<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "Guardians of Privacy" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/852]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Leora]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1876570]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Those of us with control issues would have a rough time.   For Pete's sake, I drive a standard...on 
purpose! 
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1876570]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from usmdj]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1875501]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[They don't need to be doing the tech stuff. They just need to tell the government &quot;no&quot; when the Justice Department asks for the data. -- Scott] 

If they aren't handling the tech stuff then &quot;technically&quot; they aren't handling anything.  I can say no to the Justice department now but the people who control the information say yes.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1875501]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from exiledsurveyor]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1874445]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Thank you for presenting new and exciting ideas.

We need people to look into the future and set goals.  

The world was full of people who didn't like wheels, horses, and gunpowder.  The few that did killed most of those that didn't.

I would love to climb into the back seat and sleep during those long drives.  I would totally turn over control of my car on the interstate.  

If you drive an old car, you shouldn't be on the interstate anyway, you can take the slow roads.

Plus, if a safer way (or cheaper, or more controlling way) is available, there will be companies doing it to save on insurance and accident rates.  I can see my company moving towards tracking our company cars to find out how fast we go, where we go, etc..  

I would like to find out where a few of my people have their company cars at when I can't get ahold of them.  Maybe at the boat launch.  Maybe I should join them there.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1874445]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from vickycole]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1873159]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Hello i am Victoria Cole ,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how i got my ex love back.I was going crazy when my love left me for another girl last month,But when i meet a friend that introduce me to Esango Priest the great messenger to the oracle that he serve,I narrated my problem to Esango Priest  about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job in a very big company.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,In the next 2 days,My love called me on the phone and was saying sorry for living me before now and also in the next one week after my love called me to be pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in my desired company were i needed to work as the managing director..I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact Esango Priest at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him direct on: esangopriest@gmail.com
and get your problems solve like me..]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1873159]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MisterPickle]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1872802]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[This reminds me of a minor bit of the novel _Rainbows End_ by Vernor Vinge.

In the book, the Dept of Homeland Security played the role of &quot;nuns&quot; as caretakers of private information. And they had somehow developed a very strict, strong reputation for using the data *only* for anti-terrorism and wouldn't share the data with *anyone*, not even the police when they were attempting to solve a murder. Why, yes, this *is* a Science Fiction novel, why do you ask? :) 

I don't see it ever happening, but it's an interesting concept, and I can see the power of &quot;reputation&quot; helping an organization self-police itself, ie, some agency taking privacy so seriously that any leak is a major, major scandal.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1872802]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RichardKirk]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1872620]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[The Romans stored their wills and documents with the vestal virgins. These people had a job for life, with accommodation and provision for most material needs, plus huge social status, provided they shunned long-term relationships. That should have made them almost impossible to corrupt.

It worked for them. But so did having bonkers emperors, and attacking the belgians with darts and arrows, and a lot of other stuff. 

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1872620]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Gornak]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1871699]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Interesting ideas, thanks for sharing!

I'm not particularly concerned by the privacy implications, a number of the reasons why have already been pointed out.

It does however seem to me that the main challenge for the future will be integrating 'the poor'. In the scenario that you describe, for example, the line between the 'haves' and 'have nots' is very sharp - you either have a smartphone, or you have not.

Those that don't make enough money to buy or maintain a smartphone, or perhaps even an internet connection, will run the risk of eventually becoming non-persons in an increasingly technologised society. I imagine that they would end up enslaved in factories making the consumer gadgets for the rest of us, much like the Chinese sweatshop 'employees' are doing now.

Ironically, it seems to me that the more relevant citing from 1984 is not Big Brother, but the division between the Party members and the proletariat.

Perhaps with the money governments saved from streamlining some of the areas you mention, they could award every new 18-year-old that didn't already have something better an entry-level smartphone to act as a digital passport? Perhaps charities would spring up offering phones to those in need rather than blankets? Perhaps anyone whose income falls below a certain value will be deported to Guantanamo Bay?

I look forward to hearing some of your no doubt more constructive ideas :)

-Morgan]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1871699]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from uhmdown]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870889]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm not going to attack the whole nun idea, because I think the underlying point is that it should be possible to create a failsafe, redundant system that can fill the role as guardian of privacy, without deploying tech savvy nuns.
I also think that the argument of diminishing personal freedom is bogus for reasons already pointed out by Scott.


I'm interested in fleshing out who gets access to mining that huge sea of data. To justify an expensive elaborate abuse-preventing system (whether it be nuns or software), the benefits of sharing all the data has to be pretty huge. This means that even basic restrictions on what information is available to whom, could be potential dealbreakers. Where would the line go? Who decides?

There's another angle to this. Information that has been shared can be analyzed to reveil meta-information that you wouldn't knowingly share.
Take for example the creepy app &quot;Girls Around Me&quot; that combines facebook and foursquare data to allow guys to see where all the good-looking girls are hanging out (the app was banned when it was discovered).
Somebody is going to have to make sure that such exploits or similar aren't possible, but without restricting the accessibility of useful data.
And maybe what is considered an exploit by one person, is useful for another?
These are all questions and challenges a system for guarding privacy would have to overcome.

If we can get all this down to science, then the future looks pretty cool indeed. The numbers of those who would refrain from taking advantage of such possibilities will eventually dwindle.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870889]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870734]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[Today the government forces you to pay the police to catch you speeding. I want the freedom to spend my money on myself, any way I like, and let technology catch the speeders. At the same time, because traffic flows better, I get the freedom to be at my destination and not in my car sitting in traffic.. If your idea of freedom is eliminating all laws and rules, you don't have a philosophy worthy of discussion. -- Scott]

I doubt that the result of taking officers off traffic patrol will be to reduce the number of officers.  More likely those officers will be assigned to other things.  Things that were lower priority before.  Like maybe enforcing drug laws.

OK.  I can see that better traffic control would have its advantages.  But I still don't want my car policing me.  Its an emotional reaction; when I buy something I want to boss it around, not vice versa.

Where did you get 'eliminating all laws and rules' from?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870734]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from FransV]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870732]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, at the risk of making everyone else think I'm brown-nosing (I read the comments in descending order of Votes, and when I reached zero I hadn't seen anyone with anything positive to say), I want to congratulate you on a wonderful vision.

I guess we all dream of a perfect world, and this one really resonated with me (I cant think of a better way to say it without sounding corny)

The only problem, of course, are people, and that because (if I may mis-quote something you wrote long ago) we are !$%*!$ selfish and stupid.

Most of the people take the &quot;I'm really an angel, but the bad people in the government are going to screw me for sure&quot; approach.  The second half of this statement is, of course, completely true.  However, that's not the point of the post.  That part is dealt with by mythical creatures (call them 'nuns' or whatever you will) which are presented early on in the discourse, to show that we should ignore the 'big brother' aspect and focus on the kaleidoscope of excitement which we could have without it.

Usually the Dilbert Blog readers are quite good at picking up on that kind of thing

My suspicion is that the 3 major human attributes simply cause the vast majority of people to want to hide things (Perhaps try to gain an advantage over others that are more stupid than I am?    Perhaps because I feel guilty about the speed I'm driving, or the things I spend my money on?)

Is this good?  Does it perhaps serve an important purpose?  I don't know.  But I do think we'll need a much saintlier society before people will stop minding a lack of privacy]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870732]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870731]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@Mugasofer

[I'm ... not really seeing how nuns can do any of this. Clearly abandoning privacy has benefits, but are you suggesting that nuns would manually check each request for data or that their presence would somehow shield the data from evil?]

If, as I pointed out, we outnumber them 10,000 to 1 then it all depends on how many requests are made for data on 10,000 people.  But here we come to a bigger problem;  training.  We would have to train all of these 30,000 nuns on how to handle/make judgement calls on these requests.  Think we could get that part right?  Keep in mind that each nun would be at least 38 years old, their intelligence and education distribution would likely be the same as that of the general population and the requests they receive would likely come from lawyers.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870731]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Slobber]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870467]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, I think your lack of concern with the loss of privacy stems from your American upbringing. Since the start of your country, your government has been an organ that you can (sort of) trust not to harm you for your opinions, your ideas, or your personality. You never had anything to hide. Maybe except if you would have had some socialist views in the 50's.

Where I come from (the Netherlands), 70 years ago, I would've had quite a lot to hide. And the nuns weren't really helping. I have friends my age (24) from other parts of the EU, like Poland and Germany, that were born in a dictatorship. They could've been prosecuted for the things they say and want now.

Be careful Scott. Remember you live in a very special little part of history, where you can't be jailed and tortured for the things you say and think (unless you call taking your ideas out of context, and causing public outrage 'torture'). That little part can end within 15 years. There was no sign of German invasion of Holland in 1925.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870467]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from harrykrak]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870357]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Are you telling me that some goblins have set up a rival to Gringotts Wizarding Bank?

Yes, Snott, getting the name is right is very important!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870357]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MugaSofer]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870356]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm ... not really seeing how nuns can do any of this. Clearly abandoning privacy has benefits, but are you suggesting that nuns would manually check each request for data or that their presence would somehow shield the data from evil?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870356]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from anothermick]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870309]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[scott, really great point when you said... [Name something about your privacy that the government doesn't already have access to if they have a good reason, or even a !$%*!$%* reason. You never had any privacy to lose. How much money and convenience would you trade in order to maintain the illusion that you have the thing you already lost? -- Scott]    at present, to my knowledge, there are no camera's in my car, and no way to universally monitor my speed when i drive or stop my car without physical interaction.  probably others too.  
for me though, the issue is permission, not ability.  at present, it would be an intrusion that would require at least theorhetical cause for the government to dig into me on the level you are describing.  could they?  i am sure they could.  are they?  maybe that too.  but for me to TRADE my privacy for convience, safety, and economy is my sticking point.
i'm no libertarian, but i do believe that, at some point along the scale of trading rights for amenities, a person essentially sells themselves into a sort of congenial slavery/tyranny.  this concerns me because i don't trust any institution enough to give them full knowlege of myself in return for anything they might have to offer, even if it were managed by nuns..
i concede that &quot;they&quot; could just take it, and maybe already are.  but, in that case, i have at least a vague understanding of how to rebel against a broken social contract.  if i give all privacy over, i think i have to give that over too, and its not worth it to me to do so.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870309]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from anothermick]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870308]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[convience, safety, and economy, all in return for letting Big Brother (make that Sister) watch me.  very tempting, but my vote is no.  being able to run from the cops and be generally in possession of privacy feels sort of like a Jeffersonian requirement for the continuation of freedom.

[Name something about your privacy that the government doesn't already have access to if they have a good reason, or even a bullshit reason. You never had any privacy to lose. How much money and convenience would you trade in order to maintain the illusion that you have the thing you already lost? -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870308]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870184]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Sorry, just to be clear, didnt mean to include driving and using a phone in my last comment...though I honestly dont phone very much either and could probably do without a car if I had to (the other transport options in my area are pretty good).]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870184]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870170]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[That's the sort of thinking that said no one would ever use an ATM because it will steal your money and leave no record, no one will purchase online with a credit card, and no one will have Facebook, and no one will use a smartphone that tracks everything you do. History says we find ways to deal with those issues, or we simply stop worrying about them. -- Scott]

[You can opt out of driving and using a phone too, so long as we're being ridiculously impractical. -- Scott]

...Umm...did you not read my comment?  Im getting along just fine without all of those things you mentioned.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870170]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from cramdenr15]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870169]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I think you've finally &quot;jumped the shark&quot; with this column. I cannot imagine wanting to live in the world that you've described.

[You're already in it, minus the convenience. -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870169]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from LowSpender]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870167]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I have to disagree with any continuation of government enforcement of behavior, with this technology. Currently, individuals are binary grouped: government and governed. People can speed, but only if they are govt officials known as state patrol men. Literally everyone else has to maintain the speed limit. This is ridiculous. Insurance should dictate how fast above the limit people can go. Someone with a spotless driving record and a high networth (to pay for a wreck) should absolutely have more freedom to drive faster, since they have the liability to pay for the higher risk. Power should match responsibility. In politics, this is impossible. A person who wins a popularity contest and suddenly has power over $100s of Billions or even $Trillions (total cost of major legislation) has no possible way to pay for it if the net result is a destructive system, such as Social Security. Meanwhile, in business, there is a cost for all waste, superstition and irrationality.

[Is it my imagination or did the entire world become insane right before the U.S. election? I'm almost positive no one would make this sort of comment in February. -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1870167]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
