Don’t People Know

One would think that Gen. David Patraeus and Jeff Bezos would be tech savvy. One would think they would know that e-mail is not something ephemeral. It is something that is saved on various computers. It is set in stone. It gives a sense of privacy but that is misleading. Computers can be hacked and Internet service providers have access to one’s accounts.

I remember having a talk with Boss Mongo. The gist of the talk was not that people were dumb and did something bad but they were truly incompetent.

I think there is a quote by a Rockefeller that goes something like this, “Never do anything that you would be ashamed to have on the front page of the New York Times.” In the modern world anything in your e-mail is in the public record and can be seen. Privacy is something in the past.

On a second level of dumb, what really surprises me is that people send pictures of privates. Do they really think only one person will ever see those? I suppose they are right. One person in millions of homes will see them on their computers.

7+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

11 thoughts on “Don’t People Know”

  1. This text confused me:

    Lauren, I’m in love with you. Deep. I know it sounds strange, but even little things like you suggesting I ask for extra training from Bell make my love for you expand and grow

    Who is Bell? What form of training?

    The language seems a bit odd to be referring to a normal physical trainer. I’d say, “Spend more time with the trainer!”

    None of the language makes sense.

    Bezos presumably pays his physical trainer, so “ask for” does not make sense.

    It’s not like there’s a standard amount of training in physical training that Bezos would do, so “extra” does not make sense. It;s not as if he is taking an hour-a-day class at the Y and then asking for another 20 minutes.

    Even “training” is odd to use in context.

    The naming of “Bell” is also odd. With physical training, its the training rather than the trainer that’s key. Bell appears unusually important to both of them.

    Is this Bell some kind of self-improvement guru aspiring to be a cult leader? my guess is far more serious a risk for Amazon: Bell is a pilot instructor. Sanchez may be trying to turn Bezos into a helicopter pilot.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. ctlaw:
    This text confused me:

    Lauren, I’m in love with you. Deep. I know it sounds strange, but even little things like you suggesting I ask for extra training from Bell make my love for you expand and grow

    Who is Bell? What form of training?

    The language seems a bit odd to be referring to a normal physical trainer. I’d say, “Spend more time with the trainer!”

    None of the language makes sense.

    Bezos presumably pays his physical trainer, so “ask for” does not make sense.

    It’s not like there’s a standard amount of training in physical training that Bezos would do, so “extra” does not make sense. It;s not as if he is taking an hour-a-day class at the Y and then asking for another 20 minutes.

    Even “training” is odd to use in context.

    The naming of “Bell” is also odd. With physical training, its the training rather than the trainer that’s key. Bell appears unusually important to both of them.

    Is this Bell some kind of self-improvement guru aspiring to be a cult leader? my guess is far more serious a risk for Amazon: Bell is a pilot instructor. Sanchez may be trying to turn Bezos into a helicopter pilot.

    She flies helicopters so it might be about Bell Helicopters. Who knows for sure what it is about? It is out in the open.

    I feel sorry for the children who of these two.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  3. 10 Cents:
    I think there is a quote by a Rockefeller that goes something like this, “Never do anything that you would be ashamed to have on the front page of the New York Times.”

    This is an absurd standard. I can think of at least a half-dozen things everyone who reads this has done, and will continue to do, in private that they would not want to see discussed or pictured on the front page of the NYT. Do I really need to name them?

    There’s a reason people do some things behind closed doors that they would not do in public. Let’s just say that if this Rockefeller had any offspring, he did something that he’d not want to see in the NYT.

    I agree with the main point that email is not secure, though encryption is an option to make it more so. I’ve had do admonish individuals more than once to not write emails about certain topics. Yes, there is no privacy online and yes, nothing is ever deleted. This is a good reason to avoid using Gmail for anything important since Google definitely reads and stores all your mail. Their business model is built on violating your privacy. As several wise people have noted, when the service is free you are not the customer, you’re the product.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. I just got done watching a documentary entitled “Michael Danaher – UK’s Dumbest Killer – A Killer’s Mistake.” This guy made mistake after mistake, but the biggest one could be summed up as “never steal the cell phone of your murder victim and then take it home with you.” 

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  5. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    I think there is a quote by a Rockefeller that goes something like this, “Never do anything that you would be ashamed to have on the front page of the New York Times.”

    This is an absurd standard. I can think of at least a half-dozen things everyone who reads this has done, and will continue to do, in private that they would not want to see discussed or pictured on the front page of the NYT. Do I really need to name them?

    There’s a reason people do some things behind closed doors that they would not do in public. Let’s just say that if this Rockefeller had any offspring, he did something that he’d not want to see in the NYT.

    I agree with the main point that email is not secure, though encryption is an option to make it more so. I’ve had do admonish individuals more than once to not write emails about certain topics. Yes, there is no privacy online and yes, nothing is ever deleted. This is a good reason to avoid using Gmail for anything important since Google definitely reads and stores all your mail. Their business model is built on violating your privacy. As several wise people have noted, when the service is free you are not the customer, you’re the product.

    What is your standard? Is it “Don’t get caught!”?

    1+

  6. 10 Cents:
    What is your standard? Is it “Don’t get caught!”?

    It’s not just my standard; it’s the only standard as far as strangers are concerned. It was never any of their business in the first place.

    I reject the premise of the question. Just because you want something to be private doesn’t mean it’s wrong. That would be the world of the panopticon: always under surveillance. No problem right? You should only do things that can be on the front page of the Times. We may be headed for that world but it’s not something to celebrate or even to acquiesce.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  7. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    What is your standard? Is it “Don’t get caught!”?

    It’s not just my standard; it’s the only standard as far as strangers are concerned. It was never any of their business in the first place.

    I reject the premise of the question. Just because you want something to be private doesn’t mean it’s wrong. That would be the world of the panopticon: always under surveillance. No problem right? You should only do things that can be on the front page of the Times. We may be headed for that world but it’s not something to celebrate or even to acquiesce.

    Q: What is your standard?

    A: It’s not just my standard; it’s the only standard as far as strangers are concerned. It was never any of their business in the first place. I reject the premise of the question. 

    I don’t understand how asking “What is your standard?” is somehow a question with a premise that can be rejected.

    0

  8. 10 Cents:

    drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    What is your standard? Is it “Don’t get caught!”?

    It’s not just my standard; it’s the only standard as far as strangers are concerned. It was never any of their business in the first place.

    I reject the premise of the question. Just because you want something to be private doesn’t mean it’s wrong. That would be the world of the panopticon: always under surveillance. No problem right? You should only do things that can be on the front page of the Times. We may be headed for that world but it’s not something to celebrate or even to acquiesce.

    Q: What is your standard?

    A: It’s not just my standard; it’s the only standard as far as strangers are concerned. It was never any of their business in the first place. I reject the premise of the question. 

    I don’t understand how asking “What is your standard?” is somehow a question with a premise that can be rejected.

    You are confused because you failed to include the whole question. Refreshing your memory, it was

    What is your standard? Is it “Don’t get caught!”?

    See, the “Don’t get caught!” part implies that the person is trying to hide something that he did wrong. Criminals are afraid of getting caught. I reject the implication that a person is doing anything wrong because he doesn’t want it on the front page of the NYT. That’s why I wrote,

    Just because you want something to be private doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    Desire for privacy ≠hiding bad behavior

    OK?

    Edit: And besides, I answered your question in detail. So quit yer whining.

    0

  9. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:

    drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    What is your standard? Is it “Don’t get caught!”?

    It’s not just my standard; it’s the only standard as far as strangers are concerned. It was never any of their business in the first place.

    I reject the premise of the question. Just because you want something to be private doesn’t mean it’s wrong. That would be the world of the panopticon: always under surveillance. No problem right? You should only do things that can be on the front page of the Times. We may be headed for that world but it’s not something to celebrate or even to acquiesce.

    Q: What is your standard?

    A: It’s not just my standard; it’s the only standard as far as strangers are concerned. It was never any of their business in the first place. I reject the premise of the question. 

    I don’t understand how asking “What is your standard?” is somehow a question with a premise that can be rejected.

    You are confused because you failed to include the whole question. Refreshing your memory, it was

    What is your standard? Is it “Don’t get caught!”?

    See, the “Don’t get caught!” part implies that the person is trying to hide something that he did wrong. Criminals are afraid of getting caught. I reject the implication that a person is doing anything wrong because he doesn’t want it on the front page of the NYT. That’s why I wrote,

    Just because you want something to be private doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    Desire for privacy ≠hiding bad behavior

    OK?

    That was a joke question to blow off. So that is not your standard. I didn’t think it was.

    You wrote the quote was an absurd standard but compared to what. Things have to be read in context. The quote is about scandalous behavior. I don’t think it has to privacy. I have never heard it quoted that way. You would agree that scandalous behavior by definition is something people want to hide.

    0

  10. MJBubba:
    We need a Privacy Amendment.

    Seems to me that most of the privacy compromises are voluntary; people willingly exchange their privacy for online services. The information is out there. If people still want to use Google anyway, it’s on them.

    Regarding government intrusions on privacy, we’ve got Amendment IV. Public places are not included. The presumption is that you have no expectation of privacy in a public space. The technology of ubiquitous surveillance might be a reason to revisit that presumption.

    1+

Leave a Reply