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?

[...]