Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sun Microsystems

Sun's Scott McNealy's advice: "get over" privacy 145

Posted by sengan from the giant-faux-pas dept.
Branden Robinson writes " Scott McNealy told a group of reporters that consumer privacy issues are a "red herring." "You have zero privacy anyway," "Get over it."" Wonder if he's been getting out recently, or heard how quickly Intel back-pedaled on the unique CPU id?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun's Scott McNealy's advice: "get over" privacy More

Sun's Scott McNealy's advice: "get over" privacy

Comments Filter:

  • Arizona (Score:1)

    by Gleef ( 86 )
    You know, with Intel backpeddling from their serial number issue, Sun just became the biggest target of the Arizona No Serial Number bill. Sun does the same thing with their UltraSparc that Intel was talking about doing with Pentium III.

    Also, Intel is a significant player in Arizona, they have plants and a lot of investments there. Now that they've switched positions, they might just want to push for the bill to pass, give Sun something to squirm over. :-)

    Disclaimer: I dislike both Intel and Sun. I consider both of them bloated soulless corporate entities. But it can be fun to watch such corporations squabble :-).
  • Put the following in a file, say hostid.c:
    #define MYID insert-some-hostid

    long int gethostid(void) { return MYID; }
    where, of course, you should add something meaningfull to insert-some-hostid. Now compile like:
    gcc -o hostid.o -c hostid.c

    ld -shared -o hostid.so hostid.o
    Then do:
    export LD_PRELOAD=`pwd`/hostid.so
    Guess what, you just changed what any program which is started under the current shell thinks that your machine's hostid is.

    Now, having answered your sarcasm with my flipant remarks, I would assume that with Linux you could get around Intel's CPU number scheme with something similar (if they go through with it).

  • Posted by Jack_The_Dripper:

    It isn't just corporate America that takes away your privacy and not just online. The wonderful state, no quotes but much sarcasm, has been selling 'private' information of its citizens for years. This info includes your address and social security number, among other things. They have only now begun to give you a chance not to have your info from the division of motor vehicles sold to private industry, thanks largely in part to state employees who have let this little tidbit slip to the press.

    Privacy my ass....................
  • Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:

    While I love the ideas that the US gov
    was suposedly founded on, the current
    state of affairs sickens me (with regrard to
    privacy and a great many other things)

    I would love to emigrate to a country where
    my rights are protected...all I need is a source
    of income there.

    Anyone in holland or some other freer country
    need a skilled PC Tech who uses know windows
    but uses linux? :)
  • Slashdot makes no pretence of being an impartial news site; it'd be pretty silly to say it shouldn't be so obviously pro-Linux, for example. Slashdot editors posting stories that took their interest and adding comments on what they think isn't being out of line - it's how the site works.

    Sometimes I disagree with what sengan writes, but to say that he shouldn't say it is to miss the point of the way that Slashdot works.
    --
  • Once again it is shown that those in the public spotlight should never, never talk off the top of their heads....

    I'm sure McNealy's comments were taken out of context and/or misunderstood, but it'll take Sun's PR people a while to fix this anyway....

    Craig

  • Neutral-bias is way over-rated. As a media consumer, I shop for bias (though not necessarily one that matches my own) because it makes the product more tasty. If slashdot claimed to be "unbiased" on the label, I would expect it in the content -- but then it would probably be way too dry to read. Biased reporting can be respectable journalism too. Just wear it on your sleeve.

  • Sun is part of the Online Privacy Alliance ... well, at least they were.
  • ethernet addresses are basically the same.

    Capiche?
    -o

  • Scott McNealy's comment, while true, really wasn't smart. He's (unfairly, I think) going to get a lot of flack for stating the obvious.

    It constantly amazes me how little personal privacy we have, even in a strictly legal sense. This is especially true for US citizens.

    US citizens need to take our national anthem with a grain of salt; when it comes to privacy issues, the USA is -not- the land of the free. Lately, even your grocery purchases may not remain private (with the advent of "discount cards" at chains like Safeway). After all, when one is saving a great deal of money off artificially marked-up prices, one doesn't think about the wealth of information (modern society's most precious commodity) you are giving that store. Thanks, I'd rather have to remember by myself when next to buy toilet paper if it means keeping some semblance of privacy.

    The EU has -vastly- superior personal privacy protections (for some information on this, see this link [www2.echo.lu]), hence the nervousness of people in EU member countries about the US's disgustingly lax privacy protections. We should be putting pressure on our lawmakers here in the US to adopt similar laws and privacy protections.

    I really hope people in the US wake up and do something before it's too late, and Big Brother (in the form of your friendly mega-corporation, rather than the government) is rifling through everything you have.

  • Scott, get over yourself.
  • I recently lost all respect for sweden, yesterday, when Volvo sold-out to Ford.

    I'm selling my 760.
  • idiot.

    Bill Clinton is an avowed baptist. He goes to church.

    Christians aren't perfect. Just forgiven.

    rough quote from the new testament;
    If you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven.

    Forgiveness is THE CENTRAL THEME to the Chrisian religion. If you call yourself a Christian, maybe you ought to go read the bible just once.
  • The processor ID doesn't really add much that cookies didn't already give you. If you care about privacy you need control of your software. And we all know that Open Source is the best way to do that.
  • First, Gates would know better.
    Second, McNeely is as big an asshole as Gates, only dimmer.
    Third, "kiddes"? What duz that make you.
    By the way, I'm 39, you dork.
  • A lot of comments here have said 'well, he's right, but that's defeatist'. Maybe. I think it's good to see a public figure come out and say what so many people already know: real privacy is over.

    What I haven't seen discussed here is the 'third way': reciprocal transparency. Possibly something McNealy had in mind. One defining feature of the privacy we have now is that there's lots of privacy for corporations, police, spys, etc. But we can design our laws and technology so that there is balance. Here in NYC, there are videocameras dotted throughout town, some police owned, some corporate. If that's fair, then surely there should be cameras for the public observing police precints, and wherever video feeds are being monitored. Same principle applies to data. It's gonna flow, but it shouldn't all flow in one direction.

    (For a full discussion, see "The Transparent Society" by David Brin.)
  • This is from Tuesday. [ontopofit.com]
    --
  • (SANTA CLARA, DMK): Recent developments in the Technology Industry have lead to heretofore unprecedented mass suicides among once-hopeful Public Relations representatives. Realizing the stocks they foolishly accepted in place of a living wage were tied to the public acumen of individuals shunned as children, agencies everywhere have had to deal with employees plummeting from the roof--a distinct problem for those attempting to dodge their way into the office, though a definite boon to telecommuting stocks.

    Recent events have exacerbated this situation. Vice president Seamus McMahon of First Manhattan Consulting Group admitting the true attitude of modern banking with lines such as "You charge them higher fees because you don't want them -- make them know they're not welcome" and "Raise his ATM, credit card and account fees till he leaves" have actually led to people spontaneously combusting on their way to the roof.

    But nothing could have prepared the newly-downsized PR agencies for Sun CEO Scott McNealy's comments regarding consumer privacy. Stating that Consumer Privacy was a "Red Herring", that "You[Americans] have no privacy anyway", and that people should "Get Over It", Scott singlehandedly destroyed over three hundred thousand office walls and cubicles when crazed PR workers began pounding their heads into the nearest hard surface in an attempt to conceptualize existance with such little common sense.

    McNealy's company, Sun Microsystems, makes serial-numbered computers that are often used as massive servers that store personal information on every individual in America. Popular Wisdom holds that Sun is considering changing it's slogan to "Have a nice day, sucker.", or "We're the 'Screw' in 'Screw' you."



    Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
  • Thank you for the single, non repeated Ha. I appreciate your Ha, and hope to provide many Ha's in the future.

    Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
  • Gee, I guess hostid doesn't do anything like serial numbers on the proposed Pentium III at all.
  • Amendment IV reads:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    And this has traditionally been used to protect privacy. Also, amendment 9 reads:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Meaning that just because the Constitution does not explicitly declare a right does not mean that there is no right there.


    BTW, I think the Senate really does have nothing better to do. The longer the trial goes on, the less they are mucking up stuff and raising taxes so that they can have more stuff to muck up. =)

    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • *Bop*

    I think that was his point.
    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.

  • right on (Score:1)

    by spot ( 3593 )
    scott is right. the reaction to the pentium iii id is bogus. we already have ethernet addresses anyway. give up your silly notions of privacy. if you understand the power of freely copied software, then you should grok that databases will trade information about you and know you. at the same time, the right to be anonymous or to use an alias is fundamental. but so is the right to track someone else to discover their true name if you can.
    __
  • "The right of the people ... against unreasonable searches and seizures""
    And this has traditionally been used to protect privacy.
    total bogosity. "privacy" laws generally have nothing to do with search and seizure, they are about restricting people's right to exhange databases about other people.
    __

  • That's the difference.

    The difference is actually that most sun's hardware is server, not PERSONAL computers. Hence the host-id is shared among dozens of users, thus diluting the privacy loss ...

  • I've long believed that privacy is a failing concept and that if we were going to successfully move forward, we'd
    need to relax about the whole thing.


    I really don't mind being seen naked; but I'm still worried about evil orgs. (say, $cienology) compiling personal data about me.


    So your argument sucks.

  • Um.

    This is not a Christian nation - if this were to become official policy, I guarantee that I would be out of the country within 48 hours before someone tries to forcibly 'convert' me w/firearms or something similar.

    Sorry, slick, but even here in Amerika there is a concept of seperation of church and state to consider. The founders of the country may have been scared that some *other* religion would try to take over (hence the seperation), but it applies equally throughout.

    The last thing we need is a country officially sanctioning something whose background involves a substantial amount of pointless bloodshed and violence. Not to say that all (or even the majority) of Christians out there are of this nature, but I'm still sticking with agnosticism, thank you...

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • In the UK you are being filmed nearly everywhere - but the film is being captured by private individuals and companies, and not being correlated or stored. What we do have left to defend against is what the police forces would love most - networking of the video cameras, and automated broadband face-recognition scans for "known criminals". The tech to do these things is imminent, and is a very significant threat; it is ironic but true that without the option of crime, a society has no freedom either.
  • Note that there is no explicit right to privacy granted in the US Constitution. Anything not explicitly protected in the Constitution is fair game--Americans, through an oversight of their Founding Fathers, have already given up any right to privacy.

    The closest thing America has to a right to privacy is the "pursuit of happiness", given in the *preamble* to the Constitution. Even though it's not an Article, it has allowed some judgements in the court in favor of privacy. However, for the most part, there is no right to privacy in America. Furthermore, unless the US Congress passes an amendment to the Constitution (not likely), the courts will have absolutely no choice but to rule against privacy in lawsuits.

    You'd think the US senators and representatives would have better things to do with their time than spending the better part of half a year debating Clinton's imdescretions, and subsequent cover ups, rather than tackling issues like privacy.

    Me? I'm afraid I have a defeatist attitude similar to Scott McNealy's. We don't have any privacy. It's not likely to change, either. My solution? I think emigration is looking better and better. Now, I only wish other countries (any other country...) had as flexible immigration laws as the US.

    -dan
  • It's like trying to legislate against dope, booze, tobacco, swearing in public, porno, whatever. It's only effective if the targeted act is already considered immoral by a huge majority (like murder). Big companies will gather data regardless of legislation. All legislation can do is stop companies selling that data to each other. And until privacy legislation is extended to our friends in government, it really doesn't matter a whole lot.

    As usual, the crooks and rich will invent false personas, and have privacy of a sort. The punters will lose.

    --
  • Quoting the article:

    "McNealy made the remarks in response to a
    question about what privacy safeguards
    Sun (SUNW) would be considering for Jini.
    The technology is designed to allow various
    consumer devices to communicate and
    share processing resources with one
    another. "
  • Having "something to hide" does not mean
    you have done something wrong.
    If you have nothing to hide, why don't you
    take the door off your apartment?
  • I think you missed "sarcasm" from the Greek,
    "to rip flesh"
  • It isn't easu for Americans to get work in
    certain other countries, either! This is not
    strictly an American weakness. The fact is,
    many of our cities are crowded and polluted.
    Most people who immigrate do not go to Utah or
    Nebraska (sparsely populated). They want to
    go to New York, or Dallas, where it's already
    very crowded...
    Nobody is going to offer me a job and a permanent
    visa in Holland, and if they did, I would have
    as many problems trying to emigrate to there, as
    you are having trying to come here.
    So don't blame America! The immigration policies
    are a logical, (yet desperate) response to population growth due largely to the very liberal
    immigration policies of the past. We are not xenophobic people, but resources are not getting
    more abundant.
  • If legitimate activity were not able to hide behind the veil of secrecy which is the
    FOUNDATION of personal freedom/privacy, the
    world would be different.

    This may come as a shock, but there are people who
    would like to preserve this status quo.
  • Couldn't an ethernet card's hardware address be used to track folks... If that was the case, then it is true that you don't have any privacy as-is.

    just a thought...

  • The job description of CEOs in corporations the size of Sun doesn't entail doing work as we understand it. They don't create; they don't manage; in most cases they don't even set policy.

    What they do have to be very good at is exuding confidence, so that customers and shareholders can see a person of substance at the helm that they can have faith in: in the case of established hardware firms, this means having to be seen as a visionary.

    I'm not saying that I think this is right, or even that McNealy does. It's simply a fact that has existed in industry since the interbellum, concurrent with the rise of powerful companies not headed by entrepreneurs. Anyway, the point is that being a visionary means having the occasional strongly held opinion, and the substance of that opinion is (with certain limits) not nearly as important as its effect on the perceptual position of Scott McNealy and Sun.

    He probably doesn't mean it, and his words will have been mostly forgotten by next month, except by the people who love to chortle over how Ken Olsen said in 1976 that the notion of a computer in the home was preposterous.

  • I usually file AC posts under the "Boot to the head" file, but your's was quite appropriate.

    Would I love to live in a utopian society where we didn't need barriers to hide whatever it is that we're ashamed of? of course. is that time in the forseeable future (i.e. my children's or great-grandchildren's)? hell no.

    I do have things that I'd like to hide. I'm quite paranoid of certain things. I do despise the police (for the fact that some have actually made up reasons to come to my house in order to search it... they didn't get in tho). I don't want everyone to know everything I do.

    the U.S. was founded on rights intended to keep our private lives exactly that. Many other countries have lost many of their similar rights (Nippon being the main one in my mind), and I can't stand listening to people of influence attempt to eliminate what I hold dear.

    there is a perfect model of what life is without privacy. they are the borg.

    "resistance is futile"
  • Why can't people in the public eye just shut the hell up sometimes? some of us actually value the little privacy that we still have!

    Would I love to live in a utopian society where we didn't need barriers to hide whatever it is that we're ashamed of? of course. is that time in the forseeable future (i.e. my children's or great-grandchildren's)? hell no.

    we aren't ready for anything even remotely related to socialism yet. Karl Marx had a great idea, but it wasn't supposed to be this widespread for centuries. He knew that we weren't ready to be "of one consciousness", so why the hell can't we realize this? We are still primitive creatures. We hide behind our "technology" the same way that the caveman used the "unga, I have wheel, so I'm superior" excuse. as a society, we're only barely closer to utopia than our predecessors. so let's just wait a bit on the whole "break down the barriers of security" thing.

    I do have things that I'd like to hide. I'm quite paranoid of certain things. I do despise the police (for the fact that some have actually made up reasons to come to my house in order to search it... they didn't get in tho). I don't want everyone to know everything I do.

    the U.S. was founded on rights intended to keep our private lives exactly that. Many other countries have lost many of their similar rights (Nippon being the main one in my mind), and I can't stand listening to people of influence attempt to eliminate what I hold dear.

    there is a perfect model of what life is without privacy. they are the borg.

    "resistance is futile"
  • I don't think you read my post correctly. I said that OTHERS were trying to rush into "the perfect model". while I believe that someday we might be evlolved enough to attain the Marxist ideals, we're still light years away.

    at least read before you attack. geez.

    oh, and quoting william shatner is the rough equivalent of Dr. Suess as a literary reference in your english final. :-)

  • Did any of you watch
    • "Enemy of the State"
    ?
  • Did any of you watch "Enemy of the State"? I think Scott McNealy did and it has influenced him greatly! :-)

    Just think of what the government, or any other large corporation could be doing right now, for the sake of something like "national security". In some ways we don't have privacy, yet the veil of privacy is what keeps everything running. For instance, every character I type right now is being recorded in a way. I am posting here, and yet, someone could intercept this and then read it at their will. Every computer this hits on the way to slashdot will record that it made some sort of transaction involving what I typed just now. Just look at your e-mail header and properties. The e-mail message knows where it's been and where it's from by talking to e-mail servers. Now who says that is isn't or can't be done for other ways to send the information?

    Wow, this must be my longest post.
  • project to build a Secure WAN with cheap boxes between server and web to encrypt/decrypt transmissions (using "fax effect" to spread itself). did it die?
  • Instead of complaining about the lack of privacy we should be complaining about the abuse of personal information.
  • I have no problem giving up personal privacy (which I will admit is basically a joke) as long as all corporations are likewise forbidden from keeping any secrets. Free information.
  • I have no problem giving up personal privacy (which I will admit is basically a joke) as long as all corporations are likewise forbidden from keeping any secrets. Free information.

  • Information is just one aspect of privacy. Here are the locations [mediaeater.com] of some 2,397 PUBLIC surveylance cameras throughout the streets of Manhatten. I imagine other large cities are not far behind.

  • This is a christian nation.

    This is a nation that was "formed" by a bunch of violent, murderous thugs who slaughtered the native inhabitants in pursuit of their own self-centered interests. If this is "Christian," it's not something I'd be stating with any degree of pride.
  • I don't know how good of a move that was for him. I'd say usually the people that shell out bucks for Sun stuff are usually pretty concerned about the privacy and security of the data that goes on those systems. I'm not saying that i disagree with him though....
  • I've long believed that privacy is a failing concept and that if we were going to successfully move forward, we'd need to relax about the whole thing.

    First off, let's look at our terms: There's a difference between the legal conecpt of privacy and the popular notion of it. The legal definition implies doing what you want without other people interfering in it. If you want to drink too much tonite, then it's nobody else's business. The popular notion involves not allowing 'them' to know what's going on beyond the curtain and what you're doing in bed but ashamed of.

    The popular notion of privacy is untenable. 'Set information free' is necessary for us to evolve into a more automated world. It's too easy to collect information on people, because that information is so useful. This type of privacy will continue to disintigrate, either grudgingly or with cheers for what we'll be able to do. One way or another, it's going away.

    The result of this is that we need to alter our conception of the legal concept of privacy. It's no longer enough to allow people security through ambiguity. 'They' will find out what you are doing one way or another. We need to start seriously evaluating methods of preventing eachother from interfering with our choices even though they know what we are doing. You should be free to eat a big mac, or drink a beer, or buy a copy of Big'uns without fear of reprisal...not because nobody knows, but because people aren't allowed to care.

    If we start looking at these kinds of solutions, people will stop worrying about the strawman argument of 'privacy' and start welcoming the change that comes with freedom of information. People without fear aren't afraid to share about themselves. Some even welcome it (ever see JenniCam? [jennicam.org]

    Privacy is dead. Long live privacy.
  • Recently saw a 60 minutes episode about personal privacy that really brought home the fact that personal privacy is not a technology issue. CPU ids won't effect the current state of affairs one iota.

    The 60 min episode presented a family that had been 'checked up' on by an ex-wife. With the family's permission, 60 minutes tried to see what information they could get on the couple. It was amazing. Telephone calls, credit card purchases, credit reports, medical histories - and according to the sources of this info, not one server was hacked, not one security system breached.

    All the information was gotten either via legitimate channels (scary what can be had legally) or by tricking people who have legitimate access to the information into giving it up over the phone.

    Some of the people that track down this information actually give courses and seminars on how to cold call employers, banks, HMO, etc, and trick them into devulging personal information.

    The reason this can happen is because we have very inneffectual laws. Employers don't think to admonish employees to never, under any circumstances give out any personal information over the phone, no matter how sweet the talker on the other end - because there are no consequences for doing so. There need to be very strict guidlines, and punishment needs to be swift and certain.

    Another poster hit it right on the head when he said that yes, we have lost control of our personal information, it is out there, more and more people are tracking it, and more and more people have access to it, there is not much we can do about that - what we can do is make sure that those who do have the information are accountable for what they do with it. We need to make sure that they cannot use this information in such a way that it adversely effects our lives.

    Scott's defeatist attitude is correct, in a technological perspective, we do need to get use to the fact that more and more people have access to our personal information - but we should never accept the negative consequences of illegal use of this information.

    -josh
  • In David Brin's book, "The Transparent Society," (an excerpt [wired.com] of which appeared in Wired [wired.com]) he basically argues in the same vein as McNealy: There is nothing you can do to prevent companies for acquiring information about you.

    Brin argues that there are only two possible futures. In the first, only the corporations [yahoo.com] have direct access to the information and the techniques with which to mine it. In the second, everybody has access to that information. The first grants us the illusion of privacy but effectively strips us of our freedom-- you can't know our neighbor's kinks but corporations know exactly what floats your boat. The second strips away any illusion of privacy, but grants you the real freedom to decide for yourself the information you take in and put out.

    The question now becomes, do we act to ensure this illusory privacy, or do we demand that you and I have access to the same information those with money and power collect about us? Which do you want? A review [businessweek.com] of The Transparent Society can be found in Business Week [businessweek.com].

    Elf Sternberg [halcyon.com]


  • Hmm...I've read alot on /. throughout the past and I can't seem to recall a post that I disagreed with more.

    ...."Any means necessary"...??

    Just what are you advocating here you zealot?! I'll bet you are one of the people who support those anti-abortion web sites that post the addresses and pictures of doctors who perform abortions aren't you?

    Damn..if that's the attitude it takes to be a "Christian", I'm glad I turned in my secret decoder ring and membership pin looong ago.

    --------
  • Where I live you can also find out the SSN of the person(s) buying the house.
  • And there is nothing strange about Sun aiming for the corporate market - the consumer market isn't interested in Sun products anyway.

    Isn't that a tautology?
  • They always talk about the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Zone. The same holds true for Scott McNealy. "Don't Let Technology Divide Us"! Oh really? In his world you have the choice between the frying pan (Microsoft) and the fire (Sun). I have some respect for Sun and even ran a dandy 3/160 box in the past. But Solaris sets no standards for security and Sun's licensing and support are (being polite here) aimed at the corporate market. Remember the 386i? hahahahah

    "You have no privacy" is typical cynicism from CEOworld. Well, privacy is eroding, but it's not like the game is over. It does seem like this raises some fundamental issues, though. If the problem is false speech, is the solution to say, "there's no more truth" or to say, "we need more free speech to help reveal the truth." And of course, one possible road to protecting privacy is better security.

    How much has Sun contributed to *that* effort?
    --------
  • I heard (don't know if it's true) that the US admits more immigrants each year than all other "western" countries combined.

    Granted, I still think our immigration policy is stupid. How many people living in America today would be here if their ancestors had to deal with similar policies?
  • I'm a New Zealander that has recently moved to Denmark. So my view is created from personal experience, not an uderstanding of policy.

    Yes the EU has 'privacy' laws and does much to regulate and protect the privacy of individauls FROM COMPANIES. However they do not protect the individual from itself.

    Hell no, I am constantly shocked at the invasion of privacy by governments themself over here.

    Through the multiple government departments and government run institutions, throughout the multiple countries, the multiple governments are able and DO share information on everything from political viewpoints, religious beliefs to doctor's records and bank balances.

    Information is regularly shared interdepartmentally in one land, but it is also shared between countries when the forces that be think it is needed.

    I don't care if the supermarket knows my spending patterns, hopefully they can use the information to give better service. I already have taken Scott's advice on that one, 'I have gotten over it'

  • The report gives no detail as to the context of his reaction. Public remarks made in irritation don't allay one's irritation but hold one up to moralizing . . .like this. It's none of my business should Scott McNealy have a bad day and I won't mistake him for the company line.

  • true (Score:1)

    by arafel ( 15551 )
    there can be on-line privacy; there /is/, at the moment, simply because the mass of data is far too much for anyone to correlate, even if the agreements between companies were there.
  • THIS EMAIL CONTAINS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR SUN SOLUTIONS CD
    SUBSCRIBERS. PLEASE READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY.


    As a subscriber to the Sun Solutions CD you receive quarterly issues of the
    CD. This publication on a CD contains applications, demos and information
    from companies who create products for the Sun platforms and technologies.
    >From time to time you may be sent additional information from Sun or from
    our business partners.

    Sun Microsystems respects your desire for privacy. This letter is to notify
    you that you can "OPT OUT" from receiving additional information while
    still maintaining your subscription to the CD.

    Please be assured that information that identifies you personally,
    including your email address, that you have provided us is only used by a
    secure bonded mailhouse and is never sold or shared with any individual or
    company.

    If you DO NOT wish to be contacted by Sun or its business
    partners, please alert us immediately:


    EMAIL sunsolcd@sun.com

    MAIL Sun Solutions CD
    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
    901 San Antonio Road
    MPK 18-202
    Palo Alto, CA 94303

    To update existing subscription information or for general questions,

    Email us at
    sunsolcd@sun.com


    If you have any questions, please refer to the Sun Privacy Policy below: --
    or see http://www.sun.com/privacy/


    Sun.com Privacy Policy
    ----------------------
    We at Sun are committed to respecting your privacy and recognize your need
    for appropriate protection and management of personally identifiable
    information you share with us (any information by which you can be
    identified, such as name, address, and telephone number). That is why Sun
    has established this privacy policy, so that you can understand the care
    with which we intend to treat your information.

    In general, you can visit sun.com without telling us who you are or
    revealing any personal information about yourself. We track the Internet
    address of the domains from which people visit us and analyze this data for
    trends and statistics, but the individual user remains anonymous.

    Some of our Web pages utilize "cookies" so that we can better serve you
    with more tailored information when you return to our site. Cookies are
    identifiers which a Web site can send to your browser to keep on your
    computer to facilitate your next visit to our site. You can set your
    browser to notify you when you are sent a cookie, giving you the chance to
    decide whether or not to accept it. The information we collect and analyze
    is used to improve our service to you.

    To protect your privacy, we have adopted the following principles:

    INFORMATION

    We want to give you information about our privacy policy and assure you
    that we take reasonable steps to see that it is followed within our company.

    CHOICE

    There are times when we may collect personal information from you. It is
    our intent to inform you before we do that and to tell you what we intend
    to do with the information. You will have the option not to provide the
    information, and in the future you will be able to "opt out" of certain
    uses of the information. If you choose not to provide the information we
    request, you can still visit most of the sun.com Web site, but you may be
    unable to access certain options, offers, and services.

    ACCURACY

    We do our best to maintain the accuracy of personal information you supply
    to us; we are working on tools that will allow you to review and update
    your information in the future.

    SECURITY

    We will take appropriate steps to protect the information you share with
    us from unauthorized access or disclosure.

    COMMITMENT

    We are committed to privacy and through our membership in the Online
    Privacy Alliance, are actively involved in and support current industry
    initiatives to preserve individual privacy rights on the Internet. Personal
    data privacy is a new and evolving area, and sun.com is evolving to meet
    these demands. Mistakes are possible; miscommunication is possible. If you
    have any comments or questions regarding our privacy policy, please contact
    us at privacy@sun.com. We will address any issue to the best of our
    abilities.

    Thank you for your support of these policies and of Sun Microsystems.

  • I think the comments in the Wired article are probably completely out of context. I was at an event yesterday in Frankfurt, Germany, where McNealy spoke, and he said something almost identical. His point was, why are you worrying about giving up your data into the hands of ISPs, for example, when you already do things like: give your money to a bank without doing an identity check on the person who has your money, or sending an "unencrypted letter in a paper-thin envelope," and putting it in an unlocked mailbox! The point was, that there are alot of other areas where we don't give a second thought to privacy, and don't have any privacy, so it is riduculous to focus on just one aspect of it.
    I am not passing judgement on what he said, I just think that article blew it up out of context.
  • I rarely post slashdot comments but I felt I should post one for this one...relating to these quotes, esp Mcnealy;'s being taken out of context. I'm glad others picked up on that fairly early too. I hate this kind of journalism!

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close