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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mayayana, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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.
    Mayayana, Apr 10, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mayayana

    nospam Guest

    In article <kk4kkp$jcg$>, Mayayana
    <> 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.
    nospam, Apr 10, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    |
    | 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/reading-over-your-shoulder-social-readers-and-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".
    Mayayana, Apr 11, 2013
    #3
  4. Mayayana

    nospam Guest

    In article <kk4vpu$q0v$>, Mayayana
    <> 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.
    nospam, Apr 11, 2013
    #4
  5. Mayayana

    Whisky-dave Guest

    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/reading-over-your-shoulder-social-readers-and-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/tinfoil-hats-actually-amplify.html
    Whisky-dave, Apr 11, 2013
    #5
  6. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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, Apr 11, 2013
    #6
  7. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    > 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, Apr 11, 2013
    #7
  8. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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/reading-over-your-shoulder-social-readers-and-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, Apr 11, 2013
    #8
  9. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    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.
    Mayayana, Apr 11, 2013
    #9
  10. Mayayana

    Rikishi42 Guest

    On 2013-04-11, 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.
    >
    > 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/reading-over-your-shoulder-social-readers-and-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
    Rikishi42, Apr 11, 2013
    #10
  11. Mayayana

    Mark Sieving Guest

    On Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > 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.


    It depends. If your email server isn't running SSL your email is analogousto a phone conversation on a party line. Anyone connected to the network can read your email. If your connection is over SSL, it's encrypted. I don't think it's that hard to break, but someone would have to make an effor to do so. If the site you connect to has https in the URL, it's encrypted.If it's just http, whatever to send or receive is open to anyone in the world.

    The Internet is not a private network.
    Mark Sieving, Apr 11, 2013
    #11
  12. Mark Sieving <> wrote:
    > On Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:


    >> 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.


    [broke a 460+ character line into a readable line length]

    > It depends. If your email server isn't running SSL your email is
    > analogous to a phone conversation on a party line. Anyone connected to
    > the network can read your email. If your connection is over SSL, it's
    > encrypted. I don't think it's that hard to break,


    If you have functional quantum computers, then maybe it's
    not hard to break. Otherwise it's very very hard to break.
    Unfortunately, it can be subverted (man in the middle attack,
    possibly with stolen/wrongly signed SSL keys. There have
    been a few signing authorities which signed wrongly or were
    hacked into). Both sides could be compromized (in which case
    the data can be read while it's not yet or no longer encrypted.

    In case of Dropbox, employees (and therefore the feds) can
    access the stored data --- a point where Dropbox did mislead
    customers in the past.

    > but someone would
    > have to make an effor to do so. If the site you connect to has https
    > in the URL, it's encrypted. If it's just http, whatever to send or
    > receive is open to anyone in the world.


    > The Internet is not a private network.


    VPN

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 15, 2013
    #12
  13. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | In case of Dropbox, employees (and therefore the feds) can
    | access the stored data --- a point where Dropbox did mislead
    | customers in the past.
    |

    Nor is email analogous to a phone party line.
    But most people prefer to see the situation as
    black-and-white so they won't have to think
    about it. Eric Schmidt was addressing that
    approach in claiming that "privacy is dead". If
    it's dead then we can relax and go back to
    diddling our Facebook phones.

    Or as my mother used to say in dismissing
    dietary discussions, "Ah, if you listen to that
    you'll never eat anything!" :)
    Mayayana, Apr 17, 2013
    #13
  14. Mayayana <> wrote:
    >| In case of Dropbox, employees (and therefore the feds) can
    >| access the stored data --- a point where Dropbox did mislead
    >| customers in the past.


    > Nor is email analogous to a phone party line.


    Email is analogous to a postcard.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 17, 2013
    #14
    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. (PeteCresswell)

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

    (PeteCresswell), Apr 10, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    228
    (PeteCresswell)
    Apr 10, 2013
  2. nospam

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

    nospam, Apr 10, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    208
    nospam
    Apr 10, 2013
  3. Dave

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

    Dave, Apr 10, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    208
  4. nospam

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

    nospam, Apr 10, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    201
    nospam
    Apr 10, 2013
  5. DaveS

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

    DaveS, Apr 11, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    196
    DaveS
    Apr 12, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page