Slashdot Mirror
Who Cares If Privacy Is Slipping Away?
IAmTheDave writes, "This morning MSNBC's home page is topped by the opening story in a series, Privacy Under Attack, But Does Anybody Care? Privacy rights have been debated to death here on Slashdot, but this article attempts to understand people's ambivalence towards the decline of privacy. The article discusses how over 60 percent of Americans — while somewhat unable to quantify what exactly privacy is and what's being lost — feel a pessimism about privacy rights and their erosion. However, a meager 6-7% polled have actually taken any steps to help preserve their privacy. The article's call to action: '...everyone has secrets they don't want everyone else to know, and it's never too late to begin a discussion about how Americans' right to privacy can be protected.'"
I, for one, love having no privacy. After all, what do i have to hide? I can only say how much i love our new state.
It's not like i am bold enough to print secret messages.
Have you read my journal today?
No body has time to care any more, we're worked so hard we don't even have time for our children. Why would privacy matter to you when you're already tied to a mobile phone and work 15 hours a day?
Privacy issues won't arise for the general public untill it's them directly affected. They see no reason to care untill they see what happens when they don't care.
I like muppets.
Many people cannot see beyond their own lives and own backyards to see the big picture. Unless privacy violations are going to directly affect their lives and those they know/care about, it won't make any waves with the general population. Surveillance these days is transparent enough to make this feasible. Those that oppose these policies are made out to be shrill wackos that will dogmatically adhere to a quaint old document that is out of touch with the "post 9/11" world.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
This has been going on for quite a long time now. Have you ever had the cable company ask for your SSN to see if they can give you service at your new home? I asked a guy in a phone boutique in the mall about a new handset; he wanted my phone service account login information to look it up for me! I see people give away this information every day to people that they should not trust, but do trust for some reason. Awareness of loss of privacy is the problem, or rather lack of it. Many people naively expect people to be trustworthy, especially when it comes to things they are not aware of, or informed about. Sadly, I think it will be a hard fight to make people aware of the precarious position that their private data is in.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I'm sorry, but for reasons of national security this may not be discussed in any way.
Dissent is Treason. Truth is Irrelevant. Ignorance is Strength.
They want to know everything but everything about me? OK, fine.
As long as I get to know everything but everything about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condy Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Pat Robertson. Specifically, I'd like to know their exact whereabouts at all times, what their bank account and social security #'s are. I'd also really like to know where their kids go to school and what their medical histories are.
Oh, wait. You're not ready to share that information with the rest of us? Then you can butt the hell out of my information. Anything less will be settled with guns.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
You can't help people who don't want to be helped. As long as their basic wants are sated, most of them are too apathetic to give a shit about anything.
For those of you that do care, an easy and practical guide can be found at this website. The book is also available thru Amazon, and isn't very expensive. Used ones are usually in the $5 range. VERY useful and has been updated for post-9/11.
Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Well, for United States citizens, I'd imagine that millions of soldiers who fought and most who died did so knowing that they were providing a future for their children in which the Bill of Rights would be upheld. The Revolutionary war was, in part, to protect ou privacy from English soldiers entering our homes and taking what they wanted.
World War II saw the deaths of millions of Americans to protect our rights and privacy from the Third Reich.
I think there have been millions of people who have died with the intent of their final efforts providing us a future were we are ensured a right to privacy.
I think the descendants, relatives & comrades of those people do, in fact, care about our ebbing privacy. But perhaps I just haven't been properly upgraded with the most recent version of our brainwashing firmware. "All power to the centralized government!" just ain't my thing.
My work here is dung.
I'm all for lack of privacy, as long as it applies equally to everyone, starting with our political leaders, judges, and police officers and so on.
They don't care, because they don't understand, sometimes willfully so. All this heavy-handed wringing and minutiae about habeas corpus...oh look! Dirty old republican!
Additionally (and not trying to be flamebait), we are talking about Americans and the American media here. I'd like to see how privacy concerns stack up in other countries, the UK being a very good dexample.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
...to this article, not many. Even slashdotters grow immune to the privacy issues.
We got nothing to hide, so why do we care ?
1984 is long gone, and we're not doing bad.
I can even go into a disco now without paying, I only have to wear some RFID-tag under my skin !
Airports have never been safer, I mean a few years back I was too afraid to fly, now see what beautiful world this has become.
My computer controls which music and videos I am allowed to see, who cares - this way I am sure that what I am doing is legal.
Really, this is so much better.
1) It's hard to quantify what's lost, and since it's being traded "for" something usually, it's rather hard to evaluate how good a deal it is, so most people don't do the exercise, since what's lost... usually isn't lost at time of purchase, but much later.
2) What's lost can have almost infinite value, one's loss of privacy could end with becoming a victim of identity theft and until it's established one's a victim, one could be accused of pretty nasty things. But that doesn't happen right away, is hard to prove, and doesn't happen to everyone.
That means that the protection seems large, unwieldy, like expensive insurance, and at some point, risky, like suing a large corporation over a five dollar item. People don't see the value of what they lose, only the value of what they lose by trying to protect some abstract value.
Until some court cases start making noise over protection of private data, I don't see that changing.
I'm not convinced that everybody has "secrets" that they would want to hide. Some people do not. However, that said, it is critical to protect the right to privacy. People today likely don't care because they don't understand a very important thing: when things are off-line, manual and require manual investment of time and energy, they become less accessible and therefore, appear to be somewhat private. This is not true when searches and corelation can be automated.
In a society that codified and archives data and facts online, protection of information can only be assured via unassailable proofs, cryptographic methods and legislation to support this right. I think this is where the media has done all of us a disservice. We should / could all benefit from this issue being presented as a serious concern, otherwise we will soon find ourselves not only without any privacy, but without any means to defend it.
If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Just what are you hiding anyway?
If I tell you something about me, it isn't a secret. If I make you promise not to tell anyone, it is still out there. If you put that secret in a database and then you sell your business, what can I do? Sue you?
There's no point to secrecy/privacy laws -- the only way to protect yourself would be to sue, and how would you afford to sue? Maybe you can get together with a few thousand people who were hurt by the same party, and class-action sue? How again does that help you?
I don't have secrets -- there's no point. I was talking to a friend about how MySpace is reducing the amount of cheating that goes on in the lives of sexually-active young adults. He didn't believe me, until he realized that its nearly impossible to burn the candles at both ends secretly -- people will find out now that information travels faster than a Sidekick 3 text message.
What do you want to keep secret? Your SSN? Too late. Your debt to income ratio? Everyone knows you don't own the house and car, friends. Privacy is not the concern -- the thing people fear is others stealing their identities. Privacy laws won't help, all it takes is on $8/hour employee seeing your information and counting the future dollar signs. If you want protection, protect yourself by not RELYING on your secrets. There are numerous ways to do this -- forget about credit, own what you want, and if you can't own it from the start, save until you can. Diversify your income by taking on new talents and trades. Focus on building REAL relationships with people around you -- don't do the rock-to-rock skipping around that is so commonplace in life (think: relationships, jobs, etc).
I don't need privacy, in fact, the more people know about me, the easier it is to sell myself to future prospective clients AND future friends. What do I have to hide?
I'm just getting into the habit of lying whenever someone asks me a question. Then when they can't figure out who I am or where I live, they'll probably think I'm some sort of terrorist. This is really what they want anyway, all the people locked up. Reminds me of those last lyrics of Lawyers In Love.
The Russians escaped while we weren't watching them,
As Russians do
Now we've got all this room
We've even got the Moon
And the USSR will be open soon
As vacation-land for
Lawyers In Love
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...but if you think you have no chance to stop losing your privacy, you resign yourself to it and give up. Everyone has a limited, increasingly limited, amount of spare time in their lives to worry about things other than work. The problem with "protecting your privacy" is that it is an increasingly complex, time-consuming, byzantine, and inconvienent task. You as an individual have to keep track of all the myriad ways that your privacy is being ignored or taking advantage of and spend your spare time tracking down, learning about and trying to change this. There is no "Department of Privacy", no mechanism in the government, other than individuals who have discovered that their privacy was violated bringing up individual cases in court, to stop its erosion in fact. And the most recent suggested constitutional amendments have had nothing to do with enhancing and/or extending or simply MODERNIZING the privacy rights individuals have....
We are a consumer society. Ease of commerce requires giving up a large percentage of our personal privacy. The instant you use your debit card at the grocery store you've just supplied a great many people with volumes of information about yourself. Nevermind buying stuff on the net.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
If I use my affinity card, then I get 2% cash back on my porn and sex toy purchases *and* 10 cents per gallon off gasoline for that month!
I mean, that alone is enough to let the world know about my private quirks for me!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Its probably a better time to start a debate about how we here in Europe can stop the Americans from erroding our existing privacy laws to suit themselves.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
- Benjamin Franklin
Is a perfect example.
She's always afraid to ask me about this stuff because I tell her the truth.
1. You have no privacy. As a result, the average individual is one step away from character assasination whether they know it or not. It's been this way for decades now.
2. Whatever privileges you had before are being taken away. When I explained to her that a Tivo doesn't allow her to "keep" stuff like a VHS tape among a host of other limitations and intrusions. (It's hers to enjoy in her home right? Today. Probably. But tomorrow?) Not to mention the more frequent, "TIVO's great but I wish I could give you a copy to watch. It was great." we get from TIVO owners.
These days, "new" things are cheaper not because they are innovative, but because they are taking features and privileges away from you. It's okay though, because it's the "Free Market" in action. It's the Will Of The People.
My question back is how is that innovative? Is the politicians promise of lower cost and greater service/features being kept? Am I any safer? Is my kid any safer?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It's interesting to see the look of shock on a sales clerk's face when they ask "Can I have your phone number please?" as they begin to ring up my purchase, and I say "No." It's particularly fun when they clerk is a nice-looking woman and instead of saying "No." I'll ask, leeringly, "Can I have YOURS?". Point: A good first step is to stop giving out seemingly inoccuous information whenever asked. JUST SAY NO.
Awareness of loss of privacy is the problem, or rather lack of it. Many people naively expect people to be trustworthy, especially when it comes to things they are not aware of, or informed about. Sadly, I think it will be a hard fight to make people aware of the precarious position that their private data is in.
I think this entire trend is a problem, partly because of a trend towards less and less personal responsibility and partly out of a feeling of defeat in improving our government. People give out info because they assume the government protects them from abuse of this data (as they do in many other countries). Others, feel their information is already "out there" and while they know the government does not protect them, these are the same somewhat pessimistic people who have no faith in our government or in the ability to change it. I've heard comments like, "do they even count our votes anymore?" spoken in all seriousness. And honestly, I'm not sure that they do.
The lack of concern or privacy does not surprise me because those who trust the government, assume they are protected or don't know about the privacy problems. Those that don't trust the government are the same ones who don't trust companies with their data, and they've given up on the government.
But woe to the organization that loses a laptop computer containing personal information. Yeah, because clearly there is no difference between apathetic individuals and companies whose privacy policies vow to protect their customers' personal information.
Nothing is quite like anything else.
Its more than just about privacy.
Its about the ongoing erosion of personal identity and freedom, of which privacy is just one cornerstone.
The US Government and (even worse) large US corporations are being allowed to using the 'might is right' approach combined with a large amount of paranoid fear-mongering to arbitrarily remove rights that have until recently had been considered a basic requirement for any civilised country, and as such were included in the constitution.
America, defend your own constitutional rights.
Gee, that's a new one.
Don't think I've heard that on Slashdot at all.
Dead horse beats you. Ha! Wondering when someone would roll out that quote again.
I am aware of the irony of criticizing your unoriginal post with one of my own.
The Media thinks that if it says something, it's true.
Such arrogance.
Of course people care about their privacy!
Check out M$'s wrongdoing at http://malfy.org/
My wife got mad at me for giving the clerks shit when they asked for my number, she said it was rude. Instead I just make up a phone number. My grocery cards are made up numbers too that are shared by a few hundred people.
I wish I had a mod point for you.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
everyone has secrets...
But good citizens don't have secrets! As long as the discussion keeps getting entangled with this whole issue of "keeping secrets", our right to privacy will continue to be eroded.
Personally, I'm sick of hearing people say "It doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide"... and believe me I've heard it a lot since you-know-when. That's not the point!
Privacy isn't about keeping secrets - it's about being safe from intrusion and unwarranted observation. There's nothing secret about the places I go or the things I do, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with having my activities showing up in a database or on a video monitor somewhere.
It takes an idiot to do cool things - that's why it's cool!
Websites should do more about this. At least post an encryption key on their contact page for those of us who know what to do with it--maybe even go so far as to advise it's use. I bought something on thinkgeek recently and I was pleased to see them doing this. Also, writers of communications s/w (IM etc.) should have privacy built in.. I know they do already, but it should be more transparent and have a better configuration interface (drag and drop keys etc)
As for public apathy, this will change. I just got a letter from the alumni assoc. of my university telling me their system was hacked and my information got jacked. Eventually, this will happen to everyone and they'll be wondering what to do.
As I'm sure we all know, public awareness of technology always starts with nerds doing it first.
SIB
"ohhhhhh fuck! god damn that hurt, son-of-a-bitch!!" - Benjamin Franklin during his lightning + key test
The threat of losing privacy can put you under real pressure, make you sick, and the goverment knows that. The privacy discussion fits perfect in the fearmongering sheme of certain goverments and connected infotainment outlets to keep the civilians small and fearful.
Gay people feel much better after they "lost their privacy" and outed themselves as being gay. Their cage of privacy can't pressure them anymore.
Don't be afraid of "losing" the kind of privacy that no cop cares about. Spam the goverment with your privacy and they will start to fear you like infotainment fears bloggers.
Who said that your affinity card has to have valid information? I have discount cards at three different grocery chains, and all three have different information (at least one has no information at all -- they gave me an activated card and a piece of paper to fill out "later". The paper went in the trash and the card still works years later). It's not foolish to use affinity cards to get discounts. It's foolish to give them real information.
If one simply traipses over to MediaMatters.Org, or any of a number of media-watching sites, it takes no rocket science to understand that less privacy=more profits. And as profits are above all, including morality, they must reign, or so we are told.
And as all of the minimum wage serfs sneer at you when they as you for your phone number when you in for a hair trim, it becomes increasingly impossible to remain anonymous, private in one's own affairs, and free from the scrutiny of the self-righteous. Somehow, I must live their concept of the path to Heaven, and deviation is, well, deviant.
So: kick the cameras when you find them. Put a little hood on them and beat them with a hammer. Cut coax. Re-address IP cams to porn feeds. Put chewing gum in appropriate places. Part of freedom is freedom from scrutiny. Burn the man; hack the system . One this is clear: live free or die isn't just for New Hampshire license plates-- you have to live it or surrender it.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I think most people still equate protecting your privacy with being somewhat paranoid. This attitude needs to be changed to being simply prudent about what information you are willing to divulge about yourself. There are some very simple real-life examples of times you need to choose not to let other people know what you are doing and saying, not because you are a criminal, but because somebody else could be and you dont want to expose yourself needlessly.
./ers already know about this because information is what we live by and for.
I once asked my accountant about what he was going to do with the hard-drives contained in the old computers he was about to throw away. It hadn't occured to him that somebody could be digging up valuable info from what he considered scrap. It didn't take him long to realise what the risks were.
People will in time develop sensitivity and common-sense about privacy, but they first need to be thaught about the value of information. Most
-- Home is where you eat your heart out.
The question is whether we engage in collective madness - begin to treat that as Big Brother - or we choose to understand that all this paraphernalia was self-imposed, to guarantee that we'll be biologically alive tomorrow.
Ironically, in those times of uneasiness with control, we promote insurrections, insisting that the reason for life, the universe and everything is freedom, whatever the implied cost. And one day it ceases to produce the expected results. And so on and so forth. Historical perpetuum mobile.
Do we even know how much they are spying on us?
I know what you mean. Kroger knows me as Mr. Harry Peters. Randalls knows me as Mike Hunt. I forget the street addresses but they were witty.
However, have you *ever* used a valid credit card with your affinity card?
If so... your false information can be tied to your real identity.
The Kroger affinity card that gives the best discounts (15 cents per gallon on gass) is a real credit card.
The point of my humorous post was this...
We will fight to the death for our privacy, yet sell it away to get gas for 1.98 a gallon instead of 2.00 a gallon or milk at 3.00 a gallon instead of 5.29 a gallon. So basically, our privacy is worth between 2% and 10% of our annual expenditures.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
As I began to read through this post I was wondering how long it would take for some idiot to blame even part of this on Bill Gates. I was not surprised to read this only a few posts into the list. Phoenix666 you are todays "Moron of the Day", congratualtions and don't forget to pick up your consulation prizes on the way out.
I'm a very private person, but I know that "privacy" is a flexible and changeable concept---two hundred years ago, men urinated in public in taverns and coffee-shops (into vases-de-nuit, and usually not in front of everyone else)---it was _cold_ out there, and easy to lose heat from the room as it was. People not intending on having sex with each other frequently shared beds (cold!), and whole families did so even if the mum and dad intended to have it off (albeit quietly, which was easier in the days when a popular male saying was, "The clitor-WHUT?,").
On the other hand, no-one told these guys and dolls what chemicals they could eat, and most of them never had to spend more than a couple of (terrifying) minutes with their boss, who didn't pretend to be their friend. Alarm clocks were limited to roosters, and if they crowed too early you could eat them.
"What people care about" changes; those of us who feel in a way at odds with the majority will have to secede (space? Sealand? The Free Communist State Project?) or adapt.
We have the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, but privacy is never mentioned. We have just come to asume that it's there.
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
Paraphrased and updated:
First they came for the communist terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist terrorist;
Then they came for the socialist terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist terrorist;
Then they came for the trade unionist terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist terrorist;
Then they came for the Jew terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew terrorist;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
You lose your Rights piece by piece. And each loss is "justified" because, after all, you don't want to support the "enemy", do you? You don't want to be a "traitor", do you?
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
You should've just said that in the first place. Of course, you can shorten it to, "Have you ever used a valid credit card?" Because if you have (and yes, I use credit cards), any privacy you think you may have had is completely gone.
Cash rules the day for the privacy-conscious, but as with everything else, it's just not as convenient as using a credit card. All that counting and folding and making change! I just *swipe* and I'm out the door!
I think the real question is "Who cares about who cares if privacy is slipping away?"
I think the answer is The Man! I'm sure The Man cares about who cares about privacy, and I'm sure "he" is watching them very closely.
On this one, Slashdotters will listen to YOU.*
/'ers don't.
*Since you doubtlessly have the experience in this one that most
My company also got so mad by this that we launched http://www.safepeak.com/www.SafePeak.com specifically to try and reach out to the average consumer with a service that offers encrypted connections and IP masking so even your ISP cannot record what you are doing.
The fact of the matter is big corporate is eating away at your privacy for profit and no-one in government is going to stand up for your rights - they are all on the pay roll.
It seems our society is happily absorbing the attitude that only people with things to hide need privacy and if we think any other way then we're un-patriotic, anti-American or a terrorist.
I'm sorry if this is a blatant plug, we feel that you shouldn't be called guilty just because you want your privacy protected.
It doesn't blame anybody. It says that if the gov't gets to know everything about me, we should get to know everything about them. No celebrities get special treatment, etc.
PS: You're a dipshit.
In todays technology we are trying to find out who is doing what. Most of the time it is for perfectly good reasons. Who is buying what, where to ship it to, who do bill and is the person who you going to bill the corect person to bill. Back in the old days People in the community knew who you were and would offer their services to you and if you were known as a good customer you often got a little better. Now today with technology we try to hide ourselves or at least we tend to be more difficult to identify. With ID Theft, and the like. Concept that our founding fathers wouldn't even grasp. It is not that people want to loose their privacy but hiding their privacy is often more of a burden then not. In a world where we dont know who are neighbors are. How else is society going to function without some privacy loss.
I would love to keep my privacy to an extent but it shouldn't be a full time job, keeping anonymous.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
the fall of privacy is not about whether or not you have something to hide.. its about those in power having the ability to eavesdrop on you for whatever reason they feel necessary. its even compounded further by an idea that this power goes to every FUTURE leader of our country going forward. can YOU vouch for the intentions of every future leader?
The result is that they indeed installed the service without my SSN or Driver License #.
"Oh, baby! Give it to Uncle Ben!" - Benjamin Franklin shagging a whore in Paris
Wrong. It was solely to ensure that one group of people would collect taxes and rule the land, and not another one. That's a lot of hard work: I'm pretty sure that many people lost their lives even to provocations to start with; if the masses weren't angry with the English, how would the revolution succeed?
Wrong again. They died so one group of people would seize control over as large a portion of world production and trade as possible, at the expense of other groups. And in general, privacy doesn't matter when you are fighting an enemy. If you don't violate people's privacy, how can you know which of them are the KGB/GRU/etc agents?
I, for one, don't really care. I know there is no place on Earth where I could keep my private affairs private, and I see no need for that. I cannot be a politician, a ruler, a lord, a billionaire; nor I want to [or at least so I tell myself]. I'm just a single hard working bee. Even my life doesn't matter - except to me of course. But whoever owns my life - it's not me for sure. There is no such thing as 'freedom' in this Universe, and will never be. Dixi.
Personally, I'm willing to give up SOME of my privacy rights for security....but ONLY IF the government does the same. After all, if the government is watching us for our own safety, then isn't it for our best safety to make us aware of the fact?
I know the Freedom of Information goes a long way to this end, but it is neither comprehensive nor complete. If I'm being monitored,I should know I'm being monitored. After all, isn't that what all the laws against stalking, voyeurism, corporate espionage all about? I also think we should know where the tapes are stored and how long its retained. After all, so long as there are cameras publically displayed in a building, you can bet I aint gonna pick my nose in front of it. But I can see the abuse of power with some lowly security guard taking something stupid and selling to "Noses gone Wild" or such nonsense.
At least get the quote right. It has a very different meaning when you don't take out some of the words.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The words "essential" and "temporary" are critical to what he was trying to say.
A good portion of Americans believe the President is acting in the best interests of the United States. As such, they have given him a clean slate to do whatever he wishes. Unless someone can not only provide evidence to the contrary, but can also set in motion measures to censure and/or punish him, what the hell is the point?
He was elected, twice, to the highest office in the land. As such he is nearly free to do whatever he wants, period. Constitutionally the only legal body that can affect the President while he is in office is Congress. (He's free to tell the Supreme Court to shove off.) Unless Congress gets some balls, or enough people to impeach him, the President has free license to do whatever he wants.
If Bush is abusing his office, it wouldn't be the first time a President did. Which is why this election is important. Basically, if you think the President is acting toward your best interests, vote for someone who supports him. If not, find someone who doesn't. And if you don't like those options, start trying to convince people that he may no longer be the man they think he is.
Here's what's going on:
1) Most Americans... including ordinary consumers... feel that invasion of privacy is pretty much OK as long as it is done for the purpose of selling stuff. And the more closely the merchandise matches the consumer's tastes, the more it is tolerated. At one extreme, sure, people object to receiving spam for products that are claimed to enlarge body parts that they do not possess. At the other extreme, well, gosh, I don't really mind when Netflix shows me the titles of several other movies featuring the same director or actors as the movie I just selected.
2) Most Americans believe very deeply that "it can't happen here." That is, we don't really feel in our guts that there's any chance that "our" government would really use the data collected by merchandisers, health care providers, or government warrantless wiretaps, to go after people who really aren't bad guys, but just happen to be political opponents.
And, darn it, I fall in category 2 myself. Despite everything. I gripe about invasion of privacy, but despite the fact that my intellect tells me the problem is real, my gut tells me that I'm overdramatizing.
(And, yes, I can imagine myself... in a different time and place saying, "Let's not overreact, after all it is just broken glass.")
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The Real ID Act to bring in de-facto National ID is pretty bad. If this was tried even back as late as the 1960's, many people would be up in arms about it but yet, it is law of the land. The media didn't report on it when it was going through the legislative process, it was passed very well secretly by being included as a rider on a military spending bill that was a must pass and even with it being known, not much hell has been raised about it.
With the linking of state motor vehicle databases which makes identity theft very easy, not many concerns has been raised so far !
Local sales figures for Cones Of Silence are through the roof!
If I use my affinity card, then I get 2% cash back on my porn and sex toy purchases *and* 10 cents per gallon off gasoline for that month!
Reminds me of a Dr. Phil episode I saw a months back. The couple were having problems, and the wife felt that the husband was addicted to porn. Dr. Phil is trying to get the guy to consider his wife's feelings, and asks him whether he would spend time looking at his porn if his wife was sitting next to him while he was doing it. The husband thought for a second and mumbled no, while his wife looked on approvingly, and the rest of the audience did the same.
I wanted to say, "Hey, Dr. Phil! When you're home alone, have you ever scratched yourself, picked your nose, paused to look at the girls in beer commercials, or done anything similar you wouldn't be caught dead doing in public, or in front of someone?" but I was too caught up in the feel-good moment to contemplate the finer points of this concept called privacy.
My guess is that privacy won't be important for the average person until they discover it's missing. Having someone point out your zipper is undone, discovering you're the victim of identity theft, or having an ex post compromising pictures of you on a website all help, but by then, it's a bit late, isn't it?
Or maybe it doesn't matter. I hear tell-all Barbara Walters style of interviews are popular, as are reality shows and entertainment gossip programming. If you can trade privacy for 15 minutes of fame, or passively enjoy the guilty indulgence of seeing other people's private lives exposed, why get worked up about abstract notions?
Ok, so could someone explain why it is that privacy is so important? I mean, if everyone, or the bank, or the government knows everything about everyone, they are going to know everybody's little secrets, I see that. But if they know this about everyone, they are probably going to realize that everybody _has_ these little secrets, and it's no big deal. Right?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If you're concerned about privacy; then make sure you collect as much information as you can about your senators, congressmen, presidents, prime minsters, and other governmental lackeys. Post it all publically and advertise the fact that you have such information available to anyone that wants it.
Once the government understands that a glass house is transparent in both directions, perhaps they will enact laws to at least protect themselves. Eventually that will lead to a greater expansion of privacy after the inevitable revolution that will follow.
And if you're concerned about being arrested/sued for posting information about government officials, then incorporate first. Hey, other businesses can sell information about you, then as a business, you should be able to sell information about THEM.
Show them what it's like to live in their own mousetrap.
TTYL
Brian C.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
With all the tell-all shows, reality tv, etc., is the clamor for privacy just so many fine-sounding words? Because Americans are relentlessly public, looking for their fame.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I don't remember where I got this one from, but I really like it:
"If you have nothing to hide, please take off your clothes right now."
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I don't know that what has gone on here on Slashdot can be called debating. More like shouting down and name calling.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
PS: Eat Me
We always hear about you Americans and your Second Amendment, and your right to bear arms.
If your government is run by tyrants, why don't your precious militia's do something about it?
I'm so sick of people acting like privacy is all they want. Guess what there's tropical islands, if you want privacy go there. People want privacy from everyone, even people they do business with. Guess what? You're not going to get it. Hell I know people who don't even want "we recommend .... " removed from sites.
If you don't like the privacy afforded by business don't go into them. If you don't want to be videotaped, don't go into a bank, if you don't want to be recorded do only cash business and look non descript. Guess what, people are going to be in your life.
As for the goverment we live in this country, if you really hate this country, leave. If you don't like something it's doing, write your goverment at all levels, but guess what? You live in a country and laws are for all people not just one. I agree the invasion of privacy isn't the best, but realize unless you do something illegal you really shouldn't be afraid of this.
The people who push for more privacy need to stop acting like there's stuff to hide. There are people with stuff to hide, not just "oh I like Janey even though I'm married, god I want a piece" but stuff more akin to "I want to destroy all of America and watch it burn". Guess what, those are the people they are looking for, not for those little pussies who downloaded a movie or two. If your afraid of doing that, don't do it. Write your congressman instead and explain to them how their laws against such acts are not right.
I've yet to feel offended by any "invasion of privacy" by my government. They need tools to stop criminal acts, when we allow 100 percent privacy to remain in the world then criminal acts will rise again too, but I'm sure we're all ok with a lawless society where anyone can do anything to you because the goverment won't invade their privacy, right?
Nowadays, you can't do anything without the possibility of somebody filming you with a cell phone camera. It won't be long before the technology is so cheap and so comoditized that every phone conversation you have is recorded and that every where you go in public is filmed and stored. Storage is so cheap now, it won't be long.
Wise words courtesy of Mr. McNealy.
"...The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders." - Erwin Rommel
Bill Gates was not in the list of blame.
He was in the list of powerful people who might be exempted from having their privacy stolen.
I guess the nuance was a little much for you. He should have posted a three page statement with bold and italics so that those of you who can't connect dots, and read things in context would be able to understand the comment.
But I'm being rude, when you finish junior high school, you'll have a better grasp on this kind of thing.
I did that at Best Buy for a while (they're the only place that bothers to ask in this area). They quit asking "Can I have your phone number?" They instead ask "What is your phone number?" It caught me off guard the first time, because you can't just say "no" to that question. The clerk looked puzzled when I said "A number that isn't found in your marketing database." I was paying by credit card anyway, so it's not like they couldn't get it if they really wanted it. I'm just not going to give them any help.
Apparently my quick search for the exact wording failed me. Doing a more thorough search, the quote I listed has also been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, so I give. Damn.
that anyone has privacy anymore? Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, grow all your own food, don't own a vehicle and wear only homemade natural fiber clothing made from what you've grown, you have no chance of privacy.
The idea of real privacy is obsurd. It's impossible to have for as soon as you interact with anyone other than yourself, it's no longer private. Work and job and get paid in cash? Well, you might be able to hide it from the tax man but the guy paying you knows...piss him off and then the taxman knows, too.
We spend so much time worrying about privacy instead of just doing our own thing anymore. Who do you really think cares what you do with your time and/or money? If you're doing something that you don't want anyone to know about, should you really be doing it?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No, not 1984, but Animal Farm.
Every morning we wake up and the painting on the barn has changed and nobody can remember what it used to say.
When I read that book I was so frustrated by how stupid the animals were. How could they fall for such obvious exaggerations?
Now I'm just frustrated at the people around me. How can they fall for such obvious exaggerations?
Can I watch you get in to bed tonight?
Can I put a webcam outside your window as well? Just in case you do something that needs to be known about on another night.
Oh, come on, we've already established that Valerie Plame was a low-level clerical worker with deleusions of grandeur, who was accidentally outed by someone who opposes Bush. And I've always thought that Powell was a bit kooky. I've always thought that most of the Bush and Clinton administrations were kooky.
Oh, and who should care for them? Any political body is going to be dominated by an elite few, whether it's the political system, or whether it's a loose community such as the people who care about privacy. If the elite don't care for you anymore, then all you can do is leave the masses behind and take care of yourself.
Now you're just using wishful thinking. Oh, wait, the entire post was wishful thinking wrapped up in paranoia.
It's interesting to see the look of shock on a sales clerk's face when they ask "Can I have your phone number please?" as they begin to ring up my purchase, and I say "No." It's particularly fun when they clerk is a nice-looking woman and instead of saying "No." I'll ask, leeringly, "Can I have YOURS?". Point: A good first step is to stop giving out seemingly inoccuous information whenever asked. JUST SAY NO.
My phone number? 1-800-UP-YOURS. (Apologies to anyone who actually has that number).
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." They never catch it. That was while the show was on, of course. For reference, I lived in the midwest.
They do seem somewhat startled when I rather pleasantly answer "no" to their requests for info.
I just give them a different random number each time.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
This quote implies that these individuals are the ones who want to know more about you. Notice the use of the pronoun "you" as in "you can butt out" implying that he is speaking to a person or group of people who want his information. This clearly indicates those to whom he is assigning controling authority as those in the list he created. As an assignment for tomorrow please reread his post and we will discuss it in the morning.
One of the issues with an international website is that you often need to help those for whom english is a second language.
PS:You still haven't read the post have you?
Unfortunately, because law-enforcement (and intelligence) find this consumer-provided data so useful, they will not support any stiffening of privacy legislation.
This quote is extremely Hypocritical if you ask me. This was one of them men who helped found our government. Government is one of the biggest ways to give up freedom for security. In the state of nature, you have every freedom in the world. Not so under a government. However, we glady do this because the government promises to protect us. So Franklin himself gave up liberty for security. Had he really believed what he said, he would have been an anarchist. Some freedoms are simply worth giving up for security.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Ben Franklin
i have said it before and i will say it again ..
.. in my own life i have had the experience of telling people something over and over again .. until they get it ..
.. why didn't you say that before ..
.. but they will insist that i have not told them before .. etc. etc.
.. study the work of Stanley Milgram and John Taylor Gatto
.. about 1/4 to about 1/8 being the range .. 3 in 4 four to 7 in 8 need to die .. for it to happen ..
.. and the water WARS will make the oil WARS seem like a warm up ..
.. but the fourth world WAR will be fought with sticks and stones .."
i will however repeat myself because
were upon the normal reaction is
were i could say i did
if you really want to understand what and why things are happening the way they are
http://www.stanleymilgram.com/
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
that and the fact that there is no were near enough resources for everyone in the world to enjoy an average american lifestyle
the level of control need/desired by the wealth/ruling class will only continue to increase
and as Albert Einstein said " i do not know how the third world WAR will be fought
WAR=We Are Right
I didn't read TFA, but the summary certainly made the error of equating Americans' "Right to Privacy" with the "right" to keep our personal lives seceret. There is no such right. "The right to privacy" is a term of art (meaning it has a defined legal meaning, in this case set by the courts). It applies to our right to marry someone of whatever race, choose after marriage to take steps against the production of children (use birth control, have an abortion before the child becomes viable). There is no "right" for your diary to be kept secret. There is no right for a convicted shoplifter to not have his picture on the convenience store wall. There is no right for leaked information to not be put in the newspaper (what's that you ask? What about the stuff that wasn't leaked; you want to protect that? Well, it wasn't leaked. So--done! It's protected). This "right to privacy" that people speak of largely doesn't exist.
Don't think of the word "privacy" in the phrase "right to privacy" as holding its normal definition. It applies only to a very few things. In fact--you can choose to have an abortion--that's your right to privacy--but you have no right to keep that decision out of the newspapers if a reporter discovered the fact. A doctor is required to keep records confidential, but that is not due to any supposed right to privacy--that's a doctor's "duty of confidentiality" which serves a completely different purpose.
Please, don't perpetuate the misconception that the right to privacy applies to our so-called private lives in general. The "right to privacy" the way it is misspoken of seems to me to refer to some sort of attempted shroud for illegal activity. "I've got a right to not have my Google searches revealed!" What? Where? That does not fall within the "right to privacy" as currently defined by the courts (and which is totally non-existant in statutory law).
Privacy is like copyright, in that no one cares about it until they are directly affected by it.
Then (and only then) will people attempt to change the laws.
The problem with Americans today (being more concerned about the price of gas for their hummer, and who's going to win Idol on their 80" Plasma TV) is that they won't mobilise together to change the laws, because the system will be very careful not to rouse too many people into action at once. That could endanger the purposeful and planned descent into a fascist state.
See signature.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
We do, everyone here on Slashdot. The problem is not that we don't care but that we know we are almost powerless to do anything about it. We know that voting doesn't make anything better, that demonstrations are ignored, that databases of our information (including our DNA) continue to be built and merged and shared, and that resistance is futile.
I do say almost powerless - if everyone here dedicated all their free time to educating the public about the invasion of our privacy, to starting political campaigns, t-shirt printing, stickers, web sites, leafleting, then we could probably make a difference. Maybe Slashdot needs a sister site dedicated to political action to direct all the outrage we feel here instead of just bitching about it. Maybe there should be petitions attached to each story. I don't know what the answer is, but there are a lot of us who care and we're not doing anything to make the situation better.
The thing is, we're the ones who understand the problem so we're the ones the public expects to stand up for them, and if we don't do it, who will?
I recently d/l the audio of a lecture that Bruce Schneier (of the book Applied Cryptography) gave at the Uni of Southern California. It is excellent and gives a very good explanation of why there is NO tradeoff between national security and personal privacy ... indeed, the best national security will respect personal privacy. It's located here
I don't believe that people are apathetic to privacy, I think that a lot of people in America have antipathy towards privacy and hold the whole notion in scorn. I don't preach about it on the corner or froth at mouth when browbeating people into thinking about privacy. I support the EFF, I use tools like TOR, PGP, etc, and I get questioned:
"Don't you think you're taking it all a little too far?"
"What are you soooo worried about? The government doesn't care about people like you."
And that old chestnut:
"If you've got nothing to hide, why do you care?"
I think that these are attitudes that have long been drummed into people. We send our kids to schools that routinely search their lockers. Our politicians demand the right to search cars during DUI checkpoints, orginizations like the ACLU are categorized as crazy when they try to fight illegal searches and seizures, etc. The media and the government combined (not saying it's a conspiracy, just saying they're preaching the same mission) talk to us about privacy as if it's something to be feared and derided.
The fact that some people are beginning to express some concern about their rights actually makes me feel a touch more hopeful.
It appears that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care about the decline in personal privacy. We have an opportunity on November 7th to tell them how we feel about this. Find a good third party candidate for Congress, and vote for him. Make sure to tell all your friends and family to do likewsie. There are many more options than the mainstream media would like you like you to know about.
You get shock? I get flat out annoyance and many times refused service.
Not a problem for me as money spends good anywhere and I'm thrilled to take my business somewhere that I don't have to have my ID scanned, area code, zip code, phone number, etc given out.
A little freaky, but fairly inoccuous. I would have rather had the cops do something about the crime, but at least someone gave a damn.
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
Actually, when I'm asked for such personal data to complete a sale, I just make it up.
But what's really fun is to make up data from a foreign country, and watch them try to enter it into their (probably) very un-international-aware terminal.
Example (for US'erian readers)
I have nothing to hide.
My fear is that someone will have something on me that they believe is true, but isn't.
I'm not afraid of lack of privacy... I'm afraid when the information they have on me is wrong. If we lose our privacy, I can guarantee that most or all of us will have incorrect data associated with our identities.
The only alternative is to keep my privacy, thank you very much.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
We had privacy 150 years ago, but everyone wants an easier life by having technology run every aspect of our lives. Credit cards, cell phones, GPS, grocery store club cards, fast trak, internet, lojacks etc., wasn't all this "stuff" supposed to make our lives easier? safer? And has it?
I never refuse an opportunity to provide bad data. Bad data is worse than no data. If you hate cheezy maketing, why pass up a request (opportunity) to poison a marketing database?
A few hints:
Your birthday should be February 29th of a non-leap year.
Your phone number should start with "1" (phone numbers in the US never start with "0" or "1")
If you're a Blues Brothers fan, like I am, your address should be "1060 West Addison."
City, State and Zip should never match (e.g Dallas, AZ, 90210)
You get the idea?
Have fun and remember to smile
My girlfriend works the polls in our little hometown out here in California every time there's an election, and during national elections, I hear no end to her (justified) complaining that the TV news programs are often calling the election on the evening news *before they've even closed the polls out here*. She's working in the polling place, and someone there is watching the live election coverage on TV, and while people are still in there voting, the talking heads are already saying who won.
Yes yes, I know... exit polls, time zones, statistical certainty, all sorts of good reasons why a news network could say without fear of error that the election will go such-and-such a way before the final tally is actually done. But it certainly adds to that sense of defeatism when a winner is declared on national TV before you've even voted.
Heck, despite it going against most of my political philosophy of government not interfering with the media, I might even support a law prohibiting such election reporting until after the final tally is done, at least not without lots of big, obvious disclaimers to the effect that "this is our prediction of how the election will turn out based on exit poll statistics".
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
the people should be spying on the government
think this entire trend is a problem, partly because of a trend towards less and less personal responsibility
The irony of this conversation is quite funny. Try doing a view source you'll see the bottom of every page on slashdot...
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-32013-5"; _udn = "slashdot.org"; urchinTracker(); </script>
Yes thats right google has tracked you and every other poster on slashdot. Each time you view a page on slashdot a little cookie is being sent off to google to let them know who you are, what you're doing.
Whats more is this script is spreading across most of the web sites on the internet as each web master gets lured into the google "we're not evil" bullshit marketing.
If anyone had a clue in this thread it would have been a complete shoot down of slashdot for invading the privacy of it's readers.
The modern version of this "salami-slicing" progression with regards to installation of surveillance technology:
1) We're installing cameras in selected areas for limited purposes, eg. at street intersections to catch speeders. Don't be paranoid; we'd never link 'em up into an all-purpose surveillance system.
2) We're expanding the camera network to pedestrian areas to fight crime and, if you're in the UK, "anti-social behavio(u)r" (shudder). Don't be paranoid; it's not like we're trying to track you everywhere you go.
3) We're linking up the cameras into a region-wide surveillance system. How can you complain? You already accepted the monitoring itself, and now we're just coordinating our law-enforcement efforts among various places and agencies. It'll help us protect you better.
4) We're adding new software capabilities to the surveillance network, such as automatic license-plate reading, identification of "suspicious behavior," and cameras that bark orders. What's wrong? You already agreed to be watched everywhere you go; now we're simply going to look a little more closely.
5) We, who rule you, hereby exempt ourselves from monitoring. Transparency is for our side of the glass.
Revive the Constitution.
Come on. Look I'm not an American. But it seems to me that most of the US soldiers who fought in the War of Independence, and the World Wars were not fighting for economic or simple threat related reasons. Not saying it wasn't why the wars started but it wasn't why people fought it and it is not the reason still touted, at least to the world why. I thought one of the big things was about fighting tyranny. You know the whole liberty thing. Well seems to me that it is blindingly obvious that a loss of privacy means a loss of liberty ... how can you be free if the powerful know what you are doing, and have the power to stop it and imprison you .. even if it is innocent. I'm not talking about freedom from a philosophical point of view (free will / determinism) but the range of options people realistically have to influence society and contribute.
Bitter and proud of it.
History repeats itself because eventually no one alive has lived the experience. During the rise of McCarthyism and the "Red Scare" (When you read this, please substitute 'Communist' for 'Terrorist' at your leisure) the US senate began a witch hunt to root out Communists and their sympathizers. In the beginning it started with people with some communist party affiliation but eventually got to the point where if you had been accused of being Communist people would cross the street to avoid being seen with you, and thus associated. Privacy protection isn't about protecting criminals, it about protecting citizens from an oppressive government. Take Russia and the recent slaying of Anna Politkovskaya as the quintessential example. Publicly the Russian govt has stated that 'if you're not one of us, you're one of them'; with specific regard to her. Where have you heard that line recently? People don't know history, they don't care about history, and in general are selfishly detached here in the US. Life is good enough here in the US that most people don't see their government as threatening. Lot's of people get lot's of pork from their representatives and since 9/11 pork has gone through the roof. So in their mind, listening in phone calls is about catching terrorists, not god-fearing Christian white republican Americans. It's so bad that, in a sick perversion of a cliche adjective, now not only do we have "Soccer Moms" (denoting the white, middle-class mother with a minivan) we also have "Security Moms" as a voting demographic. As long as our privacy right are crushed more in a rolling-pin fashion than a hammer-and-anvil one, the American populace will wander along eyes glazed. I love my country but I worry that the background hum of fear may turn into deafening feedback
Sure you can. It goes like this:
Them: "What's your phone number?"
You: "No."
Don't worry about it not making sense, you'll get your point across. Not only that, but the fact that it doesn't immediately make sense will force the cashier to stop and think about it for a moment, however brief. (I say this as someone who's done cashier duty at Best Buy.)
Oh, and if you're feeling particularly cheeky, you can go the extra-confusing route. It's best if you follow it with a question that forces them past the phone-number question, too.
Them: "What's your phone number?"
You: "No thanks, I already have one. That'll be cash please, what's the total?"
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Yes! This is the "reciprocal transparency" argument made by David Brin in The Transparent Society -- "Show me yours first!" A nice example came when people learned of the "Total Information Awareness" project and responded by publishing aerial photographs of boss Poindexter's house, along with his personal phone number. A symbolic gesture in that case, as TIA seems to have lived on in other guises, but let's see, say, the Congressmen Kennedy fit themselves with tracking collars to show us just how wonderful these information-gathering technologies are.
Revive the Constitution.
I spend all day defending privacy, but I have to tell you something: No one really is that interested in you anyway. The people that hope we're interested have over-inflated egos. The people that think we're interested have no lives. The people that know they're interesting have bigger issues. Bottom line: We are way too busy to worry about your nasty little affairs, way too busy defending your freedom of speech, and way too busy trying to figure out who is really intersting. There you have it. -a
If you really want a reaction, do that for guys too *evil grin*. YMMV depending on the local homophobia level though.
Why in God's name are sales clerks asking for your phone number anyway? Some kind of customer tracking? I'm not from America, it takes 3-5 years for crappy marketing tactics to get this far.
.evom ton seod gis eht
Once. I immediately asked for a supervisor, and I explained it to them that since they're not the IRS, they can't legally ask me for that information. They relented.
Help us build a better map!
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." Ok, so that isn't your zip code. Is there supposed to be somethin else there, or am I looking to hard?
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." Ok, so that isn't your zip code. Is there supposed to be somethin else there, or am I looking to hard? 90210? As in, the show? Beverly hills?
http://www.blackboxsearch.com/
and http://www.mysecureisp.com/
Your point would be valid, if the fears expressed by Side B really were unrealistic. The problem is, they're not.
For example, consider the UK, in the recent past. We've had a guy being sent repeated fines for not paying a camera-controlled congestion charge, when he hasn't driven in the area at all for years. He could prove he was elsewhere on many of those occasions, yet still has the inconvenience of explaining this to the authorities and defending himself against charges of not paying. At the other end of the spectrum, we've had people literally being shot dead by police officers based on bad intelligence. There are plenty of in-the-middle examples as well, such as the lawyer who was arrested and held based on a bad DNA match from a crime scene.
So we can see, quite objectively, that the sort of pervasive, surveillance-society culture that our governments seem to want does have real consequences, very possibly for you, or me, or the guy next door. Some of them are big, spectacular and tragic. Many more of them are small and go mostly unnoticed, but are a royal PITA if you're the unlucky guy whose car licence plate gets cloned by the charge-dodgers, or who gets wrongly arrested (and then has your fingerprints and DNA forcibly taken and added to further databases, even if you're never even charged with anything).
The other thing you have to understand is that even if our current administrations sincerely believe that mass intelligence-gathering and data-mining is in the interests of society, they're holding Pandora's box. Once the databases and protocols are in place, there's no going back. In ten years' time, if the UK government has forced through the identity cards and the national database, and in doing so has created the single most profitable target for perpetrators of one of the fastest-growing crimes of our time (identity theft), it can't just pop the lid back on, delete a couple of files, and pretend it never happened. The damage will have been done, and every current generation will suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives.
My signature seems particularly apt today. Maybe next week, I'll use stats for the number of people who died in road traffic accidents last year and the annual government road safety budget.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I guess you must be doing something wrong then, since the ~only~ time I have ever marched in protest (against the Iraq war in 2003) we had the local Sheriff's dept. send infiltrators to take pictures of us, write down our names, and record our license plate numbers. This was at a protest which was basically composed of a small bunch of college professors and elderly hippy-types holding signs and marching with a pre-arranged police escort. It's quite likely that my name is now on some list somewhere, simply for expressing an opinion which is rapidly becoming a majority view in this country.
I'm completely serious about this. I'd link to an article, but Florida Today has a rather obtuse webpage design. Just search the flatoday.com archives from 2003 onwards, with the keywords "protest sheriff" and see what pops up. Here's an example:
June 16, 2005 639 words ID: brv14520201
FLORIDA TODAY Brevard County Sheriff Jack Parker says his undercover agents will no longer "spy" on political protesters without a definitive reason. In a new policy effective Monday, Parker has altered his criminal intelligence division's methods for monitoring public rallies and demonstrations. Agents will respond to protests only "when the potential for threat to the citizens or law enforcement has been identified" in...
I never would have thought that sort of stuff would happen with a peaceful protest of ~100 people, in a town of ~100,000. You could say that it was just an overzealous small-town sheriff, but the only difference between an overzealous sheriff and an overzealous FBI agent is the shape of the badge.
Now, I don't feel that I should "hide" the fact that I protested - protesting is and should be something very public, that's its nature. But you act like protesting never draws negative attention from law enforcement when even a cursory reading of history shows that is false. Perhaps your Side B isn't being all that unrealistic.
He can't be that naive.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Try being a photographer in Fortress America these days - particularly one with an interest in transportation and industrial settings. Trust me, it sucks. Most of us are pretty much resigned to the inevitable visit from a three-letter agency.
Unfortunately all too true. Though it hasn't happened to me I'd heard of a few photography students out on assignments being questioned while they were taking photos. Some tyme back another slashdot photographer posted this in a message: The Photographer's Right A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I prefer the Free State Project.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There seems to be a few people that do care. I just stumbled upon The Free State Project [freestateproject.org] which at least gives me hope. Maybe I even join them and emmigrates to New Hampshire.
Yea, the Free State Project has been seeking people to pledge to move to New Hampshire, the Do Not Tread On Me state, for a few years. I've been tempted but I've rather it of been where Vermont is, on the coast.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Do you really believe that handguns/shotguns (the second amendment) are any defense against the US Army?
,/i>Yes, most definitely firearms in the hands of the populace certainly will provide a defense against the US Army. Many in the army would join the populace or at least wouldn't fire on them. I was in the army and I along with others felt the same, that we wouldn't be an instrument of an authoritarian, dictator, or what have you. Even the Chinese know it's not a good idea, afterall they had to use army units from areas other than Beijing during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Local PLA, People's Liberation Army, units were considered to be sympathetic to the protest and the people of the city, so the 27th and 28th units were brought in from outside provinces. Simply the local PLA units wouldn't of fired on the protesters. If such a thing was tried in the US it would be much worse for any admin trying it. There'd be a rebellion in the military and maybe a coup and/or civil war.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." They never catch it. That was while the show was on, of course. For reference, I lived in the midwest.
I use the zip 90210 when I come across a website that asks for my it when I don't think they need it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." Ok, so that isn't your zip code. Is there supposed to be somethin else there, or am I looking to hard?
Beverly Hills 90210.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why in God's name are sales clerks asking for your phone number anyway? Some kind of customer tracking? I'm not from America, it takes 3-5 years for crappy marketing tactics to get this far.
Many stores in the US do that, the most notorious being Radio Shack. And it is for customer tracking. Though I say "you don't need it" many give it away.
FalconShould there be a Law?
>script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"<>/script< script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-32013-5"; _udn = "slashdot.org"; urchinTracker(); /script<
Yes thats right google has tracked you and every other poster on slashdot. Each time you view a page on slashdot a little cookie is being sent off to google to let them know who you are, what you're doing.
You can stop that, just add the line:
Falconwww.google-analytics.com
to your host file. Then whenever you get a page that requests that page you computer will try to find it on your computer, or something like that. To see how it works just google "host file".
Should there be a Law?
Dear all, aren't we sometimes confusing privacy and the other rights here? Privacy is about the ability to keep secrets, it is not about being hauled away at dawn for being a terrorist.
I fear that privacy slowly goes away as technology gets better: for example, if a celebrity is photographed from a public place topless at her house, that's privacy invasion, and that seems to be OK. We just learn to do what we want behind closed doors and walls. It may get worse as various entities get the ability to correlate a lot of info about us, and here anonymity technologies (virtual walls and doors?) are going to be useful.
But that's not about "not being allowed to protest" or "getting on a no-fly list wrongly" etc.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
And the most recent suggested constitutional amendments have had nothing to do with enhancing and/or extending or simply MODERNIZING the privacy rights individuals have....
All of the recent proposed constitutional amendments I've heard of lately do the opposite of enhancing or extending rights, instead they deny rights. Then again I only recall hearing two lately, a ban on flag burning and one on banning homosexual marriage. Both of these will reduce rights not increase them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
phone numbers in the US (with minor exceptions of local significance, like 911 and 411) always start with 1. It's a common convention to not include the 1 when giving someone a number, but it is implicit.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Put your address up then, and we'll test your position.
Awareness of the real loss of privacy along with the perceived loss of privacy have combined with other factors to make things worse. In the clinton administration, when those illegally obtained 500 FBI files were discovered, those who are screaming the loudest now were silent. When Echelon became known then, how many protests and newspaper articles about invaision of freedoms occurred? When it got out that international phone calls were being monitored by voice recognition circuits keying tape recorders (initially rather crude ones) all the way back to the 1960s, who was complaining about that? The simple fact is that even with technology, there is too much going on for the manpower available. Even at the height of the cold war, the FBI did not have enough counter intellegence agents to even monitor all of the suspected soviet agents (the ones here on visas from the USSR). Nevermind the Americans involved in spying for them. To compare modern America with Nazis Germany in any equivalent way is to show one's total ignorance of both history and of the understanding of tyranny and its methods of operation. Germany had something like 60 million people at the start of WWII and possibly 6 to 10 million directly associated with internal intellegence, spying on others. Some historians have started to question whether this society was totally top down controlled or whether its power was bottom up - serious numbers of the German people supporting neighborhood spying because they were committed to it (and the power over others it brought them). In any case, a tyranny like the Nazis one operates in a manner such that tolerance/compliance by the people is not enough. Active participation in the tyranny is required of all and failure to participate means that one must be an enemy of the regime. Despite this, it seems the German people were a bit enthusiastic in their compliance. Considering that bush is the most maligned president in modern history, if not in all of our history, and most of it is pure falsification, it's very difficult to try to determine where some of these people are coming from with their claims of loss of freedom of protest. Mainstream opposition party rhetoric has been at such a screeching fever pitch as to clearly be giving aid and comfort to our enemies who are at war with us currently. Note this is the formal, legal definition of treason. Note that good ole Abe Lincoln tossed people - including politicians into jail for much less during the Civil War. Personally, I'd like to see Truth in Advertising laws applied to politics - the democrats would be leaderless (even mores so than they have been). As for our current situation, we are half heartedly at war with a currently small difuse enemy that is totally dedicated. There are serious risks that it could escalate into a much larger one, still with a totally dedicated, but with neither diffuse nor small enemy. What's worse, our largest 'allies' are at best merely the enemy of our enemy and are hardly our friends nor do they really consider us as such. Finally, what people consider privacy varies dramatically. I bet most of those complaining at present time actually prefer gun registration, if not confiscation. There's nothing like wasting law enforcement resources on noncriminals to create shopping lists for criminals and more opportunities for worthless bureaucrats to make an extra buck on the side. Believe it or not, a right to privacy is not spelled out in the Constitution. There's a right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures - probably one that has been damaged over the last few decades due to the war on drugs - but that is nothing new. The public takings have also been stretched - most recently by the supreme court - but not by those supremes who adhere to conservative philosophy. It was those pseudo civil libertarians of the left who did it and it is those who support their actions.
There is not such thing as the "right to privacy" in the United States. As tort law it was made up fairly recently. In the constitution there is a protection against "unreasonable search and seizure". This is not a right to privacy. This is a right to not being harrassed in your home. That doesn't mean people can't keep a database about everything they observe you doing. That does not intrude on your life.
My point in saying this is not to say that privacy is not worth having. It is to say that if you want it what you really need to do is get congress to enact a constitutional ammendment.
You posted a link to the worst perp of lost privacy ever!
Or are you one of those people who believes that the occasional blown-up bridge is worth it, so long as your desire to take pictures of bridges is not scrutinized?
You know, that argument isn't as preposterous as you seem to think it is. It's only because we Americans have gotten so lazy and apathetic that we're now so willing to put safety ahead of all other concerns. We're so afraid that "the terr'ists" will come blow up our big-screen TV's that we're practically begging to give up our freedoms, if only our government will assure that we'll still be able to get low, low prices at Wal*Mart tomorrow.
I've long held the belief that the people who died in the 9/11 attacks were heroes, but not for the reasons generally cited. It's very possible that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we lived in a strict police state. But those people died because we chose not to live that way. They died for our freedom. And how dare we dishonor them by throwing those freedoms away in the name of fear now?
All those drooling imbiciles chanting "freedom isn't free!" should examine that statement a little more closely. Yes, sometimes our freedom costs us dearly -- not just in military casualties, but innocent civilians as well. But every single person who died because we're free died a hero, as far as I'm concerned, either because they're serving their country or just living a free life, fully aware of the risks. And we should honor those sacrifices by fighting against those who attempt to deprive us of our freedoms, whether that means the 9/11 hijackers or our own corrupt government.
Yes, in many ways, a police state is much safer than a free state -- assuming, of course, that you shut up, keep your head down, and don't draw attention to yourself. But since when has safety and security been more important than freedom? We're willing to engage in all sorts of risky behaviors for entertainment's sake: "x-treem" sports, unsafe sex, binge drinking, smoking, not wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets, even eating junk food. Those things are all far more likely to get you killed than some "terr'ist" blowing up a bridge, but we'll fight tooth and nail for our "right" to engage in all these risky behaviors, but we throw our freedoms away like cowards when scared by the boogey man. Someone, please, explain this to me.
I think the privacy issue is a subset of a more serious issue: The government is claiming ownership of its people. Your private data are essentially your metadata, and your body is your self.
Why can't I control the buying and selling of my own metadata? The people who buy and sell it have trespassed upon my personal space with junk mail, spam, and telemarketing. Yet, the legislation and enforcement of that legislation to curtail such things is not effective. Is that in any way related to the fact that there is money to made? Here's a hint about me: When I have money, I use it to buy what I want and what I need. You will not be able to harass me into thinking that I need whatever crap you're flooding my inbox with. That metadata is MINE, and should be 100% in my control. As a matter of fact, please pay me for my metadata.
Why can't I smoke a joint when I get home from work? Because the powers that be feel that they need to protect me from myself.
Why can't a woman choose whether or not give birth to a child? It is part of her own body, and the decision will have grave effects on her own life. Yet, powers that be feel they own that would-be baby.
Why can't we respect an elder's request to die with dignity with euthanasia? Because he's a state-owned grandpa.
There is a huge level of complete absurdity in these things, in that we are--simply put--being forced to fight the government for ownership of our very lives. Our "being" has been usurped by this current system of organizing civilized society.
I want mine back.
Belittle it all you like, but that doesn't mean this kind of attitude isn't a problem. It's not just about "convenient photo opportunities." It's a constant, slow-but-sure erosion of freedom and civil rights, all in the name of "security," when the truth is that these measures provide little or no security at all. Of all the photographs of bridges taken since 9/11, how many do you suppose were actually taken by saboteurs out to harm America?
If we take your approach, we end up hassling thousands of innocent Americans, and we're no safer for it. The only way anyone could actually think this is a good idea is if they really believe that America is full of "sleeper cells," secretly plotting day-in and day-out to commit acts of terror. The problem is, that's just a fiction -- a boogey man conjured by the Bush administration to scare people into compliance. Even the precious few instances where members of supposed "terror cells" have been arrested have ended up either being false alarms, or wannabes who didn't have the materials or skills to execute a terror attack. But where I see nothing but bullshit from the Bush administration, people like you go, "Oh noes!! That means the real terr'ists are so well-hidden that we can't even find them! Tap my phones, please!!" You're convinced the threat is real, immediate and huge, despite absolutely no evidence. There's just no arguing with that.
The real point of what I wrote is that there is a trade-off between freedom and security, and our Constitution tends to err on the side of freedom. It terrifies me that so many Americans are so willing to throw that away for some warm-and-fuzzy feeling that the government will protect us from the things that go bump in the night. But power corrupts, which is why we have checks and balances in government. Dismantling those checks and balances (Bush's abuse of presidential signing statements), or ignoring them (the illegal warrantless wiretapping program), leads to nothing but despotism and dictatorship.
Exactly how much freedom are we supposed to give up to preserve our freedom?
you chose the wrong Wikipedia entry to cite. This one is the correct one.
Hint: try calling a number in a different area code from a landline without dialing 1 first. A fully qualified telephone number does not begin with the area code, it begins with the country code, which for the US is "1."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Barf! But I can't hold it against Libertarians or the Free State Project. Most good groups have their bad seeds.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If I use my affinity card, then I get 2% cash back on my porn and sex toy purchases *and* 10 cents per gallon off gasoline for that month!
I mean, that alone is enough to let the world know about my private quirks for me!
Find a store without a customer loyalty card. In the US simply use a spreadsheet and keep track of your reciepts by store and item. One store has a special discount on bananas for 20 cents off the retail price of 79 cents a pound with your loyalty card. The store I shop has bananas for 39 cents a pound and no discount. Guess where I shop!
On average, it is about %20 cheaper to shop at the store without the discount than shop at one using a loyalty card for discounts. How much is a loaf of bread? $1.65 or $0.79. One store will give you a generous 30 cent discount once in a while and proudly show your savings on your reciept. Guess which one?
The truth shall set you free!