What is Digg?28 Comments
- DigiDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+391. I never said you were an idiot. I don't think Digg is a great place for personal attacks, it's not really a good forum for human interaction or getting to know people.
2. I do feel honored to finally be accused of gaming the system though. Thank you.
3. Yes, I have seen stories get 26 diggs and no comments. It happens all the time. Usually comments don't start pouring in until it hits the front page.
4. It's fine to think the story is run of the mill. Don't digg it. But don't associate me with your crusade to save digg from whatever it is you think is ailing the system, especially if you have a vendetta against specific individuals. I don't discrimiaDigg -- and I don't think you should either. I'll digg anybody if I think it's good. I'll digg yours too if it's a good submission (you are now my friend).
If you want to discuss it further contact me (check the profile), I hate having comment conversations. - DigiDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Um, did you read the story? The title and deck are quoted from Forbes.com.
I tend to think of them as pretty standard and trustworthy. Not to mention it's written by Bruce Schneier an expert on security: http://www.schneier.com/blog/
How is it fraudulent, and why the personal attack? I'm open to constructive criticism, but I just don't see what you are talking about. - OnlyShawn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@ moonwell:
"not everyone speaking the english"
really? - antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"I don't think Digg is a great place for personal attacks"
Read the stories under the Politics topic :) - ArchonMagnus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Let's not forget he's also the author of "Applied Cryptography", one of the best cryptographic references ever written.
- fyre2012, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Propps to DigiDave for standing up and proving he's human.
We all know Digg get's gamed, but it's not like every story that gets to the FP is there because of some malicious intention and / or exlploit.
- MoneyShot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Uh, "this guy" is Bruce Schneier, probably the foremost security expert in the world. He is an amazingly clear thinker; one who doesn't throw around hyperbole for emphasis ("think of the children!"). In fact, he actively calls out politicians and "security experts" for doing just that. I highly recommend reading his books "Secrets and Lies" and "Beyond Fear" if you want a really good, no-nonsene look at security.
The NSA *is* monitoring all international phone calls, that's not in question. And it's not much of a stretch to beleive that they are recording international SMS messages since that would actually be more technologically feasable. Google does read Gmail users' to tailor advertising. That too isn't a question. - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Or common sense."
Or complex mathematics (encryption) - neom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So true, and very scary.
- robwistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the difficulty in "mak[ing] sure there's no evidence lying around" is exactly what the article is warning us about. stuff is getting saved without your knowledge.
and convenience shouldn't have to come at this price. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6He probably meant to say:
"Another case of Digg being gamed. Damn DigiDave!"
[Opinions expressed are not my own] - jefree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2privacy is important, not because people will "break the law", but because "taken out of context" communication doesn't have the same meaning. We communicate in the context of the medium, the person being spoken to, the current state of affairs and environment and when that can be examined by others at a later date in a different situation all the meaning and truth gets warped and changed in that different light.
So, with no privacy, you get a superficial world similar to shopping at a big box store experience. Yeah, that's a quality culture I want to be a part of.
The USA has stepped so far away from it's founding ideals of freedom it literally makes me feel sick in my gut! - MonkeyFit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, if people want privacy then maybe they should get off their asses and actually go talk to these people. Convenince always comes at a price. They need to realize that. And also, somebody could have always had a recorder of some kind when talking to someone. Even back in the 50s, though it would've had to fit inside a briefcase.
- romulusnr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, I think public officials' acts and communications with staff probably should not be private. So his use of Mark Foley as an example is a nonstarter with me. Maybe if he could use an example of an actual private person's private communication with other private people as an example, it might sell me (and others who don't care for elected officials abusing their status and staff).
- weasel75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1" .... where the slightest joke--or comment made years before--lands you in hot water."
While this might be a harsh generalization (ATM over 99.x% of the communication lands you nowhere), the chance to "land in hot water" sounds so "1984" ... or 3rd Reich or any other cruel dictatorship, when people were thrown into prison or executed for "subversive" jokes.
And while encryption helps to protect against unwanted listeners (do *you* use GPG or PGP? How you protect your ICQ/MSN/Jabber-talk?) - but the end-recipient you have to trust....
And not just the trust, that he does not want you to push into problems, but that he does not save communication in clear-text on hard-drive, servers or anywhere else where criminals or other evil-doers can gain [il]legally access to .... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Obligatory movie reference: "the Conversation" Frances Ford Coppola directed this between Godfather shoots during the Nixon administration. Gene Hackman is an engineer obsessed with a tape somebody hired him to make of a seemingly innocent couple talking. Fun movie, and explores the front between spying technology and personal privacy rights incredibly well... decades before the subject got the public exposure we see here.
- ChiKoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nothing new, but regardless, a good read.
- 022A, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I feel like this says more about the ***** state of our legal system than scary technology.
"Of course they found things; everyone says things in conversation that, taken out of context, can prove anything."
We all probably agree with that, but it shouldn't be the case at all. The fact that something is taken out of context should directly indicate that it can't be used to "prove" anything. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"the only way to solve the problem is through legislation."
Or common sense. Don't have sensitive conversations with people you don't trust, and make sure there's no evidence lying around. - elipsonknight14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah we are truning into the book "1984"
- nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is kind of similar to the Digg article about high school kids being punished for making libelous statements about their teachers on their MySpace blogs.
Bottom line--if you type it, be it an e-mail, IM, text message, or even on a piece of paper, it's "printed," and anything printed can be used against you later. If you wouldn't publish it in the local newspaper, then you should think twice about expressing those same sentiments in any written form.
We don't need laws, we need common sense. Either that or encrypt all of your written communications, which is a good idea, anyway. - felyduw, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5@OnlyShawn
With so many semantic reasons to comment on moonwell's post you chose a mere sintatic one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2this guy does like to throw truths around.
"but we know that the National Security Agency is monitoring everyone’s international phone calls"
"(They said nothing about SMS messages, but one can assume they were monitoring those too.) "
"Google reads our Gmail"
"And we need to remember, whenever we type and send, we’re being watched."
and then he brings in the big guns with the child porn - JJMaxx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0"This represents an enormous loss of freedom and liberty, and the only way to solve the problem is through legislation."
Actualy, you still have the freedom to seduce little boys. You still have the freedom to plan to kill the President. You still have to freedom to IM an underage girl. Freedom has nothing to do with privacy. If I e-mail a co-worker and tell him I'm a huge Spice Girls fan, and he prints it out and blackmails me at the office, that's my own fault. But even if the entire government monitored the e-mail, they wouldn't stop me from doing it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -32/+5"This represents an enormous loss of freedom and liberty, and the only way to solve the problem is through legislation."
nwahaahahahahahaaaaaa here is your free america, you just sucked :D
If u have a problem with that come to Europe, we don't need ***** greencards, we don't monitor your chat, your mail, we give a ***** what u doing, you can kill anyone if you want, business in drugs, join the maffia, welcome in the revolution :D
Oh sorry here is a little problem, not everyone speaking the ***** english so probably u need to learn another language but if u bring the money you can buy people, laws, goverment, half couintries, banks, bitches so you can buy everything in Europe and I WILL NOT SAY YOU A ***** IMMIGRANT.
:D - diafel, on 10/12/2007, -27/+1I'm not an idiot. It's easy to tell just by the people here http://digg.com/security/Casual_Conversation_R_I_P/who whether or not a Digg submission is being gamed. Hint: it almost always involves aaaz. You mean to suggest it's not fishy that such a pedestrian run of the mill article would get 26 diggs and yet not a single comment?
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -52/+2Another fraudulently digged story by DigiDave.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is