derpleplex

Complexity = time to brute force a crypto algo. I am using the word in the formal, traditional sense, where a brute force solution (and heuristics of intelligent solving) literally is measured in terms of computational complexity metrics (big o) or probability.

You are right, I was reacting to a pattern of argument, which is not the point that I should have been focused on. That creates more noise over more important issues.

That was not my point, I over-reacted to a pattern of argument that bothers me when my own mind repeats it.

I agree that security should be taken seriously, with care and caution, and that users who ethically need to be aware of potentially fallacious assumptions about the usage of a device should have the capacity to easily find that information.

Perfect security does not currently exist. A trusted source must store the information somewhere, to authorize and validate users without spreading that information elsewhere.

You can't get around this problem unless you invent magic psychic computers. What is the point in finding every possible flaw with security here? There is a gradient of complexity, the time it takes to break these things. Currently, everything that exists is susceptible to being broken, misused, or modified.

If you assume that your attackers know everything, and have the ability to immediately find and apply that knowledge, then yes, it can seem scary. But I tend to think that the more capacity a person has to do, it's really just a bigger intellectual burden.

If people of this century, continue to believe this kind of domination between human to human is acceptable and desirable, I want off the planet, and possibly emancipation from the human race.

> I get that it's kind of scary, but it's not just Facebook,

It's scary because it is unregulated, automated harassment. What if you have compound PTSD? Does google know what to remind me of and what not to?

> digital equivalent of reading body language on people in your store.

Yes, data is the body language of the digital world. Thank you, that is the perfect equivalent.

It's not 100% reliable, and an intelligent person has the capacity to subvert it, in order to establish their own personal privacy.

I care more about intellectual privacy than I do about any other form of it. If people believe it is 100%, then they have to prove telepathy exists.

> GM went so far as to argue locking people out helps innovation. That’s like saying locking up books will inspire kids to be innovative writers, because they won’t be tempted to copy passages from a Hemingway novel.

This is one of the best analogies I've heard.