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.

3 of 895 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Privacy is Dead, there is only one thing to do by MourningBlade · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    • people change their minds
    • decisions are made in context, hindsight-judgement is often made without.

    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.

  2. Why governments and data handling don't mix by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Rediculous!!! by cosmosis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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