Slashdot Mirror
Do Privacy Fears Allow Terrorism?
carbon3C writes "Privacy advocates are luddites, says Heather MacDonald, a lawyer at the Manhattan Institute. She says we should shut up and let the government do what it wants. Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology. How do we send a clear message that non-luddites (conservative and liberal) are concerned about privacy precisely because we do know so much about technology?" Leaving your front door wide open is a great idea, until someone you don't know walks through it.
Do what those guys did to Poindexter - collect all available information about this woman, and post it on a web site.
Teach her to call us Luddites!
I have never seen evidence that giving up privacy actually worked effectively against terrorism.
Giving up privacy provides IMHO a false sense of security. Even worse, I think that giving up privacy leaves the door open to a type of government that I'm even more scared of.
Actually I meet a lot of interesting people that way. They're called customers.
The problem isn't open data, it's that we believe the data can be abused and have terrible real-world consequences.
Here are real examples from the Top 10 Police Database Abuses
Cheers, Joel
You want privacy, eh? Therefore, you have something to hide. That makes you a terrorist. So, you are to blame for taxes, polution, wars and stuff. The government told us so, so it must be true! Ummm... where's my bathroom door?
Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
I struggle with the pro-drug perception (I should say anti-drug-regulation views) of the Libertarian Party. But it's hard to argue with a platform that wants MORE freedom - and no other party is promising this. Unfortunately, I still feel obligated to cast my votes for the most freedom-oriented Republicans (or Democrats), until the Libertarian Party has a chance of winning, but how can you knock the party that advocates more FREEDOM?
I liked their Quiz to see where your beliefs lie.
Unfortunately, this post will probably be added to my FBI file. :(
Unfortunately, total exposure is not a successful option. At least, not yet.
You can find many instances of this in small towns, where everyone knows everything about everyone else. The problem is that it often disallows people to make mistakes.
One of the things that people complain so often about regarding the internet (and, to a lesser degree, regarding newspapers) is that once something is said, it's there forever and ever and ever. And you can search for it, and find it.
This wouldn't be such a problem except
If I used to be a libertarian, and I became a communist because I realized that my views were wrong, then that would be my decision. But later on, let's say that there comes a "blue scare" - the libbys are coming to steal your children and rape your horses! Let's get a list of these preverts, and exterminate them!
And, gosh...there you are in the newspaper oh-so-long-ago talking about the joys of libertarianism. Never mind that you're a good, decent commie now. You're gonna fry.
Now imagine that with all your information. Ever looked at your credit history and wonder who the hell was doing those transactions, as it sure wasn't you? Imagine that on a grand scale.
Also, what if you fucked up royally? These days bankruptcy is wiped off your record after a while. A long while, but it does get done. Imagine if that was never wiped. Remember that story about employers requesting credit histories? Well, now they wouldn't have to request them. They'd already have them. And it would be forever, and ever and ever.
This wouldn't be helped by the fact that everyone would have access to everyone else's record. There's an interesting rule in psychology, it's called externalism (I think it's called that): everything you do is motivated by external factors. Everything others do is motivated by internal factors. Want an example of this? Remember that time when you were at work, and your boss had this really bad look on his face? What's the first thing you think? "Uh oh. Someone did something. Hope it wasn't me."
Externalism is supported by experience, but...it has some dire consequences. People tend to think that your negative actions were intentional, and their own negative actions were unavoidable.
If that's not enough for you, there is a cheaper argument: there are people in this country who can't stand certain things about certain people. I'll take the simple one of being gay as an example. Some people hate or fear gays (I admit, I am terribly frightened of the fashion gap. I just know that some day I'm going to NEED to be able to identify an Armani jacket, and I'm not going to be able to do it, and that freaking queer is going to get the girl. Errr...yeah, that's it). Non-flaming gays are protected by the fact that they're a bit difficult to casually pick out unless you've got better gaydar than most breeders have.
What do you think would happen if those people who can't stand gays could easily find out who was gay?
Oh, sure. Many would discover that they were surrounded by them, and would think "gosh, there's so many. Maybe it IS natural." There'd be some tension for a while, and then things would blow over as people just learned to accept it.
On the other hand, there are those in whom this would instill a "bunker" mentality. Defense against the gays. Maybe...an active defense? Deny them jobs. Deny them social memberships. Deny them your vote. Deny them their life?
And not all towns have a bunch of gays. Some small towns will undoubtedly have only women in uncomfortable shoes, and only manly lumberjacks with heavy loafers and boots.
An insular population, in other words. Us against them can easily breed there, and this lack of any privacy would give them easy, local targets to vent their rage upon.
Remember, many people go around doing what they do without moral regret: because they don't think it's wrong.
Your lack of privacy bit only works if people think that what they're doing is wrong. That is not the case, most of the time.
also for you 1984 readers out there check out .. Brave New World (if you haven't already )
this book had a massive effect on me when i read it when i was 14 or 15..
Sorry man I don't controll the aliens.
I'm not *so* concerned about MY government watching me. What bothers me (and bothers me a LOT) is who else can get in and find out things about me that I'd rather they didn't know.
* Big business (I don't think Microsoft should be able to find out what software I run on my PC for example).
* Other people (Identity theft is a HUGE problem).
* Other governments (I don't think we'd want Iraqi government officials finding out too much about our citizens).
* Small businesses (I don't want to be Spammed, Cold-called or Junk Faxed anymore - and I CERTAINLY don't want those people to be able to find out a lot about me and thus target me more precisely).
Now, if the price of being private from all those people is to also be more private than is convenient for my government - then I'm sorry that has to be the case. Dunno about you but I'm much more worried (in a cold, hard statistical sense) about having my life wrecked by identity theft than by a terrorist.
www.sjbaker.org
Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress
We aren't opposed to technological progress. I am opposed to the US Government using this new technology to enforce unconstitutional laws. Laws that our religiously influenced leaders consider immoral. Heather MacDonald needs to go back to her 'conservative think tank' and respect the privacy she has while it lasts.
tagged by the feds,
-metric
tells the terrorists that they are winning. If any government re-orders its society to the point where no citizen (or subject) feels they can express their opinions without every e-mail or phone call they made in the last 7 years being hauled out and used against them you may as well surrender now.
Like most 60s kids I was raised to believe that the Soviet Union and particularly E. Germany were evil because the state monitored the phone calls of and spied on anyone who dared to say anything out of line with the government view. Now I find I'm part of an active demonstration of how it can be done better with technology. I 'spose you don't tend to get dragged off without being charged and tortured/interrogated without a lawyer but...... Oh yeah, they can do that now as well.
Sorry to all those who died in WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc. it was all for nothing. Shame that innit?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
I wish Fortunate Son was required reading as well ...
Unlikely, since I believe the USA has burned 70,000 copies of this, several publishers (five?) have started and stopped its printing, and the author, J.W. Hatfield a credible author and father, has committed suicide as a result. Very interesting text, though; I would be far less inclined to believe it reflected some truth if so much effort had not gone into preventing its dissemination.
I was worried about the European cyber crime convention in 2001 but there was nothing one could do about it. I was worried about echelon, the TIA, the department of homeland security, etc. But all I could really do was watching the freedom being taken away from the people.
My conclusion is, that our society will inevitably turn into the Orwellian nightmare. More or less this view of mine is shared by David Brin. In his book "The Transparent Society" he tries to answer the question if technology will force us to choose between privacy and freedom.
From an interview with amazon.com:
Amazon.com: Could you explain what you mean by a "transparent society"?
Brin: Our world, our cities, even the countryside is about to be filled with cameras. There is not a single thing any of us can do to prevent it. Every year, the size of video pickups gets smaller by 30 to 40 percent. The U.S. Army is developing little flying drones that are already smaller than your hand, and in laboratories they're working on fingertip-size flying cameras. We will live in a society in which the average person is under view, at least out-of-doors. The only choice we have is who will control the cameras. If we ban them, if we outlaw them, if we try to protect our privacy through secrecy, all we'll manage to do is restrict their use to a secret elite. Perhaps an elite of government or of the rich, or corporations, or criminals, or a technological elite. We won't get rid of them. On the other hand, if we decide to make a virtue out of this inconvenience--if we all use the cameras--then no one will ever be able to conspire against us again. Knowledge is the only way that we can maintain our freedom. And if that means letting your enemies have some knowledge too, well, then so be it. I am not a fanatic on this issue. We will need some corners of modern life that can be secret. Battered wives will need to be able to go to secret locations for their shelters. Whistle blowers telling of disastrous schemes by governments or corporations will need to be anonymous. We all need a reserve of privacy in our homes allowing us to choose when and where to be intimate. All of these will be better protected in a society that is 95 percent open. For instance, in a restaurant you can have a private conversation because you can catch eavesdroppers and peeping Toms. The openness of a restaurant is better for defense than it is for offense. If instead a restaurant tried to shelter every booth with paper screens, who would this benefit? It would not increase privacy; it would enable peeping Toms. In fact, an open society is not only going to be more free, it's more likely to protect that special reserve of privacy that we all need.
What do you, dear /. reader, think about it?
Is the "Open Society" at the price of loosing most of our privacy our only way to escape the Orwellian nightmare?"
Read the interview with Brin here.
... followed by Some Thoughts on Privacy, Security and Surveillance in the Information Age
A Parable about Openness...
The David Brin Site
Go away, grammar nazis! My native language is not English.
Perhaps this is similar to your definition of trust. Do you trust strangers? You shouldn't and here's why. Trust is a state earned by those who demonstrate a consistency of action and intent that is in the best interest of what you consider good. That may be you at the top of the chain (with most people it is) or it may be the organization you are in or just other people in general around you. If you refer to someone as a "good person" with the justification of "he/she is nice to me" when it is plainly obvious that said person is an ass to everyone else... that says a lot about your ethos and trust. This mentality plays out in views of government as well, sadly.
Would you trust a child with a grenade? Then why trust the government with your private life and liberties? The child is not evil, just incompetent. I work with many government employees and I can tell you that it is not the ethical and hard working ones that are decision makers. Perhaps by being burned out or just because their "any casualty is acceptable in my climb up the ladder" mentality set them as a kindred spirit to those that hire and promote... who knows? The result is an environment that promotes sloth and blind bureacracy over real quality of results. This is how you get screwed.
"You can trust them, they are from the government." Based on what criteria do they filter out the self serving? What makes me say, "Yes, this is an organization that requires and encourages ethical and professional behavior"? Just because their paycheck comes directly from the department of Treasury does not make them trustworthy. No thanks, I will reserve my trust to those I have seen demonstate that they have earned it.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Hah. The government, in first place, wants to protect its 'economical interests', and will gladly misuse technology against any individuals. Governments don't care about individuals at all, as far as it doesn't form a risk to their votes... and even then, if the lobbying pay is good enough...
America claims to be a country of freedom, but it's the first thing that gets throw out when something goes wrong, just so some could get a little safety. You can't stop terrorists. Everybody could be one, using several of infinite ways to get to you. Just take care that you aren't hated so damn much, and yes, there is definately room for improvement... terrorists don't randomly pick a target to loose their lives to.
The people will be the ones that pay for loosing their privacy, loosing to government and its lobbying friends, not some terrorists that can easily re-organize and start using things like PGP. Tell me how knowing what YOU do will help conquer terrorism. I can't believe how somebody actually believes giving up all their privacy and some of their rights will actually improve the world, while the government is fighting a war on the other side of the globe just because of said 'freedom'!
Sounds like "freedom is a nice thing to have, as long as it doesn't even become a potential threat to any of my shiny toys".
Time to ask yourself what really matters to you.
My identity wasn't used for illegal purposes, but I had a rather strange tax status for several months last year after someone at a tax office mistyped by NI number (similar to a US SSN).
After noticing that my pay cheque for January was smaller than usual for no apparent reason, and tracking this down to a change in my tax code, we did some more investigation and concluded that I had moved house to the far side of the country and started a new, full-time job there... and all without noticing! I must be smarter than I thought. :-)
The greatest part, though, was when I rang up the tax office to sort things out. Sensibly enough, they first wanted to confirm my identity, so they asked me for my name, current address and employer. I provided these details, and got back, "I'm sorry, those details don't match what's on my computer. I need to hear what it says here before I can help you. Are you sure those details are current?"
I recited every previous address and employer I'd ever had since working and paying tax, and none of them showed up. It took saying the right thing at the right time* to get them to listen to me at all, and then three further months of hassle to sort things out, luckily just in time for the end of the financial year. Still, even though everything is (I hope) OK now, I was out of pocket by hundreds of pounds for several months. To many people, that would have been crippling. And all it took was someone mistyping a digit on a computer in a government office.
But it's OK. I've got nothing to hide, so I should trust the government to collect lots of data on me, and take it as read that no problems will result, right?
*If you ever have the same problem in the UK, where you surprisingly start a non-existent second job and change to a new address at the same time, one of your jobs will get a tax code change to BR (basic rate only, no allowances). Tell your tax office this while explaining what's happened, and they may at least start to believe that their records of your address may be incorrect as well. You will probably still have to write to them and formally state that you are who you say you are, unless you're lucky enough that they can spot the problem fairly quickly and your "official" situation is obviously implausible, but at least you'll be able to get things sorted out.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology.
Bwaaaaahahahaha! Even if you're one of those who believes Bush would never allow any misuse, who's to say following administrations wouldn't misuse information? You know, like using census information to round up Japanese for concentration camps.
We left them high and dry because they wanted to start going all over the world and starting war. The US wasn't down with that. You're forgetting the OBL wasn't from Afghanistan, and wasn't at all interested in helping rebuilding that nation. We did what the world thinks we should be doing today: left them to sort things out themselves. Hardly a betrayal. Unless peace is the furthest thing from your mind and you got used to have a free ride. Where was the very rich and well connected OBL when the people of Afghanistan needed food, water, and infrastructure? He was off with his buddies sharpening his knives and setting is sites on the next fight.
(Repost from another board, discussing the National Security Advisor's terrorism threat forcast of "high" for the week with early morning fog of fear burning off by the evening into a patchy haze of mistrust)
So... we have a generalized threat warning that someone, somewhere may do something to hurt somebody? And this is supposed to inpact my life how?
Seriously, living in Boston I'm far more likely to be shot by a Hong Kong gang, disappeared by the Moffia, mugged by the homeless, run over by the crazy drivers, accidently blown up by a kid from MIT, get clubbed by falling ice, poisoned by the atrocious water supply, or get carbon monoxide poisioning from these 1890's era heaters in this aesbostos-laden apartment than I am to get killed by an Iranian for being an American. The total Us population in 2000 was two hundred eighty one million, four hundred twenty one thousand, nine hundred six people. If a terrorist attack an order of magnitude worse than the original estimates for the world-trade center massacre were to occur, there is still only two hundredths of a percent chance that I would be effected. One thousand deaths happen every single day due to smoking in the US. In my age group the death rate by congestive heart failure is 90.3 in 100,000. Motor vehicle accidents cause 29.3 deaths per 100,000. Suicides will cause 4,300 deaths this year (extrapolated) in the 18 to 24 year old age group alone, which is significantly higher than the amount of 18 to 24 year olds killed in terrorist attacks in 2001. Hypertensive heart disorder killed twenty-five thousand, three hundred twenty-seven people last year. two hundred fifty thousand people die every year from accidental medical mistreatment. Lung cancer killed one hundred fifty-four thousand people last year in the US. Blood poisioning caused thirty-thousand, six hundred seventy deaths last year. Eighty-nine die every year in the US by lightning strikes.
Even if one could acquire antibodies for Smallpox, Ricin, Botulism, VX, Sarin, Cyanide, Anthrax, and Radiological Emergencies, the series of injections is far more likely to kill you than the chances of a terrorist attack utilizing one of the above. Get some perspective, and get some sun. Actually, better avoid the sun: skin cancer killed 9,600 Americans last year.
The ______ Agenda
From Indymedia.org.
--Dan
Our awesome Privacy maven here at CMU, Prof. Latanya Sweeney, used a new publically available housing record database to find photos and estimates of the houses members of Pittsburgh's zoning commission (which created the database) lived in. You'd be amazed what these guys were buying on small civil servant salaries. Where does all that money come from?
Well what did they do about it? You guessed it. Passed new regulation that members of the zoning board can't be included in the database.
I need mod-points: (-2, Logical Fallacy) & (-2, Redudant).
Your lines are a common sentiment on the American left right now, but it's a falacious argument. (And as a liberal myself, I hate to see it used.)
Really, this is the post hoc fallacy: just because A happens before B, A doesn't necessarily cause B.
How specifically has American support of dictatorship caused Islamic terrorism? The historical support isn't there. Let's break down the region with a couple significant examples:
This is getting to be a long-ish post, so I'll get on. Most terrorism comes from a ugly mix of religious extremism, anti-Westernism that is as old as the Crusades (in which surely the U.S. had no part...) and that good old have's vs. have-not's problem that has caused unrest throughout the history of the world. It's not that clear cut. France has very little terrorism, yet traditionally maintained brutal and violently rascist regimes througout Africa and Southeast Asia. Ditto Britian, the Netherlands, etc. It must be more complex: hence the post hoc fallacy.
A more intelligent argument points to the U.S.' support of Isreal as the flash-point, but then if Isreal's the problem, why didn't Bin Laden et al slam airliners into buildings in Tel Aviv? Fact: Bin Laden, until post-9/11 made no mention of the Palestinian cause and is said to have cared little about them as a people. But the P.R. possibilites were too great.
It's very difficult to talk about this situation objectively, true, but poorly reasoned -- and historically ignorant -- anti-U.S. screeds do us no credit.
Know your enemies in order to defeat them. A few corrections:
Speculation: if Prime Minister Rabin had not been assassinated, and his peace plans had continued, the WTC would probably be standing today.
This article, and Heather MacDonald is so idiotic I'm nearly speechless in responding. As someone who is a strong advocate of accelerating technology, stem-cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and space colonization, and also PRIVACY protections, I challenge anyone to back-up calling me a luddite. If I oppose the use of nuclear weapons does this also make me a luddite?
This has nothing to do with technology and luddism, this has to do with how this technology is used.
I have only this to say about invasions of privacy. If the government wants to eliminate all privacy, then I demand that it be BOTH WAYS. But when you have a government that is getting increasingly secretive while our lives become less so, then you have a gaping hole for abuse. As David Brin so eloquently shows, only societies that are transparent in every area have a chance of remaining democratic and free. What Heather is suggesting is pure Orwellian Tyranny - nothing more.
Planet P Blog
www.enthea.org
*groan* Where to start on this ultra-liberal nonsense...
...but we've survived this long and it's surely better than the alternatives.
I'm not sure if you live in the US or not, but if so, why not move to Norway, Sweden, etc? Live there all your life, then tell us that those are the "best" places in the world to live. Until then, you have no basis for comparison. (either do I, for that matter)
I currently live in Canada, my roots are Flemish (Belgium and English). I have lived in USA and have stayed in Norway for extended periods of time. I feel that even if you haven't been to all of these places, you can still see the benefits of their systems.
Cut the military and spend more on education, healthcare, and welfare? Of course! It's so simiple! Why don't we sell all our weapons to other countries and use that money for more welfare, too? In fact, why don't we make all weapons illegal and sell those too! The police don't need guns. That will surely lead us to the utopian, welfare-based, socialist society you invision!
I never said be rid of the military. Thats just foolish. But do the tax payers of America need to spend billions of dollars a day in order to keep a full arsenal of nuclear weapons? No. Cut that in half and already you have more money to spend on resources that will actually be used. Why are you making such an extreme? I never said that all weapons should be sold or destroyed. It's not all or nothing. The reason I brought up those other countries were as proof that a huge military isn't necessary for a successful country. Quit being so shortsighted.
Like it or not, humans are violent and prone to war. Ignoring that will not make it go away, the only way to survive is to mitigate violence the best we can...
Better than what alternatives? The ones that the top 5 countries in the world are using. They certainly have a better system than America.
We may not be handling it perfectly,
Your damn right its not being handled perfectly. There is room for improvement, so why deny Americans of it? Your mentality of "If it ain't broke don't fix it." may have some bearing somewhere, but not with a country currently involved in a war, under threat of terrorists and with an economy in a downward spiral.
I am not anti-american. I am just saying there is a need for some change that will benefit the country along with the rest of the world.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Hitler was a socialist. He has much more in common with modern day liberals than conservatives.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
I'd second he who quoted on this very page: 'think a moment about who gets to define "wrong"'