Common(s) as privacy and vice versa ..?

Remember from your econ class that concept of The Commons, and how problematic it was? Is?
There was this intriguing post recently, on how Free Speech might be considered and deliberated in terms of the commons being exhausted by undue over-use (abuse) — for its use alone ( → ). Leading to aversity of the concept not of the abuser or his (sic) apparent locally recognised but globally not, ‘valid’ reason(s) for over-use.

Which, as is my wont of the moment, driven by personal business interests, I took to be applicable to Privacy as well. Maybe not in the same way, but … This will need quite some discussion between me on the one hand, and peers and others on the other who would actually know what they’re talking about. Throwing in a bit of anglo-american data-isn’t-yours versus European (‘continental’ — will brexit – which starts to sound like a lame Benny Hill kind of joke ever more – change that ..??) data-is-datasubject’s-always divides, and some more factors here and there. Complicating matters, but hey life’s not perfect.

Waddayathink? In for a discussion ..? Let’s start!

And:
[Not so very common-s; Toronto]

Authentic means work, you see?

Recalling the recent spat about passwords again (and elsewhere), and some intriguing, recent but also not so recent news (you get it when you study it), it seems only fair to the uninitiated to clarify some bits:
Authentication goes by something you know, something you have or something you are. Password(s), tokens or biometrics, in short. All three have their drawbacks.

But that’s not the point. The point is that authentication is about making the authentication unspoofable by anyone but the designated driver owner.
That is why you shouldn’t dole out your passwords (see the above first link) e.g., by writing them on a post-it™ whereas writing a full long passphrase on just one slip of paper that you keep to yourself more zealously than your money, will work.
That is why tokens shouldn’t be stolen. Which you might not discover until it’s too late; and tokens have a tendency to be physical stuff that can be replayed, copied, etc. just like a too-short password. Maybe not as simply, but nevertheless.
Same with biometrics. When made simple enough for the generic user (fingerprints, ever so smudgy!) also easily copyable, off a lot of surfaces. Other biometrics, maybe more secure i.e. harder to copy but not impossible. And opening possibilities for hijacks et al., focus on breaking into the systems in the login/authentication chain, et al.
Which brings attention to yet more vulnerabilities of Have and Are: Both need quite a lot of additional equipment, comms, subsystems, to operate and work from the physical to the logical (back) to the IS/IT levels. Weakest-link chains they are ..!

So, the strength of authentication covaries with the non-leakability of the key, since both correlate to the source determinant in-one-hand-ity close to the actual person whose identification-as-provided (by that person, or by anyone else posturing) needs to be authenticated. By which I mean that ensuring one item of authentication, closely glued to the person and with the simplest, least-link connection chain to the goal system(s), is best. The latter, clearly, is the written-down-verylongpassword method.

Just think about it. And:
[They’re called locks. Discuss (10pts); Ottawa]

Ben still has all the Ayes

There is no end to the need to repeat the, somewhat but simply never sufficiently, quote by the Ben you know best:
Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

How valid today. How utterly moronic in comparison all that would allow crypto-backdoors (for other reasons, too), and covert catch-all dragnet surveillance. Etc.   Etc…

Oh and for the few that are still interested in the United States Constitution, they shall refer to article 1, section 7, clause 2 , that has not ayes and nays but yeas and Nays. Just wanted that off my plate.

Leaving you with:
[You’ll be naked and that will not be pretty; Barça]

All fine, for whom?

Just to be clear: Where do all the fines that will rain like hail from heck once GDPR comes into force, go to ..? Yes the supervisory authority may levy the fines, but it isn’t clear to whom the payment should go. Certainly leading to huge differences in compliance chasing: When the auth may keep them for themselves, they’re a. richer than the king since b. sure to penalise each and every futile infringement to the max; when the money goes to government’s coffers, that chasing not so much because who’d care?
You don’t believe me, right? Just wait and see. And weep.

Plus:
[Where the coffers are kept ..? Segovia]

Mastodon as a grassy patch

Just one of those things, questions, that swirl into my mind every so (too) often: What if, when, Mastodon is the Woodstock of social media ..? Wouldn’t that be grand. All pick your own Hendrix in this. Suggestion: him ;-|
On the serious side; the festival itself was hardly in mainstream news at the time, but (helped) triggered major societal changes. Let’s hope Big M (not with ac but on AC/DC) does the same, in these times of need. For such change.

Oh, and:
[No, this is not doctored or otherwise edited. Zuid-As, Ams]