Eikonal Blog


Privacy articles

  • Report: “Dispelling the Myths Surrounding De-identification” (Anonymization can still work) by Lauren Weinstein (Lauren Buzz; 2011.06.16) – http://bit.ly/lbH5PE by Information and Privacy Commissioner of Canada [PDF]
      “Recently, the value of de-identification of personal information as a tool to protect privacy has come into question. Repeated claims have been made regarding the ease of re-identification. We consider this to be most unfortunate because it leaves the mistaken impression that there is no point in attempting to de-identify personal information, especially in cases where de-identified information would be sufficient for subsequent use, as in the case of health research. The goal of this paper is to dispel this myth – the fear of re-identification is greatly overblown. As long as proper de-identification techniques, combined with re-identification risk measurement procedures, are used, de-identification remains a crucial tool in the protection of privacy.”
  • AOL search data scandal (WikiPedia) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal
  • “What the know” series of articles (The Wall Street Journal) – http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-privacy.html
  • “The privacy covenant is an illusion: How to regain control” by Chad Perrin (Tech Republic; 2011.04.18) – http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/the-privacy-covenant-is-an-illusion-how-to-regain-control/5351?tag=nl.e036

Related pages here: Privacy and digital liberties – https://eikonal.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/privacy-and-digital-liberties/|Personal computer security – https://eikonal.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/personal-computer-security/ | Online privacy tools – https://eikonal.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/online-privacy-tools/ | Unending stream of Facebook privacy news – https://eikonal.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/unending-stream-of-facebook-privacy-news/ | TSA folies – https://eikonal.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/tsa-folies/




Imanuel Kant

Karl Marx

Bertrand Russell

At this blog: https://eikonal.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/bertrand-russell/

Arthur Schopenhauer


Filed under: censorship, opression, propaganda, society — Tags: , , , — sandokan65 @ 12:26
  • “What You Can’t Say” by Paul Graham (2004.01) – http://paulgraham.com/say.html
  • “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code)” (in Reformation of the Arts and Music) – http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html
  • “What You Can’t Say Will Hurt You” By Geoffrey R. Stone (NYT; 2005.08.15) – http://www.archub.org/stone.txt
  • “A Civic Duty to Annoy” by Wendy Kaminer (1997.09) – http://www.archub.org/civicduty.txt
  • “Stanley Milgram: The Perils of Obedience” (at Paul Graham’s web site) – http://paulgraham.com/perils.html
  • “Mark Twain: Corn-pone Opinions” (at Paul Graham’s web site) – http://paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
  • “A New Blacklist for “Excuse Makers” ” (FAIR; 2005.07.27) – http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2598
      New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has urged the U.S. government to create blacklists of condemned political speech–not only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who believe that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The latter group, which Friedman called “just one notch less despicable than the terrorists,” includes a majority of Americans, according to recent polls.
      Those who think Iraq War sparks terror are “despicable,” says Friedman
  • book “The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America, Revised Edition” by Larry Elder (Amazon) – http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312284659/
  • “Stratagem XXXII” from “The Art Of Controversy” by Arthur Schopenhauer – http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm
      If you are confronted with an assertion, there is a short way of getting rid of it, or, at any rate, of throwing suspicion on it, by putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character. You can say, for instance, “That is Manichaeism” or “It is Arianism,” or “Pelagianism,” or “Idealism,” or “Spinozism,” or “Pantheism,” or “Brownianism,” or “Naturalism,” or “Atheism,” or “Rationalism,” “Spiritualism,” “Mysticism,” and so on. In making an objection of this kind, you take it for granted (1) that the assertion in question is identical with, or is at least contained in, the category cited – that is to say, you cry out, “Oh, I have heard that before”; and (2) that the system referred to has been entirely refuted, and does not contain a word of truth.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.