1269: "Privacy Opinions"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

FreezingHot
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:24 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby FreezingHot » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:47 am UTC

I am most concerned about abuses of power or data falling into the wrong hands. I often wonder how often corporate or NSA employees have used their tools to blackmail rivals, stalk crushes or opress those who disagree. What camp do people like me fall into? Maybe the "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" camp but it's not really a conspiracy when massive data collection and the abuse of such is public knowledge.

User avatar
Darekun
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Darekun » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:18 am UTC

jc wrote:
Darekun wrote:What about "we need to stay away from the half-mirror society, other than that I'm fine"?

Hmmm ... I didn't know that phrase,

Sorry, that seems to be a highly-local phrase for something there isn't really a phrase for: The normal counterpart to the transparent society. One in which people assume they have privacy, and extensive surveillance(but not sousveillance) backs up the society. It's transparent in one direction, as half-mirrors are supposed to be.

The transparent society would be nice, but the shopped society(wherein routine fakery prevents truths from propagating) is fine too, etc. Privacy is okay, but the assumption of privacy is some degree of danger to everyone around.

maydayp
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:10 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby maydayp » Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10 am UTC

my first reaction was litterally "that 'so' looks like a '50'" 'cause that's what my 5's look like. otherwise decent comic

SomeoneSomewhere
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:51 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby SomeoneSomewhere » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:54 am UTC

Personally a lot of what I find most worrying is that beyond a certain point of surveillance it's near impossible to go back - we're already seeing some of this:
One of the most amazing revelations that came out of last nights TICS Bill public meeting in Wellington was Seeby Woodhouse telling the audience that since he spoke out against the Government’s GCSB legislation he was stopped entering America and questioned about his business and shockingly he was pulled aside and questioned by NZ officials when re-entering NZ.


Source

Graham Finch
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:25 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Graham Finch » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:33 am UTC

pkcommando wrote:
Graham Finch wrote:Reading this comic made me realize something disturbing...

The Internet is suffering from a severe lack of Exhibitionists.

You are clearly not using the Internet properly.

Oh wait - you meant like the individual in the comic? Yeah, we could use more of that kind.


Yes.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:22 pm UTC

SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Source

I never got the national security argument in seemingly democratic countries. I get if for dictatorships, absolute monarchies and other countries where the government is somewhat open about its main purpose being the well-being of the ruling class. However, I thought the reason for having a government in democratic countries is supposed to be to protect its inhabitants from harm (by each other, others, diseases and other natural phenomena, generally any harm that needs co-operation within the community to negate), so the safety of the government would only be relevant insofar it is needed to protect its people and would never have priority over the well-being of its inhabitants. Of course most democratic governments also exist mainly to enrich the ruling class (which, despite their name does not generally correspond to the people in its sphere of influence), but using national security as an argument to counter the well-being of the people argument really amounts to admitting to lying about your purpose.

As for my type from the comic: Does wanting to use more cryptography by default but not wanting to bother others with it amount to crypto-nut status? Otherwise I mainly fit into the conspiracist category, although it's mostly based on what mainstream media say others do... I always assumed google would not voluntarily surrender my personal data for free, except maybe in a small amount as a demo, but apparently they worked with the NSA voluntarily without financial compensation.

wumpus wrote:I think more than a few people have been surprised at how little they can change the fact that "anything on any computer" == "online".


Oh, oops, does that mean I shouldn't use my real name on my Nintendo 64?

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Klear » Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:42 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Source

I never got the national security argument in seemingly democratic countries. I get if for dictatorships, absolute monarchies and other countries where the government is somewhat open about its main purpose being the well-being of the ruling class.


I don't think that's true. Totalitarian states of all kinds usually pretend to be doing what they do for the people. As for security vs. freedom in democracies, I think that still depends on what the people want and how scared they are. If you keep showing people terrorist attacks and wars, they will much easily forgo some of their rights for a sense of security. I believe it is the path to hell (hopefully at least paved with good intentions), but that's the problem with democracy - if people want to get their rights reduced to a minimum, they'll get what they asked for.

User avatar
YellowYeti
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:05 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby YellowYeti » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:53 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Source

I never got the national security argument in seemingly democratic countries. I get if for dictatorships, absolute monarchies and other countries where the government is somewhat open about its main purpose being the well-being of the ruling class.


I don't think that's true. Totalitarian states of all kinds usually pretend to be doing what they do for the people. As for security vs. freedom in democracies, I think that still depends on what the people want and how scared they are. If you keep showing people terrorist attacks and wars, they will much easily forgo some of their rights for a sense of security. I believe it is the path to hell (hopefully at least paved with good intentions), but that's the problem with democracy - if people want to get their rights reduced to a minimum, they'll get what they asked for.


'The Barbarians are at the gates!'
1: scare the population with stories of mad foreigners making trouble or 'spies in our midst'
2: increase surveillance/security on a 'temporary' basis because security is more important that civil rights - just until we get these madmen under control
3: use your new laws to 'uncover a conspiracy' and start throwing the conspirators in jail/executing them
4: make sure any legal processes are carried out in secret - can't have the bad guys finding out what we know about them
5: Arrest any dissenters - they are causing trouble and supporting the bad guys
6: reveal that your Interrogation/ surveillance has uncovered new scary stories.. and repeat step 1

Seems to have worked in democracies, dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies over the years - and still be working

ThemePark
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:42 pm UTC
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ThemePark » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:55 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:I always assumed google would not voluntarily surrender my personal data for free, except maybe in a small amount as a demo, but apparently they worked with the NSA voluntarily without financial compensation.

Voluntarily and voluntarily...it's more a case of "You either 'voluntarily' cooperate and work with us to infiltrate your company, or we slap you silly with every law in the book and matching lawsuits.
I have traveled from 1979 to be a member of the unofficial board Council of Elders. Phear M3

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Klear » Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:06 pm UTC

YellowYeti wrote:
Klear wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Source

I never got the national security argument in seemingly democratic countries. I get if for dictatorships, absolute monarchies and other countries where the government is somewhat open about its main purpose being the well-being of the ruling class.


I don't think that's true. Totalitarian states of all kinds usually pretend to be doing what they do for the people. As for security vs. freedom in democracies, I think that still depends on what the people want and how scared they are. If you keep showing people terrorist attacks and wars, they will much easily forgo some of their rights for a sense of security. I believe it is the path to hell (hopefully at least paved with good intentions), but that's the problem with democracy - if people want to get their rights reduced to a minimum, they'll get what they asked for.


'The Barbarians are at the gates!'
1: scare the population with stories of mad foreigners making trouble or 'spies in our midst'
2: increase surveillance/security on a 'temporary' basis because security is more important that civil rights - just until we get these madmen under control
3: use your new laws to 'uncover a conspiracy' and start throwing the conspirators in jail/executing them
4: make sure any legal processes are carried out in secret - can't have the bad guys finding out what we know about them
5: Arrest any dissenters - they are causing trouble and supporting the bad guys
6: reveal that your Interrogation/ surveillance has uncovered new scary stories.. and repeat step 1

Seems to have worked in democracies, dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies over the years - and still be working


Exactly. And always in the name of the people. The amount of malicious intent behind this, or similar process in any given democratic country, depends on the level of paranoia of the one who you ask, though.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:26 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Source

I never got the national security argument in seemingly democratic countries. I get if for dictatorships, absolute monarchies and other countries where the government is somewhat open about its main purpose being the well-being of the ruling class.

I don't think that's true. Totalitarian states of all kinds usually pretend to be doing what they do for the people. As for security vs. freedom in democracies, I think that still depends on what the people want and how scared they are. If you keep showing people terrorist attacks and wars, they will much easily forgo some of their rights for a sense of security. I believe it is the path to hell (hopefully at least paved with good intentions), but that's the problem with democracy - if people want to get their rights reduced to a minimum, they'll get what they asked for.

I agree that this could make security of the people a good argument. People generally want themselves to be secure, which leads the collective to want security of the people, but why would security of the state be a primary objective?

ThemePark wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I always assumed google would not voluntarily surrender my personal data for free, except maybe in a small amount as a demo, but apparently they worked with the NSA voluntarily without financial compensation.

Voluntarily and voluntarily...it's more a case of "You either 'voluntarily' cooperate and work with us to infiltrate your company, or we slap you silly with every law in the book and matching lawsuits.

Waiting to be ordered to co-operate might have worked better PR-wise...

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:39 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:I agree that this could make security of the people a good argument. People generally want themselves to be secure, which leads the collective to want security of the people, but why would security of the state be a primary objective?

Because the state positions itself as the guardian of the people, and its security thus vital to their security.

Consider a parent and a child. There are Bad People out there who want to hurt the child, at least so the parent says, and so the parent requires that the child do things, and let the parent do things to the child, that the child doesn't like, because "if you don't do as I say / stop doing that, I won't be able to stop the Bad People from hurting us".

That's the kind of picture the state is trying to paint of itself: it's got our best interests at heart but what's more it knows better than we do and we'd better shut up and obey even if we don't like it or else it won't be able to keep the sky from falling.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby addams » Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:13 am UTC

Rights; Smights.
Have you met The People?

What did you see? I have been to pubic meetings.
I understand why people give up or never try in the first place.

The feeling from where I am seeing it IS very 1984.
Helpless people. In so many ways, helpless.

Many if not most can not read and understand the documents of governance.
People that can Are threatened, jailed, beaten, have property taken, loved ones and family kidnaped, attacked and worse.
If your simple life of despair is created for you by Agents of the US, making that bunch unhappy seems foolish.

Privacy? The Agencies have too much privacy.
I still want the operation logs opened.

What?! We have to wait until we are all dead, first?
Sometimes, I hate Historians
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:20 pm UTC

addams wrote:Rights; Smights.
Have you met The People?

What did you see? I have been to pubic meetings.
I understand why people give up or never try in the first place.

I, too, have been to pubic meetings.

Rather, participated in pubic meetings.

They are typically rather private affairs.

Pops1918
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 5:03 pm UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Pops1918 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:53 pm UTC

The sage misses the point. Data may be a theoretical construct, unlike a burrito, but that doesn't mean it can't have practical effects. When you get down to it, money is a theoretical construct too, but it paid for that burrito. Hacking my computer to gain access to my collection of salacious pictures still presents me with a problem, and to an extent a threat, but not an existential one.

Ultimately, the danger of being hacked changes very little. Locks are not there to prevent all theft; they are merely to keep honest men honest. The dishonest ones show up with crowbars and bolt cutters.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby addams » Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:21 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
addams wrote:Rights; Smights.
Have you met The People?

What did you see? I have been to pubic meetings.
I understand why people give up or never try in the first place.

I, too, have been to pubic meetings.

Rather, participated in pubic meetings.

They are typically rather private affairs.

A paradox we, little people, should not attempt to understand?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:46 pm UTC

The danger that unsolicited access to my private data presents is that (especially when aggregated) it can present the attackerbenevolent company that provides bread and circuses with a method of keeping me from my burrito.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby addams » Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:55 pm UTC

ucim wrote:The danger that unsolicited access to my private data presents is that (especially when aggregated) it can present the attackerbenevolent company that provides bread and circuses with a method of keeping me from my burrito.

Jose

So, true, Jose.
So, true.

Edit: Wait. What?
Bread and Circuses or Burrito?

What kind of Bread?
What kind of Circus?

There may be a way to have it all.
Burrito, Bread and Circus.

Who?? Who has The Data?
What data? Where is your Mom? Mine? In a graveyard, somewhere.

Yours? My friend's Mom was threatened.
Nope. She never knew. He did not tell her.

Meat Bags do that sort of thing.
Why? I don't know. What does the DHS want?

From me? I have no idea. What do they want from you?
Who wants your data? What for? What else is there?

Beyond your data, what are you? A Meat Bag? Hey! Me, too!
What an amazing coincidence! You a Meat Bag; Me a Meat Bag.

Do we have anything else in common?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ucim » Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:25 pm UTC

addams wrote:Do we have anything else in common?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

And eat your burrito.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby lgw » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:42 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:I never got the national security argument in seemingly democratic countries.


Well, even benevolent democracies do need to keep some secrets. The nuclear launch codes. Realtime troop movement information. The way the latest superweapon works.

The problem is: that a quite small set of legitimate secrets, but you give the government an inch and it takes a parsec. It's infuriating. We now have secret court and secret demands for information, which is kept secretly by secret departments for secret purposes. We've simply lost our way.

To those worrying about "becoming totalitarian": it's later than you think. To me that bridge was crossed when the government told me how much water I could use to flush my toilet - can we get more intimate and personal? Every little thing in personal life has a law now - already, not in some hypothetical future. Totalitarianism doesn't have to look like fascism nor communism, it's simply the governments hand reaching into most aspects of your daily personal life. And we're certainly there, and then some. And many people are comfortable with it - they'll defend every little law as worthwhile and valuable - sure maybe they are, but you have to count the cost in liberty!
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Klear » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:49 pm UTC

addams wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
addams wrote:Rights; Smights.
Have you met The People?

What did you see? I have been to pubic meetings.
I understand why people give up or never try in the first place.

I, too, have been to pubic meetings.

Rather, participated in pubic meetings.

They are typically rather private affairs.

A paradox we, little people, should not attempt to understand?


Hahahahahaha!

speising
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby speising » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:23 am UTC

lgw wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I never got the national security argument in seemingly democratic countries.


Well, even benevolent democracies do need to keep some secrets. The nuclear launch codes. Realtime troop movement information. The way the latest superweapon works.

i find your choice of examples in conjunction with "benevolent democracies" interesting.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby addams » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:48 am UTC

ucim wrote:
addams wrote:Do we have anything else in common?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

And eat your burrito.

Jose

What? If I give you the burrito, you could tell me.
Then wander away. Far, far,...away...

What do you 'think' was in that burrito?
Common? In common? Burrito?

You ok, Tough Guy?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ucim » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:12 pm UTC

addams wrote:What? If I give you the burrito, you could tell me.
Mmmmm. Delicious. Sure, I'll tell you. We have a burrito in common. :)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby addams » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:26 am UTC

ucim wrote:
addams wrote:What? If I give you the burrito, you could tell me.
Mmmmm. Delicious. Sure, I'll tell you. We have a burrito in common. :)

Jose

See?
We don't need secrets.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ucim » Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:50 pm UTC

addams wrote:See?
We don't need secrets.
Shhh - that big guy over there may have seen your burrito. I think he wants it.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby addams » Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
addams wrote:See?
We don't need secrets.
Shhh - that big guy over there may have seen your burrito. I think he wants it.

Jose

He can have the Burrito.
While he eats it he may want to tell us The Secret.

What fun. Does he speak English?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ucim » Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:47 pm UTC

addams wrote:He can have the Burrito.
While he eats it he may want to tell us The Secret.
The secret is that I have a burrito too, and I'd like to keep it for lunch tomorrow.

That's the whole point of this privacy thing. Thems who know me well enough can get me to share my burrito, but it's ok cuz I know them and they's my friends.

But thems that know my data well enough can pretend to be friends, and nom my lunch before I even made breakfast. Then at lunchtime I have nothing to share with my real friends.

That's the secret.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby addams » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
addams wrote:He can have the Burrito.
While he eats it he may want to tell us The Secret.
The secret is that I have a burrito too, and I'd like to keep it for lunch tomorrow.

That's the whole point of this privacy thing. Thems who know me well enough can get me to share my burrito, but it's ok cuz I know them and they's my friends.

But thems that know my data well enough can pretend to be friends, and nom my lunch before I even made breakfast. Then at lunchtime I have nothing to share with my real friends.

That's the secret.

Jose

umm. Those guys sound like jerks.
You had your lunch and the picnic you had packed for your friends, stolen?

I am sorry that happened to you.
A similar thing happened to me.

Pretended to be your friends? Lucky you.
Did you have fun with them until the food was gone?

The 'dicks' that robbed me did not bother pretending to be my friends.

Where is that Secret, again? This is Metaphor country. Correct?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ucim » Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:42 am UTC

addams wrote:Where is that Secret, again? This is Metaphor country. Correct?
Correct. Metaphor country. The jerks who took my lunch never met me. I never met them. They weren't even real people who decided to target me - it was the computer algorithm. I didn't even know it had been taken from me. I just was a little bit hungrier.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby jpvlsmv » Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:46 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
StClair wrote:
jeszjesz wrote:Of course beret guy meant data are imaginary, not data is imaginary. Grammar, grammar über alles...


Data, being a fictional character, is imaginary.
That he has been portrayed in live action by an actor does not change this.


Data is the plural of datum, the neuter form of the participle of the verb dare=to give.

Data, therefore, means givens.

Robin Givens is a non-fictional person who was once married to Mike Tyson.

Next topic?

Mike Tyson was in "Scary Movie 5" with Charlie Sheen, who was in Oliver Stone: Inside Out with
Spoiler:
Kevin Bacon


So Data (although fictional) has a bacon number of no greater than 4. (Also, if you go through Stephen Hawking's guest appearance on ST:TNG, his bacon number is exactly 4)

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9094
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby BlitzGirl » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:37 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:So Data (although fictional) has a bacon number of no greater than 4. (Also, if you go through Stephen Hawking's guest appearance on ST:TNG, his bacon number is exactly 4)

Therefore Stephen Hawking is imaginary, unlike a burrito.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby jpvlsmv » Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:53 pm UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:So Data (although fictional) has a bacon number of no greater than 4. (Also, if you go through Stephen Hawking's guest appearance on ST:TNG, his bacon number is exactly 4)

Therefore Stephen Hawking is imaginary, unlike a burrito.

Quite possible. Or maybe Stephen Hawking is a burrito. I mean, have you ever seen Stephen Hawking and a burrito at the same time?

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9094
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:17 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:
BlitzGirl wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:So Data (although fictional) has a bacon number of no greater than 4. (Also, if you go through Stephen Hawking's guest appearance on ST:TNG, his bacon number is exactly 4)

Therefore Stephen Hawking is imaginary, unlike a burrito.

Quite possible. Or maybe Stephen Hawking is a burrito. I mean, have you ever seen Stephen Hawking and a burrito at the same time?

Image
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:21 pm UTC

LaPetite is Stephen Hawking?

No. The whole situation is complex: Steve Hawking is real. The burrito is imaginary.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9094
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:24 pm UTC

ucim wrote:LaPetite is Stephen Hawking?

No. The whole situation is complex: Steve Hawking is real. The burrito is imaginary.

i see what you did there.

(LaPetite is totally real, just 11,000 years in our future.)
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

Use The Bug Luke
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:53 am UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Use The Bug Luke » Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:34 pm UTC

Occasionally Randall trivialises something very important, and this is such an instance. In those cases I just treat him like a comedian (and a good one), rather than someone with something to say. I had to do the same thing with South Park, for instance, when they got Global Warming and Atheism completely wrong - I just sighed and remembered they weren't intellectual giants; whereas Randall is NOT a Humanities major, he should know better :twisted:

But I did get a laugh out of this one, especially The Crypto Nut and The Exibitionist. I'm taking my clothes off now.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Alternate Opinions

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:53 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:
ucim wrote:LaPetite is Stephen Hawking?

No. The whole situation is complex: Steve Hawking is real. The burrito is imaginary.

i see what you did there.

(LaPetite is totally real, just 11,000 years in our future.)
That gives me plenty of time to steal all the kegs.
Spoiler:
Image
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1269: "Privacy Opinions"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:02 am UTC

Use The Bug Luke wrote:Occasionally Randall trivialises something very important, and this is such an instance.

Go on.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha and 27 guests