31–40 of 199 posts
If you don't host your own mail server, you are a clown-person. Joe 6 pack has an excuse, but nobody here does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. Setting up a properly configured and secured mail server, and keeping it that way, takes time and is not a core value proposition for most of us. It makes complete sense to want to outsorce something like that.
And it doesn't protect any mail you wrote or received that's still in the recipients inbox or the senders "sent mail" folder. So it's a complete waste of time for that purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.
Do you have a cite for the peanut butter thing? I'd love to use that figure, but would hate to be unable to back it up if asked.
A call to the CDC press office revealed that the number of
deaths from food allergies, as collected from 2.5 million
death certificates across the country, is miniscule. Only
eleven people died from food allergies in 2005, the last year
for which we have data available. More people died from
lawnmower accidents.I wish we would treat cyberspace analogues of established property with the same respect given to the original. For example, your e-mail inbox is the online equivalent of your mailbox. Yet, one being "on your lawn" and the other "at Google's data-center," all bets are off. While I believe the Supreme Court should do better job at explicitly addressing this (for instance, "responsible expectation of privacy" establish…
There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.
People aren't afraid of choking on peanut butter or car accidents because they feel they have some control over those situations. Terrorism creates fear by removing that sense of control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the rights with respect to your mailbox derive from the fact that the Post Office was historically an appendage of the government. Giving your personal information to a government-run Post Office versus giving it to a third party like Google (that mines your personal information for advertisements!) is a salient distinction.
My question still is: why can't a judge subpoena all mail you have within the Post Office's sorting system? Don't say it's due to prohibitive expense unless you can prove this would be more expensive than Carpathia hosting Megaupload for free.
E-mail is different because the intermediaries are non-governmental third parties. The idea is that you do not give up your expectation of privacy by giving mail to the Post Office to deliver, because you know the Post Office is limited by the 4th amendment, while you do give up your expectation of privacy by giving mail to your e-mail provider, because you know your e-mail provider has no obligation to protect your privacy.
Another reason we need better encryption solutions for email. Are there any useful options that encrypt email?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a cite for the peanut butter thing? I'd love to use that figure, but would hate to be unable to back it up if asked.
Another good one is the number of people that die in car accidents in the US every year, largely due to human error - 32,367 people in 2011. If the government took one tenth of the money it spends on defense every year (which was $1.030–$1.415 trillion for 2012), or approximately $100 billion dollars, and invested it in driverless car research and the infrastructure changes necessary for it, a much bigger benefit cou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.
Not that I disagree entirely, but looking at deaths prevented isn't really relevant. Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear. People aren't afraid of choking on peanut butter or car accidents because they feel they have some control over those situations. Terrorism creates fear by removing that sense…
Many people would argue exactly the opposite
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing about monitoring our email that is necessary for security. The war on terror is a giant hoax, more people are killed every year choking on peanut butter. Members of the government are always reaching for more and more control over our lives and power to watch us.
Not that I disagree entirely, but looking at deaths prevented isn't really relevant. Terrorism isn't about death, it's about terror, putting people in a state of fear. The war on terror isn't about preventing death, it's about preventing fear. People aren't afraid of choking on peanut butter or car accidents because they feel they have some control over those situations. Terrorism creates fear by removing that sense…
Terrified people make stupid mistakes, sign away their rights with reckless abandon in the hope that it will allay their fears. No electorate is so easy to manipulate as one that is afraid.
Another reason we need better encryption solutions for email. Are there any useful options that encrypt email?
My company is working on this: http://parley.co EDIT: As mentioned a few times elsewhere on this thread, the biggest barrier to encrypted email adoption is the network effect, ie. both ends need to be using it. That is the core problem we're trying to solve--making an email system that would be better than the rest even if it weren't encrypted, but that's the icing on the cake.