Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

David Brin on Privacy

Posted by michael on from the no-webcams-in-the-white-house dept.

David Brin is interviewed and provides some strong words on modern conceptions of privacy and why they're off-base. Brin asserts - and argues well - that a land with little privacy is a freer land.

5 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A very basic fact... by nagora · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that American citizens have a right to privacy.

    Apart from the fourth amendment, of course. Or what did you think "searches" means?

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  2. Please explain then... by sphealey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I was reading a newspaper article a few months ago (can't remember if it was WSJ, NYT, or Chicago Tribune) about the FBI's use of private databases to dig up information on suspects. The reporter called the database company and ordered searches on the Director of the FBI, John Ashcroft, Bill Gates, Laura Bush, and a few others in similar positions of power. He received a reply of "sorry - we don't sell information on those people" from the database company.

    So if living one's life in full view is such a great thing, why do the powerful arrange things so that they (and their families) don't?

    sPh

  3. Re:A very basic fact... by nomadic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or the 9th...

    What we really need is a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy; the only problem is the Constitution places limits on the power of government, not private individuals/corporations. So while it would be nice for it to be easier to prevent the government from spying on us, we still have the problem of corporations eager to figure out what breakfast cereals we prefer.

  4. Listen to this man by SlashDread · · Score: 5, Interesting

    David is dead on.

    "Information wants to be free"

    Apply this to information about YOU.

    My point is, most of our actions are done in the public sphere, and can be observed by ANY casual observer. In theory, what anyone does in a public space, cannot be private by definition. Is it bad that people track you for your personal buying habits?

    I dont think so, because I _could_ have spotted you buying it anyway.

    Now, the problem is in WHO can see that data. F.E. if the governement or anyone really, has data on me, Id sure want to know what. So I should be granted access to that data. If only to correct errors made.

    "Information is power"

    It sure is. Just ask the MPAA.
    Now who should have this power? Everyone. That way we can garantee supervising the supervisors.

    So.. Privacy doesnt really exists, but that does not scare me. Information exists, and what scares me if the powers have infomation, that the public has no access too. That way the balance is off.

    Gr /Dread

  5. Total transparency for us; total privacy for power by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the fallacies I can pop off the top off my head:

    Make every transaction, every movement traceable! Use scanners and biochips to make sure no one can perform a terraist [sic: Texan] act.

    And how would this have stopped the men from threatening the passengers of the planes with boxcutters? The idea of a suicidal attack is that the attacker dies. What the hell use is the post-mortem activity of a dead man? The ability to throw every semite he knew into jail for the rest of their lives?

    If we all lead transparent lives, then we can all live in peace --

    Stop there.

    The Bush administration has put ALL of its records into a vault, effectively for all time. And Reagan's. And Bush the First's. And Jeb's. Cheney is leading the way to establishing a totally opaque ruling junta. They are building walls around themselves. Hell, we don't even know where the Vice President is!!!

    Guess which president's records are being selectively released, juiciest scandal-provoking one's first, by the administration? Oh, guess, guess!! Of course, all surrounding records that may show the releases are out-of-context have been sealed. Why? National security, of course.

    Point? Privacy is sacrosanct -- for this administration, and all future Republican administrations. And their corporate friends.

    Think of it: you ever read the minutes of ANY meeting of ANY corporation such as Enron? EVER?

    Their privacy is sacred. And will remain so.

    The only thing we will get from "total transparency" is the loss of common rights of privacy for suspiciously arabic foreigners, all non-corporate Americans, and anyone who pisses off the future right-wing administrations, such as popular former Democratic presidents and near-presidents, and journalists who don't agree with the adminstration.

    Why in the hell do sane men suddenly get Royalty on the brain whenever a right-wing adminstration comes into power, but want armed citizens ready for revolt when a non-right wing president holds office?

    The current power structure has shown what it will do with "transparency": nail its enemies and reward its friends.

    No, I think I'll stay with my freedom, if it's all the same to you.