|
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Nutrition (Read 13644 times)
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Look, I am not proposing that it should be sent to my private computer, but more like a super secure gmail account which only I have access to.
I know that.
That server could very well be made so that individuals could log in and look at their own data, but they wouldn't have any possibility to edit their data.
Correct, it could be designed to allow the citizen to look at the existing data. Not add new data. If the citizen could add data, then they would be able to add incorrect data, thus changing the dataset. You could claim to be buying celery when you're actually buying ice cream, for example. Therefore, the data would have to be added by the store. For the store to do that, it would need to know what the account is. And since, as you said, the people would be required to identify themselves to "access" their account (and adding information is a type of access), there simply isn't a way to design this in a way that would prevent the store, and by extension the government, from being able to determine which account is yours.
At best, it would be possible to hide the secret key from the government if the citizen generates their own secret key and is responsible for decrypting it and sending it to researchers. It wouldn't work that way, though, because it would be too complicated. Even if it did, there would still be ways to loosely link your now unencrypted data to your identity.
The main point I'm getting at here is, for your system to work, it necessarily follows that the government, and probably several other individuals, can learn your entire life's purchase history. You simply cannot design a system to work the way you are imagining. This has very little to do with security and more to do with the contradictory goal you are trying to accomplish.
Maybe you can get a bank card that is related to a bitcoin account
Bitcoin is not anonymous. If you want to make payments online anonymously, the best way is to pay cash for a prepaid debit card or VISA/Mastercard gift card, then use that.
But you should know that most people don't care nearly as much about their privacy as you might
Yes, and that is a tragedy. That's not really relevant to what we're talking about, however. The fact that most people don't care is not a justification for violating essential liberties. It could be that most people in the U.S. don't care about freedom of non-Christian religion. That does not justify turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 12:20:37 am by Julie.chan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Correct, it could be designed to allow the citizen to look at the existing data. Not add new data. If the citizen could add data, then they would be able to add incorrect data, thus changing the dataset. You could claim to be buying celery when you're actually buying ice cream, for example. Therefore, the data would have to be added by the store. For the store to do that, it would need to know what the account is. And since, as you said, the people would be required to identify themselves to "access" their account (and adding information is a type of access), there simply isn't a way to design this in a way that would prevent the store, and by extension the government, from being able to determine which account is yours.
The store knows for example which bank account is related to my purchases. They send this information encrypted to the server. The server then recognizes that this bank account belongs to me.
Lets imagine that they just sent this information to google, and google figured out that it belonged to me, since I was registered with that bank account. Now, how would the store figure out my google ID?
Secondly, if I want to use this information to participate in research, I don't give away my google ID then either. Then it is sent from another anonymous user ID, which has nothing to do with my google ID.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 12:39:42 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Even ignoring the fact that people buy things for other people all the time, all you've done here is re-route the problem to the bank. So now it's the bank the government compels to reveal your information.
The bank would just send information about my bank account to the server, with my social security number for example. Then the server would know that it is my bank account, since I am registered there with that social security number. They still don't have any clue about my user/login ID.
Now you are just going to say that I have re-routed the problem to the government, since they gave me my social security number. But here is the beauty of it. The government first opens an account with your social security number. But the first time you use the account, you need to change your user ID (either of your own choosing, or a randomly assigned user ID), and the government won't have any clue about what that new user ID is. Still, your social security number will be assigned to your account.
It should also be possible for you to change your user/login ID, whenever you want.
So let me get this straight. You are saying now that this would be non-compulsory? You don't have to send your data to research centers, or anyone?
I have said that all the time.
If that is the case, why is it necessary to compel people to save this information in the first place?
Because some people might want to know what information is stored about themselves, some might want to use it for their own endeavors, while others might want to participate in such a research project.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 01:14:28 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
The bank would just send information about my bank account to the server, with my social security number for example. Then the server would know that it is my bank account, since I am registered there with that social security number. They still don't have any clue about my user/login ID.
Then you're re-routing the problem to whomever runs the server. Now it's the server operators the government goes to. What's more, by using this method, you are ensuring that the server operators can see all the data on the server. That just makes it even easier for the government to track your purchases. No trickery needed.
But the first time you use the account, you need to change your user ID (either of your own choosing, or a randomly assigned user ID), and the government won't have any clue about what that new user ID is.
That doesn't solve anything.
Because some people might want to know what information is stored about themselves, some might want to use it for their own endeavors, while others might want to participate in such a research project.
That's a terrible reason to mandate the collection of data. Unless they have a warrant to do so, the state should not be collecting data about you at all. And to use the data yourself, you can easily record it yourself and answer surveys.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Then you're re-routing the problem to whomever runs the server. Now it's the server operators the government goes to. What's more, by using this method, you are ensuring that the server operators can see all the data on the server. That just makes it even easier for the government to track your purchases. No trickery needed.
Oh really. Then I am sure Linus Torvalds has access to all the Linux computers in the world, since he releases the Linux kernel. Or that whoever develops the different Linux distributions have access to all the Linux computers that use the different distributions. For example, the people developing Debian have access to all Debian computers in the world. The people developing Arch Linux have access to all the Arch Linux computers in the world, etc. It would be easy for them to make it like that, if it wasn't open source... That is why I don't trust Windows and MacOS, but I do trust in Linux and open source. So no problem. Just make it into a Linux server, and make the system open source. The people developing the system don't need to have any more access to my account, than Linus Torvalds and the people developing Arch Linux has to my computer.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 01:43:23 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
It doesn't necessarily need to have any operators.
Yes, it does. All servers do. The operator would likely just be the owner, which yes, all servers have to have. It's just like any other equipment.
You know, even at this computer, I can just create another user, and encrypt the folder of that user. Even though I have administrator access on this computer, I wont have any access to that encrypted folder unless I know the encryption passphrase. I can delete the user and his folder, but not access his folder. The assertion that a server owner can access everything they want is nonsense. I think you have a basic misunderstanding about what encryption is.
There's a big difference between not being able to access something and not being able to understand something.
But as I have been trying to explain to you, it is not possible for the owner of the server to be unable to know what something on the server is unless it never does the decryption or encryption. If the encryption and decryption is done at the bank, the bank can read it. If the encryption and decryption is done on the store's computer, the store can read it. If the encryption and decryption is done on the server itself, the server can read it. The only way you can use cryptography to protect the citizen is if the data is encrypted and decrypted only on their own computer, which as I explained is impossible if you're going to require I.D. checks or force the citizen to upload certain information.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 02:53:30 am by Julie.chan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
but then they won't necessarily be able to run the program to operate the user database anymore
Yes they will. There isn't any possible way for a program to not work with a certain operating system, unless it's proprietary, in which case, again, the developer of the program can introduce malware.
And it would be completely illegal, and they would need to spend the rest of their lives in prison if they got caught.
No, because the government itself is your adversary. I don't know why you refuse to accept this simple fact. Just look at North Korea, Soviet Russia, even China. Malicious states do exist, and in wide numbers. You can't just expect your government to be benevolent in perpetuity. If you give your government too much power, and it goes rogue 50 years down the line, you will find yourself living in 1984.
100% security is more or less impossible
Security is largely a moot point. It's a secondary concern, but more important is the fundamental nature of the collection of data.
If you don't want technology because it infringes on your civil liberties, then go and join an Amish settlement.
Our choices aren't an Amish farmland and 1984. Technology doesn't necessitate totalitarianism or mass surveillance. Saying that you would rather have technology is not a valid argument for increasing surveillance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
No, because the government itself is your adversary. I don't know why you refuse to accept this simple fact. Just look at North Korea, Soviet Russia, even China. Malicious states do exist, and in wide numbers. You can't just expect your government to be benevolent in perpetuity. If you give your government too much power, and it goes rogue 50 years down the line, you will find yourself living in 1984.
I live in a society where around 80% of the population trusts our government. You live in a society where around 20% of the population trusts your government. You live in a country with tons of gun violence, because people feel like they need to have guns to protect themselves from the police/government. I live in a society where there is almost no gun violence, since we don't have crazy ideas about the necessity of having guns to protect ourselves from our democratically elected government. Your country has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We have one of the lowest incarceration rates in the world. In my country, the police officer is my friend. In your country, he is your enemy.
Yeah, and we also beat you on practically all country comparisons; like human development index, press freedom index, gender equality index, corruption index, etc.
No, I do not think we should aspire to become as distrustful of our democratically elected government as you are.
In a functional democracy, the government is respectful of the population, and the population trusts the government.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 04:06:52 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
Everything you said about the U.S. is far more complicated than you claim (even the part about distrusting government), and even if it were all 100% true cut and dry, it would not be evidence that your country is going to stay benevolent forever. Power corrupts, leaders change, that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
|
|
|
|
|
