New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by William Brown, Oct 12, 2010.

  1. In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.


    http://www.cnbc.com/id/39612433
    William Brown, Oct 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. William Brown

    hellicopter Guest

    William Brown wrote:

    >
    > In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    > available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    > access to many more details about computer usersÂ’ online activities.
    > Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    > come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    > language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.
    >
    >
    > http://www.cnbc.com/id/39612433


    An example of abuse of privacy...

    Once you know someone spends a lot of time online and
    where they live, you pretty much know they are fat,
    have exercise issues, and so increased blood pressure.
    Now all you need is a bunch of boy racers running around
    late enough to exasperate their health and increase the
    chances of heart attack.
    National have failed to stop the assaults of those with
    increased chance of heart attack, by failing to lower
    noise levels on cars.
    Any disturbance, noise, vibration at night will increase
    Adrenalin leading to increase numbers of heart attacks.
    A huge new cost on the health service.
    Why won't National stop drivers who abuse cars to create
    a public nuisance, even possible negligence homicide.
    hellicopter, Oct 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. William Brown

    Squiggle Guest

    On 12/10/2010 6:36 p.m., hellicopter threw some characters down the
    intarwebs:
    > William Brown wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >> available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >> access to many more details about computer usersÂ’ online activities.
    >> Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >> come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >> language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.cnbc.com/id/39612433

    >
    > An example of abuse of privacy...
    >
    > Once you know someone spends a lot of time online and
    > where they live, you pretty much know they are fat,
    > have exercise issues, and so increased blood pressure.
    > Now all you need is a bunch of boy racers running around
    > late enough to exasperate their health and increase the
    > chances of heart attack.
    > National have failed to stop the assaults of those with
    > increased chance of heart attack, by failing to lower
    > noise levels on cars.
    > Any disturbance, noise, vibration at night will increase
    > Adrenalin leading to increase numbers of heart attacks.
    > A huge new cost on the health service.
    > Why won't National stop drivers who abuse cars to create
    > a public nuisance, even possible negligence homicide.
    >
    >


    Please take your political rants back to nz.general or alt.ranting.idiots
    Squiggle, Oct 12, 2010
    #3
  4. William Brown

    Rhino Guest

    On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:36:53 +1300, hellicopter <>
    wrote:

    >William Brown wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >> available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >> access to many more details about computer users? online activities.
    >> Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >> come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >> language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.cnbc.com/id/39612433

    >
    >An example of abuse of privacy...
    >
    >Once you know someone spends a lot of time online and
    >where they live, you pretty much know they are fat,
    >have exercise issues, and so increased blood pressure.
    >Now all you need is a bunch of boy racers running around
    >late enough to exasperate their health and increase the
    >chances of heart attack.
    >National have failed to stop the assaults of those with
    >increased chance of heart attack, by failing to lower
    >noise levels on cars.
    >Any disturbance, noise, vibration at night will increase
    >Adrenalin leading to increase numbers of heart attacks.
    >A huge new cost on the health service.
    >Why won't National stop drivers who abuse cars to create
    >a public nuisance, even possible negligence homicide.
    >

    What the f**k have you been smoking? Stay out of nz.comp until you
    have something sensible to contribute.
    Rhino, Oct 12, 2010
    #4
  5. On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    Privacy ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:

    >
    >In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.


    Who the hell cares?
    You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    --
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
    to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
    Anatole France.
    Friar Scooter, Oct 12, 2010
    #5
  6. William Brown

    WD Guest

    Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On Oct 12, 11:01 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    > On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    > Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    > >available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    > >access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    > >Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    > >come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    > >language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    > Who the hell cares?
    > You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.



    Goebbels couldn't have said it better.


    Weihana.
    WD, Oct 12, 2010
    #6
  7. On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:01:16 +1300, Friar Scooter <5cÖÔ>
    wrote:

    >On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    >Privacy ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >>available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >>access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >>Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >>come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >>language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    >Who the hell cares?
    >You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.




    Yes but USA Laws are being forts onto us, just look at the Free Trade
    conditions, and what Happened to OZ..
    William Brown, Oct 12, 2010
    #7
  8. On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:01:16 +1300, Friar Scooter <5cÖÔ>
    wrote:

    >On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    >Privacy ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >>available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >>access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >>Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >>come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >>language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    >Who the hell cares?
    >You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.




    Did you read what News Paper it came from the New York Times, Please
    tell me what is Wrong, we don't have US laws here..
    William Brown, Oct 12, 2010
    #8
  9. William Brown

    John Little Guest

    Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    Rhino wrote:

    > What the f**k have you been smoking?  Stay out of nz.comp until you
    > have something sensible to contribute.


    And Squiggle said:

    >Please take your political rants back to nz.general or alt.ranting.idiots.


    Hey, don't banish humour from nz.comp!

    Regards, John
    John Little, Oct 13, 2010
    #9
  10. Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:

    >On Oct 12, 11:01 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    >> On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    >> Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >> >available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >> >access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >> >Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >> >come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >> >language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >>
    >> Who the hell cares?
    >> You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >
    >
    >Goebbels couldn't have said it better.


    Here you go with the insults and attempt to smear me by innuendo.
    Goebbels wasn't always wrong. In fact he was very good at telling the time
    accurately. He was renowned for doing so. He was always synchronising his watch
    with a very accurate marine chronometer in the NSDAP headquarters.
    Now, try again and tell me why you have such a knee jerk reaction to me saying
    what I did.
    Feel free to refute what I said, if you can.
    I reiterate: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear..
    --
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
    to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
    Anatole France.
    Friar Scooter, Oct 13, 2010
    #10
  11. William Brown

    Donchano Guest

    On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:01:16 +1300, Friar Scooter
    <5cÖÔ> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    >Privacy ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >>available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >>access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >>Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >>come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >>language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    >Who the hell cares?
    >You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.


    "William Brown" is just the latest in a long line of sockpuppets used
    by a well-known troll, so I usually ignore his numerous attempts to
    stir and don't care what he writes, I have to disagree with your
    reasoning on the privacy issue.

    Years ago I had the same reasoning used on me by a policeman who
    wanted to search my house in California. He wouldn't tell me why, or
    what he wanted to look for. He just pounded on my door and demanded
    admittance because he was a cop.

    When I objected, the policeman used the same argument that you do. And
    I refused - on principle - for the very reason you use in that
    argument.

    There is no reason for anyone to invade my privacy if I am NOT doing
    anything wrong. Or, in this case, illegal.

    The arrogant, young policeman then upped the ante and threatened to
    get a search warrant - again, without explaining why he wanted to
    search my house or what he thought might be in there. And I told him
    to go ahead.

    As it turned out, someone had made a clerical mistake with the address
    and I later learned that a search warrant was subsequently issued for
    another house further up the road from mine. But I will never forget
    having been put into the position of being treated as if I'd done
    something wrong even though I hadn't.

    In New Zealand, we have a right to our privacy and - as a matter of
    principle - I believe that this right should not be compromised just
    because someone else is "doing something wrong."

    I also believe that to believe otherwise makes us no better than meek,
    mindless, acquiescent sheep.
    Donchano, Oct 13, 2010
    #11
  12. William Brown

    WD Guest

    Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On Oct 13, 2:22 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    > On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    > Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Oct 12, 11:01 pm, Friar Scooter <5c  > wrote:
    > >> On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    > >> Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    > >> >available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    > >> >access to many more details about computer users’ online activities..
    > >> >Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    > >> >come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    > >> >language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    > >> Who the hell cares?
    > >> You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >
    > >Goebbels couldn't have said it better.

    >
    > Here you go with the insults and attempt to smear me by innuendo.
    > Goebbels wasn't always wrong. In fact he was very good at telling the time
    > accurately. He was renowned for doing so. He was always synchronising his watch
    > with a very accurate marine chronometer in the NSDAP headquarters.
    > Now, try again and tell me why you have such a knee jerk reaction to me saying
    > what I did.
    > Feel free to refute what I said, if you can.
    > I reiterate: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear...



    Because your arguments demonstrate you as someone who has no regard
    for privacy and limits on government power. Your argument basically
    justifies any arbitrary use of government power to invade the privacy
    of anyone for any reason. If this isn't fascism then I don't know
    what is.

    Privacy is not, as you imply, simply to protect those who wish to
    conceal their wrongdoing. Privacy has value aside from any fear of
    repurcussions legal or social. Very simply it is the "right to be let
    alone". The right not to have other people, whether government or
    private organizations, snooping on your personal business. You claim
    to be a person who just wants to be left alone to tend to his gardens
    and let bygones be bygones but your arguments represent a contrary
    philosophy.

    However, as for this particular technology I'm not sure I see the
    problem. It just means that protecting privacy will be a more complex
    operation for those organizations that serve that purpose. This would
    seem to be a natural evolution of the technology and I don't see why
    effective protections for privacy can't be developed to accomodate the
    new technology. But then again, there's a lot of tech-speak in the
    article I don't entirely understand.


    Weihana.
    WD, Oct 13, 2010
    #12
  13. Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:

    >On Oct 13, 2:22 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    >> On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    >> Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Oct 12, 11:01 pm, Friar Scooter <5c  > wrote:
    >> >> On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    >> >> Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> >In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >> >> >available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >> >> >access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >> >> >Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >> >> >come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >> >> >language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >>
    >> >> Who the hell cares?
    >> >> You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >>
    >> >Goebbels couldn't have said it better.

    >>
    >> Here you go with the insults and attempt to smear me by innuendo.
    >> Goebbels wasn't always wrong. In fact he was very good at telling the time
    >> accurately. He was renowned for doing so. He was always synchronising his watch
    >> with a very accurate marine chronometer in the NSDAP headquarters.
    >> Now, try again and tell me why you have such a knee jerk reaction to me saying
    >> what I did.
    >> Feel free to refute what I said, if you can.
    >> I reiterate: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear..

    >
    >
    >Because your arguments demonstrate you as someone who has no regard
    >for privacy and limits on government power. Your argument basically
    >justifies any arbitrary use of government power to invade the privacy
    >of anyone for any reason.


    No I don't. I merely said that if you have nothing to hide then you won't mind
    anyone knowing what you do.
    You have extended that into making me look like a fascist.
    I realise that makes it easier for you to believe anything you want to about me.

    >If this isn't fascism then I don't know what is.


    You draw a very wide bow. Because I believe in one thing that the fascists did
    doesn't make me a Fascist, no more than any railway employee who campaigns and
    succeeds in making the trains run on time is a fascist as well.

    >Privacy is not, as you imply, simply to protect those who wish to
    >conceal their wrongdoing.


    In your opinion.

    >Privacy has value aside from any fear of
    >repurcussions legal or social. Very simply it is the "right to be let
    >alone".


    And people will.
    Do you honestly think there is some massive govt. conspiracy to know EVERYTHING
    about EVERYONE?
    I don't.
    I never have and consider anyone who does to be more than slightly unbalanced
    and should take stock of their beliefs before they harm themselves or others.

    >The right not to have other people, whether government or
    >private organizations, snooping on your personal business.


    But for what possible reason other than susp[icion of law breaking would the
    govt. embark on such a purpose. The cost and number of people that it would take
    to do so would be prohibitive. It would have safeguards like current
    surveillance laws have, legal permission would be one, something that demands
    proof, reason and qualified people to authorise such surveillance.

    >You claim
    >to be a person who just wants to be left alone to tend to his gardens
    >and let bygones be bygones but your arguments represent a contrary
    >philosophy.


    To you perhaps but not to many others.

    >However, as for this particular technology I'm not sure I see the
    >problem. It just means that protecting privacy will be a more complex
    >operation for those organizations that serve that purpose. This would
    >seem to be a natural evolution of the technology and I don't see why
    >effective protections for privacy can't be developed to accomodate the
    >new technology. But then again, there's a lot of tech-speak in the
    >article I don't entirely understand.
    >
    >
    >Weihana.


    --
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
    to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
    Anatole France.
    Friar Scooter, Oct 13, 2010
    #13
  14. On , , Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:53:11 +1300, Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over
    Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), Donchano <> wrote:

    >
    >On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:01:16 +1300, Friar Scooter
    ><5cÖÔ> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >
    >>On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    >>Privacy ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >>>available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >>>access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >>>Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >>>come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >>>language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >>
    >>Who the hell cares?
    >>You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >
    >"William Brown" is just the latest in a long line of sockpuppets used
    >by a well-known troll,


    Roger Sheppard, I have 161 aliases on a list of his activities.

    so I usually ignore his numerous attempts to
    >stir and don't care what he writes, I have to disagree with your
    >reasoning on the privacy issue.
    >
    >Years ago I had the same reasoning used on me by a policeman who
    >wanted to search my house in California. He wouldn't tell me why, or
    >what he wanted to look for. He just pounded on my door and demanded
    >admittance because he was a cop.
    >
    >When I objected, the policeman used the same argument that you do. And
    >I refused - on principle - for the very reason you use in that
    >argument.
    >
    >There is no reason for anyone to invade my privacy if I am NOT doing
    >anything wrong. Or, in this case, illegal.
    >
    >The arrogant, young policeman then upped the ante and threatened to
    >get a search warrant - again, without explaining why he wanted to
    >search my house or what he thought might be in there. And I told him
    >to go ahead.


    I have had police try and do the same thing. They tried to insist that they
    would stay with me in the house. I made them leave the property and stand out on
    the street. I know my rights. They didn't come back with a search warrant but
    they did stop me every time I drove away from my house until I spoke to a senior
    sergeant about their activities.
    They were upset with me that I had stood up in court and called a policeman a
    liar. The judge spoke to me in chambers and heard my side of the story and
    agreed with me. The cop was dirty. I assume the other cops who were harassing me
    were also dirty cops.
    Can you imagine a policeman standing up in court and saying he didn't know that
    you had to report an injury accident to the police?
    He had spent 10 years as a policeman and several of those on the front desk of
    the watch house taking reports from the public. The judge gave him a severe
    dressing down for lying to the court. The cop was also very lucky not to be
    charged with drunk driving except the transport officer could not find him that
    night to breathalise him. It would have been curtains for Constable Ross as he
    had two previous drunken driving convictions, one was for being caught driving
    out of the police parking lot and colliding with another off duty officer. That
    occasion he blew twice the legal limit at the time over 30 years ago.
    >
    >As it turned out, someone had made a clerical mistake with the address
    >and I later learned that a search warrant was subsequently issued for
    >another house further up the road from mine. But I will never forget
    >having been put into the position of being treated as if I'd done
    >something wrong even though I hadn't.
    >
    >In New Zealand, we have a right to our privacy and - as a matter of
    >principle - I believe that this right should not be compromised just
    >because someone else is "doing something wrong."
    >
    >I also believe that to believe otherwise makes us no better than meek,
    >mindless, acquiescent sheep.


    --
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
    to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
    Anatole France.
    Friar Scooter, Oct 13, 2010
    #14
  15. William Brown

    Geopelia Guest

    "William Brown" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    > available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    > access to many more details about computer users' online activities.
    > Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    > come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    > language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.
    >
    >
    > http://www.cnbc.com/id/39612433


    I don't care what marketers and advertisers know about me, though I wonder
    why they would think I want a Russian bride. Somebody has got their wires
    crossed!

    And it's one thing them knowing about me, and quite another to be able to
    persuade me to buy their goods.
    Geopelia, Oct 13, 2010
    #15
  16. William Brown

    WD Guest

    Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On Oct 13, 11:16 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    > On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    > Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Oct 13, 2:22 pm, Friar Scooter <5c  > wrote:
    > >> On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    > >> Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >On Oct 12, 11:01 pm, Friar Scooter <5c  > wrote:
    > >> >> On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    > >> >> Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> >In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    > >> >> >available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    > >> >> >access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    > >> >> >Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    > >> >> >come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    > >> >> >language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    > >> >> Who the hell cares?
    > >> >> You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >
    > >> >Goebbels couldn't have said it better.

    >
    > >> Here you go with the insults and attempt to smear me by innuendo.
    > >> Goebbels wasn't always wrong. In fact he was very good at telling the time
    > >> accurately. He was renowned for doing so. He was always synchronising his watch
    > >> with a very accurate marine chronometer in the NSDAP headquarters.
    > >> Now, try again and tell me why you have such a knee jerk reaction to me saying
    > >> what I did.
    > >> Feel free to refute what I said, if you can.
    > >> I reiterate: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear..

    >
    > >Because your arguments demonstrate you as someone who has no regard
    > >for privacy and limits on government power.  Your argument basically
    > >justifies any arbitrary use of government power to invade the privacy
    > >of anyone for any reason.

    >
    > No I don't. I merely said that if you have nothing to hide then you won't mind
    > anyone knowing what you do.


    Which is the same argument used against any protection of privacy.

    > You have extended that into making me look like a fascist.
    > I realise that makes it easier for you to believe anything you want to about me.
    >
    > >If this isn't fascism then I don't know what is.

    >
    > You draw a very wide bow. Because I believe in one thing that the fascists did
    > doesn't make me a Fascist, no more than any railway employee who campaigns and
    > succeeds in making the trains run on time is a fascist as well.


    You believe in one thing the fascists did? That sounds to me like an
    admission that you care nothing for privacy which legitimizes the
    inference I drew from your statement. While you may not support other
    facets of fascism it doesn't make your views on privacy any less
    fascist.

    >
    > >Privacy is not, as you imply, simply to protect those who wish to
    > >conceal their wrongdoing.  

    >
    > In your opinion.
    >
    > >Privacy has value aside from any fear of
    > >repurcussions legal or social.  Very simply it is the "right to be let
    > >alone".  

    >
    > And people will.
    > Do you honestly think there is some massive govt. conspiracy to know EVERYTHING
    > about EVERYONE?
    > I don't.
    > I never have and consider anyone who does to be more than slightly unbalanced
    > and should take stock of their beliefs before they harm themselves or others.


    No I don't believe in any such government conspiracy but I do believe
    the government does not like to leave people alone, for various
    reasons. Quite often their motivations are understandable, but their
    goals do not justify invading people's privacy without reason.

    Privacy has intrinsic value. It's the reason people have curtains.
    They may be doing the most mundane of activities behind those curtains
    but that doesn't mean they want people peering in. The government
    shouldn't either.

    >
    > >The right not to have other people, whether government or
    > >private organizations, snooping on your personal business.  

    >
    > But for what possible reason other than susp[icion of law breaking would the
    > govt. embark on such a purpose. The cost and number of people that it would take
    > to do so would be prohibitive. It would have safeguards like current
    > surveillance laws have, legal permission would be one, something that demands
    > proof, reason and qualified people to authorise such surveillance.


    It is not necessarily prohibitively expensive to conduct
    surveillance. What are the majors costs with regards to the
    technology being talked about in the original post? But I agree that
    the government is generally law abiding and seeks appropriate warrants
    where necessary. However, it is not unreasonable to distrust
    government. The last US administration saw fit to conduct
    surveillance on its citizens without court approval and that country
    has a relatively strong judicial arm.

    Also, I think people who are concerned with threats to privacy do not
    generally trust lawmakers to protect those rights. Legal protections
    which exist today may be watered down come the next moral panic. I'm
    sure all it would take is another 9/11 to have governments around the
    world pushed over the edge to remove various safeguards which protect
    individual rights against the state. Hell, everyday crime in New
    Zealand continues to stir people into suggesting we change this and
    that in the justice system to ensure a conviction. I'm sure a large
    portion of New Zealand's would fully support the Police arresting the
    parents of the Kahui twins and taking a blowtorch to their kneecaps
    until they told us what happened.

    snip


    Weihana.
    WD, Oct 13, 2010
    #16
  17. William Brown

    WD Guest

    Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On Oct 13, 11:29 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    > On , , Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:53:11 +1300, Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over
    > Risks to Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), Donchano <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:01:16 +1300, Friar Scooter
    > ><5cÖÔ> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >
    > >>On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    > >>Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    > >>>available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    > >>>access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    > >>>Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    > >>>come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    > >>>language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    > >>Who the hell cares?
    > >>You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >
    > >"William Brown" is just the latest in a long line of sockpuppets used
    > >by a well-known troll,

    >
    > Roger Sheppard, I have 161 aliases on a list of his activities.
    >
    > so I usually ignore his numerous attempts to
    >
    >
    >
    > >stir and don't care what he writes, I have to disagree with your
    > >reasoning on the privacy issue.

    >
    > >Years ago I  had the same reasoning used on me by a policeman who
    > >wanted to search my house in California. He wouldn't tell me why, or
    > >what he wanted to look for. He just pounded on my door and demanded
    > >admittance because he was a cop.

    >
    > >When I objected, the policeman used the same argument that you do. And
    > >I refused - on principle - for the very reason you use in that
    > >argument.

    >
    > >There is no reason for anyone to invade my privacy if I am NOT doing
    > >anything wrong. Or, in this case, illegal.

    >
    > >The arrogant, young policeman then upped the ante and threatened to
    > >get a search warrant - again, without explaining why he wanted to
    > >search my house or what he thought might be in there. And I told him
    > >to go ahead.

    >
    > I have had police try and do the same thing. They tried to insist that they
    > would stay with me in the house. I made them leave the property and stand out on
    > the street. I know my rights.

    snip

    Why not let them search? You must have had something to hide.


    Weihana.
    WD, Oct 13, 2010
    #17
  18. Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On , , Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:32:24 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:

    >On Oct 13, 11:29 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    >> On , , Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:53:11 +1300, Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over
    >> Risks to Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), Donchano <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:01:16 +1300, Friar Scooter
    >> ><5cÖÔ> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >>
    >> >>On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    >> >>Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>>In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >> >>>available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >> >>>access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    >> >>>Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >> >>>come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >> >>>language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >>
    >> >>Who the hell cares?
    >> >>You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >>
    >> >"William Brown" is just the latest in a long line of sockpuppets used
    >> >by a well-known troll,

    >>
    >> Roger Sheppard, I have 161 aliases on a list of his activities.
    >>
    >> so I usually ignore his numerous attempts to
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >stir and don't care what he writes, I have to disagree with your
    >> >reasoning on the privacy issue.

    >>
    >> >Years ago I  had the same reasoning used on me by a policeman who
    >> >wanted to search my house in California. He wouldn't tell me why, or
    >> >what he wanted to look for. He just pounded on my door and demanded
    >> >admittance because he was a cop.

    >>
    >> >When I objected, the policeman used the same argument that you do. And
    >> >I refused - on principle - for the very reason you use in that
    >> >argument.

    >>
    >> >There is no reason for anyone to invade my privacy if I am NOT doing
    >> >anything wrong. Or, in this case, illegal.

    >>
    >> >The arrogant, young policeman then upped the ante and threatened to
    >> >get a search warrant - again, without explaining why he wanted to
    >> >search my house or what he thought might be in there. And I told him
    >> >to go ahead.

    >>
    >> I have had police try and do the same thing. They tried to insist that they
    >> would stay with me in the house. I made them leave the property and stand out on
    >> the street. I know my rights.

    >snip
    >
    >Why not let them search? You must have had something to hide.


    Because I knew two of the cops were dirty and were prepared to plant something
    on me.

    --
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
    to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
    Anatole France.
    Friar Scooter, Oct 14, 2010
    #18
  19. On , , Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:35:11 +1300, Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over
    Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), "Geopelia" <> wrote:

    >
    >"William Brown" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    >> available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    >> access to many more details about computer users' online activities.
    >> Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    >> come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    >> language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.cnbc.com/id/39612433

    >
    >I don't care what marketers and advertisers know about me, though I wonder
    >why they would think I want a Russian bride. Somebody has got their wires
    >crossed!


    If they spot the Phil in your email address they probably think you are a Philip
    rather than a Philippa or Philida or Philiccia.

    >And it's one thing them knowing about me, and quite another to be able to
    >persuade me to buy their goods.
    >


    --
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
    to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
    Anatole France.
    Friar Scooter, Oct 14, 2010
    #19
  20. William Brown

    WD Guest

    Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 )

    On Oct 14, 1:36 pm, Friar Scooter <5c > wrote:
    > On , , Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:32:24 -0700 (PDT), Re: New Web Code Draws Concern
    > Over Risks to Privacy ( HTML 5 ), WD <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Oct 13, 11:29 pm, Friar Scooter <5c  > wrote:
    > >> On , , Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:53:11 +1300, Re: New Web Code Draws Concern Over
    > >> Risks to Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), Donchano <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:01:16 +1300, Friar Scooter
    > >> ><5cÖÔ> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >
    > >> >>On , , Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:29:54 +1300, New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to
    > >> >>Privacy  ( HTML 5 ), William Brown <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >>>In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become
    > >> >>>available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers
    > >> >>>access to many more details about computer users’ online activities.
    > >> >>>Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that
    > >> >>>come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web
    > >> >>>language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

    >
    > >> >>Who the hell cares?
    > >> >>You only have something to fear if you are doing something wrong.

    >
    > >> >"William Brown" is just the latest in a long line of sockpuppets used
    > >> >by a well-known troll,

    >
    > >> Roger Sheppard, I have 161 aliases on a list of his activities.

    >
    > >> so I usually ignore his numerous attempts to

    >
    > >> >stir and don't care what he writes, I have to disagree with your
    > >> >reasoning on the privacy issue.

    >
    > >> >Years ago I  had the same reasoning used on me by a policeman who
    > >> >wanted to search my house in California. He wouldn't tell me why, or
    > >> >what he wanted to look for. He just pounded on my door and demanded
    > >> >admittance because he was a cop.

    >
    > >> >When I objected, the policeman used the same argument that you do. And
    > >> >I refused - on principle - for the very reason you use in that
    > >> >argument.

    >
    > >> >There is no reason for anyone to invade my privacy if I am NOT doing
    > >> >anything wrong. Or, in this case, illegal.

    >
    > >> >The arrogant, young policeman then upped the ante and threatened to
    > >> >get a search warrant - again, without explaining why he wanted to
    > >> >search my house or what he thought might be in there. And I told him
    > >> >to go ahead.

    >
    > >> I have had police try and do the same thing. They tried to insist that they
    > >> would stay with me in the house. I made them leave the property and stand out on
    > >> the street. I know my rights.

    > >snip

    >
    > >Why not let them search?  You must have had something to hide.

    >
    > Because I knew two of the cops were dirty and were prepared to plant something
    > on me.



    Well you *believed* that to be the case. Perhaps justifiably. But
    nothing is ever certain. It is surely reasonable for an innocent
    person to question the motives of officers who show up to his house
    and request to search without reason. The individual doesn't
    necessarily know whether or not the cops are dirty and it is certainly
    possible as many scandals have shown. This is why we have privacy
    laws, it's not simply to protect wrongdoers from being caught.


    Weihana.
    WD, Oct 14, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. MjrTom
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    593
    Toolman Tim
    May 1, 2004
  2. Ed Conrad

    Smithsonian S-House Photo Draws Apology

    Ed Conrad, Jun 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,143
    Hannah
    Jun 16, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?bWdyZW1saW4=?=

    over 4 gig ram concern in audio recording environment

    =?Utf-8?B?bWdyZW1saW4=?=, Dec 26, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    466
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Dec 27, 2006
  4. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    823
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
  5. Iain Foulds
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    388
Loading...

Share This Page