RE: [projectvrm] Virgin Trains and, um, intentcasting

["Crosbie Fitch" < >]

Yup, they'll probably not only have cameras in toilets, but also facial recognition controlled access to the toilet (for premium customers only).

 

Until, that is, the advent of VRM when the commuting public becomes able to collectively buy out train companies and undo all the sociopathy that's accumulated in preceding years.

 

 

---

From: Wunderlich, John [mailto: ]
Sent: Monday, 12 January 2015 2:54pm
To: Crosbie Fitch
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Virgin Trains and, um, intentcasting

I note that while the communication the Lionel posits can be crypto protected, and that this will certainly protect 'data-in-motion', at the end of the transaction, a Virgin employee has to deliver the goods. I suggest that it's not at all unlikely that a conscientious customer focussed representative wouldn't follow up with a) an apology and b) and offer to compensate for the inconvenience. This could reasonably lead to an entry in the company's CRM about the customer (perhaps without embarrassing specifics, but possibly not). So the likelihood of anonymity where there is an actual physical encounter is much reduced. That's a thing, not a bad thing or a good thing by itself, it's just worth noting that the gordian knot of crypto is easily cut by physical presence.

John Wunderlich

Privacist @PrivacyCDN

On 12 January 2015 at 05:54, Crosbie Fitch < " target=_blank> > wrote:

As an aside...

 

One can observe discretion at work here, and that people are at liberty to disclose things about someone that that someone may not tend to disclose themselves.

 

On the one hand we have someone posting using the name L.Wolberg - and ending their posts with "- L".

 

And on the other we have two respondents referring to the poster with the name "Lionel".

 

Are they disclosing a confidence? With or without authorisation?

 

Are they making a statement? That the 'L' of L.Wolberg stands for 'Lionel'?

 

Are they compromising the pseudonymity of 'L.Wolberg'?

 

I see nothing wrong here. It is up to L.Wolberg to decide if Doc or Iain have been indiscreet (which they are at liberty to be).

 

However, there are some who might think this disclosure could warrant prosecution for a 'privacy' violation or fines as stipulated in a (consequently invalid) non-disclosure contract.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.