Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Concerns Moving Into The Mainstream
Realistic_Dragon writes "The BBC today ran a thoughtful radio article (website, transcript, real audio) on the issues of privacy vs practicality in our modern society. An ideal primer for those that haven't given these things much thought before, with a balanced treatment of the subject and very few technical errors to drive one up the wall.
Listening to the narrator's acerbic comments in reply to those that advocate the innocent have nothing to fear mantra is worth the download alone. Is this the kind of image that is presented in the media in the rest of the world, or are they still running with the 'big brother is your friend' party line?"
I certainly hope this is getting accross to the public. But seriously, how many people that don't already know about privacy actually care? I almost feel as if these words have been wasted on an audience that could care less. But I hope the message gest accross. I applaud the reporter who took the time to do the research into these privacy matters.
We don't trust the government or corporations becuase they have gone from "protecting our rights" mode to "enslave the entire population" mode. How can we trust them when they're using the technology to enslave people instead of relieving us of work so we have more time to do other things?
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Oh great, now everyone knows about my privacy concerns!
From the transcript:
The response of Scott McNealy, boss of Sun Microsystems and one of the most outspoken figures of Silicon Valley, to the challenge from
electronic devices was famously blunt. "You have zero privacy," he said. "Get over it."
Much as this is the unpopular stance to take here, I think we do have zero privacy, and hopefully more people can learn what this means for them.
What has alwauys comforted me in the past, however, is that to exchange informatation about my purchases, my bank details, my crimial record and my health records would be rediculously complicated with vastly different systems of data storage being used.
Mibby I'm just sticking my head in the sand, but there's a difference between being watched and having data stored about me, and it being available to different people beyond it's intended purpose.
That's why I opposed the RIPA extensions act.
Sorry, got OT there...
No, public spaces are not private. However, if you cannot see the difference between "not private" and "under constant surveilance" then you are a wanker.
"They want to shackle law enforcement in the name of privacy"
As it should be. Most Western countries are part of "The Free World", not police states. Supposedly.
This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
"The bottom line is that your privacy isn't worth squat if you're dead."
And my life isn't worth squat if I'm not free. You aren't a patriot. You're a coward.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Although from the outside it might seem confusing, the BBC is actually far more independent and objective than most commercial broadcasters.
I know this will not go down well with a lot of Americans, who probably conflate the BBC and the old Soviet Russia-era news services in their minds.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Is this the kind of image that is presented in the media in the rest of the world, or are they still running with the 'big brother is your friend' party line?"
Quote from Douglas Adams in Wired.The problem with this attitude is that it assumes trustworthyness on the part of the law enforcement agencies. While this is a valid assumption in most cases, there have been quite a few cases of abuse of power by law-enforcement agencies. "Harassing the innocent" may not be the primary use, but in the past there has been enough of that kind of thing to make many law-abiding people nervous whenever more power is put into the hands of the "authorities".
There are many facets to the electronic snooping being done today. Mobile phone locators can be both bad and good - take for example an elderly gentleman having chest pains. If he cannot communicate his location, then the signal-tracking might save his life. My employer having the ability to see I visited the nudie bar 20 times a month is a privacy invasion.
The government being able to thermal image a 'warrant'-ed drug house is OK. Using it whenever is not. To go further into the paranoia realm, some states in the US still have arcane laws on the books like '2 unwed people shall not engage in sexual activities' OR '2 unwed people shall not co-habitate'. With advanced thermal/spectral imaging law enforcement can 'snoop' and arrest said people.
If I choose to give my personal information away (or walk in public where cameras are present), that is OK. If I am on my own property and no one has a warrant for illegal activity monitoring, it is privacy invasion and the invaders should be arrested/fined/flogged with a noodle.
Time for more tin foil...
"They can't be serious, how much damage do CCTV cameras do?"
In a fairly well-publicised case in the UK, a man was caught by camera using a cash machine within a time when someone used a cloned card. The police showed the film on TV so they could eliminate the man from their enquiries.
However, people who saw it assumed that he was guilty, and he lost his job and suffered a great deal of indignity before the mess was sorted out. He was just a guy legitimately using a cash machine.
One of the main problems is that people assume that cameras are infallible; relying on the output of a camera without _accurate_ context is a big problem.
"They can't invade your privacy unless you let them."
[sigh]
I have a camera across the road from my house. Despite that camera being there, I've been burgled once already. Apparently nobody staffs the camera and checking up I found it's actually placed and operated in contravention with the Data Protection Act. Now someone paid for the camera to be installed, but it's deterrent value has been slashed to nothing. I'd rather than they used the money for some useful social ordering than following a bandwagon like putting CCTV everywhere. It encourages laziness of the institutional kind.
As for invading your privacy unless you let them; if you don't know about the invasion, then you can hardly consent. I was told by the installers of the camera that a guy had been caught in his front room committing an illegal act. If true, then that's a huge invasion of privacy that could be justified by saying that the illegal act was more important than privacy. However, the end should never justify the means because that's the path to a police state.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
I guess the police won't mind if I pull the GPS data from the police car MDTs and put it up on a map in real time. (Passively, it's part of their data transmissions.) If they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.
I challenge you, try to explain this topic to a non-technical person. In their terms, not yours. It's really hard.
Try this analogy:
True this is only one aspect of the privacy issue, but you don't want to over-challenge yourself. See how it works.