Guys, I think it is practical and wise to assume that nothing is private. What is legal and innocent today may not be sometime. People could be discriminated against because of information regarding their fore-bearers. The most obvious is genetic information. Future cultural attitudes can't be predicted. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 4Th ed. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Code in Printer Inks > From: Jeff Pflueger <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, October 26, 2005 3:20 pm > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The real question here is how does the US government get private > companies to comply with these types of invasions of privacy. This isn't > cheap for the companies, whether it is yellow dots on printed paper, or > image recognition in Photoshop to recognize scanned US currency. > > If there is no obvious profit motive for the companies, then what is the > pressure that the US gov exerts? > > We should use this issue of the yellow dots to inform us all about a > broader issue of companies' complicity in breaches of individual privacy > by the US government. Given the yellow dots, you can bet with a fair > amount of certainty that Microsoft has wide open security holes in > Windows tailored just for US gov. snooping. If our government achieved > pressuring printer manufacturers to make their dots, they would be > stupid beyond belief not to assure that the closed-source, 99% adopted > globally, Windows operating system didn't have built into it some way > for the US gov to snoop what people were doing. > > Some of these security holes may be used to snoop on "terrorists", but > given this government's well-documented propensity to use privacy > invasion tools won through fear driven "terrorist" rhetoric to serve any > and all types of snooping not at all related to national security, we > should all be extremely wary. > > That is not paranoid. It is the facts. > > > lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >Guys, > > > >The Islamic extremists seem to keep web page origins secure. If we > >could help ferret out a terrorist with a simple precaution shouldn't we > >try? > >The personal privacy cat has long left the bag without help from the > >government. > >Talk of bluetooth-enabled chips in everything has been going on for > >years in the private sector. If the government used good data we all > >might be better off :-) > >Abuse would also become transparent. Try as they might, China is loosing > >the battle to control information. > > > >AZ > > > >Build a Lookaround! > >The Lookaround Book, 4Th ed. > >Now an E-book. > >http://www.panoramacamera.us > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-------- Original Message -------- > >>Subject: Re: Code in Printer Inks > >>From: Allan Rosen-Ducat <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>Date: Wed, October 26, 2005 12:28 pm > >>To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > >><photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>I also just became aware of this code issue. > >> > >>The issue is not that there is a method to break the link to your > >>document creation. > >> > >>The issue is that the introduction of a methodology such as this > >>creates a method for tracking down the source of dissent. > >>Remember there is no organization that will insure the proper use of > >>this technology or > >>monitor it's deployment. > >> > >>Allan Rosen-Ducat > >>Rosen-Ducat Imaging > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
