[LINK] Clouded Vision
stil at stilgherrian.com
Sat May 16 14:21:09 EST 2009
On 16/05/2009, at 1:56 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> In this case a mistake of your analogy, money that is reasonably
> consistent in its value and is replaceable through a contracted
> protection [bank, federally issued, etc.] is somehow equal to data
> that may exist in only one place and not be replaceable and with no
> contracted protection, and probably contract that says specifically
> there is no contracted protection, use at your own risk. You don't
> need numbers to deal with that, nor science, just logic.
The fact that your bank balance is currently $X is a piece of data
held by the bank. The transactions that increment or decrement that
value are also just pieces of data, flowing in and out of the bank.
They can therefore be lost, just like any other data.
Contracts don't say that there IS protection, just that there's MEANT
TO BE protection.
That banks are supposed to have mechanisms to prevent data loss is
perhaps true, but we're still relying on an assumption that all that
I contend that trusting "the bank" (which is just another company)
with data and rusting, say, Google with data is the same kind of
thing, and that any perceived difference in risk is a matter of degree
not of category.
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
ABN 25 231 641 421
More information about the Link