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t959610-re-best-way-to-get-large-files-from-a-friend.html)

Mayayana 04-10-2013 09:15 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
| There are millions of us using Dropbox without issue, so the reluctance
| of your friends to use it seems a little silly, since it is free.

Most people don't mind, but there are privacy issues,
with the FBI recently talking about how they want to
set up fulltime surveillance of online services like dropbox,
gmail, etc.:

http://mashable.com/2013/03/27/internet-snooping-fbi/

I wouldn't use it, as I don't use free webmail. I'd much
prefer to pay a couple of dollars to "own my own property"
online and not be at the mercy of freebie services. Also,
the more people use the freebies and accept that they
don't own their own data, the easier it is to justify intrusion
by gov't, advertisers, etc.



nospam 04-10-2013 09:25 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
In article <kk4kkp$jcg$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | There are millions of us using Dropbox without issue, so the reluctance
> | of your friends to use it seems a little silly, since it is free.
>
> Most people don't mind, but there are privacy issues,
> with the FBI recently talking about how they want to
> set up fulltime surveillance of online services like dropbox,
> gmail, etc.:
>
> http://mashable.com/2013/03/27/internet-snooping-fbi/


encrypt it prior to uploading or use a cloud service that does client
side encryption for you.

Mayayana 04-11-2013 12:26 AM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
|
| What I transmit or share via DropBox, or Skype is certainly not
| incriminating and I doubt the FBI would find anything of interest
| there. So I share those files with little concern, and I doubt the FBI
| is going to monitor the millions of daily DB, Skype, Picasa Web
| Gallery, G+, Facebook, and other, interactions without some cause.
| I am just not that paranoid.

That's an old debate. One side says, "If you've got nothing
to hide then you don't need to worry." On the other hand,
Jews in Nazi Germany had "nothing to hide". Nor do victims of
mistaken identity.

I don't doubt that your view is the majority. For me it's not
a matter of needing to hide something. It's the principle
of the thing. I don't accept that corporate interests or
governments should be able to ignore personal property and
personal territory. (Nor does the US Constitution accept it.)
There's actually a story on Slashdot today about how the IRS
takes the position that they can read any and all email because
people have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" with email.
That sort of view is made credible by the casual attitude of
people like yourself. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:
Google spies on gmail. GMail users don't complain. No privacy
in email becomes the social norm and thereby the legal precedent.
There's an interesting piece about that here:

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/readi...nd-privacy-law

I can understand your preference for convenience over
privacy and security, but it's hardly "silly" that other people
might have other priorities. To my mind it's indicative of
a general denial that people who depend on freebie services
are actually a bit annoyed by people who don't. Clearly
they'd rather not look at the details, so they're quick
to bring up "paranoia" and "tinfoil hats".



nospam 04-11-2013 03:22 AM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
In article <kk4vpu$q0v$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> I don't doubt that your view is the majority. For me it's not
> a matter of needing to hide something. It's the principle
> of the thing. I don't accept that corporate interests or
> governments should be able to ignore personal property and
> personal territory. (Nor does the US Constitution accept it.)
> There's actually a story on Slashdot today about how the IRS
> takes the position that they can read any and all email because
> people have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" with email.


email is sent unencrypted through multiple servers along the way. it's
unreasonable to expect it to be private. it's like mailing a postcard
or having a conversation in a restaurant.

if you don't want anyone to see the contents of your emails, encrypt it
before sending, just as if you want a conversation to be private, don't
have it in a restaurant or a subway train. very simple.

> That sort of view is made credible by the casual attitude of
> people like yourself. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:
> Google spies on gmail. GMail users don't complain.


google does not 'spy' on email. even members of the gmail team can't
read anyone's email unless they jump through a *lot* of hoops and have
a very good reason to do so, such as a subpoena.

if a google employee even so much as tries to access someone's email,
nevermind actually access it, they're fired on the spot. there's way
too much to lose to risk in spying, for both the employee and the
company.

what google does do is scan for keywords to show ads based on what's in
the emails. it's all automated and your identity is not revealed to the
advertisers.

some people find that to be a feature, since if they're going to see
ads, they'd rather see ads that might be for something they're
interested in rather than something completely unrelated.

those that don't consider it to be a feature can block ads and/or
relevant cookies (not all cookies since gmail relies on some). or, use
a different email service.

Whisky-dave 04-11-2013 12:48 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:26:17 AM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
> |
>
> | What I transmit or share via DropBox, or Skype is certainly not
>
> | incriminating and I doubt the FBI would find anything of interest
>
> | there. So I share those files with little concern, and I doubt the FBI
>
> | is going to monitor the millions of daily DB, Skype, Picasa Web
>
> | Gallery, G+, Facebook, and other, interactions without some cause.
>
> | I am just not that paranoid.
>
>
>
> That's an old debate. One side says, "If you've got nothing
>
> to hide then you don't need to worry." On the other hand,
>
> Jews in Nazi Germany had "nothing to hide". Nor do victims of
>
> mistaken identity.


That's an intere4sting way of looking at it.

>
>
>
> I don't doubt that your view is the majority. For me it's not
>
> a matter of needing to hide something. It's the principle
>
> of the thing.


I know what you mean but where do such principles stop or start, why must aperson get such things for nothing ? Why are those peole willing to pay for what they use. The only free post I get through the physical letter box is billings or advertising crap, but should I expect peole to post useful orgood stuff that I want for nothing.




>I don't accept that corporate interests or
>
> governments should be able to ignore personal property and
>
> personal territory. (Nor does the US Constitution accept it.)
>
> There's actually a story on Slashdot today about how the IRS
>
> takes the position that they can read any and all email because
>
> people have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" with email.


A strange way of puting it, sure;ly that means it's OK to hack anyones mailincluding theirs.

>
> That sort of view is made credible by the casual attitude of
>
> people like yourself. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:


No not realyl if you don;t want people coming through your door it;'s a good idea to get a lock but why expect those that want to come through your door to pay for your lock.

>
> Google spies on gmail. GMail users don't complain. No privacy
>
> in email becomes the social norm and thereby the legal precedent.


If I'm really fussed I could encypt any message or talk in code.
If I send a letter through the post then customs can open it and read it so whgere the differnce in fact I think that;'s worse because they destroy the packing and I've paid money to send that letter or parcel.
Why don't peole complin more about that ?



>
> There's an interesting piece about that here:
>
>
>
> http://wakeforestlawreview.com/readi...nd-privacy-law
>
>
> I can understand your preference for convenience over
>
> privacy and security, but it's hardly "silly" that other people
>
> might have other priorities.


Silly to expect it for nothing a bit like wanting a car with bullet proof windows because others have them or personal body guards.
Yes everyone can have them too, but few are willing to pay for them.



> To my mind it's indicative of
>
> a general denial that people who depend on freebie services
>
> are actually a bit annoyed by people who don't. Clearly
>
> they'd rather not look at the details, so they're quick
>
> to bring up "paranoia" and "tinfoil hats".


paranoia is free, although tin foil hats can't be brought on amazon.
Pity really there must be quite a market, dragons den here I come ;-)

Of course those wearing them should get a real clue.
http://boingboing.net/2012/10/01/tin...y-amplify.html





Mayayana 04-11-2013 01:25 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
| > There's actually a story on Slashdot today about how the IRS
| > takes the position that they can read any and all email because
| > people have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" with email.
|
| email is sent unencrypted through multiple servers along the way. it's
| unreasonable to expect it to be private. it's like mailing a postcard
| or having a conversation in a restaurant.
|

It's more analogous to a phone conversation. A postal
employee, or anyone who happens to see your postcard,
can casually read it with no more effort than directing their
gaze. Someone needs to actively and illegally tap into
network communications -- or servers -- in order to read
your email.

Much of the email discussion stems from an old ruling
that defines email that's read and left on the server, or
that's more than 180 days old, as abandoned. It dates
from the days when leaving email on the server was a
cause of congestion. These days that same definition
is being exploited to allow the pretense that such email
is not private.
In practice that means that my "real" email is reasonably
private because it gets deleted from the server when I
download it, so it never gets "abandoned" status, while free
webmail is a source of datamining that is held by the webmail
host, in some cases even when you "delete" it. That means
that everything you wrote earlier than 6 months ago is free
for the taking without a warrant.

| If you don't want anyone to see the contents of your
| emails, encrypt it before sending

That approach might have some value, but it's not the
issue at hand. The issue is giving up control of your
property in exchange for free services. The issue is that
my email should be private property, regardless of whether
I decide to institute extra security measures. A further issue
is detailed in the link I posted: To allow such intrusion leads
to it becoming a social norm, which leads to it becoming a
legal norm.

If you keep your personal papers in a desk, or on a laptop,
or in the "cloud", they're still your personal papers. If searching
your desk requires a warrant then searching your cloud space
should require the same. (Of course there are issues, like gov't
crime. For example, the AT&T scandal where they secretly split
their Pacific phone cable into two, providing the US gov't with
full access to all incoming phone calls. But dealing with that kind
of thing is secondary. It's not logical to say things like, "they
can tap your phone anyway, so what's the point having a legal
right to privacy?")

| > That sort of view is made credible by the casual attitude of
| > people like yourself. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:
| > Google spies on gmail. GMail users don't complain.
|
| google does not 'spy' on email. even members of the gmail team can't
| read anyone's email unless they jump through a *lot* of hoops and have
| a very good reason to do so, such as a subpoena.
|

They claim rights to it and use it to choose ads to
show you. The disclaimer is always that it's not
intrusive because it's "anonymized". That's an absurd
defense. One of the major functions of computers is
to "crunch" such data, and Google's whole business
is based on spying on you as much as possible, then
providing that data to advertisers. In your case they
probably know most webpages you've visited and what
you clicked. But that's OK because "it's not personal"?


Google's approach is analogous to being invited to
stay in a free room and finding someone in your room
upon arriving home. That person says, "It's OK. I work
for the owner. I'm just doing tenant research." That
may be true. The intruder may be harmless. But they
still had no right to enter your room just because you're
not paying cash for it. And they had no right to look at
your personal belongings. Would you trust such a person?
I wouldn't. Google was very successful back when they
were showing contextual ads next to search results. They
never needed to become so sleazy in order to make a profit.

I can only respond to you as I did to Savageduck:

I can understand that you may value convenience over
privacy and security, but why do you find it problematic
that I value privacy and security? It's no skin off your
back, as the saying goes. All I said was that I wouldn't
use Dropbox due to privacy issues, and that I'm not alone,
yet both of you are anxious to tell me how paranoid and
misguided I am.
So I can only conclude that you're in denial about what
you're doing. Which is not surprising. The whole sordid
market in online freebies depends on an almost comical,
mutual conspiracy: The providers pretend they're not
being sleazy while the customers pretend they're not
being exploited. The customers are too lazy to find an
honest service, and the providers are too greedy to provide
an honest service. So it's not in either party's interest to
look too closely at the details.



Mayayana 04-11-2013 01:45 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
> I don't doubt that your view is the majority. For me it's not
> a matter of needing to hide something. It's the principle
> of the thing.


|
I know what you mean but where do such principles stop or start, why must a
person get such things for nothing ?
|

I agree. Customers hope to grab something for nothing
while service providers hope to pick the customers'
pockets while they're busy grabbing.

Neither side is entirely honest in that deal. That's why
I just don't use the freebie services. I don't think the
sleaziness of Google, Facebook and others is defensible,
but neither is the behavior of their customers who expect
something for nothing and then complain when they're
mistreated.

Facebook has become an interesting example. Mr. Z.
was very clever to move so slowly and gradually into
exploitation of the customer base. What started out as
a private social bulletin board has evolved into an ad-
infested hijacking of peoples' social lives, tracking nearly
everything people do online. In the meantime Facebook
has become an institution. Schools, clubs and stores make
announcements on Facebook. If people quit they'll lose
numerous contacts of all kinds. They're addicted. People
threaten to leave each time the Facebookies turn the
screws, but it's an empty threat. They never paid
anything for the service that Facebook provides. It's
a vivid example of the longterm costs of trying to get
something for nothing.



Mayayana 04-11-2013 05:25 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 

| At no point in our exchange did I say you were paranoid or misguided.

| For those who are not sharing, or transmitting files and/or information of
a
| sensitive nature, their reluctance to use a service such as DB, Skype,
| Flickr, etc. is less than rational and could well border on the
| conspiracy theory paranoid.

| So, if your non-use of those services is not due to an irrational
| cause, I must believe that all files and data you transmit and share
| with others is of a sensitive, possibly incriminating nature.
|

So, you don't say I'm paranoid. You only say that if
I don't use DB then I must be *either* a criminal OR a silly,
irrational, borderline paranoiac. My mistake. I thought you
were criticizing people who don't use DB. :)

(I don't feel insulted by this, but I do consider the whole
issue part of a public discussion worth having.)

You seem to have missed my main explanation entirely.
(See the Whisky-Dave exchange and the law link for
that:
http://wakeforestlawreview.com/readi...nd-privacy-law
)

In line with what I said in the part you snipped, your
dismissal of people not using DB as ignorant, irrational,
or criminal, refusing to accept that it could just be a
reasonable concern for privacy and security, is indicative
of denial. See Part II at the link above for a discussion
about that from a legal scholar.



Mayayana 04-11-2013 05:31 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
Additionally, in part III of the link:

"Justice Alito recently contemplated that we may be moving toward a world in
which so many people share information with so many friends that social
norms no longer indicate a reasonable expectation of privacy in that
information. Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, there will be no
warrant requirement for law enforcement to obtain that information. This
analysis is troubling; sharing information with your friends should not mean
that you expect it to be shared with law enforcement."

That's the kind of thing I was referring to in saying
that the mere accepting use of freebie services that
claim rights to access your data can change social
and legal standards, undercutting your rights in the
future.



Rikishi42 04-11-2013 05:52 PM

Re: Best way to get large files from a friend?
 
On 2013-04-11, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>|
>| What I transmit or share via DropBox, or Skype is certainly not
>| incriminating and I doubt the FBI would find anything of interest
>| there. So I share those files with little concern, and I doubt the FBI
>| is going to monitor the millions of daily DB, Skype, Picasa Web
>| Gallery, G+, Facebook, and other, interactions without some cause.
>| I am just not that paranoid.
>
> That's an old debate. One side says, "If you've got nothing
> to hide then you don't need to worry." On the other hand,
> Jews in Nazi Germany had "nothing to hide". Nor do victims of
> mistaken identity.
>
> I don't doubt that your view is the majority. For me it's not
> a matter of needing to hide something. It's the principle
> of the thing. I don't accept that corporate interests or
> governments should be able to ignore personal property and
> personal territory. (Nor does the US Constitution accept it.)
> There's actually a story on Slashdot today about how the IRS
> takes the position that they can read any and all email because
> people have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" with email.
> That sort of view is made credible by the casual attitude of
> people like yourself. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:
> Google spies on gmail. GMail users don't complain. No privacy
> in email becomes the social norm and thereby the legal precedent.
> There's an interesting piece about that here:
>
> http://wakeforestlawreview.com/readi...nd-privacy-law
>
> I can understand your preference for convenience over
> privacy and security, but it's hardly "silly" that other people
> might have other priorities. To my mind it's indicative of
> a general denial that people who depend on freebie services
> are actually a bit annoyed by people who don't. Clearly
> they'd rather not look at the details, so they're quick
> to bring up "paranoia" and "tinfoil hats".


Exactly. It's just like my house: I have nothing to hide in it. That
doesn't mean I'd be ok with people walking in/out, going trough my stuff.
And even if I didn't lock it up, visiting it without my invitation, is wrong
and illegal. Especially for official agencies. If they can't obide rules
(we know some never do), then why should they expect us to do so?




--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.