Like anything else, email privacy depends on context. I certainly am not
going to bother with "secure" email if I'm sending said email to a public
email list. Point-to-point security is extremely easy with straight-up pgp
encryption. Trying to handle secure email in a glorified dark net is a
whole 'nother conversation.
However, I think this is beside the point. Just because something CAN be
read, doesn't mean it should be. Technically it's possible to have a
policeman standing outside my bedroom window and watching everything I do
every day. But we have protections for that and if someone does go outside
them, it's police harassment. It's possible to have funny men go through my
sewage and log every calorie I eat and whether I have a low-fat diet and
report that info to my health-insurance. For the protection of the other
policy-holders, of course. I think we're getting caught up in what's
possible as opposed to what's healthy for our society. The government is
not empowered to do anything they're not specifically forbidden from doing,
they're only empowered to do what we have decided we'd like to allow them to
do, and with a whole host of safeguards in place.
Obviously deficit spending isn't something the original founders thought of
at the time and we need to put some safeguards in to prevent that as well.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Eric Shubert <
ejs@shubes.net> wrote:
> I've always wondered about people who complain about email privacy, yet
> use a gmail address.
>
> For starters, what if the technically competent were to set up and use
> email servers that were configured to use TLS whenever it's available.
> Some servers are already configured for this. Wouldn't that secure email
> traveling between secured servers?
>
> Lisa Kachold wrote:
> > Back to the regulation of information?
> >
> > We don't get to vote on this, we defrayed that when we voted.
> >
> > What choices do we have now? Civil disobedience?
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ryan Rix<phrkonaleash@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> mike havens wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think only land oners should have the right to vote. I do not own
> >>> anything so I would not get to vote.
> >> White land owning men? :P
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:39 PM, James Lee Bell
> >>> <nuclear-cowboy@cox.net>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason Spatafore wrote:
> >>>>> Until the representatives are removed...we will constantly struggle
> >>>>> with this so-called Democracy. Technology has finally caught up to
> >>>>> where it can be used for a direct Democratic country with lower costs
> >>>>> than running elections every two years. Now is the time to start
> >>>>> implementing.
> >>>> I rarely get involved in these discussions, preferring to lurk, but
> this
> >>>> is a very intriguing concept that *might* actually be feasible and
> >>>> achievable. All we have to do is figure out how to accomplish
> absolutely
> >>>> unhackable authentication without violating every right to privacy we
> >>>> hold dear. Anybody want to hack that up by next Thursday? :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>> And yes, my first vote is to eliminate paper ballots and bar people
> >>>>> without access to computers from elections. Sorry, a computer is
> >>>>> available almost everywhere you go. It's time to grow with the times
> >>>>> and move on.
> >>>> I have to say I find this specific means-testing inappropriate just
> >>>> considering simple demographics. Have we even broken the 50% threshold
> >>>> of our eligible-to-vote citizens that could have access beyond
> dial-up?
> >>>> Hey, you want to computerize (*securely*) the collection of votes in
> >>>> such a way that folks in "flyover country (/sarcasm)" get to use the
> >>>> mechanism without owning the device and infrastructure, and without
> the
> >>>> yearly trip to Bethlehem, I'm right there with you. Give it 25 years,
> >>>> and maybe every citizen will have some level of computing device to
> >>>> participate. Until then...
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to take a philosophical hitch that'll probably generate a
> reaction
> >>>> to put me back in lurk mode, I absolutely think there should be a
> simple
> >>>> means test to earn voting rights: for the government entity in which
> you
> >>>> are about to vote (fed, state, city), have you paid taxes to that
> entity
> >>>> in x% of your eligible voting life (18+)? (asbestos underwear engaged
> >>>> :-)). ---------------------------------------------------
> >>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> >>>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Ryan Rix
> >> (623)-826-0051
> >>
> >> Fortune:
> >> Been Transferred Lately?
> >>
> >> http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://twitter.com/phrkonaleash
> >> XMPP: phrkonaleash@gmail.com | MSN: phrkonaleash@yahoo.com
> >> AIM: phrkonaleash | Yahoo: phrkonaleash
> >> IRC: PhrkOnLsh@irc.freenode.net/#srcedit,#teensonlinux,#plugaz and
> >> countless other FOSS channels.
> >>
>
>
> --
> -Eric 'shubes'
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
--
James McPhee
jmcphe@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)