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.
So no, we're not luddites, we'd just like to be able to live our lives without having to worry about people ripping us off....
Freedom, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental values in human life. Does everybody really want to be shed and protected from everything by the government? Safety, but no privacy is like living in the zoo: you are spoon fed, safe from dangers, but cannot go beyond your cage.
Sad, but it seems that this is most people want. The question is, what we can do about it?
The (US) government wants to protect its citizens? By reading all mail etc? So citizens shouldn't be allowed private communication channels, but carrying fire arms is legal? Either I or the US government is missing something here... ;)
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
Do what those guys did to Poindexter - collect all available information about this woman, and post it on a web site.
Something similar happened to the Minister in charge of this kind of stuff in the UK. It's a good eye-opener for them, although I would hold back on posting it on a public web site. The Mr Mature option is to send it to them personally and tell them to imagine what it would be like if it got posted publicly...
I have never seen evidence that giving up privacy actually worked effectively against terrorism.
Yes, but you miss the point. That point is
BOO! TERRORISTS! Ahhhh, booga booga booga! The terrorist are coming and they'll eat your babies! Ahhhh! Terrorists! Won't sombody think of the children!
I think you'll find it is an effective argument!
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
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.
In one attempt to undermine the weapons inspection process, it was revealed that Harvey McGeorge of UNMOVIC had "a leadership role in sadomasochistic sex clubs."
Like, so what. Some people do that. It's his private life, it has nothing at all whatsoever to do with his ability to do his job as a weapons inspector. And yet, the only possible reason for publishing that information was to diminish him in the eyes of the public, to try to reduce the credibility of the inspection process as a whole.
Does anybody think their own or anybody else's private lives won't be vulnerable to such abuses?
(More details on this can be found here.)
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
I have never seen evidence that giving up privacy actually worked effectively against terrorism.
But terrorism FUD or other "we're under attack" FUD is an old strategy to make the people do what the leaders want, nicely sketched out in an interview by Hermann Goering in 1946.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
If the goal of the terrorists was to strike out against our liberties, to strike out against our freedoms, and our democratic way of life, they have won.
If the goal of the terrorists was to wage war on our way of life, to destroy the very fabric of our political and social structure, they have won.
If we want to fight the terrorists, if we want to win the "war on terrorism", we must cling closely to the umbrellas of freedom, privacy, due process, and democracy.
For, if we don't, terrorism has won.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Sorry - but terrorists will just use other means. In the UK the IRA was able to perform terrorist acts without computers, mobile phones, the internet etc... So it really doesn't matter what measures are taken the terrorist will work around them. Also would the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. be capable of dealing with all the information they gather - I think not!
The only way to deal with terrorism properly is to deal with it's ROOT CAUSES (both real and percieved - from the point of the terrorist) i.e. poverty, oppression, discrimination... It is far better to treat the cause rather than the symptoms, isn't it better to give kids sex education so that they don't contract HIV rather than have to live on medication for the rest of their lives, isn't it better to discourage a person from smoking than to treat their lung cancer?
Fianlly, sure terrorists kill a lot of people, but so do car drivers - more lives are lost every year due to car accidents than to terrorism. Out of sight out of mind - that's the problem. People saw 9/11 on CNN, but they don't see all the car accidents etc.
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.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
- Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them." - Philip K. Dick (found on www.brokensaints.com)
There is no need for Al Quaeda to do any more serious bombings or to kill a single person, because there are now people in the US who are doing its work. But instead of killing people, they do a worse thing: they are destroying the very foundations of the civilization.
What these people do not realize, is that although life should be held as important, people can be replaced, and are. But a philosophy of life, a civilization, that cannot be rebuilt as fast. I may seem callous, but think of how people will look back on this in 25 years.
What's worse, is that these measures that reduce personal privacy and liberties probably won't help stop further terrorism attempts. Not that they need to do any more, with such people working for them.
Ashcroft should be arrested for attempting to destroy the foundations of the US. That's a worst act of terrorism in my mind than anything Bin Laden has done so far.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
All rights are constitutional. The constitution is not some kind of listing of rights. The people have all rights. The point of the 9th Ammendment is to make this crystal clear:
The real question boils down to whether privacy is actually a right or some kind of privilege. I would argue that it is a right and that the 4th ammendment supports this notion, even if it doesn't explicitly enumerate it.
Thus:
* Privacy is a right as implied by the 4th ammendment (secure in persons and papers from government interference).
* Just because it isn't enumerated explicitly we still have that right and the government should have no power to deny that right by the 9th ammendment.
The frightening trend these days is the federal government seems to want to declare everything a privilege that isn't explicitly listed in the constitution. Something many of the Founding Fathers were afraid of. The tactic here is to shift the burden of proof of a right off of the government and on to the people. Thus, the government assumes something is a privilege until it is proven a right. This makes the 9th Ammendment a sort of tautology in their eyes. The people have the ability to retain all other rights but too bad the government doesn't recognize anything as a right until it's rammed down SCOTUS's throat a few times and they start tentatively viewing it as a right.
sigh. At least thats the way it seems using the knowlege given to my by my high school US government class. :)
--
"I'm too old to use Emacs." -- Rod MacDonald
That is an assumption on your part.
My father is very much a man of principle. He once taught me that the only rights you truly have are those for which you are prepared to die. It's a great sound bite, but with more than a little truth in it: anything else can be taken away from you, and if it can be taken away, is it really a right at all? Someone with that attitude might disagree with you.
I'm not sure I could make the hard choice, say if someone were holding guns to my family's heads, but maybe that's immaturity or lack of responsibility on my part. Put it another way, but with a more commonly accepted answer: do you believe in negotiating with terrorists? Does a little short term benefit justify the long term harm? If this is not black and white and there is a balance to be struck, then where do you draw the line?
That, my friend, is the key point that makes so many people from any side of the privacy argument critical here. You are giving up a hell of a lot for something that you don't even know will work (in fact, something that history strongly suggests will not work).
The answer to your first sentence lies in your second. The US has been throwing its weight around for a very long time, as the history books will tell you if you choose to read them. Gratuitous provocative comment for discussion: Has the US has committed more terrorist acts and war crimes in the past hundred years than any other nation on earth? (Before you flame, do read the history books for yourself.)
Your current president had established an international reputation as a belligerent man with little care for the rest of the world long before 911. This is why people will give their lives to hurt you, and this is why the international community are reluctant to stand with you on issues like Iraq. So yes, there are several things you could do to significantly reduce your risk of a terrorist attack, but most of them don't involve guns or spies.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
``Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither.''
The 2nd Amendment guarantees us security. The government needn't do anything else. When they do seek additional measures in the name of security, question their motives. These are usually the groundwork for more sinister plans.
If you think the U.S. government is not susceptible to committing atrocities, you've had your eyes closed. Ask any American Indian if they trust the government. Or any Japanese-American who spent years of his life in an internment camp. Or an African-American who unwittingly found himself enrolled in a state-sponsored syphillis program. How about the people whose lives were ruined because they were denounced as COMMUNISTS?
We're no different today. We simply changed some keywords. COMMUNISTS now means either DEMOCRATS or TERRORISTS. Instead of the USSR it's the Middle East. Instead of the SS driving jews into ghettos, it's the IDF driving Palestinians into ghettos. Beat Vietnam protestors -> Beat Iraqi war protestors. S&L? Now Enron, WorldCom, etc. Joseph McCarthy? John Ashcroft! The same scandals, the same atrocities, the same lies, the same tyrants, just new names and a new days.
Less than 1% of 1% of the CIA's documents have been declassified, and just those few alone have shown thousands of cases of US sponsored terrorism, assassinations, support of military dicatorships, sending weapons and supplies to genocidal maniacs, destabilization campaigns, drug smuggling, ad naseum. And these people are still in our government today.
Trusting in the sanity of the United States Government is not an option. Their actions must be closely monitored and recorded. There are to be no secrets, their access limited and their power tightly curtailed. We have a responsibility to do this not only for ourselves, but for the entire world.
The reason we believe in Freedom and Privacy is because we think there's hope in changing our government for the better, peacefully. Once we lose sight of this, the only option left is to exercise the 2nd Amendment.
People like Ms. McDonald just don't understand that technology doesn't magically happen. It requires people to do their jobs correctly.
Ms. McDonald says you can trust the government, but the issue isn't just trust. Even if you accept the idea that the government will not deliberately misuse this information, you have to recognize that PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!
It doesn't matter to the poor S.O.B. whose SSN was incorrectly associated with a child molester with a similar name that it was an honest mistake; he still has his life screwed up.
Considering the truly _massive_ numbers of plain old painful screw-ups made each year by public utilities, driver's license bureaus, tax offices, public assistance offices, child welfare offices, school systems, credit bureaus, etc. etc., it is an act of truly _monumental stupidity_ to believe that if the government builds the largest collection of information ever, they will miraculously stop making the same kind of ordinary human mistakes that have defined all public databases since the beginning of written records.
Even without the legitimate concerns about deliberate misuse, this alone is enough to make any _reasonably_ sane and intelligent human being demand more accountability from the government on this issue.
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
A quick look over some other articles of hers pull out choice quotes such as:
Apparently she's a contributing editor at the
Manhattan Institute's City Journal. And the M.I. is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization, so maybe a donor list is available.
Some more choice info on the M.I.:
Nice.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.