Slashdot Mirror
Do You Know Where Your Privacy Is?
blankmange writes "CNET is reporting coverage of the Computers Freedom and Privacy Conference, being held in San Francisco this week. 'The conference, normally a forum for digerati to pose a series of frightening "what if" scenarios, has morphed into an event where participants' worst surveillance nightmares may be poised to come true following the terrorist attacks.' Sounds like we may want to listen for any definitive solutions that come from this conference."
And this was before 9/11! What privacy do you have to save? These people are just engaging in mental masturbation, there is no privacy, the point is moot.
I just fail to see how any monitoring of people's personal transmissions, web site viewing habits, etc. can help law enforcement against terrorists. Since 9/11 it isn't only the governmental agencies who are being more cautious about goings on around them, but also the terrorists. I would assume that terror rings, knowing the FBI, CIA, and other national security agencies are monitoring for possible terrorist activities on the internet will be more careful in the future to use public internet terminals, web email accounts, and encryption. This is just another ill fated attempt at law enforcement trying to get more power while they can, using public fears to convince the general population that it is needed.
Yes, but does it really help much to prevent terrorist attacks?
Fact is bills like this have always been going around, but now, as a result of the attacks, some of these bills are getting past. The actual propositions were not a result of the attacks.
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Will you be willing to give up your car if it means preventing automobile accidents? Or the ability to recieve mail if it means it will prevent the possible spread of Anthrax through the postal system? Everyone agrees that the terror attacks were a truly terrible thing to have happen, but this isn't treating the root cause of terrorism, it is only giving the government another way to intrude into the general population's right to privacy, and people who really want to find a way around it will.
While this may sound a fair trade on the surface, the consequences of what you suggest scare the hell out of me.
With each week passing the powers that be seem to be pushing for small, yet significant, reductions in privacy in the name of preventing future terrorist attacks.
While obviously the Sept. 11 attacks were horrific, and I truly feel for the families who were involved, the long term consequences of a continued, gradual loss of our basic rights is something far, far worse.
It seems to me Bush, Blair and co. are jumping on the bandwagon and using Sept 11 as leverage to push through new laws and changes to already exisiting privacy acts.
Fair enough, it may mean a reduction in another (as grand a scale) attack succeeding - but at what cost?
Its in the proverbial toilet along with my other civil rights like gun ownership, (2nd), freedom of assembly (1st), freedom from Government searches [i.e., searches at airports by federal employees] (4th) and Federally imposed mandates on the state I live in (10th).
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Unfortunately, I doubt any "difinitive solutions" will come from this conference. I have never known any solutions to come from any conference of this type. Ideas perhaps, new discussions started, new alliances and enmities forged. But not solutions.
Privacy has always been and will always be shaped by three opposing forces: freedom, convenience, and safety. It's the job of the citizenry to ensure that these forces remain in relative balance and that none is given undue weight.
Too much emphasis on freedom, perhaps you are inconvenienced and perhaps your safety is compromised (wild west). Too much emphasis on convenience, and perhaps your safety and freedom are compromised to provide that convenience. Too much emphasis on safety, and certainly your freedom and comfort will be sacrificed somewhat to keep you absolutely safe.
So, are monitoring technologies in the hands of law enforcement going to abolish our freedoms and privacy? Not if we temper their use, as we have done with everything from personal search to wiretapping.
I'm not particularly worried, but I am certainly glad that there are people who are, for they are the ones maintaining that delicate balance that keeps those forces in opposition.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Add to that:
Identity cards may prove identity. What we need to know about is behaviour. Identity tells you nothing about behaviour.
If you take the idiotically simplistic notion that people are either "good" or "evil-doers", then you make behaviour some timeless abstract "inate" feature of identity. Based on that premise then, identity is useful because it allows you to separate evil-doers from do-gooders.
In the real world however, behaviour (good or evil) depends on environment, past history and future circumstances and opportunity. It also changes. A do-gooder today can become an evil-doer tomorrow (say, if an innocent relative of theirs is killed by a "smart bomb"). It is even possible (gasp) for an evil-doer to become a do-gooder (blatantly optimistic tree-hugging belief in "rehabilitation"?).
Case in point: Richard "Explosive Sneakers" Reid, had a past history (the only element an identity can point to) that was totally clean. His identity was never doubted, his past history contained no violence or terrorism. They knew who he was, they just didn't know what he was about to do. Unless you assume that behaviour such as belonging to a mosque or being a muslim, makes you a potential "evil-doer" (we generally refer to that kind of association as "prejudice", or sometimes "racism"), then identity is useless.
In the larger context therefore, establishing identity, at a time when mind-reading and behaviour-guessing is impossible, is simply a different way of enabling "prejudice". Prejudice, meaning literally, pre-judging someone on past behaviour.
Obviously, in some very limited cases, identity provides knowledge about highly relevant past criminal activity. For those cases, identity would be useful, although it can be "fooled" as described by the ACLU. Unfortunatelly though, this whole argument is trying to push identity using the narrow case, in order to pursue or enable the broader prejudicial, racist, discriminatory policy which is characteristic of the anti-Arab backlash after the attacks. Hating "them" is just as narrow minded as "them" hating "us".
Second that. I have my doubts that a national id card would help, and would definitley fall into my personal definition of invasion of privacy. I certainly don't want the incompetents that currently fuck up the system to have access to stronger weapons. Hell look at the people who work for the government, do you want them in charge of YOUR identity.
Oh yeah boycott the boycott of the boycott of the Great Slashdot Blackout.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Is the right of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to be here now considered an "essential liberty"?
Funny, there was a time when there was no illegal immigration - everybody was welcome. Personally, I find that the right to travel wherever my feet take me is indeed an essential liberty, and I'm sure the Framers thought likewise. But it would seem that those who prefer a false sense of security to God-given freedoms followed the patriots to America and set up shop.
People have used that phrase to justify alot, and frankly, I'm not buying it this time either.
Justify what? The granting of freedoms? Actually, the only time that phrase gets mentioned is when people attempt to take away liberties we already have. What are you talking about, exactly?
Toss out everyone who is here illegally, and we wouldn't have need of this crackpot National ID card.
Riiight...it's those damn furriners who are causing all the trouble. Except, of course, for Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the KKK, etc. PC has nothing to do with it, pal - the problem is we live in a free society, and that scares people who can't deal with the responsibilities of freedom. Illegal immigrants aren't the problem - criminals exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in a free society are the problem. And you solve the problem by going after the criminals, not by locking down the free society, be it through immigration or national ID cards. Your 'solution' is not only too simple-minded, but further imposes restrictions of freedom in an increasingly oppressive society.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America or the various ammendments does it state that Privacy is a guaranteed right. However, the Second Ammendment to the United States Constitution as specified in the Bill Of Rights states that the right to bear arms will not be infringed upon.
If you were truely concerned about "rights," you would be just as insulted by "gun control" legislation that denies honest citizens their rights under Ammendment II. Instead, you guys are up in arms simply because you're afraid that the Government is going to stop your MP3 downloads and cut off your access to piracy sites.
Hypocrisy - You all profess to be above all others and support people's rights... unless you don't like those rights. To hell with the fact that they're guaranteed...
After all, some rights are more equal than others.
I'm the tasty treat nobody can resist!
IM Me! AOL IM:Tasty Beef Jerky
The second question, although I think I know the answer is how do these laws continue to get passed. It's almost as if we (in the US) don't really have the power to influence our government. Things get passed and there's nothing we can do. You can blame apathy, but does that really work? The voice of the irritated minority gets louder when most people are apathetic. Mob mentality? What?
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
""). It is even possible (gasp) for an evil-doer to become a do-gooder (blatantly optimistic tree-hugging belief in "rehabilitation"?). "
True, but societies view of "Once a criminal always a criminal" insures second hand status. After all this is the only legal form of discrimination, even 20 years after the fact of the supidity on an 18 year old.
Now that the government wants to be omnipotent, I fear this sort of thing is going to get much worse and much more common.
Ah ... you appear to be proving my point ... to a degree ...
In the case of police, it is very public. Even the local news ususally has information about it. Whatever else can be obtained by the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, we get into the hidden and very closed side of "homeland security". If there is an abuse of power with carnivore or another of its ilk, then who notices? If there is an internal "investigation", who notices? What if it encouraged to find traitors to the US (by any means possible)? What is not said may be loud and clear.
The biggest problem is that they are not publicly accessible, since it's for our good. And due to the "Patriot Act", if you question us and our motives, you must be a terrorist. The sheeple will roll over and accept this.
Now obviously, I'm questioning the policies that we currently have. I am still 100% behind the US, and I still think that it's a great place to live.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
That's nice of you; but what you really
mean is "I am willing to force everyone
else to give up their privacy too",
isn't it?
Considered harmful.
I think what was so perfidious about the 9-11 incidents was that the attackers seemed to have achieved what could have been one of their goals: Disturbing a civil society to that extent that it questions its fundamentals and arrange its changing ideals around fear.
If somebody has attacked the basis of your community, and now it must be changed for defense - It's sad, but this is some strange kind of victory.
I am sorry for the trauma Americans are living with. It makes them do strange, cruel and even some stupid things from my point of view. Giving up privacy is such a thing.
It saddens me that we've gotten to the point where it's okay to have a lower class and the pomposity to think that no American should have to stoop to such work, but it's perfectly acceptable for the "dirty foreigners" to do it.
America needs to start setting an example by cleaning up and solving its own problems, instead of the grandstanding and righteousness.
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
On behalf of all those who have been reading Slashdot for more than 2 hours - shut the fsck up. It's been said time after time after time, and it's *still* used incorrectly.
As the poster said, I'd be perfectly willing to give up some privacy if it would increase security. The amount of privacy I'd be willing to give up wouldn't even border on an "essential" liberty, but I'd be willing to give up some. The safety I'd have to receive would have to be a permanent reduction in terrorists attacks that could hurt me. The proof that the reduction in attacks was linked to the giving up of said privacy would have to be backed by well-conducted research. Therefore I am neither giving up an essential liberty, nor accepting temporary safety.
Hell, according to Mr Franklin, I could give up an essential liberty like freedom of speech if it were to give me some *permanent* safety, or I could give up hundreds of "non-essential" liberties for a permanent increase in safety from accidentally falling out of a window. While the adage works well in many situations, please don't use your post-bot to toss it into any YRO discussion.
</rant>
Last post!
First of all- do you know that the individuals who say 'information should be free' on slashdot are the same ones who want to protect their own information?
Second- there's a difference between putting information into the public domain and being forced to put it in to the public domain. It's the same difference between GPLing software and having the justice department force microsoft to open source its products.
Third- There is a legal precident for some privacy. Take anti-stalking laws. Take the fact that you own your home and can let people in, but aren't required to let anyone in who knocks. People can trade my e-mail all they want till they're blue in the face. I just want laws about who can use it, the same way there are laws about who I let into my house. If it's illegal to knock down a server with a DoS attack, there can be spam laws. Likewise, the supreme court recognized ( was it in Roe v. Wade? I don't remember) that a right to privacy was implied in the constitution because privacy was nessecary in order for the other components to be upheld.
If a person's personal information is used to harrass them with things like spam, then that should be illegal in the same way that I can't choose to harrass someone I don't like by calling them repeatedly.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.