Schneier on Security
A blog covering security and security technology.
« This Suspicious Photography Stuff Is Confusing |
| Terrorism Reading List »
December 27, 2010
There's a lot more.
Posted on December 27, 2010 at 1:04 PM
• 13 Comments
To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter.
thought this was for schneier.com for a minute.
What really bugs me is the idea of a "No Tracking List." It's like a law that says it's okay to slap anyone who hasn't put their name on the "No Slap List."
Your website is worthless to a new visitor because it lacks context, could you please give us some?
Also could summarise all your talks or have what you consider to be your most relevant essays on a list?
Still way too long. In it's shortest incarnation, it could just say "We really don't care about your privacy concerns and we'll use all data collected in any way we see fit, unless explicitly forbidden by law and our lawyers can't find any loopholes. If you don't like it, go away."
We don't care who you are
We don't want to know anything about you
We don't want to store information about you
We don't sell information about you to Third Parties
It just doesn't get any simpler then that....
Some federal law will get passed which prohibits websites from keeping track of anything, including IP addresses (without which of course nothing can be sent to a browser). It wont be enforced, but will stay on the books and be used to attack people that are undesired but arent breaking any "real" laws.
Rather the opposite. I expect increasing government requirements for sites to track visitor behavior. All, of course, in the name of "security" ...
There's already a battle over it based on enforcement of privacy laws in Europe. It's being used to protect individuals from corporations.
"WP29 told Yahoo that "a partial deletion of the personal data contained in search logs does not constitute true anonymization," and told Google that "deleting the last octet of the IP-addresses is insufficient to guarantee adequate anonymisation.""
Google has been openly patronizing and arrogant in response to the privacy advocates; it's a wonder anyone trusts them with anything:
"it’s important to have a firm grasp of the technical realities of the debate in order to reach conclusions that make sense"
Seems to me that kingsnake's assessment is most accurate. The US federal government made it clear under Bush 2.0 it would pay companies to track and collect visitor behavior (not least of all because Ashcroft was putting money in his own pocket by spending it on ChoicePoint http://www.nationalcorruptionindex.org/pages/... A law to this effect would help bring the cost down and Google would not have to be so smug about their reasons.
"Your website is worthless to a new visitor because it lacks context, could you please give us some?
Also could summarise all your talks or have what you consider to be your most relevant essays on a list?"
I can't figure out the purpose of your post. Maybe it was sarcasm, but just in case it wasn't...
Bruce is a respected security expert who posts about things that interest him, usually things related to some security field (computer, airport, physical, etc). All of his hundreds of previous blog postings going back many years, are easily accessible for you to read, just click on the links at the top or left of this page. If you click the "Essays and Op Eds" link, you get exactly the kind of list of relevant essays that you appear to be asking for.
What more context could you possibly want?
A possible addition to the "Honest 'Privacy' Policy:"
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT.