Well done - you can track my previous postings on /. Do you want a prize? I'm now accepted as one of the 6.5 million people in the UK who have their DNA on record because this country stores DNA samples from everyone convicted (and many who are not convicted). Assuming of course that I'm not just posting things to try and make a point and gain Karma points - just like all the people on here who post about "My wife had this happen to her..." - we know that they haven't got a wife or they wouldn't be on here ;=P

I'm not on FB, Twitter, MyCloud or whatever else, so there's no data out there about me. If there's nothing to harvest then they can't harvest it - I'd rather be classified as 'boring' or 'not with it' (whatever the fuck 'It' is), than have stuff out there that might come back to bite me in the ass in 10 or 20 years time.

I've been a /. reader for over 8 years now and have noticed the change in the type of story discussed here. I keep seeing people saying things like "Why are we talking about FB - this is suppsed to be a techie site and we should discuss techie things". I tend to find myself agreeing with them most of the time.
Then a story like this comes along - which should be "manna from heaven" for Nerds and Geeks and I try to read TFA - only to find myself yawning and giving up coz it's dry, tedious and badly written.
I can't even win in an argument with myself anymore - must be a sign that I'm getting old.

What concerns me with all this is his comment about "Who doesn’t have a Facebook profile?".
I'll tell you who - anyone convicted of a sexual offence. You may not think someone in that situation deserves any pity - however think of this. You're not just talking about serial rapists and paedophiles, but the 16year old boy who has sex with his 14year old girlfriend and gets reported by her parents. Is he seriously trying to suggest that as well as everything else that gets in his way, he also has his credit rating ruined for life - AND an account created for him by the 'Bank of Facebook'?

Yeah - that sounds fair.

Did you actually read what you typed? Posting as an A/C to avoid a flamebait tag. You say about the UK/US being 'attacked' - no-one has suggested that they can't defend themselves, but that's got nothing to do with this article. As for other countries being attacked - your way of thinking is what leads to governments doing whatsoever they wish. There's a very slim line between the US/UK accessing e-mails whenever and wherever they wish under the guise of 'preventing terrorism', the Chinese government deciding to block whatever web-sites they want to under the guise of 'preventing civil uprising' and the Libyan government shutting down all Internet access because they don't want the truth about the atrocities they are carrying out reaching the outside world.

    Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody's got one and they're usually full of shit.

I think the title says it all. What's the old phrase? "If you can't blind them with science, then baffle them with bullshit."

It shouldn't be government regulation. No one country has the right to try and regulate the Internet, even though both the US and the UK seem to think they do far too often.
This is yet another reason why we (that's the global 'we', not just the few) need a totally independent Internet regulation authority, funded by every government, to oversee the whole thing. They could make decisions for the good of the Internet, not for the good of their own little corner of the world, or because industry is threatening to withdraw funding for their next election campaign.

I just hope that the many people who will post on here, with all their different opinions will actually take the time to read the article first. I know that is asking for a lot on /. but I can hope. Moxie Marlinspike (what a great name by the way) has really done a great piece of work here and it deserves to be read and digested before being critiqued.

... but I would never put anything on there that I wouldn't be just as happy nailing to my local telegraph pole for everybody to read. If it's in the 'cloud' then it cannot possibly be considered to be secure as somebody has physical access to the server holding my data. If I really want to put something 'personal' on DropBox, Ubuntu One or whatever, then I encrypt it, archive it with a password, then upload it as something else innocuous-looking.
Anyone who actually believes there's any level of security to something that's 'out there' then they need their head examining.

Given a couple of recent stories here on Slashdot which involve juries and seem to end up with people discussing various ways of getting out of jury duty (of which 'being openly racist / homophobic' etc seem to be the suggested routes) maybe the judge has also been loitering here and read the same posts?

I've preferred to use Gnome over recent years as I just found KDE to be not right - couldn't get on with it. With the way both are now going, I can see myself having to switch again. Given my recent hunting round, I really hope that the Enlightenment crew actually get their shit together and get a stable, solid release that can be used as it is simple, clean, easy to use, easy to configure and add gadgets to.

Let's hope that somebody who can actually achieve something in the marketplace actually listens to what Michael Geist has got to say.

Or does the 'Not Evil' company sound like they are starting to become just that little but more evil?