... that you wouldn't shout in the grocery store. Email isn't private, unless it's encrypted -- and most people don't bother.
Thanks for the mention.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I try to remember to treat my emails as non-private when composing them, of course. I even use a signature in most of my emails releasing any original content in them under the terms of the Open Works License -- as you surely know, because you actually see a fair number of my emails to the freebsd-questions mailing list.
edit: . . . and I could hardly not mention you. You were the reason I thought of this topic for an article.
edit: . . . and I could hardly not mention you. You were the reason I thought of this topic for an article.
It's my prediction that our contemporary notion of "privacy" will be obsolete in the very near future, and forgotten altogether in a generation. Consider that those now under 30 spent their most impressionable years in a world of reality TV and YouTube; where nearly all forms of public exhibitionism no matter how crude or stupid is not only tolerated, but is encouraged. Kids today tweet details of their daily lives that would have horrified our parents, and even install applications on their smartphones with the sole purpose of boradcasting their exact whereabouts and activities to anybody who cares in realtime.
Who is going to care about privacy when nearly everyone is already literally and purposely broadcasting every minute detail of their personal lives to the entire planet?
As for the usefulness of the Enron data: It's over 10 years old and how people use e-mail, spam tactics, and embedded HTML tricks have changed a lot in that time. Although a useful resource in volume, it's probably not real enough by today's standards as the sole test set.
Who is going to care about privacy when nearly everyone is already literally and purposely broadcasting every minute detail of their personal lives to the entire planet?
As for the usefulness of the Enron data: It's over 10 years old and how people use e-mail, spam tactics, and embedded HTML tricks have changed a lot in that time. Although a useful resource in volume, it's probably not real enough by today's standards as the sole test set.
> It's my prediction that our contemporary notion of "privacy" will be obsolete in the very near future, and forgotten altogether in a generation.
I think that, in the long run, the people who are most successful will be those who realize that privacy is security As for the usefulness of the Enron data: It's over 10 years old and how people use e-mail, spam tactics, and embedded HTML tricks have changed a lot in that time.
I think you're underestimating the value of hundreds of thousands of perfectly "normal" business emails. If every email in your dataset is exceptional, you have no baseline against which to measure its exceptional character.
I think that, in the long run, the people who are most successful will be those who realize that privacy is security As for the usefulness of the Enron data: It's over 10 years old and how people use e-mail, spam tactics, and embedded HTML tricks have changed a lot in that time.
I think you're underestimating the value of hundreds of thousands of perfectly "normal" business emails. If every email in your dataset is exceptional, you have no baseline against which to measure its exceptional character.
Just as bad money pushes out good money, or bad morals overwhelms good morals, I fear that the sheer number of people who have already given away their privacy will overwhelm those of us left who understand its value. Because like with virginity, there's no way to get privacy back once it's gone.
I'm not totally dismissing the value of the Enron data. I'm just suggesting that it's not totally valuable as a modern mirror of e-mail communications because of the multi-platform ways business is done today that either didn't exist or were as utilized over a decade ago, like the use of IM or texting.
I'm not totally dismissing the value of the Enron data. I'm just suggesting that it's not totally valuable as a modern mirror of e-mail communications because of the multi-platform ways business is done today that either didn't exist or were as utilized over a decade ago, like the use of IM or texting.
> I fear that the sheer number of people who have already given away their privacy will overwhelm those of us left who understand its value. like the use of IM or texting.
If all you're testing is an email tool, the fact that a lot of communications occur in IMs and SMS messages is largely immaterial to the email dataset.
If all you're testing is an email tool, the fact that a lot of communications occur in IMs and SMS messages is largely immaterial to the email dataset.
...is that the lemmings do not live in a supposed "democracy". If an individual lemming decides that he will not leap off the cliff, the fact that the rest do does not impact his life significantly. Also, once the rest of the lemmings do jump off the cliff, they are gone and would have no further impact upon the non-cliff-jumping lemming.
On the other hand, in our society, it's unfortunate that the vote of a "lemming" counts just the same as mine. I don't care much for the idea that the types of leaders the lemmings like get fiat over my life. Likewise, the sheer numbers of lemmings has a demonstrative impact upon the direction our culture takes. Instead of eliminating themselves from the culture and gene pool, they continue to multiply.
As for testing: It all depends on what kinds of communications you are testing for. Either way, it's still different.
On the other hand, in our society, it's unfortunate that the vote of a "lemming" counts just the same as mine. I don't care much for the idea that the types of leaders the lemmings like get fiat over my life. Likewise, the sheer numbers of lemmings has a demonstrative impact upon the direction our culture takes. Instead of eliminating themselves from the culture and gene pool, they continue to multiply.
As for testing: It all depends on what kinds of communications you are testing for. Either way, it's still different.
It's true that the lemmings in society have an impact on our lives by influencing things like government policy. On the other hand, they do not have any special power to make someone like me decide that privacy is not important -- and, as long as I care about privacy, I will tend to be better at protecting mine than someone who doesn't care about privacy will be at protecting his or hers.
. . . so my point still stands.
re: testing . . .
> As for testing: It all depends on what kinds of communications you are testing for. Either way, it's still different.
I don't get what you're trying to "prove" here. It seems like you're trying to say that hundreds of thousands of emails do not add up to a useful dataset for testing email parsers, which seems to me to be a completely ludicrous position to take.
. . . so my point still stands.
re: testing . . .
> As for testing: It all depends on what kinds of communications you are testing for. Either way, it's still different.
I don't get what you're trying to "prove" here. It seems like you're trying to say that hundreds of thousands of emails do not add up to a useful dataset for testing email parsers, which seems to me to be a completely ludicrous position to take.
They don't have the power to make you decide that privacy isn't important, but when they're perceived as the majority, it just won't matter anymore.
As we speak, governments at all levels are working on various plans for the implementation of technologies that will invade our notion of privacy in ways inconceivable only a few years ago. GPS tracking of auto travel ostensibly for purposes of taxation is one such proposal that comes to mind.
Resistance to policies like that is only possible if enough people realize the threat and make enough trouble for the politicians to put a stop to it. However, the sheer and growing number of "lemmings" will likely just give a collective shrug to this invasion, since they pretty much gave away their privacy before they even understood what it was. Those of us who still care about privacy will be viewed as but a diminishing vocal minority over time. The government will naturally seize upon this, and render your efforts at protecting your privacy moot.
As we speak, governments at all levels are working on various plans for the implementation of technologies that will invade our notion of privacy in ways inconceivable only a few years ago. GPS tracking of auto travel ostensibly for purposes of taxation is one such proposal that comes to mind.
Resistance to policies like that is only possible if enough people realize the threat and make enough trouble for the politicians to put a stop to it. However, the sheer and growing number of "lemmings" will likely just give a collective shrug to this invasion, since they pretty much gave away their privacy before they even understood what it was. Those of us who still care about privacy will be viewed as but a diminishing vocal minority over time. The government will naturally seize upon this, and render your efforts at protecting your privacy moot.
These emails are/were evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings. As such, our legal system requires that they be made public. As much as you might not like it, the guy in the next booth is raising seven kinds of #%^#$% because the government is not releasing evidence in his/her cause celebre. One of you is going to loose.
Victims of rape usually have to testify in open court as to what happened before the rapist can be found guilty (the exception is when there is ample other evidence). You logic allows that people be found guilty of crimes for which the government discloses no evidence. Presumably you would also find this intolerable, but you can't have it both ways. Pick one and adjust to the consequences of your decision or start working on getting elected King so you can change the rules according to you whim.
Victims of rape usually have to testify in open court as to what happened before the rapist can be found guilty (the exception is when there is ample other evidence). You logic allows that people be found guilty of crimes for which the government discloses no evidence. Presumably you would also find this intolerable, but you can't have it both ways. Pick one and adjust to the consequences of your decision or start working on getting elected King so you can change the rules according to you whim.
> You logic allows that people be found guilty of crimes for which the government discloses no evidence.
No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the article do the words "No emails should have been made public!" appear. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of emails, most of which are not evidence of anything.
No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the article do the words "No emails should have been made public!" appear. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of emails, most of which are not evidence of anything.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
