Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (26755)	4/25/1999 10:37:00 PM
From: John J. Frawley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Off Topic Peter, I was thinking of you this weekend as I listened to an Omnipoint radio commercial. Within the commercial a reference was made to an English inventor who had made a REVERSE BAR CODER. With this device a shopper could identify the manufacturer of the item for sale and it's environmental and other social records. Of course, the opinion would be based on whomever was providing the evaluation, but the concept of putting the power of information into the hands of individual through the use of technology is what has been discussed on this thread over the past few weeks. John F.

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (26755)	4/27/1999 1:52:00 AM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42771

Hello PJ, I hadn't thought of this as an argument ... merely a discussion of possibilities ... I don't think that we are that far apart in our thinking. > Just because it's trackable doesn't mean there is someone "looking > over our shoulder" at all times. Here I might disagree. Almost all of the ISP systems, at various levels, do track all the time ... and log the information into databases that can be very easily queried. I believe this is becoming a matter-of-fact due to the increased use of automated systems, and the decreasing cost of storage. > Our "real world" life can be just as trackable but there are > certain civil liberties in place which prevent and/or regulate > this. In cyberspace, we don't have this in any shape or form > yet. I understand the nature of the internet won't allow us an easy > solution because of the boundry-less nature of it but that's not a > excuse to give up or deny that a solution can be found. Yes ... and no. I agree that in some cases the real-world (meatspace) can offer tracking, but again I don't know that you can get anywhere on the Internet without being traced. I know that you offer examples of "inside of a store" but here where I live near huge open spaces it's easy to go and get lost ... very difficult to trace. (Where is Jimmy Hoffa?) Also, the civil liberties that you discuss are simply a set of rules here in America. As numerous international citizens are well aware, they don't have these same rights. The Internet is not an American thing. > We are being tracked from surveillence cameras at intersections and > toll booths to our passports and travel tickets. We constantly > leave a "paper" trail for someone to track - you point out the only > difference is it's not happening in real time for everything we do. Yep ... exactly. But I don't know about anyone keeping a log of when I leave my house ... and in what car, etc. And storing it in a queriable database? But I agree completely about the current papertrails ... that's why I use cash, and don't use my Grocery Store discount card! (Inside joke ... ;-) > Does that really make it different? I mean, some things ARE being > tracked in real time...some things aren't...that doesn't mean I > have "privacy". Again ... I agree. As I stated in the last post I think that the only form of real privacy are the thoughts that we keep private inside of our own heads. As soon as we externalize them, they have a good chance of becoming public, or at least shared. > OK, I see that you are not familiar with AOL's Terms of Service so > I'll briefly go over them. No need. I'm very familiar with them. I obviously was not clear about my point. This has nothing to do with AOL ... it's with the "logical" source of the posting. The virus writer didn't have to use AOL ... he could have used millions of other nodes on the Internet to post to that news group. He happened to pick one that has a policy of cooperation with authorities ... I'm not say that is a bad thing. What if he hadn't? What if he had posted through a PC connected to the Internet in some PC store in Texas? Or in India? What if he posted through an ISP who just didn't turn on the RADIUS accounting services? What if they had no log? My point is not that AOL does or doesn't have correct terms ... it's the issue that there are ways that he could have posted (yes ... they exist today) that would have made him much more difficult, if not impossible to find. > AOL doesn't keep track of their users for "evil" intentions of Big > Brotherism. If you read it that way, you are bringing your fears > and untrusting nature into your decision which is a whole different > beast :) I'm not trying to insinuate that AOL has anything other than profit on their minds. There is no "evil" intent ... and I'm not at all "fearful" or "untrusting" ... actually several friends who read your post laughed about the comment. You would have to get to know me better to understand my real perspective on things. (For those who know, yes, "Everything is good!") I'm simply a realist that is trying to explain that there are fairly simple ways around all of this tracking and tracing ... there always have been and always will be. I also know that although we spend $1 billion per year, of our hard earned tax money, on the DEA, our Drug Czar, and our "War on Drugs", we don't seem to have put a stop to this ... why not? Because "alternative" businessmen understand that if there is a billion dollars being spent to stop something that a segment of the population wants, then it must be a pretty profitable business to try and offer that product. I believe that it is exactly the AOL policies (that I have no problem with) that will cause other ISPs to cater to a different audience ... ;-) I'm not approving or disapproving ... merely stating that I believe it will occur. > You see the evil as the tracking part. I can respect that because > there are times when I too worry about the tracking. Such as will > my insurance company drop my coverage if I check cancer websites? > That's a big thing but I shouldn't need masking technology to > protect me from that. I don't know of anywhere that I have once said anything about "evil" ... I don't see it as "evil" ... I simply see "total and complete tracking" as a nirvana that can't be attained. Sounds great ... but have fun implementing. Where there is a will, there is a way. Where there is potential for big dollars, human nature will ensure that a blackmarket way is found. ;-) As for the "masking" technology that you describe above, I do believe that this is something needed. I'm more concerned about children growing up today than myself. They will never live in an age where they are "not tracked". Computers make the "data mining" process far to easy. i.e. your grocery store tracks all the food you buy. 15 years later, one of the items that you purchased, and fed your children, if found to cause certain health problems. Should the grocery store be able to sell that information to insurance companies? Should they be able to gather that information? Time to go rent the movie Gattica ... ;-) > I can also see that tracking is a necessary "evil" that will afford > me (and my family) a form of protection in that it will create > accountability that will deter others from doing "bad" things. This is where we differ. I truly believe this is a false sense of security. There is no nirvana. In a world of all of this extensive tracking, I'll bet you that more computerized, efficient forms of "bad" things will be created. I believe it is a zero sum game. We see it looking beautiful today, but corporations and big business will simply find ways to use it in the future ... it's not "evil" it's business. > We already have extensive laws that many countries agree to follow > so I have faith that in time we will find a solution. I agree completely. And we still have criminals that break those laws ... and many of them get away. It's an endless story. And it's not the physical country bounderies anymore, as you point out. It's the virtual communities of the future ... > If you think signing up with one of these sites and hiding behind > some technology that will mask who you are will solve the privacy > problem it's shortminded. Oops ... not so quick! (Ouch ... shortminded? I could say the same back ... ;-) > There will be people who will use this type of anonymity for > unwanted purposes which will only target that domain for sanctions > (as we do the Kosovo conflict you mentioned). Once that happens > what will stop countries from severing the ties (or access) to and > from that domain? This was the exact point that I was making! This will become the only defense ... but, as we have seen in the real world, what happens? Black market takes over. What sanctions create is simply a new market, at a higher price, for someone who wants to take the risks. > We already have an email blacklist for companies and ISPs who don't > take spam seriously (http://maps.vix.com/) Yep ... and there is still spam. ;-( > What if e-commerce sites deny access to people who use masking > technology for fear of fraud or criminal behavior? This is my point ... what will happen is that new sites will pop up where (for a high price) people will still be able to do those things. And when those sites are sanctioned and shut down, new ones will appear. Look at the drug trade ... there is no difference. It's not "evil" and "doomsday" ... it's simply reality. Sorry ... but I believe that living is still going to be a lot of work. ;-) > At best, it can be used to collaborate other evidence such as in > the case of the Melissa virus writer. He was not caught solely by > the tracking of his activities on AOL. I'll argue it was. He was caught because of the AOL activities. He will be proven guilty based on other evidence. If they had never been able to track down his PC (by use of the account and phone call trace) they would not have been able to find his PC, to prove that his PC was involved. > It was a tool used to prove a trail of a document which was created > on his PC. Ultimately it was MSFT's ID embedded in the document he > created and his PC's Operating system "fingerprint" that will prove > it maybe him. Other evidence will be necessary to actually convict > him of any wrong-doing. Yep ... but the AOL contact was the lynchpin. Without that they would still be looking for him ... ;-) > This argument will never end nor do I think it should lest we miss > the opportunity to find better solutions. Again ... I hope that it's not an argument, but rather a discussion of how things can and can't be done. (Well ... except for your "shortminded" comment! ;-) I understand your viewpoint and am merely trying to offer that some of the absolutes that you offer as examples are not so absolute. Also, I don't see it as "evil" or "good" ... I simply see things as they are. I'm content to live in a world in either case ... the world will evolve and it will be good. (Obviously what ever, or whoever, survives will say it's "good" since they survived! ;-) > Thank you for your time :) Likewise! Scott C. Lemon