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.'"

Comments

Moo

[Chacham]

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.

"Real life"

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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.

Re:"Real life"

[garcia]

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.

Oh Americans are directly affected right now. They are under constant video surveillance, their government is "legally" spying on them and their friends, and their bank records are closely watched for "terrorism". We aren't allowed to protest publically if the President is affected, we aren't allowed to voice our opinions silently "in there" without a hassle and threats of police action, and we aren't allowed to protest publically w/o the threat of being added to a FBI watchlist for "Homeland Terrorism".

So, while Americans are conditioned to believe that they are not having their privacy and freedoms infringed on, it is.

Re:"Real life"

[ackthpt]

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.

And as people in Germany found, sometimes when it's a matter of pain, you can't do anything anyway, because the gestapo will haul your ass off somewhere for the SS Totenkopfverband to kick the shit out of you and then hang you up in public as an example of what happens to traitors. Then your country will be bombed or whatever until there's only half the population left. Well, is that all it takes to get rid of a despot? Let me know when the revolution starts, I'll be busy with figuring out how to play mp3's in my car.

Re:"Real life"

[NDPTAL85]

You are mistaking "abused" for "directly affected" The examples you just stated in no way shape or form get in the way of a person's daily business or leisure activities. If you aren't protesting something then how do you even KNOW you can't protest it anymore?

Re:"Real life"

[From A Far Away Land]

The thing about privacy these days, is that enough Americans are afraid of their neighbours, that the government can exploit their fear to take away privacy from everyone. Americans see what happens to people who speak out against the administration: Colin Powell, and V. Plame are prime examples of people who have had their careers destroyed because of the current administration. No one in power is fighting for the average American. Instead the government and its media mouthpieces tell Americans what they should be afraid of: veggies, terrorists, Canadian beef, and analogue TV, so their friends in industry can continue to get away with indirect murder while they rape the earths resources for their own benefit. It's a nice little racket for them.

People tend not to take on things much bigger than them. When the leading front runner for a president to replace the one we have now, is the wife of the previous president, people should smell something is rotten in Denmark. But even if they did realize that it's fishy only two or four families have a shot at governing the country of 300,000,000 people, what's one person going to do about it if they have to work 9 hours a day just to live and eat where they are?

Re:"Real life"

[twistedsymphony]

Yes they are effected but how directly? Has most of the US populous been pegged as a terrorist because of something they did and been interrogated/had their world turned upside-down in a home search? Have any of them had a secret of theirs become public and suffered embarrassment or legal recourse because of it? Have any of them had their rights change so dramatically that it interrupts their daily routines beyond slower entry through security checkpoints.

Yes the things in motion do effect the citizens of the US (and others as well) but not yet to the point where it pops their little bubble of a happy world. Basically unless these violations of privacy come up and slap these people across the face HARD and knock them out of their daily grind onto their ass they're going to continue to be apathetic about it and ignore it.

Re:"Real life"

[QuasiEvil]

>Has most of the US populous been pegged as a terrorist because of something they did and been interrogated

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.

Re:"Real life"

[LifeWithJustin]

I've been two a protest or two, and I've never had an FBI guy knocking on my door. I've been vocal about different issues. I have a website that will poke fun at elected officials during the election cycles. Yet, I still haven't even had a hit from the FBI's office on my website.

I must be doing something wrong.

Oh yeah... I'd like everyone to know that "garcia" is now on the FBI watch list after his comments.

Look Side A uses fear so that they can gain more control then we might normally feel comfortable with. But we seem to forget that Side B uses unrealistic fear about the erosion of personal freedoms. I feel that Bush falls in Side A and people like "garcia" fall into Side B.

Re:"Real life"

[arodland]

Don't forget that anyone who is investigated as a terrorist and finds out about it, can't tell you about it.

Re:"Real life"

[Hoi Polloi]

Of course that justification can be used as a form of intimidation. Imagine the police storming into your place of work or you family gathering to haul you off for questioning. 12 hours later you are returned exhausted and stunned and are barely given an apology but the damage to you is done (career, socially, security clearances, etc).

Hardly surprising

[dr_dank]

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.

Interestingly, many people just give privacy away

[zappepcs]

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.

What's good for the goose

[Phoenix666]

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.

Re:What's good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not ready to share that information with the rest of us? Then you can butt the hell out of my information.

You're on the right track, but the tit-for-tat principle won't solve anything. I don't care if the president wears a web-cam-helmet 24/7 -- that still doesn't grant government the slightest moral right to spy on me. (Spying is a form of harrassment as it goes against the victim's will, i.e. an initiation of force. Does your neighbor have the right to spy on your private affairs? Why not? How is government different?)

Anything less will be settled with guns.

It already has been: everything government does and could possibly do is backed by the threat of force (yes, Virginia, that means guns). Force is the essence of government. (Government is defined as the organization holding the unique "right" to initiate force or threat thereof -- i.e. employ coercion -- as its means within a given territory; anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only objective, unambiguous definition of government that applies to all governments past, present, and future.)

I'm just as pissed off as you are, my friend, but it was inevitable that government would eventually reach the size (measured in both revenue and power over the people) where spying on peaceful citizens is par for the course. The Bush administration certainly wasn't the first to try to spy on peaceful citizens, but they are the latest, and being the latest means holding the reigns to the most powerful government (and world empire) that has ever existed. How could it possibly have turned out any different, given the sheer size of this government? They've got to keep spending your money in order to get even more, and this is one great way to do it.

Help Youself

[chill]

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

just like urine-drug testing

[WormholeFiend]

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.

Everybody has Secrets?

[muonzoo]

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.

My Wife

[mpapet]

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?

Re:Interestingly, many people just give privacy aw

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Real Life Examples

[Massacrifice]

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.

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 ./ers already know about this because information is what we live by and for.

If I may put it in context.

[khasim]

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.

Best Quote

[RAMMS EIN]

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."