Re: RoHS => tin whiskers?


"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:448982AC.50602@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:15:09 GMT, the renowned Fred Bloggs
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:36:01 +0200, the renowned "Frithiof Andreas
Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



<langwadt@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149798428.627827.281820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I believe they "only" want to store sender and receiver information

not


the actual content. But thats scary enough.

Very. Think "All IP network" - the sender/receiver information is in
every package and must be there regardless of encryption so the
legislation neatly sidesteps a nasty technical issue.

Apart from that, the really interesting information about you is in
the network of people you communicate with; f.ex. how many links are
incoming to you, how many outgoing and call frequencies on each
decides your spot in the hierachy.


Guilt by association. Your neighbor down the street is a
communist/jihadist/boogy man. Your kid talks to his kid for an hour at
a time sometimes, on your phone. You've got some 'splainin to do. Cast
a wide enough and loose enough net and you'll find such people with
additional simultaneous inconvenient coincidences that make them look
even more guilty. Maybe they lost their temper and said something that
a jerk neighbor will repeat. Maybe they made an angry comment they
though was anonymous in a chat room or on a blog. Maybe they were
curious and went to some web sites as a result of a news report. Start
with ten thousand people or a hundred thousand and you'll probably end
up with a handful who are absolutely innocent but look guilty as hell.

Of course if you're afraid of that sort of thing happening, you might
change your habits out of fear and to avoid suspicion. This kind of
electronic monitoring could make a police state far more practical
than those using humans. Part of the reason even some nominally
communist countries feel more free than here is that they are still
cash-based and also just don't have the technology to track every move
everyone makes.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

You mean you wouldn't want the government to know that some of your
neighbors have just purchased a ton of ammonium nitrate, are discussing
strategies for terrorizing the city, and meeting with others of their
ilk?


Not if it involves unacceptable levels spying on *everyone*. The
police will always ask for more and more powers, and therefore will
always have to be limited on a rational basis.

And how should we define "unacceptable"- an extension of Learned Hand?



Moving to more mundane matters, you wouldn't want the government to
know the 24 hour whereabouts and activities of the habitually criminal,
the predators, and murderers? Your so-called freedoms of privacy do not
extend to your movements in public and they never have. As society
becomes more complex and vulnerable to massive disruption by the few, it
will be necessary to move to 100% implanted trackers.


I'd like to see people convicted of a violent crime (armed robbery,
rape, murder) or with long rap sheets of minor crimes fitted with such
devices for *life*, and I think the information should be available to
storekeepers, security guards, barkeeps etc. Anyone who wants to spend
$100 for a receiver could know when such a lowlife was entering their
place of business or home.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Haha- good one!- the catch is that many of the storekeepers, security
guards, barkeeps etc. are just such lowlifes themselves:-)

So, like all the other mother-rapers and father-stabbers, they will just
shake hands, smoke cigarettes, and have a great time talking about all kinds
of groovy things.



.