One of the answers is perjure.

Yes, but there`s almost none of that left... would say this girl:

The Supreme Court ruled today that Arizona public school officials violated the constitutional rights of a teenage girl when they searched her for prescription-strength ibuprofen: http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2009/06/articles/the-law/for-people/roundup-on-safford-united-school-district-v-redding-the-ibuprofen-stripsearch-case/

Most voters checking the one and only false answer indicates there`s still lot of optimists around. Reassuring, that is!

Is there such a thing as too much privacy?

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 26, 2009 2:19 PM Is there such a thing as too much privacy?

Not sure, to tell you the truth. Some recent and not very recent events (Austria, Italy and elsewhere) would show there is. But it is not deviations that I`m curious about.

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 26, 2009 8:13 PM Most voters checking the one and only false answer indicates there`s still lot of optimists around. Reassuring, that is!

The fact that most people say they enjoy their privacy simply means that they are not paranoid about the fact that some details of their life are known to whoever.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 26, 2009 2:55 PM The fact that most people say they enjoy their privacy simply means that they are not paranoid about the fact that some details of their life are known to whoever.

There is a difference between "some details" and "everything". There`s also a diference between "paranoid" and "lazy" (or "hedonistic", might well be), but I won`t go into that now

People saying they enjoy privacy are optimists. Blind to reality, too, I`m sorry to note.

There`s little privacy when people are unwilling or even afraid to switch their mobiles off, even when going to sleep. There`s little privacy when people are restless and nervous if they have not checked their email box first thing in the morning. But that`s their own choice, at least until it becomes an addiction, and therefore their own business.

There`s no privacy where cash is replaced by cards and other kinds of E-money.  With the buying and eating habits and even entertainment preferences being monitored (some flack whales even admit they do that all the time, for successful subliminal advertising), privacy is replaced by being subtly or not so subtly manipulated. And not like puppets - like plasticine, because pugging plasticine is easier than manipulating puppets. Whether this is "own choise" and "own business" I don`t know.

The above are just dribs and drabs. Any thorough study would take up too much time and space. Too lazy for that, sorry...

I understand Dodo's point about the way that electronic communications have eroded privacy, but in many substantial ways most westerners have much more privacy than they have ever had.  Most western children have their own bedrooms.  Not too long ago, most people lived in small, crowded houses with few rooms - and few beds - and had little to no "privacy," as we understand that term to mean.

I agree with David, at least this is the general feeling where I live. In some countries or some places you could not even leave your home without wearing whatever is expected from you to wear, at least in the past. This is just an example of many more things limiting personal freedom and privacy. 

It would have helped to know in what context the question was meant.  I considered that I work surrounded by the four walls of my own home, with respectful family members, so that seemed private.  My clients only want to know about business: private.  My neighbours may help me carry heavy groceries to the door but they don't pry about my affairs: private.  That's what I thought you meant.

Now I read the statement where you insist that if I believe my life is private then I am an "optimist" and not in touch with reality.  The reasoning:

There's little privacy when people are unwilling or even afraid to switch their mobiles off

I don't own a mobile.

There's little privacy when people are restless and nervous if they have not checked their email box first thing in the morning.

I am not restless or nervous.  However, in my profession e-mails is how I get the bulk of my business, and timely responsiveness can make or break landing work, so I do check my e-mails frequently.  It's my job.  But even if I only enjoyed getting e-mails from friends, how is that a lack of privacy?  People only know about you what you want to tell them.  Or are you worried about hackers?

here`s no privacy where cash is replaced by cards

Electronic transactions do involve recording one's financial affairs which become accessible to some individuals.  There is some loss of privacy, but it is not true that there is *no* privacy.  Only some people have access to this information.

entertainment preferences being monitored

I listen to performances by friends, street musicians, and sometimes the radio.  I own CD's which I bought with cash.  I have bought CD's using debit cards which show only where I bought something, but not what I bought.  My television has been unplugged for years.  On the other hand, when I visit other people's homes and they turn on the t.v., how are the shows they are watching being monitored?  I'm mystified.  I see no place at all in this where my entertainment preferences are being monitored.  You may say some people have this or that going on, but you have suggested that any of us who say we are happy with our privacy are delusional.

I dislike the implication that if we do not opt in to a miserable view of life then we are wrong.  I prefer limiting my dealings with real problems.

... in many substantial ways most westerners have much more privacy than they have ever had.  Most western children have their own bedrooms.  Not too long ago, most people lived in small, crowded houses with few rooms - and few beds - and had little to no "privacy," as we understand that term to mean.

Exactly!

Maxi

I agree, that there is no privacy if somebody is famous, or if you want to write different things on the Internet, because everybody can read what you write and some employers, especially, may get shocked.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 27, 2009 10:11 AM I agree, that there is no privacy if somebody is famous, or if you want to write different things on the Internet, because everybody can read what you write and some employers, especially, may get shocked.

True.

Maxi

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 27, 2009 2:01 PM People saying they enjoy privacy are optimists. Blind to reality, too, I`m sorry to note.

And one of the answers is false.

Sounds to me as though dodo is the only one who's got a handle on truth and reality - either that - or we are being set up. But, I'm sorry to note, I'm way too lazy to determine which is which  

Ačiū, visada malonu sulaukti pelnyto įvertinimo.

Ačiū, visada malonu sulaukti pelnyto įvertinimo.

So efforts to discuss the question that you put forth, and the time that took, is met with the deliberate use of language that few can understand?  What is the point to that?  Or is the point to be incomprehensible?  Please show respect toward your peers by translating.

If sincere responses are received in this manner, I for one will not bother to get involved the next time.  Perhaps I misunderstood the gesture.

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 28, 2009 11:19 AM So efforts to discuss the question that you put forth, and the time that took, is met with the deliberate use of language that few can understand?

There are some postings written in plain English I do not understand. If I did, I`d feel offended and insulted. Should I start understanding them?

Please show respect toward your peers by translating.

"Thanks, well-deserved praise is always pleasant."

No, you did not misunderstand the gesture.

 

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 27, 2009 8:49 AM  I considered that I work surrounded by the four walls of my own home, with respectful family members, so that seemed private.  My clients only want to know about business: private.  My neighbours may help me carry heavy groceries to the door but they don't pry about my affairs: private.

Yes, that`s why I say there is still some privacy left.

I don't own a mobile. My television has been unplugged for years.

You are a happy exception, Maxi! I`m sincerely glad for you, no kidding.

you have suggested that any of us who say we are happy with our privacy are delusional.

No I did not. But I see the word "enjoy" has caused misunderstanding. I used it in the sense "have as an advantage or benefit". I should have used a different word. My apologies for that. But I cannot edit it now. Sorry!

 

I don't own a mobile.

I do but I keep it turned off at all times, save for emergencies or prior appointments. Should I start fearing something or someone in particular?

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 29, 2009 7:14 AM   Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 27, 2009 8:49 AM  I considered that I work surrounded by the four walls of my own home, with respectful family members, so that seemed private.  My clients only want to know about business: private.  My neighbours may help me carry heavy groceries to the door but they don't pry about my affairs: private. .

If I let my neighbors carry any groceries or anything at all, that would be it, for any privacy whatsoever.

I may gladly accept help from some other people, but not necessarily neighbors, because then I do not know how to handle the  situation. Am I supposed to talk to them all the time for at least a few minutes? I have no idea. Believe it or not, but I am a very private person, regardless of the fact that I write a lot and enjoy talking to different people, even on the train, sometimes.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 29, 2009 7:29 AM I don't own a mobile. I do but I keep it turned off at all times, save for emergencies or prior appointments. Should I start fearing something or someone in particular?

There`s certainly too many mobiles about my house, but all of those are turned off when we go to sleep. What I absolutely fail to understand is people complaining about being awakened in the middle of the night by silly and even criminal calls but still refusing to turn their phones off. Some seem afraid to do that, I don`t know why. Could anybody explain that to the dumb me?

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 29, 2009 1:29 PM I don't own a mobile. I do but I keep it turned off at all times, save for emergencies ...

That's the only reason why I have one. After I fell on my bike way out there 'where the grass don't grow', and had to walk home with a skittish dog, a heavy bike and an arm broken in two places, a mobile seemed like a good idea.

Nanna

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 29, 2009 1:44 PM  What I absolutely fail to understand is people complaining about being awakened in the middle of the night by silly and even criminal calls but still refusing to turn their phones off. Some seem afraid to do that, I don`t know why. Could anybody explain that to the dumb me?

Yes:

Once on a leash, always on a leash.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 29, 2009 7:55 AM Once on a leash, always on a leash.

Congratulations, Jacek, you have got the gist of the poll!

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 27, 2009 8:49 AM  a miserable view of life

What can I say...

www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/MegaBBS/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp

www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/MegaBBS/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp

Are they fun, balloons? I always wanted to take a trip. I hate commercial airplains, but balloons are magnificent.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 29, 2009 4:07 PM Are they fun, balloons?

Not bad. But if you want to really feel the flight, try an ultra-light or a hang-glider.

What is a hang-glider?

No, that would be too freaky for me, I like baloons, big and slow, just moving slowly above the ground.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 30, 2009 1:49 PM What is a hang-glider?

Google > Images > hang-glider = voila!

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 27, 2009 1:01 PM People saying they enjoy privacy are optimists. Blind to reality, too, I`m sorry to note.

None of the options offered applies to me. The question was whether I need privacy and my answer would be simply "yes" but a simple "yes" option has not been provided.

I believe that a reasonable amount of privacy is possible if I don't attract anybody's attention. If somebody or some organization actively targets me then I don't stand a chance.

Some time back I watched a German police demonstration of a computer program used for analyzing the contents of trash cans. They just tipped a demo trash can out onto a table and entered each item into the program which slowly built up a really amazing profile of the person or persons whose trash it was (the program was able to tell before the trash was even half processed that two persons were living in the house). They even mentioned the practice of delivering test mail to the house a day or two before to see what gets thrown out and what has interested the people in the house and been kept back. Simple things like the presence of dog food cans in the trash says that there is a dog in the house which would have to be taken care of if the intention is to break in and plant a bug. A scribbled note on the back of an envelope like "6295" might be a PIN and g78jj?*5t might well be that cunning password that nobody could possibly guess.

Since I saw that demo, I have run all our personalized paper, old envelopes, documents, leaflets, copies of translations, bank statements, and similar stuff through a shredder. You really have to shred everything, not just the sensitive stuff, and mix it thoroughly before dumping it in a place where it cannot be identified as yours. You need a steady output of about the same quantity of shredded stuff at regular intervals, a sudden increase in the amount you shred says that you are now doing something sensitive.

The policeman giving the demo said that carelessly throwing out information useful to criminals into the trash can was just as risky as leaving your handbag or your wallet unattended on your car seat.

To paraphrase the old saying: The price of privacy is eternal vigilance!

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 13, 2009 7:13 AM Since I saw that demo, I have run all our personalized paper, old envelopes, documents, leaflets, copies of translations, bank statements, and similar stuff through a shredder. You really have to shred everything, not just the sensitive stuff, and mix it thoroughly before dumping it in a place where it cannot be identified as yours. You need a steady output of about the same quantity of shredded stuff at regular intervals, a sudden increase in the amount you shred says that you are now doing something sensitive.

They had the "ribbon" shredder, and then the "confetti" shredder. Next, I would suggest a masher wherein the "confetti" would be mixed with water and pressed into a brick-like pulp. In the meantime, you may want to cut out the passwords and burn it or mash it and dump into the toilet bowl.

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 13, 2009 5:03 PM Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 13, 2009 7:13 AM Since I saw that demo, I have run all our personalized paper, old envelopes, documents, leaflets, copies of translations, bank statements, and similar stuff through a shredder. You really have to shred everything, not just the sensitive stuff, and mix it thoroughly before dumping it in a place where it cannot be identified as yours. You need a steady output of about the same quantity of shredded stuff at regular intervals, a sudden increase in the amount you shred says that you are now doing something sensitive.   They had the "ribbon" shredder, and then the "confetti" shredder. Next, I would suggest a masher wherein the "confetti" would be mixed with water and pressed into a brick-like pulp. In the meantime, you may want to cut out the passwords and burn it or mash it and dump into the toilet bowl.

And, for 99.9999% proofing, don't use your credit/debit cards at retailers that simply print out your name and card number in full as this would also likely imply that they have minimal privacy policy and computer security, otherwise your complete destruction of old cards at home may not add up to much.

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 12, 2009 6:13 PM The question was whether I need privacy and my answer would be simply "yes" but a simple "yes" option has not been provided. If somebody or some organization actively targets me then I don't stand a chance.

I must admit the question is rhetorical, kinda... It`s answers that contain information. And yes, if sb/sth targets one then one doesn`t stand a chance, with extremely rare exceptions. But what I`m curious about is people not even understanding privacy.

They just tipped a demo trash can out onto a table and entered each item into the program which slowly built up a really amazing profile of the person or persons whose trash it was

With person or persons "green", the trash tells less. For example, in our family, we sort waste, so glass and paper and plastic and metal goes where it should go and not into our trash can. What can be composted is composted, so we need not buy chemical fertilizers. Paper with any personal information on it is burned as kindling for hearth. That leaves not much to be put into the trashcan, except for tetrapacks and such. Well, I suppose our trash betrays GreenPeace...

The price of privacy is eternal vigilance!

That it seems to be. Yet not necessarily.

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 13, 2009 9:03 AM They had the "ribbon" shredder, and then the "confetti" shredder.

The problem with those is that the bits all have sharp edges and can, with a suitable machine, be put together again. My present shredder tears the paper into bits, thus leaving them with ragged, fuzzy edges. The machine that puts those together again correctly has not yet been invented. It would have to be done by hand and is therefore practicable only in low-wage countries.

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 13, 2009 9:03 AM Next, I would suggest a masher wherein the "confetti" would be mixed with water and pressed into a brick-like pulp.

The problem with that is that you have collected all the bits together into one processable block which you then have to hide somewhere. No, the best strategy is to take the bits up to the top of a tall building and let the wind distribute them over several square kilometers. The logistics of collecting them again and separating them from the bits of all the other people who are using the same strategy is too much for all but the Mafia and if you have fallen foul of them you are doomed anyway.

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 13, 2009 9:03 AM In the meantime, you may want to cut out the passwords and burn it or mash it and dump into the toilet bowl.

No, never do that. That is hopelessly insecure. You might have seen the film "Topkapi" which revealed some of the methods used by the Turkish secret police. The criminals had rented a house as a base for their operations and the Turkish secret police had interrupted the sewage pipes from the house and were intercepting and examining all evidence coming down the pipe. You can't win that way.

Derek

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on July 13, 2009 12:11 PM I must admit the question is rhetorical, kinda... It`s answers that contain information. ... But what I`m curious about is people not even understanding privacy.

The polls that attract the most responses are always the ones that do not clearly define the terms used and present choices that cover only a small fraction of the possible choices. For example, you did not define "privacy" so we are all left to define it as we think fit. I took the Merriam-Webster definition: 1a: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation, 1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion.

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on July 13, 2009 12:11 PM With person or persons "green", the trash tells less. For example, in our family, we sort waste, so glass and paper and plastic and metal goes where it should go and not into our trash can. What can be composted is composted, so we need not buy chemical fertilizers. Paper with any personal information on it is burned as kindling for hearth. That leaves not much to be put into the trashcan, except for tetrapacks and such. Well, I suppose our trash betrays GreenPeace...

Not only that, you are being too law-abiding to be true, that is a sure sign that you are up to no good and trying desperately not to give the authorities any excuse to come and inspect your premises. You will not succeed. That exaggeratedly compliant behaviour is sure to attract attention and you will get onto the list of those earmarked for closer examination.

I have a feeling that you have not grasped the basic principle: There is a statistically normal trash can content. Any trash can whose contents depart significantly from the average contents is suspect. For example, most people do not shred the advertising brochures that come in the mail so anybody whose trash contains no advertising brochures is very likely to be either shredding them or hoarding them in the house and is immediately suspect on those grounds alone and is likely to be be subjected to the next level of scrutiny.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 13, 2009 7:59 AM we are all left to define it as we think fit

That`s the gist!

you are being too law-abiding to be true

Yeah, I am a law-abiding citizen. The blade of my spring-knife lacks precisely 3 mm to the punishable length.

But we sort waste just because we are green. We do not like littering about.

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 13, 2009 8:32 PM No, the best strategy is to take the bits up to the top of a tall building and let the wind distribute them over several square kilometers.

With today's tendency for tall buildings to be highly wired with CCTVs, you risk every camera in the city trained on you through face recognition, tracking your every move all over town as a suspicious character possibly up to no good. Your ID would be checked through computerized comparison of your face, and then your email, computer access, banking records, vehicle movement, phone calls, travel pattern, contacts, and down to your shopping and spending habits would be automatically tracked, tabulated and filed for cross-reference. You are now targeted for automatic surveillance. Welcome to the wired world.

Who doesn't want privacy? I honestly don't like to be an open book. I could tolerate just about anything, but one thing I can never ever tolerate is my privacy being invaded.  I don't know what I'd do if I had to live in Orwell's 1984 world which, I think, we'll soon find ourselves in with the number of countries turning into police states is dramatically increasing every year.

http://www.slate.com/id/2235503/

Everyone knows it's bad to use the same password for different sites. People do it anyway because remembering different passwords is annoying. Remembering different difficult passwords is even more annoying. Eric Thompson, the founder of AccessData, a technology forensics company that makes password-guessing software, says that most passwords follow a pattern. First, people choose a readable word as a base for the password—not necessarily something in Webster's but something that is pronounceable in English. Then, when pressed to add a numeral or symbol to make the password more secure, most people add a 1 or ! to the end of that word. Thompson's software, which uses a "brute force" technique that tries thousands of passwords until it guesses yours correctly, can easily suss out such common passwords. When it incorporates your computer's Web history in its algorithm—all your ramblings on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere—Thompson's software can come up with a list of passwords that is highly likely to include yours. (He doesn't use it for nefarious ends; AccessData usually guesses passwords under the direction of a court order, for military purposes, or when companies get locked out of their own systems—"systems administrator gets hit by a bus on the way to work," Thompson says by way of example.) ...

In Schneier's comment section, I found a foolproof technique to create passwords that are near-impossible to crack yet easy to remember. Even better, it'll take just five minutes of your time. Ready?

[...]