Privacy and the "Nothing To Hide" Argument

privacyprof writes "One of the most common responses of those unconcerned about government surveillance or privacy invasions is 'I've got nothing to hide.' According to the 'nothing to hide' argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent. Is there a way to respond to this argument that would really register with people in the general public? In a short essay, 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Professor Daniel Solove takes on the 'nothing to hide' argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings." At the base of the fallacy, as Bruce Schneier has noted, is the "faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong."

Comments

Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[thesolo]

Wired has already answered this question extremely well.

A few examples (first three are a bit tongue-in-cheek):

• If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.
• Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.
• Because you might do something wrong with my information.
• Who watches the watchers?
• Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Or, perhaps a bit more plainly, "Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.".

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Normal Dan]

Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition. I think this is a very good argument. You might not have something to hide now, but in the future you might. The government changes and one day you might not like the change. By then it may be too late. Suppose they raise taxes to 90%. What can you do? Protest? Suppose they declare protesting to be a terrorist act? You might argue they cannot do that due to the constitution, but terrorists are not protected by the constitution. Etc.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[mdm-adph]

Or, perhaps a bit more plainly, "Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power..." It's very hard to convince someone of this, though, when it's their party in power.

Especially when they think their elected leader was largely chosen by God.

I hope I'm not being too specific here.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Jack9]

Privacy protects us from being abused by not just government, but other people (and organizations).

How many Senators have available social security numbers, cell phone numbers, daily date planners, daughter's after school program schedules, etc. It's not just about government, when there's so many more people likely to take advantage of private information.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Bearpaw]

Or, perhaps a bit more plainly, "Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power..."

It's very hard to convince someone of this, though, when it's their party in power. Especially when they think their elected leader was largely chosen by God.

And given that their selected leader was chosen by God, then any abuses by those in power are conveniently justified -- especially any abuses necessary to keep them in power.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Blue Stone]

The one I like: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[CrazyJim1]

Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.

I'm in the minority because I like the Bush administration, but I do have to say that Ashcroft pissed me off when they imprisoned Tommy Chong. For the longest time anyone could buy drug paraphernalia in head shops. There was no law against it. Then suddenly Tommy Chong gets arrested ex post facto. They changed the interpretation of anti-drug laws on the fly so they imprisoned a man who did nothing illegal, and had no chance to stop doing it once they declared it illegal. If I lived in California, I woulda been out every day of his imprisonment holding up a protest sign. I'm sure a lot of people would have been there too, but then the government would have just cracked down on them hard because they'd assume they were drug users. The people knew this and never showed up for a rally.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Also, if they spot you doing something today which is not illegal and then make it illegal. They can't (in theory) prosecute you for it, but they could, say;

• arrest you because you have a history of doing it and they can now probably pin it on you
• get some big men in dark suits to accost you in the street and remind you that what you did on the 22nd March last year is now illegal
• Flag you for extra surveillance involving 24 hour watching on CCTV and a camera strategically positioned in your bathroom
• Put around the story that you did it before it was illegal and sociopathic perverts like you can't help themselves from doing it again now that it is illegal

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to catch up on Big Brother

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[jack455]

Wired has already answered this question extremely well. There's the answer(or answers) to why, but is there a solution? Here are at least my answers to "Why?"

It seems intuitive to say "innocent until proven guilty" but I don't think it is. Why would you assume anything. The truth is that you treat the innocent with respect and discretion. You assume investigations will vindicate the accused.
We could probably agree to not assume either way and find out after the investigation, right?
Not according to US tradition. There was a quote, something like, I'd rather see 50(?) men go free than lock up an innocent man. Well, that's not exact, just paraphrased sort of. But it's a basic idea of freedom. Or maybe it sounds extreme today? Doesn't quite ring true?

No matter how you slice it, talking to most people today about this, they'll treat it as cliche, or it's subversive.
The same concepts, the same assumptions, the same arguments. Why the disconnect? I think it's because we grew up (many of us) hearing the right answers, even being trained to write them on tests, but it isn't applied to today.

Police pull you over and you _feel_ guilty. In the media, an accusation is proof. The courts have been weakening Constitutional protections. And people just aren't that educated. "The Intellectual Elite". And so many of us _have_ broken some law, sometime. I constantly break the DMCA for one. And often drive 30 MPH through school zones at 1AM. We probably are guilty. The solution is to put video cameras on the traffic lights so they can catch me.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[morari]

I'm in the minority because I like the Bush administration Now don't think that way, there are plenty of naive people all throughout America.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[srmalloy]

It's a somewhat higher hurdle to jump, in that it requires a constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition against ex post facto laws, but once that obstacle is overcome, then the past collections of data become a gold mine for anyone looking to find some illegal activity to use against an opponent.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You're rooting for GWB _AND_ Tommy Chong!? I need whatever you're smoking! Tied Stick? Labrador?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nine-times]

Though it's true that there are good reasons for privacy even if you have nothing to hide, I also wonder if we might want privacy even for those who have something to hide.

I mean, often the whole thing gets framed around issues like terrorism or murder or child porn, and in those cases it's easy to let your emotions carry you away and think that perhaps the ends justify the means. Obviously, we want those crimes to be exposed and the perpetrator to be caught. On the other hand, we've all done something wrong at some point. We all have skeletons in our closets. Maybe there are some young people reading this who think, "I don't have any secrets!" Well wait. Sooner or later, something will happen in your life that you'll end up being ashamed of, you'll commit some act that saddens you to think about, or you'll do something that you just don't want people to know about.

These things might not be crimes. They might be that you have some dirty little fetish, that you cheated on your spouse, or that you screwed-over one of your friends when he/she really needed you. It might just be that you've been a bit greedy or harsh to people who didn't deserve it. Or it might even be that you were in a difficult situation, didn't do anything wrong, but the facts taken out of context could be twisted to make you look bad.

There are plenty of things that are legal that can ruin reputations, destroy relationships, embarrass people publicly, and generally ruin lives. Often, there's no positive purpose in bringing these things to light.

People sometimes fail to realize that civilization runs on forgiveness, forgetfulness, and ignorance. If everyone's skeletons were suddenly dragged into the light, it'd be very difficult to maintain work relationships and personal relationships. If everyone were suddenly punished for everything they'd done wrong, no one would escape a whipping. The way our system works is that a crime must be noticeable, someone must be hurt, and the police and prosecutors need to believe that punishing the offense is worthy of time, effort, money, and perhaps other risks. It's for the best. A perfect judicial system which punished all offenders fully would catch everyone at some point. We'd all be offenders, criminals, and subject to public ridicule at various points in our lives.

In the end, such a system would be harmful and oppressive to our society, while the whole point of the judicial system is to help our society maintain stability by reducing the need for vigilante justice/vengence. I'm afraid that, as strange as it may seem, it's better that some of the guilty are not found or prosecuted, and that some crimes go pretty well unnoticed. There's a reason why courts find people "not guilty" of a particular crime, rather than "innocent" in general. It's far better that many of our bad decisions, indiscretions, and unfortunate situations can be stowed away from prying eyes. We ought to maintain an attitude of faith in men, that all men should be treated as innocent until proven otherwise, in spite of the fact that no one is truly innocent.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[TheCarp]

Ahem. This all makes it sound very rhetorical or academic.

"Oh, if we give them power, they might be corrupt"... you sound paranoid, you sound like you might be hiding something. Try this...

This is not about what they "might do", its about what they HAVE DONE.

It is well known fact that before the requirement that warrants be issued and that there was review of wiretaps, that the FBI wiretapped none other than the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Are we to believe that the good reverend, one of the heroic leaders of the civil rights movement was a dangerous criminal and needed to be watched?

Forget the theoretical, we need not look far to find real tangible cases of abuse of power. It is not the ability of power to be abused, it is the fact that it has been abused. The watchers have already been proven untrustworthy. There is more than ample real indisputable evidence.

Sure we can understand why a person in power in the 60s would have felt the need to watch the good reverend doctor. However, doesn't that make all the more certain the case that it is folly to allow their whims to direct such powers without real oversight?

-Steve

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[ScrewMaster]

I'm in the minority because I like the Bush administration ...

Oh ... I'm sorry.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you're dumb. And, you're short. Real short. One thing I've never understood is how the 'religious minority' (your sig) can support a liar, murderer, and a drug user, who continually abuses his power.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I like the Bush administration"

Bullshit you do. Nice try anyway, liebral.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[TriggerFin]

I'm in the minority because I like the Bush administration Now don't think that way, there are plenty of naive people all throughout America. Hence his contention that he's in the minority, yes.

I don't particularly like him, but prefer him to either Algore or John "changing my middle initial to F." Kerry.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[StikyPad]

Except that's ridiculous. He doesn't even define line length, so we'll assume length is unimportant:

01 The number 1
02 The number 2
03 The number 3
04 The number 4
05 I eat babies
06 The number 6

Oh shit..

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[thesolo]

I'm in the minority because I like the Bush administration

I'm going to make an assumption that you're fond of the current government due to your religious convictions, based on the content of your signature link.

Your religious beliefs are yours and yours alone, and I do not wish to criticise them or you. However, please know that the current administration is as far away from religious morality as possible. The administration purposely tailored its message towards religious members of this country, solely in order to get into power. They have lied to you like they have lied to every other group in this country, perhaps even more so to people like you because of the sheer number in the religious right here in the US.

Remember, the primary message of religion should be peace. Not war, not discrimination, not senseless killing & torturing for oil or for the guise of a "war on terror", peace. They manipulated you just to get your vote, and then they set about ruining this country for the sake of profits. Please don't support them in their actions.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[fyngyrz]

It's a somewhat higher hurdle to jump, in that it requires a constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition against ex post facto laws

No such hurdle exists. The government makes ex post facto laws, and the supreme court approves them when it gets to see them, regardless of the prohibitions of the constitution. Two examples come readily to mind. One is the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, though the law did not exist at the time of the felon's sentencing and the judge did not declare that a prohibition of owning firearms was a specific part of the punishment to be meted out. I know of no government excuse for this. The other is the registering of "sexual offenders" (Pee on a bush lately? Date someone a year too young on the wrong side of an age line?) where again, the registration was not ordered by a judge and no such law existed at the time, but the law applies retroactively to offenders, thereby increasing the punishment applied by the government. There is an excuse for this one, the argument is that "registration is not punishment, it is just a government function, and therefore this is not ex post facto." The argument is clearly specious, but that doesn't stop them from employing it. See how you feel if you imagine they put your name on such a list. That'll tell you if it is punishment, or just a triviality like listing you as a property owner.

Similarly, the inversion of the commerce clause has been used to create an excuse for the feds to (for example) use the legal system to attack users, growers and vendors of medical marijuana in California. The argument is that the pot, grown in California, distributed in California, used in California, "could" (cough) have been interstate commerce, and so the feds declare they have jurisdiction. The constitution clearly says they have jurisdiction in interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce, and again, we see the government doing anything it wants, regardless of what the constitution says.

I could go on for quite a while, pointing out broad and obvious constitutional violations in the areas of free speech, gun ownership, religion, warrants, article 10 and 14 violations... the point is, though, that the government is completely out of hand and what the constitution says they can or cannot do has long been either a non-issue or one that will crawl through the courts and then ruled into oblivion as have the exd post facto issues.

The constitution offers the means to make changes; but this is not convenient enough, and so we are faced on all sides with unconstitutional law, and told that it'll all be worked out in court if necessary, and in the meantime, comply or face the music.

For your reference: Ex post facto law as the term applies to the constitution, Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1: Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2: Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4: Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[mOdQuArK!]

All right, I'll bite: given that you sound somewhat libertarian in bent, why in the world do you like the Bush administration?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Bluesman]

"I'm in the minority because I like the Bush administration"

So YOU'RE the one. :-)

But honestly, for the life of me, I can't think of a reason any group has not to dislike what Bush has done. Liberals hate him by default, he's no conservative, he's done nothing for the libertarians...and he went to war without planning for the inevitable eventuality that the spineless half of the country would stab him in the back when the going got tough.

I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's a well-intentioned person who's just a bit too optimistic, and that screws things up for him.

But given that, what is there to like? Are you a recently expatriated Iraqi in the U.S. with a Mexican illegal immigrant employer who suddenly needed a Medicare prescription drug plan?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I for one welcome our horny police overlords.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[blahplusplus]

The problem is that privacy is in fact more apt to protect those who already have power from scrutiny. What about the *unofficial* world you don't hear about in the news? Spy networks and intelligence agencies around the world know privacy is laughable with modern technology, you can spy on people without even having to be close to them.

Modern technology, sattelite tracking, cell phones, electronic money and scientific mathematical techniques pretty much put a damper on any kind of privacy. Just look at places like Google earth pictures that keep popping up on digg. In my opinion privacy does not exist for the 'little man', you'll be floored to know what other businesses know about you. Just perusing sites like statistics canada give you some basic insight into what kinds of information you're *not seeing*.

While someone might claim theire is something 'noble' and right about privacy, the truth is there needs to be a balance between private and public. There is in fact NOT ENOUGH transparency in what happens in many industries since they are immune from criticism. Modern media corporations get to hide certain industries dirty laundry because of financial connections.

People fear the abuse of power but at some point, but ultimately I think privacy is a evolutionary relic, in the modern world its like believing in creationism. You can try to protect your privacy but the tools available to observe and gather data are far beyond your ability to control them.

Just look at statistics on economic data, its not a very far fetched with modern technology to use satellites nad correlate that with the person and build huge databases about each person and then devise mathematical methods and models to help fill in the blanks, even if it isn't a perfect image of you, at some point science will advance to the point where predicting peoples behaviour will get very accurate.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Or, perhaps a bit more plainly, "Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power..."

> It's very hard to convince someone of this, though, when it's their party in power.

Not me-- I'm a member of the Mind Your Own Fucking Business Party!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[speculatrix]

if someone says that "if you have nothing to hide", simply ask them two questions:
1/ how much do you earn?
2/ how often do you have sex or masturbate?

it is inevitable they will take offense. Point out to them that their salary can be estimated from their job and their lifestyle, and their sex life is surely perfectly normal and the same as everyone else so if they won't answer they must be doing something illegal or immoral!

in both cases most people would be willing to answer the questions in specific circumstances, in the first case to their tax or pension advisor, in the second to their doctor... but in both cases they would expect the conversation to be kept private.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Chris Burke]

It's very hard to convince someone of this, though, when it's their party in power.

Especially when they think their elected leader was largely chosen by God.

I hope I'm not being too specific here.

Hehe. But there's a good way to get around it -- point out the possibility of the other party being in power in the future!

That's what Republican Senator Larry Craig did on the Rush Limbaugh show. Craig was promoting a bill to add more civil rights safeguards and actual oversight into the USAPATRIOT Act. Rush was asking why such a thing was necessary, and was Craig claiming that civil liberties had been violated by George Bush's administration, and did he have any proof that it had happened. Rather than delving into that trap of pre-prepared talking point responses, Larry Craig pulled a wonderful switch. He said no, he thought Bush was doing a great job respecting liberties, but what if Hillary Clinton became the next President?!

Like magic, Rush was stopped in his tracks. He couldn't possibly argue that Hillary Clinton, Card-Carrying-Commie could be trusted to respect civil liberties based simply on her word! Coming from Rush, that'd practically be like an endorsement for her candidacy! No, suddenly the terrible spectre of a dictatorial Executive run amok with too much power was palpable.

This was a while ago, when the probability of Democratic president didn't seem quite so high. Now I think it should be relatively easy to get the my-party-is-fine-your-party-is-evil Republican types to see the danger. I should hope the same people on the Democrat side should be able to see the truth of the argument quite clearly already. But to actually get results, they'd both have to agree at the same time, and I'm not sure that will happen.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[The_Wilschon]

Actually, MLK Jr. was a criminal, according to the laws on the books at the time. That was kind of the whole point of civil disobedience. Most people today believe that what he did was morally right, but legally it most assuredly was not.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Tackhead]

>> "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
>> - Cardinal Richelieu
>
> He doesn't even define line length, so we'll assume length is unimportant:
>
> 01 The number 1
> 02 The number 2
> 03 The number 3
> 04 The number 4
> 05 I eat babies
> 06 The number 6
>
> Oh shit..

See? He uses a programming language with line numbers. Hangin's too good for 'im! But at least he kept his line length below 80 colum--oh shit.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[PopeRatzo]

I think it's pretty hard to disagree with both these arguments, but it begs another question:

Who among us thinks the government should be able to secretly spy on us without either permission or reporting to a court? As we've learned in the last few days, as far as the government is concerned, there is no record of secret wiretaps because, hey, they're secret. So the subject of the surveillance is never allowed to see whether or not they have been watched/recorded/wiretapped (this is exactly the argument made by the Bush Administration in Federal Court).

There's this bit in the Constitution about anybody who is accused having the right to face their accuser and the evidence against them in open court. Who among us does not believe this is a good thing? And if the government says that the citizen that was wiretapped is a terrorist, but doesn't have to show any evidence that the target is a terrorist, even to a secret court, is there any way secret wiretapping or surveillance can ever be Constitutional? Is it even important to pay attention to the Constitution any more in an age of a "terrorist threat"?

There are those here who proclaim support of the Bush Administration's secret wiretapping program, so I'd like to hear their answers to these questions. Since the users of Slashdot are mainly people who work very specifically with the technology that is used and is affected by these issues, it's important for us to have this discussion. Many of us will, in the coming years, directly deal with this issue from one side or the other.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Floritard]

I don't particularly like him, but prefer him to either Algore or John "changing my middle initial to F." Kerry. I wouldn't vote for any of them, but I always find it strange that people prefer a crazy, violent cowboy over a harmless crank or a simpering wimp. It's not likely we'll ever be attacked on a massive scale (by massive scale I mean like say, something more than a few box-cutter wielding freaks with delusions of afterlife punani), so would it really be all that bad to have someone in office who isn't completely gun-ho about using military force? Like I said, I wouldn't vote for any of them, the lesser of two evils argument never really interested me. But how on earth GW wins the lesser evils vote is beyond me. Ross Perot could fuck things up less. And that guy is certifiable.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[StewedSquirrel]

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Another example may be the retroactive increases to the statute of limitations.

There was a man tried and convicted due to recorded confessions he made AFTER the statute of limitations had run out. Because of his confessions, the legislator moved to increase the statute of limitations RETROACTIVELY, and therefore, he was arrested, and convicted of the crime he admitted to having committed.

I heard a number of people cheering this action, but I couldn't help but see yet another erosion in the freedoms that made the US an example to the world.

Stewed

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[harrkev]

There are those here who proclaim support of the Bush Administration's secret wiretapping program, so I'd like to hear their answers to these questions.

Supporters of secret wiretapping aren't the sorts of people to be reading /., so I doubt that you will get a response.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[blitziod]

how many people REALLY are affected by murder, terror, and child porn? I mean outside of the lost freedoms. Sure WTC was a tragedy BUT in terms of other wars, we are relatively safe. Nobody thinks Benlain is going to invade the USA and round us all up into camps. Murder is rarely (esp murder by strangers not spouse, relative, crime partner)committed against the GENERAL public. Cameras at stop lights are not gonna stop gang hits OR spousal murder. The gangs will just break the camera's 1st ( or avoid them somehow) and the spouse will likely kill his/her spouse inside. Child porn, according to reliable statistics is not all that common. Commercial child porn even less so. I study in teh 90's showed most widely distributed child porn ( used in prosicutions) to have been produced LEGALLY in sweden before the laws went into effect banning it. They are busting guys for trading the same old images from th 70's. Those children are my age now...Serial pedophiles( the ones who molest strange children, not relitives ) are fairly rare also. As is stranger child murder or abduction. Do not get me wrong, all the things are bad, shocking horrible acts. They are just also rare and not worth spending resources to go after to the degree that we would be with cameras and such. The impact will be too low and the cost in freedom too great

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[jafac]

You can go back to the wiretapping of Dr. King.
Or you can go back to Nixon's abuses; the reason why the rubber-stamp FISA court was created (that Bush ignores).

Or you can listen to the rhetoric from the right that; people arguing against wiretapping, etc. are guilty of "pre-9/11 thinking". To wit: those people are guilty of pre-1776 thinking. Uncontrolled government surveillance was one of King George III's specialties. No, he didn't have anything like listening devices, or special recording switches sitting at internet routing offices. He had gangs of thugs, called "redcoats" who could enter your home, and take whatever they liked, and charge you with treason if you were friends with guys like Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. No trial was necessary, and you couldn't demand to see the evidence against you in order to contest it. Frankly, it's why we have a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights (particularly the 4th Amendment) in the first place. Anyone who forgets these lessons, really ought not be talking about how to best govern this country. They're free to do so; which is a good thing, because those of us who ARE familliar with American history, can readily identify the morons as soon as they open their mouths.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[darkmeridian]

Or "I do legal things I would rather stay private." As in, contraception, pornography, bad dates, choice in music, scratching myself (albeit briefly) in public, etc.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about titles is that you have to pick one. It's not "Coach Senator Mister Doctor Reverend Jones."

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Better that a thousand evil men go free than a single innocent man hang.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[yankeessuck]

See McCarthyism for an concrete example of prosecution/persecution after the fact. The next witchhunt is always potentially around the corner and one can never be sure what it'll be about.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[n3tcat]

Well hello! I didn't realize the most honest man posted on Slashdot!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[hey!]

Solove.. Solove... I remember this guy.

A few years ago, he proposed a pretty damned good set of statutory reforms that would make it possible for private individuals to sue when their privacy was violated. Basically he proposed setting modest standard dollar figure on damages from improper disclosures that lead to things like ID theft. Prior to that, you couldn't sue to recover costs from the rigamarole these data flubs put you through because although clearly they damage you, nobody could put a dollar figure on the amount of that damage. Without that "per se" damage figure, none of your other costs were recoverable.

This was a pretty good idea, because the basic stance of US law since the 1970s is that it is not up to the Government to fix things if somebody violates your privacy, except in a few egregious special cases. The explicit philosophy since the 1973 HEW Report on data privacy is that it's up to you to bring the malefactors to account, and the only way to do that is by suing. Since you can't sue if the initial crime doesn't have dollars attached to it, you're SOL.

This guy is worth listening to, I think.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, if everything and everyone is totally and unequivocally exposed, society itself may eventually adjust for the better. Such mass exposure may cause people to reevaluate their presumptions of what is acceptable and what is not. Confronting issues in the open is how they get resolved. Of course, the problem is that there will be not be any equal and unqualified exposure. Everything will be filtered through a comparatively small group of people in charge and the information will be used as they see fit.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

and just because something is illegal does not make it wrong

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nomadic]

The administration purposely tailored its message towards religious members of this country, solely in order to get into power.

I honestly do disagree. While many of his underlings don't share his beliefs, Bush is a zealot who really does think he's doing God's work. His religious convictions can't really legitimately be called "Christian", except in the term's broadest sense, but he thinks every bomb he has dropped, every bullet he has fired, is part of a pure and noble cause.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nine-times]

I'm not sure if you think you're disagreeing with me, but that was included in my thinking. It's easy to get a skewed perspective when you imagine extreme crimes, but extreme crimes are rare. Also, if the crimes are extreme enough (murders, rapists, terrorists) then the crimes are probably going to get attention by law enforcement anyway, even without ubiquitous surveillance. If some kind of "all-seeing eye" run by the government would catch criminals and wrong-doers, it would mostly catch people doing things that are minor and perhaps even innocuous. People would be caught peeing on the sidewalk late at night, speeding, downloading copyrighted material and breaking the DMCA. They'd get caught for sodomy in the places where sodomy is still illegal. An 18 year old is having sex with a 17 year old in a jurisdiction where that's illegal. You'd catch some kids shoplifting.

Other that that, you'd probably get quite a lot of good blackmail material. This guy is cheating on this woman while she's the one who poops on the floor at work. Some other guy picks his nose and eats it, and some rich woman spends all her money on herself while her estranged husband and kids have very little. There might be lots of information to lord over people, and a lot of ammunition to use against political opponents. Someone might want to run for office or stage political protest to fight injustice, only to find their credibility ruined because once, 20 years ago, he told a racist joke or said something sympathetic to communists. It might not be so damaging except that his opponent is a powerful government official who was able to hunt down an actual recording and leak it to the press.

Maybe you think all this information is good to have stored somewhere, but I think it's better to just let these facts slide out of history and be forgotten.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nine-times]

What you suggest (that society might adjust) it possible, but I just don't believe that information is inherently useful or meaningful. You need context, and having facts, even absolutely true facts, without context can actually mislead you. If all of mankind knew all of the horrors that its members had inflicted on each other, it might well lead us to new and less accurate presumptions about what is and what should be acceptable. Confronting issues in the open may, in most cases, help to resolve them, but my issues are not yours to confront. You have no ability to understand my issues from recordings and bare facts, and no right to intrude into them. My issues are my own to confront, as privately or openly as I wish, and adding the judgement and presumptions of the general public won't necessarily help in a pursuit of a resolution.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[steveb3210]

O'Rly?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-1757

Held: A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[kwerle]

IANAL ... The government makes ex post facto laws, and the supreme court approves them when it gets to see them, regardless of the prohibitions of the constitution. ... One is the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, though the law did not exist at the time of the felon's sentencing and the judge did not declare that a prohibition of owning firearms was a specific part of the punishment to be meted out...

That's not the same as making it illegal to have done something and then charging someone for having done it. It would be ex post facto if they passed that law and then sent a felon up for having owned a gun last week. That's just a change in the law.

Smoking is no longer permitted in restaurants in California. It's the same kind of thing. People don't get to do that anymore. Felons don't get to own guns anymore.

Felons can argue that it's a violation of their rights, but I don't think you can reasonably call that ex post facto.

The other is the registering of "sexual offenders" (Pee on a bush lately? Date someone a year too young on the wrong side of an age line?) where again, the registration was not ordered by a judge and no such law existed at the time, but the law applies retroactively to offenders...

No, the law applies to past offenders. They are not charged for failing to register ex post facto.

It's a pedantic argument, but most legal stuff is at some level.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[netruner]

While this does illustrate an example of a criminal gaming the system, it also lends itself to another point:

If they can do it to a scumbag, they can do it to you too.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Dun Malg]

Actually, MLK Jr. was a criminal, according to the laws on the books at the time. That was kind of the whole point of civil disobedience. Most people today believe that what he did was morally right, but legally it most assuredly was not. MLKjr was guilty only of violating a blatantly unconstitutional Alabama anti-boycott law, which was passed in 1921 to fight unions, and even then was only guilty by stretching the definition of "organize". The cracker fuck shit-eating southern Democrats had to pull a big stinking turd out of their inbred retard law books to get him on something, but they did it. If ever there was an example of why the government shouldn't have carte blanche to watch someone merely for being a "criminal", this is it.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[roman_mir]

Discriminates against number 5, must be opposed to the pentagram, probably anti-whatever or pro-whatever. Must be hanged.

Oh, and he eats babies, but that's ok.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[JM78]

Without the expectation of privacy we are not free; we are slaves of the state.

Go America *rolls eyes*

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you're dumb. And, you're short. Real short. One thing I've never understood is how liberals can support a liar, murderer, and a drug user, who continually abuses his power.

There, fixed it for you.

(Remembering the Clinton years and Waco with horror.)

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[poopdeville]

No he doesn't. He was in the Skull and Bones, ffs. He's just as cynical and cunning as the rest of them. Don't underestimate him.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[AncientPC]

Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition. In the 1920 the US census added a harmless new field: nationality. Two decades later this information was used to round up citizens into German and Japanese internment camps during WW2.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[pete.com]

I'm not sure protesting in private will help, unless the Government is spying on you....... hey wait a minute!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Arcane_Rhino]

Polite, insightful, and all around well stated. I wish I had mod points for ye.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[ElectricRook]

I always find it strange that people prefer a crazy, violent cowboy over a harmless crank or a simpering wimp

A few years back, we had another simpering wimp... He was so focused on being a "man of peace", that it became a weapon that was used against him and the entire US.

The harmless crank's wife has a favorite charity... Music censoring. That kinda puts the fear into me.

As the the crazy cowboy... Even though I voted for him, and I still like him. I prefer to think of him as a brawling frat boy. But who do you want standing up for you when the shit hits the fan?

Wimp & Crank will run away at the first sign of danger... Maybe negotiate a bad peace with groups who think that common people having a choice in government or religion is wrong. And furthermore Church and State should be united.

Brawling Frat-Boy on the other hand. I'll take Brawling Frat-Boy any day. Everyone knows where he stands, he stands and fights to the end.

Ya gotta admit, having the President of the US land a war-plane on a carrier sure sets up the "Holy-Fucking-Shit Batman" on our enemies.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[demachina]

Not sure I would exactly agree with this spin on history. The Magna Carta dates to the early thirteenth century and outlined the concept of Habeus Corpus, which was designed to protect people from the abuse of power by English kings. Many of the rights you cite in our constitution were drawn up with the Magna Carta as the historical basis. Britain did have a representative form of government and a parliament long before America did. The main problem the colonies had with the British government is they didn't have any seats in parliament or power in it, which is usually the case for colonies.

I'm not prone to defend King George or his namesake George W. but the 13 colonies were in fact colonies of England and under the legal jurisdiction of King George. I really doubt he was as good at "surveillance" as you make him sound, it was more a case that he and his administrative and military apparatus did work to try to enforce order in increasingly rebellious colonies. All imperial power have done that, and do that....including the United States of America throughout its history.

You can certainly understand why many in the colonies wanted to throw off the yoke of English rule, but a fair percentage of it was due to business and the age old root of insurrection, excessive taxation, primarily in the form of tarifs on goods imported in to the colonies...like tea. The Stamp Act and these tarifs interfered with the ability of certain colonists to get rich. Its a neglected historical fact that John Hancock was mostly a salesman and a trader. He made a pretty penny, organizing a boycott of British tea and then smuggling tea in to the colonies, and selling it, without paying the tarifs so he undercut the near monopoly of the British East India Company. The ax he was grinding with the British is he wanted to get rich importing tea instead of the British East India company. British East India held substantial power in London...in modern terms the British East India compnay had good lobbyists, Hancock didn't and they used their lobbyists to gain a huge competitive advantage over their colonial rivals...something very common for modern corporations to use their lobbyists for too. Hancock was charged at least once with smuggling so I'm not sure the ax he was grinding with King George was so much about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as it was about making money selling tea.

I assure you if our founding fathers were alive to day and defied taxes they would be in the Federal penitentiary, or if they openly advocated insurrection they would be lucky to live to even make it to prison. There is pretty much no government or legal system that condones not paying taxes, treason, revolt and insurrection which is what the founding fathers practiced, though perhaps with good reason and to good effect.

One has to wonder if the founding fathers were time warped from then to now what they would think of the staggering tax burden the government they created inflicts on its own citizens. The tarifs of 1776 pale next to the staggering and intrusive income, sales and property taxes today, though in a curious inversion tarifs are rapidly disappearing in the name of "free trade". Perhaps they would have blessed it because we supposedly have "representation" in the government that taxes us, but I certainly didn't have any real say in all the taxes I pay, if I had I wouldn't have signed up for most of them, nor for most of the things those tax dollars are being squandered on. I really want a government that builds roads(and taxes fuel to pay for that) and provides a bare minimum defense and police force. Not sure schools are even a proper role considering how bad public schools have turned out.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[HermMunster]

We've all, every one of us, absolutely every single solitary soul on this planet, has done something wrong that we are not proud of. Whether it is important enough to desire privacy so that others may not find out and/or misuse it is a matter of conscious or even law.

Look at Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the White House? Did he have something to hide? Does he wish his act was kept private? Why would any person believe they have less to hide than the President of the United States of America? It is, after all, the highest office one can achieve.

It isn't called the Nothing To Hide Policy and we have a policy of privacy for a reason. Not everyone maintains the same sensibilities as every other person. We are not all made the same and we don't all react the same.

To give up your privacy is to weaken the privacy of others. By virtue of allowing your privacy to be violated you are allowing them to violate someone else's privacy that may not desire it because you embolden them while demeaning and belittling the wishes of others. As I said, all people have something to hide, whether it is a crime or what might be considered an unethical act or an act of perversion (being gay is considered by most religions to be an act of perversion.) Even the Bible doesn't permit homosexual acts. So, if you don't believe in religion and you think being gay is OK, then you decide to open that up about someone in public or even to the law enforcement agencies, then you are subjecting someone who feels they may (or do) have something to hide (and desire privacy because of how they feel).

You can't get around saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide, primarily because that is based upon your own value system; due to the fact that you don't value things the same way as others. We have court documents that are sealed? Why? We have documents about the Kennedy Assassination that are sealed and no one can read those documents for some time to come, why? We have people that have medical conditions they don't wish to disclose and desire privacy. Why?

Once you give up privacy you give potential abusers of power the ability to abuse you and everyone else. What you think about privacy may not be what your family members desire about privacy. Even your children wish they could lock their door to their room and ask that you knock before entering because even a child has common sense and understands the need for privacy.

In the Chicadillo case (the first admitted serial killer case in the former USSR) the law enforcement agencies used the pretense of gay men have to be the culprit because of their lifestyle. They invaded their homes, their domain, their lifestyle in order to find out who and what and then arrested them and subjected them to horrific interrogations. It wasn't a gay person that committed the serial murders. It was a man with a wife and children.

Anyone that believes they have no desire of privacy or need of privacy are damaging the future for everyone else. You diminish my rights, you diminish my beliefs, you diminish my feelings and emotions when you say I should not have any rights because only those that commit crimes desire privacy.

It just doesn't work. Privacy should be maintained at all costs and should be predominant in most everything you do. If we undo privacy we undo a lot of the protections that have been in place within our legal system for the past couple centuries. Even the special relationship between the husband and wife come into question because then, due to "no" privacy, the husband or wife can be compelled to testify against their spouse. Even though this law was established to protect that relationship it plays predominantly into the the realm of privacy. Because if there is no need for privacy then the husband or wife can be compelled to disclose what happens in private with each other.

Without privacy we will be in a position of allowing the government, religious organizations, lawyers, and other non-polic

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[cduffy]

That's not the same as making it illegal to have done something and then charging someone for having done it. It would be ex post facto if they passed that law and then sent a felon up for having owned a gun last week. That's just a change in the law.

Smoking is no longer permitted in restaurants in California. It's the same kind of thing. People don't get to do that anymore. Felons don't get to own guns anymore.

How is passing a law to the effect that members of the set of people who have at some time committed a given class of crime are to be deprived of some right or privilege not effectively increasing, after the fact, the punishment associated with that crime? You may frame the issue differently -- but it is nonetheless effectively additional punishment for a previously-committed crime.

To take an extreme, consider a law which prohibits those guilty of computer crimes from using the Internet. By no means is it unheard of for avoiding Internet use to be a probation term for those convicted of such crimes -- but to legislatively extend such a prohibition to all of those who have committed such crimes regardless of whether they have completed that probationary period is effectively to indefinitely extend the period of their sentences, every much so as it would be an ex post facto imposition of house arrest for the legislature to craft a law which (on a forward-looking basis) makes it illegal for those who previously committed a given class of crimes to leave their homes.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[ravenshrike]

The problem with the felons not owning guns thing is that there are many felonies which should have no impact on the matter. Unless you have committed a violent felony is there really any reason to take your ability to defend yourself away?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[slashqwerty]

Smoking is no longer permitted in restaurants in California. It's the same kind of thing. People don't get to do that anymore. Felons don't get to own guns anymore.

So congress passes a law saying anyone who has ever been convicted of j-walking can't assemble at a protest. It's the same kind of thing. Felons don't get to own guns any more. And j-walkers don't get to protest. Never mind that such a penalty did not exist at the time they committed the offense or that they have a constitutional right to protest!

Felons can argue that it's a violation of their rights, but I don't think you can reasonably call that ex post facto.

The parent post ends with a definition of ex post facto. The definition was written just a few years prior to the constitution. Clause three of the definition:

3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[dryeo]

You make a good point.
An even better question is about taking away their right to vote, especially considering that some felonies could easily be considered political crimes, eg smoking a joint in the privacy of your home. Once convicted you can never vote to change the possibly unjust law.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[NMerriam]

he went to war without planning for the inevitable eventuality that the spineless half of the country would stab him in the back when the going got tough.

Now, now, I'm assured that far less than half of Iraq is actively fighting against US forces...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[myowntrueself]

A few years back, we had another simpering wimp... He was so focused on being a "man of peace", that it became a weapon that was used against him and the entire US.

Jimmy Carter?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[rock_climbing_guy]

Similarly, the inversion of the commerce clause has been used to create an excuse for the feds to (for example) use the legal system to attack users, growers and vendors of medical marijuana in California. The argument is that the pot, grown in California, distributed in California, used in California, "could" (cough) have been interstate commerce, and so the feds declare they have jurisdiction. The constitution clearly says they have jurisdiction in interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce, and again, we see the government doing anything it wants, regardless of what the constitution says.

Excellent point. The precedent for this actually goes back to President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs that dramatically increased the power of the federal government. You may enjoy learning about the hoops he jumped through to get what he wanted. Some historians refer to him as the 'father' of 'big government.'

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[PopeRatzo]

Supporters of secret wiretapping aren't the sorts of people to be reading /., so I doubt that you will get a response.

Oh, they're reading. We've all seen them here, complaining about us dirty hippies who think the Bush Administration may have crossed the line with their extra-Constitutional claims and assertions of the power of the "Unitary Executive".

Whether they'll respond is a different question, though. It's tough to support secret wiretapping, even when a mighty, courageous war-president is doing the wiretapping.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[cduffy]

A few years back, we had another simpering wimp... He was so focused on being a "man of peace", that it became a weapon that was used against him and the entire US.

I'll thank you to back up that assertion. Prior to 9/11, Bush was doing less to combat terrorism than Clinton had before him -- despite Clinton warning him at the exit interview that he considered al-Qaida to be the most serious national security threat facing the county at that time.

Do you really want to be represented by a brawling frat boy? Frat boys make enemies unnecessarily -- but hatreds between distant peoples are not so easily healed as those between individuals, and a mistake made now can result in a country which is still our foe fifty years later. Far better to absorb some blows and mete out a measured and effective response than to flail around wildly, trampling over one's stated values and destroying a reputation which has taken centuries to build.

Roosevelt had it right -- walk softly, and carry a big stick. Walking softly in the world of international politics is something done by a statesman, not a frat boy; deciding wisely when to wield the stick, the same.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[jkauzlar]

copyright extensions are in the same ballpark as well, if you look at it not as a 'right' of the copyright holder, but a law imposed on the public...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Mattcelt]

O'Rly?
No, O'Reilly. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

Here's something I wrote for my site a while ago. I also posted it to a similar discussion on /. previously.

Quoth below:
["If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.

And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.

But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.

They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.]

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

it requires a constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition against ex post facto laws You are aware that when the government made possessing child porn illegal (it wasn't always so) they rounded up the producers and distributors on the basis that "they must still have it" and then used their distribution/sales lists to hunt down everyone who had ever purchased child porn on the same basis, right?

That led to a major landmark supreme court decision about entrapment, when one of the people they rounded up had actually purchased the item for another person and did not, in fact, possess child porn after it was made illegal.

Nobody cared at all about the ex-post-facto nature of the enforcement because of course these people were perverts and kiddy fiddlers and were absolutely incurable and a menace to society (unless of course they're Republican, then they just go into "rehab" rather than getting put on a sex offender list to track them for the rest of their life). Pretending it won't happen again in today's environment of the war against sex, drugs, violent games|movies|*, and so on is living with your head buried in the sand. Do you have a child and purchased Grand Theft Auto with a check or creditcard or other traceable form of identification? Do you really have nothing to hide?

To recap, it happened, therefore all claims that it cannot happen are null and void.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Myopic]

Incorrect. Buying drug paraphenalia was always illegal, but only if you can show that it is really drug paraphelalia, and not something intended for legal purposes. Clinton and the liberals gave a lot of leeway in that gray area, allowing head shops to essentially break the law, selling wares that were unequivocally intended for drug use. Then the American people elected a President who decided to enforce the law, and people like Chong, who were breaking the law all along, were prosecuted.

There are lots of laws like that, which are enforced with varying degrees of tenacity by different administrations.

As a smoker, and a libertarian, I believe drugs (especially weed) should be legal, and paraphenalia (especially bongs) should be sold in every corner store (less of a walk when I need clean screens). But as a small-d democrat, I also understand that my preference is overridden by the huge majority of Americans who want weed and other drugs to remain criminalized. Tommy Chong went to jail because the American people elected (or, depending on how you look at it, "elected") a commander in chief who would enforce the laws that they support and wanted enforced. That sucks for people like Tommy, like me, and maybe like you, but that's the way democracy works.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[ShieldW0lf]

Privacy is only a way to protect you IF THE DATA ISN'T COLLECTED AT ALL.

Having the government keep it under wraps doesn't mean you have privacy.

It means that you are easily isolated.

If everyone is smoking pot, and the government knows through their surveillance who is smoking pot, but for reasons of privacy they do not disclose what they know to the general population, then any time they want to take you in, they can just grab you up, and you will stand alone.

That's what this is all about.

1) Make so many laws that everyone is guilty of something.
2) Convince everyone that it's better to keep things private.
3) Keep watching all the people and correlating data, but keep what you find secret.
4) Now everyone is isolated with their guilt, just like everyone else.
5) Now you can then selectively enforce the laws against those who threaten your power.


This is how totalitarian states are assembled.

Now, you may be a believer in privacy. Personally, I am not.

But if you are going to support privacy, be practical about it. Demand that the data not be collected at all in those cases where it hasn't already being collected, and demand enough transparency of process that you can know absolutely that it never is.

Don't, however, be idealistic about it and let the governments and corporations keep all the secrets they've already collected.

If you've already been caught doing something that is technically illegal, and the proof is in some government database somewhere, which would you rather?

a) Over 50% of the population is also technically guilty of the same thing that you're being judged for doing, but no one outside government offices knows that.

b) Over 50% of the population is also technically guilty of the same thing that you're being judged for doing, and everyone knows that.

Be specific about what you support, and don't be led to think that keeping it as a government secret now that it's too little too late is actually giving you any privacy or security. Because it isn't.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Nimey]

That's obviously in code and you're conspiring against the Republic. Fetch the torturer and make him confess!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to think of him as a brawling frat boy. But who do you want standing up for you when the shit hits the fan?

Many Americans are ashamed of this 'frat boy' image and think they could do better. Furthermore, when the shit hits the fan, as you say, he spends countless billions of *our* dollars on attacking an unrelated country and murdering hundreds of thousands of their civilians. Since you ask who I want standing up for me, I'd prefer someone without a party or personal agenda getting muddled up in with the administration of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people think Bush is 'cooler' than the other candidates were, and thus is representing their own coolness by proxy. There's a difference between being cool and doing something well.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[darjen]

If they can do it to a scumbag, they can do it to you too.

In a similar vein, I sure hope the people who profess the "nothing to hide" argument never get wrongfully accused some day.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[iandog]

> even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.".

I might change this to "especially if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.".

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[xappax]

I prefer to think of him as a brawling frat boy.

Everyone knows where he stands, he stands and fights to the end.

having the President of the US land a war-plane on a carrier sure sets up the "Holy-Fucking-Shit Batman" on our enemies.

You have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the theatrics of public officials. Politicians are celebrities, just like Eminem or Brad Pitt. They put on an act, adopt a persona, and they get lots of fans and supporters, because people love the persona.

A lot of people think they really know celebrities. All the times they've seen them on TV, doing interviews, recording albums, speaking out about issues... you don't know them. You don't know them because "they" are a completely fabricated facade that's cultivated to make simple people feel like they can relate to their leaders on a personal level.

President Bush making a tough speech on an aircraft carrier has about as much to do with the actual things our government is doing to us as what Jay-Z says on his records has to do with how they're produced and sold.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution clearly says they have jurisdiction in interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce

The constitution says neither. It actually says:

The Congress shall have power to...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

People have long taken "commerce...among the several states" to mean interstate commerce but that's not the only way to interpret it. There is also much debate about the definition of "commerce". Does it apply to non-economic matters?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[lynx_user_abroad]

Whether they'll respond is a different question, though.

They won't respond. They know their bosses are reading, too.

Now get back to work, I need that report by the end of the day.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[h2_plus_O]

What if the government could collect all the info it wants, but couldn't use it for prosecution? We have admissibility laws to protect people from being prosecuted with evidence obtained via searches that don't meet a specific legal bar (like, was it obtained via a warrant). If we want legal protections, we could probably more easily establish a threshold for admissability of evidence and let the intelligence agencies collect all the data they want, but require law enforcement agencies to subpoena that information.

Preventing the government from collecting and storing information (specifically, in databases) doesn't protect your privacy- it just keeps the government ineffective at doing basic things that reasonably fall within the realm of what we'd expect it to do (like verify someone's identity, citizenship, right to vote, criminal record, etc). That the government isn't collecting your data doesn't mean the private sector isn't busy collecting that data and selling it to anyone willing to pay them for it. At a certain point, just stopping government from collecting data about us doesn't protect us- it just gets us ineffective law enforcement, and our private info is available to them anyhow- all they need to do is buy it on the black market, hush-hush.

Also note: law enforcement already has the right to obtain pretty much any information they want- the question is, when they're tracking a suspect by looking at credit card purchase activity, should they have to send an agent over to the card center to go through a paper file, or should they be able to subpoena that info and get it instantly in electronic format? In other words, we're not talking about protecting your personal information any more, since the government has limited rights to look at it already- the question is, are we willing to allow the government to use technology effectively to do the stuff it's already legitimately tasked with doing?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[flewp]

Around the corner? I'd say it is already here, and instead of witches or communists, the target is terrorists and others deemed "anti-American" or "unpatriotic".

RE: Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[bleifuss]

It's got to be more fundamental than all those reasons. I agree with them all. The problem is that when you say half of them the same people who say it doesn't matter if you "have nothing to hide" will tell you you are being paranoid.

For me the basis for privacy infringements being unconstitutional is very simple: The fourth ammendment clearly limits the governments powers to perform searches on its people to situations when there is probable cause and a warrant has been issued. If the government only has power to conduct a search under these circumstances, then of course the have no power to perform searches on citizens in general. They don't even have probable cause to do that.

The problem is that explaining it in terms of the constitution isn't enough for many people. I just have this gut feeling that there is a fundamental argument that should explain to people why it's unethical for the government to infringe on its citizens privacy except in cases of sufficient probable cause when a judge has issued a search warrant. There has got to be a more funcamental argument that explains why privacy is an unallienable right.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[cecil_turtle]

Exactly, I think I heard Bruce Schneier in a debate where the other guy used the "I've got nothing to hide" argument and Bruce, without missing a beat, asked him how much money he made. The guy was silent and didn't answer. Bruce made the point that surely the man wasn't doing anything wrong by earning a living and providing for his family, so why wouldn't he say what he made? It turns out the guy valued privacy after all.

And better than "how often do you have sex", say "Can I come to your house and watch you have sex with your spouse?". Surely a man and woman acting in procreation aren't doing anything wrong, so why would they mind? Again the answer will most certainly be "no"; again somebody who values their privacy (whether they realize it or not). With enough video surveillance in cities it will be able to be abused and peer into unsuspecting households.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[HermMunster]

Every US Citizen is protected by the Constitution, even those citizens that are terrorists. What you may not fully understand is that when you become a terrorist and you commit terrorists acts against your own government then you are considered an unlawful enemy combatant. Due to the fact that there's a war going on we can't have enemy combatants released back to attack the US and in particular those with less than virtuous desires to commit acts of terrorism against our civilian population.

So, every citizen is entitled to protections of the Constitution unless they are deemed unlawful enemy combatants. They may be enemy combatants and be lawful, such as a soldier on the enemy's side. But we still don't release those combatants unless the war is over or some other conditions are met such as a prisoner exchange--which will never happen with terrorists.

One could claim that the person that was a citizen that joined the enemy is a traitor and/or gave up their rights to protections of the Constitution upon their very first act. Much of what an unlawful enemy combatant is has yet to be really challenged.

I do understand what you mean when you say that someone, at some future time, might be considered by the government as a terrorist by simply participating in an act of protest, and thus potentially not be covered, but currently we are not there. Hopefully, those in charge of our government will be long lost memories when and if that were to occur.

It is those that are willing to give up control of their personal private lives that will propel us to that point in time. Luckily that will occur far down the road and we will know who to blame--those today demeaning and belittling the civilized covenant of Privacy.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[dangitman]

Who watches the watchers?

I dunno, Coastguard?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[senatorpjt]

hen they're tracking a suspect by looking at credit card purchase activity, should they have to send an agent over to the card center to go through a paper file, or should they be able to subpoena that info and get it instantly in electronic format? The harder it is for them to get the records, the less likely they are to do it for frivolous reasons.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[gomiam]

... must be opposed to the pentagram...

Yes, because we all know those tetragram Gregorian chants are actually satanic invocations...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[thePsychologist]

Well here's a pretty good argument that I think everyone would understand.

There's nothing wrong with sex. Would you want some bored camera guy in a dusty room watching you have sex?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[senatorpjt]

But as a small-d democrat, I also understand that my preference is overridden by the huge majority of Americans who want weed and other drugs to remain criminalized. Most people probably think gays should be burned at the stake, but it's not a law.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[WhiplashII]

To me, this is the only acceptable reason for privacy. It is the same reason that individuals have unalienable rights to own guns. If we ever get to where we can't destroy the government by force, then government will drift towards dictatorship. If we have guns, we can take the government back when it goes to far - but without privacy, those guns cannot organize an effective resistance.

So we need privacy just like we need guns, to keep the government honest. It is expensive, in lives lost to criminals and similar, just like gun ownership. But it is the only reason the government will not become a dictatorship.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[WhiplashII]

their selected leader was chosen by God

Hey, leave Gore out of this!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[xappax]

ultimately I think privacy is a evolutionary relic, in the modern world its like believing in creationism. You can try to protect your privacy but the tools available to observe and gather data are far beyond your ability to control them.

This doesn't ring true to me. Just because society has the technological capacity to do something doesn't mean it has to do it, or inevitably will. We've had the technological capacity to vaporize our enemies with ICBMs for quite some time, but we've agreed collectively that it's not a good idea to use that power.

Similarly, people have had the power to do heinous things with biological and chemical engineering such as putting highly addictive ingredients in consumer products. But as a society, we've decided that such things are a violation of human rights, and they may not be done. We may have lost out on a few cool innovations here and there because of restrictions like this, but overall I think we're better off.

I fail to see how the ability to invade someone's privacy can or should be treated any differently than any other abuse of technology. Simply because it is happening doesn't mean that it must happen, although I'm sure the people in power will assure you otherwise.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[xappax]

1/ how much do you earn?
2/ how often do you have sex or masturbate?

it is inevitable they will take offense.

Not that I disagree with your overall point (everyone has some secrets they have a right to keep), but you must hang out with some uptight people!

Approx. $20/hour
Approx. twice a week
;-)

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[knarph]

So option "b" is the "I am Spartacus" defense?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Kamokazi]

If the government changes so much that anything I am doing now is considered illegal, I will have moved to a different country because I should have the freedom to do what I do. Aside from a few copyright infringements from the MAFIAA (much fewer than many people), I'm entirely too law-abiding for my own good. I haven't even had a traffic violation in six years. I buy all my software. Sure, I'll admit that it's better to have privacy than not have it, but I am not going to take any great lengths to protect my privacy. I'll protect myself from ID theft and whatnot as best as possible, but if some website wants to know where I came from or wants to dig around in my cookie jar, I could care less.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

tied stick?
that's thai stick, I believe, unless you're talking about something else altogether...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

*grabs epeen ruler* More dollars than you but they're smaller and I pay more tax on them.
Around twice a night. :D

O NOES but I r teh AC. PRIFASY RUELZ!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Sure, no problem. Just point to the part of the constitution that allows the fed to strip someone of their citizenship without trial. You also need some definition of enemy combatant that isn't something the executive just made up - if you don't have that stuff, then I guess you'll need a trial for anyone found being a terrorist in this country (not just citizens).

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Danse]

Say what you want, but if you are corresponding with a suspected terrorist, then you have no right to expect any privacy. Maybe not, but we do have a right to expect the President of the United States to respect the Constitution and get a warrant. He's not above the law anymore than anyone else is. Or at least he shouldn't be. Oh yeah, and could someone remind me again why we give presidents the power to pardon convicted criminals? Or at least why they don't have to recuse themselves from pardoning those whom they have some relationship with? I can't seem to come up with any good reason for that.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[HeroreV]

Those answers are way too serious. People aren't likely to debate if you get too serious. Ask if you can watch them poop, and if they say no, point out that there's obviously a line somewhere. Then you can discuss where that line should be.

It's nearly impossible to change somebody's mind if you're talking about absolutes. Give rid of the absolutes first and then discuss the topic.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[sugarmotor]

Sorry, who are you referring to when you say "we"?

Stephan

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[laejoh]

Neo, is that you?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Thing 1]

That's what this is all about.

1) Make so many laws that everyone is guilty of something.

Here begins one of my favorite quotes:

"You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system...that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be easier to deal with."

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

She wrote that in the 50s. It's so relevant today. You know it took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol? Yet today we have so many more substances that are illegal, with far worse penalties than alcohol possession or distribution gave in the 20s! And no amendments were passed in order to outlaw them. Does that seem rational?

Be specific about what you support, and don't be led to think that keeping it as a government secret now that it's too little too late is actually giving you any privacy or security. Because it isn't.

Also, the government is very good at "losing" laptops containing these databases...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't I walk up to anyone and ask for their 'papers'?
What are they hiding? Certainly no one could object, if
innocent. And why not a peoples' enforcement committee?

If we even !@#$ing have to talk about this ... WTF?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I stopped smoking. And will soon kill myself.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[TempeTerra]

I admire your sentiment, but I doubt that private gun ownership is keeping your government honest. For one thing, I don't think a citizens' militia would have a hope in hell without the support of the military. For another, is your government honest to start with? Speaking as a citizen of another first world country, you guys sure have it rough these days.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[kwerle]

An even better question is about taking away their right to vote, especially considering that some felonies could easily be considered political crimes, eg smoking a joint in the privacy of your home. Once convicted you can never vote to change the possibly unjust law.

I don't think that's a felony. Well, at least not in California. I'd be [a little] surprised if it was anywhere.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Lavene]

So we need privacy just like we need guns, to keep the government honest. It is expensive, in lives lost to criminals and similar, just like gun ownership. But it is the only reason the government will not become a dictatorship. Uh... Are you sure about that? I mean, your (I guess you're American) government does not exactly come through as an honest group that fear the people even though the people do have guns.

I'm living in Europe where we don't have guns but still we have mostly honest governments that respect, and to some extent even fear, the people. Guns kill people, they don't create democracies. One should think you people (Americans) had learned that by now...

A government should fear the people, not because the people might kill them, but because the people have the power to remove them. If the government has to be removed with guns you already live in a dictatorship.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[kwerle]

So congress passes a law saying anyone who has ever been convicted of j-walking can't assemble at a protest. It's the same kind of thing. Felons don't get to own guns any more. And j-walkers don't get to protest. Never mind that such a penalty did not exist at the time they committed the offense or that they have a constitutional right to protest!

Right. Just like people who smoke can no longer smoke in a restaraunt. That's what I said.

The parent post ends with a definition of ex post facto. The definition was written just a few years prior to the constitution. Clause three of the definition:

3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

Which is what I implied. Smokers are being punished for not even committing a crime.

What I'm questioning/suggesting is that (as the parent post also challenged), these are not really punishments. They are changes in policy. Like I said, a fine, pedantic, line.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[jack455]

I was always amazed that I could by not only rolling papers (which I truly purchased to almost exclusively roll actual tobacco) and bongs. I suppose you could technically put tobacco in it, and you would have a less harsh smoke. But that is unrealistic. Still, so what?

I haven't smoked anything but cigarettes (this year) and don't want my actions criminalized. What is drug paraphrenalia anyway? One thing that can't have a legitimate use would be nice to hear.

If I can buy a bong, but weed is unaccessible, so what?

More people can buy weed than can find bongs to buy. They're "still smoking"

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[dryeo]

Federally cannabis is a schedule 1 drug like heroin, worse then Cocaine. While generally the feds won't bust you for a joint they have been known to. Timothy Leary IIRC was busted for 3 seeds in the carpeting of his car. If you are like I used to be, growing a years supply at a time you can easily be arrested for trafficking and if the prosecution plays its cards right you can get life. Up till recently (Reagen era) being a drug kingpin could mean death. Also some states also had the death penalty for things like smoking around children.
Article on the history of marijuana laws in the States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_mari juana_in_the_United_States
The controlled substances act http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html
Now I'm not sure about the dividing line in the USA between misdemeanors and felonies but according to this http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/844.htm#a for a first offence you get a year, second offence 2 years and 3rd offence 3 years max plus a fine in all cases. Seems any crime that can put you in prison for 3 years would be a felony.
Of course if you happened to grow a pound or so so you don't have to deal with dealers etc the penalties get much worst.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If people wore balaclavas or similar to places, jobs and schools etc. It will show you how much openness the people (not the government) expect from you, instead respecting your privacy. Due to possible face scanners (minority report?), it may be a way to protect the privacy of location. Sure this will seems silly being the only one wearing it, but if many wore it..

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If we have guns, we can take the government back when it goes to far

Wake up brother! If you have guns and even THINK about resisting, they'll send you to some secret prison without a trial.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[mrscorpio]

You = X
Guns = Y
Government = Z

You say if X needs Y = Yes to remove Z, then Z = Dictatorship
I say if Y = No and Z = Dictatorship, X = Fucked

Never mind that data shows that cities which have enacted concealed carry laws have significantly reduced the rate of violent crime.

There are the same number of people with crime on the mind whether people possess guns or not. If someone who commits a gun crime didn't have a gun but was dead set on committing the crime, they'd commit it with a knife or a fist or a rock or some other appropriate utensil (certainly, violent crime was not "invented" when the gun was!). And of course, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws carry guns. If it is legal for law abiding citizens to carry a gun, then a criminal has to consider that before he mugs a person...the possibility that "Mr. Easy Pickens" might have a nasty surprise - whether or not the criminal himself is possessing and using a gun. Mr. Criminal has no such worries if it is illegal to carry a gun, because he knows that there are more law abiding citizens than there are criminals like him, therefore the chances are slim to nil that "Mr. Easy Pickens" is carrying a gun (but Mr. Criminal still most likely has one, though it is illegal to be carrying one. He's robbin' folks, what does he care if he illegally possesses firearms while doing it?)

I've never understood why Europeans and Canadians are so vehemently anti-gun. I don't own a gun and am not a fan of them personally, but I do feel that a free society needs to allow its citizens the ability to lawfully carry them. The founding fathers and the statistics back me up on this.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in the privacy of individuals. However, neither identity nor accomplishments make a person wrong or right. This is the ad hominem logical fallacy, or maybe it would be "pro hominem", since you're extolling Dr. King.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Dulcise]

The trouble with this is that if this is a war, then they aren't "Enemy Combatants" they are prisoners of war, this of course gives them certain rights (such as the right not to be subject to violence).

If these people are not prisoners of war then they are criminals and as such have the right to a fair and speedy trial. Holding them in this way is presuming their guilt without proving it. I very much feel for those who are incorrectly incarcerated in this way, their is no way for them to argue their case.

People seem to be getting this nasty assumption that you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise[1] (the same with privacy and the "if you're not guilty" argument), which would result in the arrest criminals, but people forget that it would cost the freedom of innocent individuals, and what if you were one of the innocent who had their freedom unduly stripped?

[1] Perhaps from the actions that governments have been taking in the around the world make it seem like it's acceptable?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Sobrique]

er... no

There's lots of nations on the planet that _don't_ assume that it's the right of every person to have a killing weapon in their possession. Where they figure that it's better to limit the availability of tools specifically designed to kill other people, than to allow their free use.

The primary qualification for whether someone should be permitted to own a lethal firearm, is that when asked 'do you want a gun?' the answer is 'no'. Anyone else is clearly mentally disturbed, and shouldn't be allowed on.

(I don't see an issue for guns, when used as 'tools' - I can well understand why a hunter might need a rifle or a shotgun. However I remain unconvinced that a pistol, or any form of automatic weapon has any reason other than showing off, and killing other people)

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, criminal who remain determined to commit crime even after going through that consideration, will kill to rob corpse instead of mugging or kill the driver to steal a car, kill everyone asleep in the house to rob a house... etc.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Sobrique]

Who decides?

Those 'unlawful enemy combatants' that are held in Guantanamo, have been there for a LONG time, without a whiff of any legal basis for the detention. Let's leave aside the Geneva convention, because ... well lets face it, there's quite a few countries that treat that as opt in legislation, to be used when most convenient.

The fact that there are people, in a detention camp, who have not been subject to an degree of 'fairness', is an ongoing blot on the conscience of the US, and the world as a whole.

So, how about we call YOU an 'unlawful enemy combatant' because we saw you with a teatowel near your head, and that's probably good enough. Unfair? Well, yes. Go sit in Gitmo, and suck it up, because that's what all the other guys there have had.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[coaxial]

No such hurdle exists. The government makes ex post facto laws, and the supreme court approves them when it gets to see them, regardless of the prohibitions of the constitution. Two examples come readily to mind. One is the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, though the law did not exist at the time of the felon's sentencing and the judge did not declare that a prohibition of owning firearms was a specific part of the punishment to be meted out. Your example shows that you not only have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an ex post facto law is, but also how an ex post facto law would be enforced, and what criminal punishments are.

You're example is not an ex post facto law, because it is not a criminal punishment. It is a licensing requirement. The only possible ex post facto situation would be if you already were a felon and a legal gun owner, and then they passed the law saying "no felons can own guns." Even then, that still wouldn't be ex post facto situation because after the date the law went into effect you couldn't own a gun, and if you transfered ownership of them prior to the law's enaction then you wouldn't be involation of the law. (Laws rarely go into effect the moment they are signed. Especially laws that require time to become into complience with them.) The only ex post facto part would be if the government cross checked the felon records with the gun ownership records, and then arrested you for posessing a gun that you no longer owned because you sold it three years prior to the law coming into effect. But that's not what's going on in your example, because that's not what goes on in real life, and you're intent on indicting the real life situation.

You want to cloud the issue by using the term "punishment," and say that that since the effect is arguably the same as changing the criminal sentencing guidelines after the fact, that they these laws are unconstitutional because the constitution forbids a specific legal mechanism. Of course, it's an inconvient truth, that the forbidden legal mechanism isn't being employed in these case, and so shame be upon anyone driving a truck through this hole in your cleverly crafted arguement.

Your argument makes just as much sense as: "Your newly passed a law saying I have to be licensed to practice medicine is infringing on my right to free expression, and I used to do that, so this is ex post facto!" The only reason your post has been pushed up to +5 is because no one has called you on the fact that convicted felons are subject to regulatory laws just like everyone else.

Furthermore, you're trying to argue that the employed legal mechanism that is moot, but it should be declared unconsitutional on mechanicistic grounds. I wish you would make up your mind if the legal mechanism is moot or not. I understand your delima. I really do. If it's moot, then you can claim the moral high ground by trying use mechanistic argument against it because mechanisms are irrelevant, but if isn't moot, then you have to yield that it isn't an ex post facto criminal law. Oh fuck! You're screwed either way! Do you know what that means?

Your argument has catastrophically collapsed due to being based on a logical fallacy.

I know of no government excuse for this. Bullshit. You provided the "excuse" in your post, promptly calling it "specious" because it has the unfortunate characteristic of actually having the facts on it's side.

Your argument is crap. You have no understanding of the legal issues involved. Well that's not entirely true. You know what they are, but you don't want them to be true, so you'll just declare it as being prima facie bankrupt, and hope that no one will call your bluff.

Too bad. I call.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[coaxial]

There was a man tried and convicted due to recorded confessions he made AFTER the statute of limitations had run out. Because of his confessions, the legislator moved to increase the statute of limitations RETROACTIVELY, and therefore, he was arrested, and convicted of the crime he admitted to having committed. So your argument is, "No fair! He got away with committing a crime?" I never understood the argument for a the statue of limitations. What? It's only a crime if you can't avoid indictment for x years?

There's no ex post facto here! He violated the law at the time he committed the crime. Case closed.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[mSparks43]

Ive had the answer to this as my sig for ages:
The only time you ever have 'nothing to hide' is when you also 'have nothing to lose' if you have something you dont want to lose, then you need to keep it from eyes that want to take it from you.

If you have nothing to lose then you have nothing to hide
if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you asked, an anonymous-time-wasting-reader responds!

Q": "Is there a way to respond to this argument that would really register with people in the general public?"

A: Attack!

Seriously, propose it as a hypothetical or continue to risk eliciting a self-prophetic, self-fulfilling, non-serious response that diminishes the quality of the debate.

Remember the whole controversy over this "secret spying" was born out of a simple policy dispute in striking balance between concerns for our safety and concerns of our privacy. These kind of disputes should be handled by the elected officials and the voters who will reward or punish them accordingly. Not the courts!

I'm curious. Why the slashdotters-of-civil-liberties didn't object to these fraudulent lawsuits brought by activist plaintiffs pretending to represent "the public" but, in fact only representing their own agendas? Like it or not, it's still more popular to be vigilant against our enemies than launch baseless attacks on a wartime commander-in-chief. Does such rationality drive you mad to the point that you berate (like this ./ article does) the intellect of those you disagree with? Does it cause you to cheer for activist judges that rob us of our most treasured civil right to govern ourselves?

Would you believe it if I told you that, all past wartime presidents (once such technology was available) have ordered the same wartime surveillance and all the courts that considered the issue maintained that the president had this constitutional authority.

Take my advice and I'll guarantee you'll be taken more seriously. Don't forget to factor in the ever assailing Anonymous-Coward and Karma syndrome this environment tends to create. *unwittingly curses own anonymity*

regards,
kwood

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[mgblst]

The real wtf is that he didn't give any room for error.

It should have been

10 The number 1

20 The number 2

etc.... Oops, wrong site.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, you may be a believer in privacy. Personally, I am not." Really? If that's the case, why do you wear clothes? Half the population know's what's under those clothes. The other half doesn't care. What have you got to hide?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[stewbacca]

Finally a real-world example of the misuse of power. Many other posters in this thread owe you sir. As if I was going to take their hypothetical, baseless predictions of what would happen, when they had every chance to tell us what has already happened. Nice post.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Znork]

"taking away their right to vote"

Of course, in light of the US history with the political idea of "no taxation without representation" I assume that means that felons dont have to pay taxes?

Right?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[stewbacca]

...cough...I've already posted several times on this thread...cough I haven't given my stance on wire-tapping though, because I might be monitoring my slashdot posts...oh, dammit....Get with the 21st century, people.We...errm, They don't just stick to phones anymore...that's so 1980s.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[b4upoo]

Information needs to be free of restraints. We should all be free to study each other in depth. Above all we need to be able to study our government to the same depth that it is allowed to study us. Obviously people who do unpopular things will probably suffer the expected consequences. But those who do wonderful things will gain even more respect. With enough surveillance we may even be able to keep our cars and bicycles from being stolen. Catching a cheating mate will also become rather easy. Already one can spot cars in driveways that should not be present from satellite pictures but unfortunately we don't have those pictures updated every fifteen minutes or so. Perhaps Google can get that done for us soon. I wonder how much less we would all pay in taxes if we had enough freedom to really investigate the finances of others. Our car insurance should drop sharply as well as good surveillance would defeat a lot of nonsense claims.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Russellkhan]

Those are Cheech & Chong references.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Yer Mom]

Not with government. They can just do it anyway, and raise taxes to cover the extra costs. It's not like you can say "these prices are too high, I'll shop elsewhere" unless you emigrate...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If we have guns, we can take the government back when it goes to far

Ah but, there is a flaw in your cunning plan: the government has much bigger and better guns (and bombs) than you, and plenty of blind patriots to use them against you,

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Znork]

"People seem to be getting this nasty assumption that you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise"

The word 'suspected' has in many ways become synonymous with 'guilty'.

Perhaps it would be useful with a firefox plugin for newssites that always replaces 'suspected' with 'innocent', 'by unreputable sources accused of being' or 'random joe off the street to be scapegoated to further a political agenda'.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because there are laws forbidding you to walk without clothes.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[JeremyDuffy]

I also hate the "Nothing to Hide" statement just about as much as the "If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave" (when referring to complaining about the state of America today). Anyway, here's my basic response: "It's a proven fact that there are more strangers than people you know. A large percentage of strangers can't be trusted to handle your private information in an appropriate way. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with keeping information to yourself. In fact, it's quite irresponsible to offer private information to just anyone." My full posting on it is here: http://www.jeremyduffy.com/privacy-security/nothin g-to-hide/

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever get a person bitch and mock you in a public conversation for some facts that were sent to you in a private email that they shouldn't know anything about? And do it several times?

I've had this happen to me several times now, and it's a little bit annoying to note that a person is digging into your private email when they're supposed to respect your privacy and at the least have the courtesy to shut the fsck up about their contents if they do get access to them. At the least one would expect them not to bring issues up about them in public conversation.

I dunno what I should do about this person. Clearly they're following and reading my emails..

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[weber]

I couldn't help but see yet another erosion in the freedoms that made the US an example to the world.

Does "that" refer to "erosion in the freedoms" or just "the freedoms" ?

(sorry, just couldn't help myself ;-) - and I also agree with you)

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[speculatrix]

With enough video surveillance in cities it will be able to be abused and peer into unsuspecting households.
indeed, consider the fuss of that woman whose cat was filmed by Google... tho' in that case I think it was more because she wanted either fame or some of G's money.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[AP31R0N]

Slippery slope fallacy.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Xyrus]

Ha ha! Nobody expects Cardinal Richelieu!

Hmm...just doesn't have the same ring to it.

~X~

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[JonathanR]

He said the next one. Not the current one...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

that's thai stick, I believe, unless you're talking about something else altogether...

Yes yes, it's Thai Stick, but Cheech Marin called it "Tied Stick" in the movie "Cheech and Chong; Up in Smoke". Labrador is a reference to Tommy Chong's mega-joint in the movie. His dog ate his stash, and he had to follow it around with a baggy for days. "You mean we're smokin' dog shit?"

And there goes the joke... it's not really funny in text...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[pegr]

If they can do it to a scumbag, they can do it to you too.
 
I am a scumbag, you insensitive clod!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[XxtraLarGe]

So your argument is, "No fair! He got away with committing a crime?" I never understood the argument for a the statue of limitations. What? It's only a crime if you can't avoid indictment for x years? There's no ex post facto here! He violated the law at the time he committed the crime. Case closed. Either we live under the rule of law, or we don't. If the law states that there's a statute of limitations, then the law must be respected by those who made the law and those who enforce the law. It may indeed be true that a statute of limitations is a bad idea, or that it is too short, but that doesn't mean that we arbitrarily change it simply because we don't like the fact that somebody exploited the law.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[XxtraLarGe]

For one thing, I don't think a citizens' militia would have a hope in hell without the support of the military. I would like to preface this with the fact that I do not advocate the use of force for political or social change. Now that I have my disclaimer out of the way, here are some thoughts on what you have said: There are tens of millions of gun owners in America, many with military training. A citizen's militia could be highly effective without the support of the military. The problem that comes into play is the question if the U.S. could really afford another Civil War. At this stage in the game, countries like China and Russia would probably pounce on the U.S. if there were to be a rebellion. That's why we need to be active in the political arena to limit the power of the government in all areas, so that there never is a need for armed conflict to throw off an oppressive regime. The problem with most "privacy" advocates is that they only advocate privacy for bedroom behaviors, and fail to understand that financial privacy is equally important.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Jesus_666]

If we ever get to where we can't destroy the government by force, then government will drift towards dictatorship. If we have guns, we can take the government back when it goes to far - but without privacy, those guns cannot organize an effective resistance.

And I'm sure the tanks and bombers are gonna be real impressed by your SMGs with ten shot magazines... If you actually want an insurgency to work you'll need many people, enough to win over (part of) the army. So unless you have your entire state (and preferably a couple other ones as well) raise up in arms and demand a complete reworking of the USA or secession you're not going to have even a tiny chance.

Note that there's still the little problem of them just sending UAVs (and cruise missiles where appropriate) so they won't even have to pit citizen against citizen as in a classical civil war.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Gabrill]

It pains me to say this (because I wholeheartedly disagree with the ideas of slavery), but the US Civil War marked the last feasible attempt to counter the US government with force of arms. There will never be another chance. No matter how many registered hand guns, hunting rifles, or even National Guard armories a state's militia may have, it will never be able to stand toe to toe with the federal military forces. The states' counterbalance to the federal government as proscribed in the 2nd Amendment is gone. Yes I do interpret the 2nd amendment as referring to the 50 states individually.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[vuffi_raa]

actually according to current polls- he is in the minority

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Danse]

You must be talking about Clinton and Marc Rich. Among many others, yes.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[i.r.id10t]

Nonsense, no constitutional amendment needed. Look at the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 which modified the GCA of '68. Effective September 30, 96 *anyone* who had been convicted of domestic violence (and a few other things) suddenly became no longer able to legally buy a gun, even if they could legally buy one on Sept. 29th '96. Ex post facto punishment...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[vuffi_raa]

I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's a well-intentioned person who's just a bit too optimistic, and that screws things up for him. Honestly, I don't even believe that. The problem is that I don't see anything that he has done that is "well intentioned. Your statement seems like one that applies better to carter who really was too well intentioned and optimistic and ended up in the end being crushed by the wheels of government and became ineffective. Bush on the other hand has ignored rules, laws and the system of checks and balances because he thinks his ideas are better. Bush is effective- but not effective in leading our country, he has been effective in subverting and changing the rules of our country the way he wants them done.
That is why it is only a small segment of the country that "approves" of him and even smaller a segment that actually likes him.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you refer to it as "smoking pot" just means you're a government agent you feddie.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I never understood the argument for the statue of limitations.

The evidence you might want to use to defend yourself in a trial might no longer be available after a "long" time.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[RAMMS EIN]

Hear, hear! Somebody who actually understands the real reason why the right to bear arms is in the US constitution.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[computational super]

That led to a major landmark supreme court decision about entrapment

Interesting - I've never heard of this. What decision was it? Do you have a link to more information?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[DuckDodgers]

I'm living in Europe where we don't have guns but still we have mostly honest governments that respect, and to some extent even fear, the people

US spending on the military, even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, dwarfs the spending of any other nation. We also have colossal intelligence gathering agencies. Our government is in a much stronger position relative to the average citizens than yours - and our current leaders keep reaching for more power, and encountering just token resistance from most of the populace.

America. Leading the rest of the world in the race to 1984.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[WhiplashII]

I'll respond to you, though others have expressed this sentiment.

This is patently not true. Regan was shot. Lincoln was killed.

You don't have to destroy the government to keep it honest. You have to be a background threat.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that anyone shooting the president is sane - see the previous two attempts. But that is the price we (and they) pay to live in a democracy. Eternal vigilance, and hopefully nothing ever actually requires it.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[ProfBooty]

the number of gun owners in the US is huge about 59 million according to wikipedia. If even 5% resisted, you would have the army/marines outnumbered more than 3 to 1. A signigifant portion of those owners are former military as well.

It would be hard for the military to pacify that many of their own people. The political decision to destroy our own cities wouldn't go over particurlary well.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[db32]

No...it is a very worthless argument that will fall on deaf ears every time. I have tried to explain this argument...I have given historical references for exact duplications of this problem...anyone who will say "I have nothing to hide" will simply not understand this reasoning. That the government could ever possibly do something wrong does not agree with the statement of "I have nothing to hide" let alone "The government could change their mind about what is wrong". The entire statement of "I have nothing to hide" implies an absolute trust of the watcher, and if you have that absolute trust you would not distrust their decisions of what is right and wrong, and more often than not you will honestly believe that nothing YOU do would ever be considered wrong by your trusted watcher government. Unfortunately thats how you wind up in a mass grave or gulag somewhere wondering what went wrong.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[WhiplashII]

This is true, if we don't have privacy. Otherwise, you're goiong to have to explain why the pentagon was hit, why we are missing two towers in Manhatan, and why except for chance we would have lost Congress.

If we have privacy, we don't need to attack the military (its pointless to do that anyway). And if there was an uprising against a real Hitler-type dictator, most of the military would probably refuse to do anything anyway.

And please remember that those UAVs are not sentient or something. A citizen still controls them.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, this is the only acceptable reason for privacy.

What about simple, common, courtesy? Or do you think that it's "acceptable" to snoop on whatever your fellows are doing, any time that you [or any one else] feels like it? [think bathrooms, bedrooms, medical situations, &c., for starters.]

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[PopeRatzo]

Would you believe it if I told you that, all past wartime presidents (once such technology was available) have ordered the same wartime surveillance and all the courts that considered the issue maintained that the president had this constitutional authority.

No, in fact, I would not believe you because it's not true.

While other presidents, in time of war, have used extraordinary means to obtain and use intelligence on the enemy, there have always been the basic checks and balances of the other branches of government. During the Civil War and World Wars I and II, the courts always had a role to play in either prior approval of the probable cause or by reviewing the reasons after the surveillance took place. Never has a president, before George W. Bush, asserted the power to do secret surveillance without any involvement of the judiciary.

The funny part, is that whenever the judiciary has been involved in a case of secret surveillance, they have approved it unless it was an egregious violation of the Constitution. The only possible reason that the Bush Administration does not want any judicial involvement or even records kept of the secret wiretapping is that there is something seriously wrong about what they're doing.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the number of murders in the US compared to those of other western nations really shows the safety of gun-carrying...
Moron.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, that's cute but I fear a little delusional.
Hunting rifles aren't very effective against an Abrams Tank. I hate to break it to you, but we're long since past the point of being able to "take back the government".

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Reziac]

If it gets that far... well, remember the military is made up of citizens too, ALL of whom have been civilians in the past. And soldiers ARE capable of deciding not to follow illegal orders. Yeah, it's hard for any such group to buck orders, but if we citizens support the military so the average grunt views civilians as his FRIENDS, not as The Enemy -- he's a lot more likely to refuse to fire on a citizen militia.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[rhakka]

If the government cannot have privacy, then it too cannot wage war effectively. what you are fearing is a power differential caused by one side or the other having DIFFERRING privacy rights.

You could "keep it honest" either by both (government and people) having privacy... hmmm, doesn't seem to keep things all that equal these days, does it.... or NEITHER having privacy.

Frankly, I think the latter is the only possibility, looking ahead at the future in my own lifetime. With storage, WiFI coverage, and technological progress shrinking technology and making it more and more powerful, a vast number of people who want to be could be walking, talking, broadcasting video/audio feeds to the rest of the world, with a practically eternal memory of every moment ever seen by such human eyes...

Big Brother might be watching. But there are a lot more of us, and we have a lot more eyes. As long as we can watch back, I'm not at all afraid of big brother.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[kwerle]

That's some really interesting information - I am surprised that the federal rules are as harsh as they are. It looks like the moral is to be charge by state enforcement and not federal.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/moscone/c hap3.htm

http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html

So in california, smoking a joint in your home (first offense): misdemeanor.
Anything having to do with selling: felony.

That doesn't surprise me.

Looks like it's about the same in Kansas (random sample):
http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/state_penalties/NOR ML_KS_State_Penalties.pdf

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Reziac]

That's an excellent point. Laws need to be written so they work not only when the Good Guys are in power, but ALSO WHEN THE BAD GUYS ARE IN POWER.

Because in an elected system, sooner or later, the Opposition (whichever side you feel that is) gets a turn in the driver's seat. Do you really want THEM deciding HOW to apply a law that has potential for abuse?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[j-pimp]

(I don't see an issue for guns, when used as 'tools' - I can well understand why a hunter might need a rifle or a shotgun. However I remain unconvinced that a pistol, or any form of automatic weapon has any reason other than showing off, and killing other people)

Sometimes you need to kill someone. Self preservation comes to mind. Its not something I hope to do, but I don't hope to use a fire extinguisher either. Some people are mentally incapable of owning a gun. However, innocence should be presumed until proven guilty. So as long as a majority of gun owners do not commit murder, I'm willing to accept the risk of someone killing me with a legally obtained registered firearm, if it means that my neighbors will all be able to buy a gun when then learn that there is a killer on the loose in their neighborhood.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[NekSnappa]

As Uncle Tupelo stated in 1992 in the song "Criminals" ::Criminals::

We've got two kinds here
Those that bleed the blood
And those that work to will it
Can't believe the big screen
There's no justice in the hall
We're all criminals waiting to be called

We've got shackles to keep the laws
Made by men who bought and sold themselves
With not a prayer to keep their powers at bay
They want us kinder and gentler at their feet

They say don't step off the sidewalk
And don't cross over the line
But we'll serve time at night
When the light begins to dim
When the smoke seems to clear
You can say what you want
We're all criminals here

How many times will the teeth bite the tongue
Looking for salvage in the damage that's done?
I searched for you every place I thought I knew
Still we're criminals looking for something to do

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[BgJonson79]

What's to stop the government from removing the power of the people to remove them?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[BgJonson79]

Also, guns don't do anything without a person squeezing the trigger. When a person DOES squeeze the trigger, it simply projects the bullet out the barrel. The vast majority of bullets pierce paper. If they're supposed to kill people, can't target shooters sue manufacturers for product defects?

I'd also argue that guns (and the people behind them) did their damnedest to create the oldest, currently-function democracy around... the USA.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Skreems]

What? It's only a crime if you can't avoid indictment for x years?

Well, first, it's presumably more and more difficult to prove as the years go by. So this prevents people witch-hunting on stuff that they have little chance of getting right.

But in a larger sense, it relies on a belief in the innate goodness of human nature. If you commit a murder and get away with it for 20 years, there's a good chance you regret it. There's a further good chance that you've lived for 20 years in fear of discovery. And if you haven't changed, well, there's probably more recent things that you've done and can be prosecuted for. But hunting down an 80 year old grandpa for a petty theft he committed when he was 19 just doesn't make sense. You're no longer punishing the person who committed the crime.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Lockejaw]

However I remain unconvinced that a pistol, or any form of automatic weapon has any reason other than showing off, and killing other people

How about this?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Iz in ur class, konfuzin my st00nts

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[avatar4d]

Around the corner? I'd say it is already here, and instead of witches or communists, the target is terrorists and others deemed "anti-American" or "unpatriotic"

"Deemed"? Terrorists are against the United States. They aren't just "considered" to be against something. They not only have publicly spoken out against the United States, but have actually attacked via bombs, planes, etc. Comparing terrorists to the witch trials is not even close to being similar. Communism is not exactly a great analogy either, but is a closer than witches. Not only that, it is also understandable to be against. Do you not like your rights? I would suggest moving to a communist country then.

I am not saying I am for Big Brother; quite the opposite actually, but what you said is complete rhetoric. I am sure I will be modded down for speaking out against the anti-US or at least anti-Bush propaganda, but my point is valid.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[speculatrix]

3/ is question 1 proportional to question 2?
:-)

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[lordmage]

You make sense.. however let me talk about after the US Civil War.

The US Civil War basically decided that the Federal Government can run over States rights and forget the constitution. The War itself was against the Constitution if you realize that States had the right to ceed from the US.

What does this mean? It means that the Pot grown in California, used in California, and never went outside the jurisdiction of California is under Fed Rule if they so want it to be. It means that the US Federal government can regulate Abortion, Drugs, and even Baseball.

The Civil war stopped slavery and kept the US together but effectively destroyed the states rights version of the Constitution.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nasch]

I wouldn't be so sure. Our military doesn't seem to be having an easy time with the insurgencies we're already fighting. What makes you think they'll fare better fighting within the US, against US citizens, whom (I hope) its members really don't want to be killing?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Just like people who smoke can no longer smoke in a restaraunt. That's what I said.

That would be a perfectly fine analogy if people who didn't smoke in restaurants before the ban were given an exception to the ban.

Which is what I implied. Smokers are being punished for not even committing a crime.

Smokers aren't being singled out for a ban on smoking. If Alice is a smoker, she is not allowed to smoke in restaurants. If Bob is not a smoker, he still is not allowed to smoke in restaurants. If rape started out legal, then you'd have to describe a ban on rape as "punishing rapists for not even commiting a crime."

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Sciros]

The next time a witch bombs a bus full of people coming home from work in the afternoon, I'll understand where you're coming from on that comment.

HOW ON EARTH was your comment modded "insightful"

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[The Spoonman]

Suppose they declare protesting to be a terrorist act?

Isn't this already the case under some interpretations of the "PATRIOT" act? (Considering the act's a complete violation of everything this country is supposed to be founded on, the quotes are justified.)

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[laxpeter]

The only possible reason that the Bush Administration does not want any judicial involvement or even records kept of the secret wiretapping is that there is something seriously wrong about what they're doing.

Because if they had nothing to hide, they wouldn't mind the Judicial branch watching, right?
Perhaps TFA has something to say about this line of reasoning...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[lessermilton]

Pshaw! 1920 and the US? You're about 500 years too late... Ever since 1492 the "Americans" have rounded up and driven law abiding citizens of the land into concentration, I mean internment-style camps.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, he's only let a couple hundred Iraqis who've risked their lives to help Americans find refuge in the land of the free. Why would a man who doesn't trust half his own party trust a filthy Iraqi?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[The Spoonman]

But as a small-d democrat, I also understand that my preference is overridden by the huge majority of Americans who want weed and other drugs to remain criminalized

It's not a HUGE majority anymore. Most figures I've seen recently (outside of the conservative media, of course) put it close to the 50% mark in favor of legalizing in some manner (most are for medical, which is a start). Some put it a point or two over, some a few points under, but it's not a huge majority anymore. More likely a slim majority at best. Once we get "Gee, Dubya out" (assuming he doesn't declare himself king, which seems a very good possibility) and we don't get another 'Pub president, we stand a chance of that changing. 12 states and DC have currently decriminalized medical marijuana (I'm pushin' for NYS to be lucky number 13, it's very very close!), and as that number grows, there's a lot more potential to force the federal government to have to follow suit. The only way to combat the absurd lies about the "evil weed" is with the truth. Join Norml, spread the word.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[janrinok]

Well said. As a fellow European I just have to agree!

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[downhole]

Based on what I have heard about it, I do support it. The threat of terrorism is ridiculed a lot around here, but the fact is that there are terrorists out there who do want to kill us. You can't not know this if you pay any attention at all to the news. If you want the Government to have a shot at stopping them, they need to have some surveillance/intelligence abilities.

Most of the outrage here strikes me as political posturing. I.E. whenever a Republican is in power, Democrats argue against everything he does with any halfway plausible argument they can think up, but you never hear them saying what exactly you want him to do, and then approving when he does that, complete with all of the unintended consequences that result. And of course, Republicans do the same thing when a Democrat is in power. Just more of the same. A terrorist attack happens, and it's "Why didn't you stop it, you moron!". Then they increase surveillance and such to try to stop the next one, and it's "Don't you dare invade my privacy, you bastard!"

If you want to convince me that you really do oppose any kind of similar surveillance on ideological grounds (not just knee-jerk Bush bashing), what I want to hear you say is that when another terrorist attack happens, or even in regard to 9/11, that the Government can't be expected to stop it. That you prefer that they be limited in their ability to stop it if it means that you get more privacy. That you look at the blood of dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of your countrymen dead and say that it's too bad, but you'd rather have more privacy. These are the consequences of taking such positions in the real world. It's easy to argue for such things on an internet board, but it's much harder to implement them in the real world and deal with the consequences that you didn't think about or take seriously.

Don't mistake the above for a strawman attack - personally, I'd like to see more of that attitude. I'd rather see more people take responsibility for keeping themselves safe then cry to the Government for more protection every time some people get killed. I'd rather see us hitting terrorists and their support structure overseas then trying to crack down on everything and everyone here at home. But I'm sure some of you posting here - you know who you are - have argued for stop the terrorist attacks + don't send the military to attack anyone + don't spy on me. I'd love to live in the perfect fantasy world where that was possible, but it just doesn't exist. There really are people out there who want to hurt you, and if you don't stop them one way or another, they will succeed eventually.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Myopic]

Like you, brother, I have hope for legalization. But the numbers don't support us. The essential question is this:

Do you support the full legalization of marijuana for recreational use?

Any other question is a smokescreen, a border case, a slippery slope. Sure, maybe legalize for medical patients. Sure, maybe decriminalize it so it's just a civil fine. But none of those things are legalization.

When the question is posed that way, 80% of people support continued criminalization. Or, that's the number I heard, if it's lower, then that's great.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[discogravy]

Stop giving the current administration ideas....

wait

karl rove, is that you?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nasch]

I don't understand what you're saying about the mechanism, and mechanistic grounds, etc. Maybe you could explain that. But I do understand this part:

Your argument makes just as much sense as: "Your newly passed a law saying I have to be licensed to practice medicine is infringing on my right to free expression, and I used to do that, so this is ex post facto!" That is different because that law would say "everyone must be licensed in order to practice medicine". This obviously has nothing to do the commission of any crime, which is what we're talking about here.

Finally, would it be constitutional to pass a law that says convicted felons can never be released from prison? If not, how is that different from banning them from owning guns after the fact, except in degree? If so, what country do you live in? ;-)

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nasch]

Just because the ostensible target of the investigations (terrorists) is a legitimate target does not mean the investigations are not a witch hunt.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Sciros]

The investigations... perhaps. I certainly see a need for hunting down suspected terrorists, but I do understand that many of those who are tasked with the job are not fit for it. Irresponsibility certainly has no place when you are talking about making decisions and taking actions that will ruin people's lives.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[MoronBob]

"I'm living in Europe where we don't have guns but still we have mostly honest governments that respect, and to some extent even fear, the people." I'm going to take a wait and see attitude on that comment. If history is any gage more than once the "Honest Governments" in Europe have managed to do things like kill 6 million Jews among other things. "Guns kill people, they don't create democracies. One should think you people (Americans) had learned that by now..." Oh really? A Question for you. What did the stupid Americans and the English use to rid Europe of the Nazi's? Flowers? Love? Kisses? "A government should fear the people, not because the people might kill them, but because the people have the power to remove them. If the government has to be removed with guns you already live in a dictatorship." Why didn't the Jew in Germany remove the Nazi Government? Why didn't the rest of you do it without guns? When the settlers came to America it was to leave European tyranny and oppression. The European governments did not let go easy. Our ancestors had to use guns to break free. You call us stupid and you don't seem to have the foggiest clue of European or American history. I am watching history repeat itself as Sharia law continues to gain ground in Europe. Judging by your attitude towards us stupid Americans the lives we lost in world war fighting in Europe were a complete waste. I will never let my sons and grandsons shed their blood to remove fascism in Europe. This time I think we should just sit back and watch you use your people power to remove the next "Honest Government" that starts killing homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Mentally and Physically Handicapped. Best of luck to you sir. Stupid American

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[ShieldW0lf]

I live in Canada. It is cold.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[MoronBob]

"I don't think a citizens' militia would have a hope in hell without the support of the military." Well if our military uses the same PC rules of engagement against its own people that it is using to fight the enemy in Iraq then I would have to disagree with you there. I really get a kick out of those that say you have a right to privacy for everything except guns and money. If I am not shooting anyone why does the government need to know about my guns? Why does the tax system need to know how much money I have? Why cant I just pay a tax on those things I buy? Why does the government need to know my race?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[sjames]

Of course, a huge flaw is that the only way to challenge a law is to break it and take it to the Supreme Court. Of course if the court doesn't agree or won't even hear it, you're screwed.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[sjames]

Yeah, just look at how they rolled right over those Iraqis who thought they could make a stand with a few guns and improvised weapons!

Many weapons in the U.S. arsenal will never be used on U.S. soil simply because it's hard for a government to flatten it's own cities and not look bad.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[public image]

Did you actually read Solove's essay? Bruce Schneier, author of the Wired article, similarly challenges the "Got nothing to hide" argument on its implicit assumptions, but, unlike Solove, asserts that "Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect".

While this kind of declaration is fine when its inked on 200 year old vellum, it simply cannot be the basis of a sound argument because it is an assumption in itself and contains the same implicit assumption as the 'Nothing to Hide' argument. Solove exposes the fact that we only think we know what 'Privacy' means.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Gabrill]

You can't seriously be fantasizing that the insurgency in Iraq would be able to defend any one province to insure the "security of a free state"?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[mrscorpio]

Notice I specifically mention "concealed carry" laws, not "owning a gun" in general. There is a distinct difference.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Littleman_TAMU]

"Guns kill people, they don't create democracies."

They gave us the ability to create ours (USA). Oh, and guns don't kill people, that's the person holding the gun and pulling the trigger or the person who fails to teach their children about gun safety.

"A government should fear the people, not because the people might kill them, but because the people have the power to remove them. If the government has to be removed with guns you already live in a dictatorship."

You just made the argument for gun ownership. Governments should fear us for our right to remove them. If you don't have guns and it comes to the point where having them is the only way to remove the government, then you're screwed. It's true that, at that point, you probably are in a dictatorship, but that's when you need guns most. Giving them up early on, just because you're not in a dictatorship now makes no sense. As the saying goes, "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -- Ed Howdershelt

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[sjames]

are we willing to allow the government to use technology effectively to do the stuff it's already legitimately tasked with doing?

And my answer is a resounding NO!

It's way too easy to inconspicuously go fishing in a database without a warrant or even probable cause "off the record". It's hard to do that with paper records. If I was absolutely certain we could eliminate 100% of law enforcement corruption including (especially) in the DOJ, then sure, the efficient way would be nice.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[sjames]

The argument is not crap. If we accept your argument, all we have to do is redefine any punishment as a public safety measure and VIOLA!

The first 5 years are your punishment, the rest of your life in prison is simply a measure to seperate you from the general population for public safety.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[TheCarp]

I would beg to differ. I was merely pointing out that this happened, and that I see it as abuse by the government. It has been pointed out that Dr King was, in some fashion a criminal. I would ask then whether we believe that merely being a criminal of some sort, makes this invasion of his private phone conversations somehow ok?

I think that this is an example of abuse, based on where I draw the line of what appropriate use of power is. The thing is that when it comes to the law, we have to ask two questions. The first is what should be prohibited, the second is the question of what powers are appropriate to be used to find, and prosecute such crimes.

Its true, that accomplishments and identity do not make this abuse. However, they do inform us. Because we all know who Dr King was, by invoking his name, we establish the context in which this invasion of privacy happened. If I said "Jack Papaidunno" had his conversations wiretapped, then I would have to explain what he was known for, and why the powers that were wanted to investigate him.

When I invoke the name of Dr King, one of the few examples that I have and can invoke off the top of my head, much of that work is done already.

How about if I were to add that one of the stated goals of the wiretapping was to find information which could be used to discredit Dr King? (apparently it was said that the only dirt that they ever dug up was that he liked to tell dirty jokes)

In my view, it was a fine example of why the watchers can't be trusted without, at least, oversight.

-Steve

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[h2_plus_O]

Are you suggesting that if inquiries into the data were accountable, (say, 'let me know who's looked at these records in the last n months') there might be less abuse? That technology exists, you know. :-)

I appreciate the value of healthy mistrust as a means to defend liberty, but it's an expensive way to go and I don't trust that it really truly defends our liberty. I'm just sayin'.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Lavene]

Your post is wrong on so many levels... You talk about military power, not the pea shooters most trigger happy Americans carry around because they have the right to do so. A government turning tyrannic will not do so without support from the military and a 357 in the hands of an amateur civilian will be no match.

As for the people immigrating to America from Europe did so in an effort to get out of poverty not to escape some oppressing regime. They did not have to blast their way out and many of them just ended up still living in poverty, just on the other side of the world.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorists are against the United States.

No, terrorists are who they say are terrorists. If they point their finger at you and call you a terrorists you can say bye-bye to your constitutional rights and due process. A witch hunt is exactly what it is.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, criminal who remain determined to commit crime even after going through that consideration, will kill to rob corpse instead of mugging or kill the driver to steal a car, kill everyone asleep in the house to rob a house... etc.

If someone is that determined to commit a crime that they're going to go on a killing rampage, wouldn't it be nice if there was someone around that could stop them?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Big Hairy Goofy Guy]

What about those things you've agreed to keep concealed?

So someone says "I have nothing to hide" and you respond "Tell me your passwords to all your subscription websites." Asking this precisely because they've no doubt clicked "I agree" on a some agreement with a "keep your password secret" clause. Or ask them for their bank name, account number, and ATM card PIN.

You can assure them that you won't use the information at all, you'll just post it on slashdot.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[jimicus]

A citizen's militia doesn't need the support of the military. What it needs is a free press and a government which can't easily stop being democratic overnight.

Think what wonderful headlines a military standoff between a citizen's militia and the country's army would make. Exactly the kind of headlines politicians don't want.

My only concern is that these days, many governments have become very effective at manipulating a supposedly "free" press. Had you asked me prior to September 11 (in the US) or July 7 (in the UK), I'd have said there is no way you can spin "citizens mown down by the Army" into something which makes the government look good. Today, I'm not so sure.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

> No, in fact, I would not believe you because it's not true.

That's fine. You're free to believe whatever you want to. I respect your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that every court that has ruled on this matter has held that the president does have the inherent constitutional authority to engage in warrantless surveillance, especially during wartime. Yes, there's been some rulings against TSP and some close split decisions of late, but we've yet to bear witness to any serious or legally persuasive argument from the critics.

> Never has a president, before George W. Bush, asserted the power to do secret surveillance without any involvement of the judiciary.

Washington spied on the British, Nixon authorized electronic surveillance without court approval, and Lincoln even defied a court ordered decision.

> The only possible reason that the Bush Administration does not want any judicial involvement or even records kept of the secret wiretapping is that there is something seriously wrong about what they're doing.

Actually there's nothing wrong with the Administration refusing to compromise on it's inherent executive authority. Power struggles like these are often born over political disputes where one branch of government tries to strongarm the other. While suspicion of wrongdoing might make for great political theater it doesn't make a very persuasive legal argument.

regards,
anonymous-kwood

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[arkhan_jg]

This is plainly some cunning terrorist code system - off to gitmo with you if you won't tell us what secret information he's concealing!
And you swore - that's blasphemous heresy, and disrespect of the one true God is also an unamerican terrorist activity.

Oh, don't worry about that babies thing, as long as they're democrat babies.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[flewp]

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't exactly clear, but when I said terrorists and others deemed anti-American or unpatriotic, I wasn't saying that terrorists are being falsely accused of being as such. They're clearly two different groups. There are the terrorists, and then there is those who are deemed by the state to be unpatriotic and un-American. However, there is also a number of people deemed terrorists by the state, despite having no actual connection to terrorism. They are deemed terrorists simply for being anti-American. Being anti-American does not equate to being a terrorist. The bit about the communists was in relation to the McCarthyism rampant in the 40's and 50's. A very good analogy if you ask me, as it's basically the exact same thing. Only this time, instead of going after communists, they're going after people who are considered to be terrorists simply because they have a different political ideology, regardless if they have actually ever committed or even supported terrorist acts or tactics.

Modded down for anti-Bush propaganda? Are you implying my post was pro-Bush (or more generally and accurately, the current administration as a whole)? Quite the opposite. Oh, and I do indeed quite enjoy my rights. This is precisely why I'm against the current administration and government as a whole. They're trying to strip our rights away - which is exactly what makes it so ironic. Those of us against the Patriot Act and other measures are the ones who are claimed to be unpatriotic, when in reality we're the ones who are for the very things our country was founded on.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

99% of pubescent and adult males masterbate.
But nobody wants to admit it.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[plague3106]

The law also said he could no longer be prosecuted. The reason we have a statue of limitations is to prevent a government compiling a list of laws you've violated, and then if you become annoying to them, suddenly charging you out of no where. In other words, its better to let someone "get away" with some crimes than to give the government the power to toss anyone in jail at anytime.

The ex post facto here is revising the statue of limitations so that its now longer, and saying that his confession after the OLD statue but before the law extending it is still valid. THAT'S the ex post facto.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nasch]

I'm not fantasizing anything. I'm saying that the insurgency in Iraq has gone up against the US military and prevented them from winning. In other words, the US military is unable to achieve victory in arms against the Iraqi insurgency. I don't see why an insurgency in the US would be less effective. You seemed to imply that the US military would be able to crush any domestic uprising, but I don't believe that's the case. The best they could do would be to produce a long, bloody civil war, which would probably get harder and harder for the military to fight as time went on, and easier and easier for the resistance. Assuming of course there is sufficient resistance. Keep in mind also that the Civil War wasn't a clash between an organized military and an insurgency like we see in Iraq. It was geographically distinct regions with their own armed forces in "conventional" combat, which is pretty much what our armed forces are still designed for. That would probably not be the case again.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[MoronBob]

My post is wrong? Just hearing your views makes me glad I live in the US. Its obvious Europeans are bitter about needing our help to end two world wars began by your people. Its also obvious that your a product of European PC propaganda. Some immigrants did immigrate to the colonies to escape but the overwhelming majority left for religious freedom the puritans being the first. Some of those puritans did starve due to their inability to get crops growing quickly enough. However your view that those who immigrated to America were still living in poverty is just laughable. The only economic bondage they were facing came from taxation from oppressive regimes in Europe. This taxation was the reason for the American Revolution which I am sorry to inform you was fought and won with guns. Now please answer my question. Why did you not use your gun-less people power to save your selves from the Nazi's? What does the propaganda say about that?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Lavene]

I'm glad you live in the US too ;)

And by the way (although that is a different discussion) quite a few think you fucked up more that you helped in Europe during ww2. Who took Berlin? The Russians did. You just bombed the crap out of the civilians, as you have a habit of doing around the world. Still many Europeans hate you just as much as todays Iraqis does. Especially the dead ones. But quite frankly I don't give a rats ass about what Americans did 60 years ago... the millions you have killed in various wars since then kinda cancels things out.

I don't expect you to agree, or even know what I'm talking about, of course.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[MoronBob]

Oh the Germans didn't bomb civilians? London? The problem for you is that the brainwashing you grew up under is not universal. You can believe that the Nazi's were good and the US was bad and that exterminating 6 million Jews was a good thing but that does not make it true. On the point of America getting involved in wars I agree with you. I don't believe there are any people living in Europe or the Middle East that are worth American Blood. Your blind hatred for the US is your problem. We keep hearing about how Europe is Utopia and the US is the worst country on earth. Tell me then why do we have masses of people from countries around the world trying to get into the US? They want to come here because we suck? The fact of the matter is that the only thing Europeans agree on is that you all hate the US. Boo Hoo. I will just have to console myself living in my huge American house and driving around in my huge gas guzzling SUV going to fast food restaurants and getting fatter every day. On the weekend I will go to a Nascar Race and follow that up with an ATV ride with my kids in the desert and blaze a new trail that will be visible for generations. Hell maybe I'll even change my oil and dump it on the ground or in a mountain stream. You can walk to the train and go have an environmentally friendly organically grown lunch with one of your pompous arrogant condescending friends and talk about how Euronators are saving the earth for the terrorists to enjoy. Then you can go home to your 350 square green apartment and sleep on your cot with your 6 cats and wake up to church bells playing Mozart.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[StewedSquirrel]

The prosecutor asks:

"Where were you on the night of July 12?"

You say:

"Uhm? July 12, 1955? I have no idea, probably out playing poker with friends, since it was a Tuesday."

He asks:

"Can your friends corroborate this?"

You say:

"Uhm. Bob died 22 years ago, Bill is in a hospital with altzimers and Dan is almost 100 years old."

He says:

"aha! The victim's psychologist said that she recalled (after repeated hypnotherapy sessions) that you molested her that evening at 8pm. You have no alibi! Do you want a plea bargain? Otherwise your ass will rot in jail!! You sick kiddy fiddler! Muhahaha! Have you stopped molesting children, yes or no? ANSWER ME!! DONT AVOID THE QUESTION!!! YES OR NO!!!"

Seriously, the statute of limitations was 5-10 years on most crimes for a REASON. Since 1992, the statute of limitations on most felonies has increased from a half a decade to a lifetime, and sometimes indefinitely. A recent study showed that 25% of jury trials resulted in wrongful conviction and 37% of judge trials resulted in the same. On the other hand, according to the study, only 12% of guilty persons were acquitted.

If that doesn't scare you... shit...

Stewed

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

not to be pedantic, but while the insurgency in Iraq prevents the US military from a *decisive* victory, there are a few key points that might be significant:

* in any given particular engagement, a group that goes up against US armed forces tends to lose. big. pretty well regardless of numbers
* there is a distinct difference between being an 'insurgent' and successfully resisting to effect change
* the above is especially true if you're trying to abide by principles (which i'd think we'd presume the 'good guys' would), and your foe doesn't abide by those same rules, which leads me to:
* in a situation like this, i would think we'd be presuming that the gov't and military wouldn't necessarily abide by the rules of engagement, if it's already become a despotism
* let's face it, the US gov't has some scary-ass shit that they could use if all qualms were removed

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[sjames]

I do know about that technology. I also know that government agencies routinely receive a D- in computer security. The FBI and others employ people specifically for their skills in bypassing computer, phone, and network security covertly. Putting all of that together, I think I'd still rather the information just not be gathered in one place at all.

I'm fairly convinced that society so far has remained more or less free mostly because of the extraordinary effort all of the data gathering would have required (until recently).

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[RockModeNick]

The reason for statues is that as people age, they become different people. Most people that commit violent street crime at 25 will have a workaday job and family to support at 35. Not some, the vast majority. Imprisoning them at that point does nothing to change how they will act(they've already done so themselves) and removes a pillar of support from a family, likely dropping them below poverty line and greatly increasing the chances any children growing up in that family will end up as criminals behind bars themselves. Certain offenses certainly require a statute of limitations, or laws will corrode and degrade society, rather than protect it.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[fyngyrz]

It would be hard for the military to pacify that many of their own people. The political decision to destroy our own cities wouldn't go over particurlary well.

In response, I would simply call your attention to the organized and obedient shooting of the students at Kent State by national guard troops, as well as the police action against the Chicago students. Note the organized collection of firearms from New Orleans residents, rendering them less able to defend their property. All these actions went just fine from the point of view of the government.

Subsequently, I would simply observe that military personnel are trained to obey, first, foremost, and right bloody now. Regular military even more so than the guard. Technically, they're not required to obey an illegal order, but practically speaking, that is no way to remain out of the brig, waiting for a trial (that may never come, for that matter.)

No doubt it would cause a great deal of distress, but when troops perceive a group of people as a threat, and they're told they are permitted to fire on them, I suspect they'll do it without much fiddling about, especially if said group is firing on them.

There's another factor, too. No doubt the government would find it expedient to take troops from New York, for instance, and deploy them in Tennessee. No brothers firing on brothers going on in that case. These people talk different, live different, and shoot back; are you thinking that because the reason to be there is immoral or unethical, they won't do what they're told? If that's the case, how do you explain Iraq?

Orwell wrote "The purpose of power, is power." I believe he had his finger right on the button. A soldier with a weapon is a power-wielding individual. Give them the opportunity to do so, and I think they'll take it, by and large. There will be some exceptions, certainly; but I sure wouldn't walk up to a military post set up on main street with the assumption that no one would fire on me just because I am (probably) a fellow citizen.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[fyngyrz]

Tank crews have to come out sometime. When they do, a relatively simple fews rounds from a rifle will end the tank threat immediately. It takes a trained crew to operate a tank; kill the crews, and you don't need to kill the tank. Of course there are ways to deal with tanks themselves as well; bridges can fall out from under them, for instance, tunnels can collapse on them, barrels can have cement poured down them, mustard gas (and other creative kitchen concoctions) can be lofted into the nightly encampment, etc. Tanks - frankly - are most useful against other tanks. Not tens or hundreds of millions of really pissed off individuals.

Both sides - the people saying "the army won't fight" and the people saying "the army will dominate" are completely wrong. It'd be a bloody, long-term and complicated mess. Don't go there. Get laws enacted that make it a punishable crime to make an unconstitutional law, invalidate the current crop of unconstitutional laws, bring an understanding of personal liberty back to the country, stop supporting expeditionary wars of aggression, and teach your children history for crying out loud. The most ridiculous remarks I see here are most often born of ignorance of history.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[fyngyrz]

Big Brother might be watching. But there are a lot more of us, and we have a lot more eyes. As long as we can watch back, I'm not at all afraid of big brother.

I think a little time incarcerated would take care of your error here. You have every reason to be afraid of big brother. The ability to harm you extensively is alive and well. Worse, so is the will.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[fyngyrz]

Now... there is a nasty and inconvenience confluence of facts for the IRS if I ever saw one.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[fyngyrz]

The only possible ex post facto situation would be if you already were a felon and a legal gun owner, and then they passed the law saying "no felons can own guns."

That's exactly what they did. They took away the right to own guns from people who were sentenced prior to the creation of the law, thereby increasing the punishment meted out to them. See #3 of the ex post facto definition. I'll emphasize some of the verbiage:

3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

Got that now? Every law. That would include "licensing" laws, criminal laws, and municipal laws. Every law, irrelevant of venue, intent, or scope. The question is, did it increase the punishment? The answer, clearly and unequivocally, is yes. The "felons may not own weapons" law increases the punishment for all felonies, in other words such a law is annexed to all crimes which are felonies; if they apply it to felons who were convicted prior to the implementation of that law — and they did exactly that, and that is what I was referring to, and it is also exactly what I said — they increase the punishment on those people ex post facto. There is no way around this.

As for my argument, it survived your post just fine. Better luck next time.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Lavene]

I'm of course not saying that the Nazis was good. I'm saying that the US did not play a huge part in getting rid of them. The Japanese... yes. The Germans... not really. Actually the German war machine wasn't the smartest lot around either. They believed they were invincible (just like the US) and that was their downfall. In a display of an amazingly lack of history knowledge they invaded Russia expecting it to fold just like the rest of Europe. So the entire German army had pretty much committed suicide by picking a fight with Stalin well before the Americans stopped by.

But hey... if it makes you happy believing that you won ww2 be my guest. Just like you are winning in Iraq. What do I know? I'm just a freedom hating (unarmed) terrorist from an oppressed country in northern Europe.

Oh... I only have four cats...

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[rhakka]

theory in progress warning...

as it stands now, agreed... there is currently a power differential in the ability to be informed and connected. So they can isolate me and do whatever they like. Because, in part, I have privacy from everyone else but not them. That's no good at all.

But what if I didn't have any privacy at all... and neither did anyone else? Or at the very least, what if we can all easily choose to record and/or broadcast anything we see or hear at any time? How would "big brother" have any advantage there that is not outweighed by the collective strength of the people?

In that world.. not this one... but in that one (which I would argue is coming as technology gets cheaper, smaller, wireless and more prevalent), there can be no big brother. It is only the differential in power that makes them more power, relatively, than us the people directly. They have organization and information. We don't... yet.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Jesus_666]

This is true, if we don't have privacy. Otherwise, you're goiong to have to explain why the pentagon was hit, why we are missing two towers in Manhatan, and why except for chance we would have lost Congress.

Because, even though you did have government agencies collecting data about people, certain people were unable to actually react to a threat that they already knew about. Privacy is not a binary decision.


If we have privacy, we don't need to attack the military (its pointless to do that anyway). And if there was an uprising against a real Hitler-type dictator, most of the military would probably refuse to do anything anyway.

Because there's nothing the government can do wrong except violating your privacy? Sorry, but there might be a need to take out the government without them having spied on you beforehand. A government can become dangerous without being obviously fascist.


And please remember that those UAVs are not sentient or something. A citizen still controls them.

But it's a lot easier to kill a little man you see on a screen than to kill someone right in front of you. You don't even need to see his mangled corpse afterwards; some of those UAVs are single-use.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Inoyun]

Laws are changed all the time when certain people don't like what they see or are exposed to.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Gabrill]

the US military is unable to achieve victory in arms against the Iraqi insurgency

You are confused. Any time the Iraqi insurgency has taken "arms" against anything that resembles the US armed forces, they've either blown themselves up, or been pasted to the wall.

We HAVE won the "WAR". The old Iraqi government and power stucture has been annihilated. What we have failed at is either fully occupying the country and installing a US run government, or turning them loose to lick their wounds and regrow into a stronger (hopefully more sensible) independent nation. The insurgency's goal seams to be to provide proof that resistance exists, well fine. If they never win the support of a region, then all they ever amount to is a parasitic disease that aims to destroy it's host, unable to ever grow into a self sufficient entity. If they don't have a geographic region of support and control, then they DON'T HAVE A STATE, and thus do not fulfill the goals of the 2nd Amendment.

The victory in arms belongs to the US. I considered the war over a LONG time ago. Bush's 2nd big mistake was thinking that the US could impose a puppet democracy on the Iraqi people and culture. The 1st big mistake was, of course, going to war in the first place without an good and internationally recognized cause for doing so (or at least waiting until concrete proof that Iraq had attacked the US).

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nasch]

You seem to be defining terms in order to make it so reality aligns with your viewpoint. Even President Bush doesn't claim that we've acheived victory in Iraq, and "the end of major combat operations" is a running joke. If what we have in Iraq right now is victory, what would you consider defeat or a draw?

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Gabrill]

Yes you have seen my flaw. I don't consider us at war anymore, regardless of what Congress and the President say. We are now in occupation, an entirely different beast, and one the US has NEVER succeeded at, where there was any resistance, no matter how insignificant.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[nasch]

OK, so now we can get back to the original question of how successful the US military would be at countering a domestic insurgency. I think the evidence indicates it would be a nearly complete failure. And the resistance might not have to achieve a decisive battlefield victory to "win". It's hard to picture exactly what would happen, but it's possible a meaningful coup could take place without the military ever being defeated.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Gabrill]

OK, so now we can get back to the original question of how successful the US military would be at countering a domestic insurgency. I think the evidence indicates it would be a nearly complete failure.

The insurgency or the counter? I suppose the branch davidians are still at large?

And the resistance might not have to achieve a decisive battlefield victory to "win".

Of course "victory" depends on your goals. In the case of the 2nd amendment, it would be to enforce "security of a free State". As in a seperate and defined geographic region. And so . . .

It's hard to picture exactly what would happen, but it's possible a meaningful coup could take place without the military ever being defeated.

In the case of a coup, the 2nd amendment would be absolutely irrelevant, because the entire government, including the Constition, would be bypassed entirely.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of speeding here in Canada.

In Canada, *everyone* drives faster than the speed limit. If the posted limit is 90 km/h, everyone (including the cops) drives at 100 km/h. You're literally a hazard if you drive the speed limit, because you're blocking traffic and forcing everyone to pass you.

At one point, they started introducing highway cameras that would record license plate numbers of people speeding and mail you a ticket. What ended up happening was that, since everyone speeds, people would randomly get a ticket in the mail when they drove through these sections of highway. Obviously the people protested, and so we elected a premier who abolished speed cameras.

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm....some events occuring in a conflict in a largish, oil-producing country in the Middle East, and one in South Central Asia would seem to contradict that....but I can't put my finger on why... ;(

OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

...so what's Bruce got to hide?!

Re:OK...

[hawkinspeter]

He's got many secrets http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/726

Way to respond to this argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Pull down your pants.

Re:Way to respond to this argument

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. that's... perfect. i never have mod points when i need them.

Re:Way to respond to this argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, give me your credit card numbers and your mother's maiden name.

voting ???

[ptr2004]

There should be a reason why most democracies have secret ballot !!!

Re:voting ???

[ender-]

There should be a reason why most democracies have secret ballot !!! That would also be a good response to people questioning why you want privacy. Ask them if they have any problem with voting being public. Everyone around you, and even the candidates would know whether you voted or not, and if so, whom you voted for. Most people probably wouldn't want that. When the balk, say why? You're just voting. There's nothing illegal about what you've done, why do you want privacy from all the candidates knowing who you voted for?

Anyway, just a thought.

Here's my reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I have nothing to hide, however I would prefer to not live like a zoo animal under constant observation.

Re:Here's my reason

[smittyoneeach]

And the reason for rebelling against observation is the difference between the words 'acute' and 'chronic'.
If a crime's been committed, I've got no problem a) explaining myself, and b) offering information that might help see justice served.
In the absence of an acute event like a crime, chronic quizzing amounts to a denial of service attack on life itself. In particular, when the DOS involves filling out a bunch of forms. Paperwork was invented in Hell by Satan, who gives it to governments due to the fire hazard. OK, I just made that up; it's more an expression of my feeling about doing paperwork than anything theological, mind you.

But that's the thing about Thoughtcrime...

[mdm-adph]

...you may not even know when you're committing it! We need the government to always watch us.

Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[jshriverWVU]

IF you enjoy your privacy with "nothing to hide" but generally just like being a hermit of sorts, or just living your life without a bunch of statistics attached to you, that should be reason enough. As an American isn't it a right not to be forced into situations that would divulge information about ourselves? Not because "there's something to hide" just that a person man want to live a peaceful life without numbers, statistics, and data mining attacking your personal peace.

Re:Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[jshriverWVU]

To follow up on my own post for those wondering wtf. My point is, with a lot of information being extracted about you there is harm to your peace. Those statistics can be used against you. Snail mail spam? Extra credit card offerings, people contacting you for donations if you're wealthier, whatever. Even if it's benign, the spread of your personal information just exposes you from everyone to crooks to legitimate (donate to a church) kinda things. While you can always throw away paper, and say no. It still breaks part of your personal peace, even if a little.

Re:Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[shaitand]

'Even if it's benign'

Thats just it, we don't all agree on what is benign. I don't trust the government to decide for me and quite frankly don't consider the government to be benign. I'm not merely afraid of a change in colors in the future, the decision making government of today is stocked almost exclusively with dirty, corrupt, lying, weasels.

Re:Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

I, as a non-American citizen, sincerely hope I can enjoy the same rights when I visit your, or any other country.
By the chosen words, you almost sound like somebody who is not too concerned about the (lack of) privacy of visitors to the US.

Re:Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[Stanislav_J]

All the arguments made for privacy are quite valid, but as in your example, I am a hermit of sorts, and for me personally, it's just a matter of my feeling that no one has a right to know MY business. I value my privacy strongly -- to me, my privacy is as much mine as any physical possession I own. Steal my privacy, and it's like stealing my TV or my computer or my wallet. I have committed no crimes, but I still don't want your nose in my business because it's MINE, period.

Unfortunately, I am very much in the minority. In a society in which people post personal (and I mean PERSONAL) details about their lives on MySpace, carry on intimate conversations at full volume on their cell phones in public places, and routinely hand over potentially misused information to total strangers to enter a contest or get 10% off their groceries, there's not much hope of making any headway on this issue with the general public. I'M the oddball, the freak, the eccentric, the weirdo, and I understand that. I don't LIKE it, but I understand.

Re:Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

I just figured I'd add that I live similiarly, having taken the care that NO ONE other than my places of employment, education, or the few goverment agencies that have a reason to (dmv, irs, etc) have any information on me. I don't register for freebies, I don't register for rebates, I pay most of my bills in cash, in person from savings. I have no credit cards, etc. This has for the most part left me with *NO* spam, no extraneous mailings (other than the occasional ads from my insurance company, 6:1 with actual bill statements.), and generally with nobody to bother me that I didn't ask.

And maybe it was just the subculture of the internet I was in, but everybody went by handles. Sure lots of people knew each other by name, but it was people who'd become friends, and perhaps decided to breach the anonomity of the internet.

Not the standard pathetic information whoring that seems to go on nowadays with everyone dumping their whole life's story into a livejournal or a myspace page, trying to seem cooler than they are, or make friends with the cool kids, or even just find somebody to get laid with.

Not sure if there was even a point, but I figured I'd add myself to the mix.

Re:Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[Alchemar]

For some reason you comment makes me think of the census long form and now I can't stop twitching.

Re:Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

[Stanislav_J]

And yet, is spite of your caution, there is still enough information on you with enough sources to eventually spread to those who want it. Absolute privacy and anonymity are impossible. My attitude is that I can't eliminate intrusions into my privacy -- I can only limit and control it to a certain extent. Could someone, anyone really, eventually "find" me if they wanted to? Sure, but they'll have to work a little harder to do it. It may be inevitable, but I damn sure won't make it easy if I have a choice.

Bargaining

[LeadSongDog]

Would you want the used car salesman to know what's in your bank account?

Re:Bargaining

[jjh37997]

Sure... as long as I can know the history and stats of all the cars he's trying to sell me.

Re:Bargaining

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to tell him that if he'd tell me what is *really* wrong with the car, and how much profit he is making on the sale.

Punish after conviction

[Blnky]

I have always taken the stance of: "If I have done nothing wrong why do I not deserve the right of privacy?"

Re:Punish after conviction

[spun]

The answer that many use is given in the article, "I am willing to trade the small amount of privacy loss inherent in a computer directed government search in exchange for the greater security such surveillance will bring." Not that I'm buying it, but A LOT of people do, and that is what the paper is trying to address.

Re:Punish after conviction

[fractoid]

Great call. "If I've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to see."

Take it to the logical extreme

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about anyone else here, but you could take it to the logical extreme. "If you have nothing to hide, then you're undoubtedly okay with letting the government install cameras in your bedroom, or bathroom." That usually works well to quiet that argument....

Re:Take it to the logical extreme

[moeinvt]

I always ask people who make this ridiculous assertion if they would volunteer to have a device in their vehicle that continuously transmitted their position and speed to a network of police computers. It would be set up so that every time they exceeded the speed limit, the system would automatically mail them a speeding ticket and notify their insurance company.

We could balance a lot of state and local government budgets that way, and it would all be thanks to those wonderful people who are completely willing to give up their privacy. If they're not driving at 66 mph in a 65 mph zone, then they have nothing to hide.

Re:Take it to the logical extreme

[ajs318]

Well, that's almost exactly what we're about to end up with in the UK.

lol at article

[CrazyJim1]

One of his arguments is: "Show me yours and I'll show you mine." I could just imagine someone saying this to a cop.

just ask...

[locust]

the jews. They had nothing to hide at all.

Re:just ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

And not too long afterwards they also had nowhere to hide.

Re:just ask...

[ScrewMaster]

Just ask the jews. They had nothing to hide at all.

And not too long afterwards they also had nowhere to hide.

I'm not Jewish, as it happens ... but those two lines ought to give anyone pause. Especially if you're in the "I've nothing to hide so I'm safe" camp.

Re:just ask...

[erroneus]

Indeed. I cannot agree more. When people people who make the rules, change the rules, ANYONE can be a criminal.

Re:just ask...

[myowntrueself]

Actually, from the Nazis, they did have something to hide.

There can only be one master race and when the Nazis found out that the Jews thought that *theirs* was the one true master race, well we all know what happened next...

Re:just ask...

[ScrewMaster]

They don't need to change the rules any longer. They haven't had to for over a hundred years. So many human activities have been classified as criminal in our society the government (any government, Federal, State, local) can nail you any time they choose, if they want to make the effort. Just being targeted, even if you ultimately win in court (assuming you have your day in court) is punitive for most people, given the cost of justice today. If we ever want to return to something resembling a "free" country, we're going to have to toss out reams of law.

Truly a sad state of affairs. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if my comments here on Slashdot are eventually used against me in some way. A lot of us have posted stuff on this site that might be considered "subversive" in some context, particularly the anti-intellectual-property rants that pop up regularly.

Re:just ask...

[ChodeMaster]

This discussion and esepcially the parent comments remind me of the poem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Re:just ask...

[KillerCow]

just ask... the jews. They had nothing to hide at all.

GODWIN!!!!

Man. I was reading comments wondering when it was going to happen. Thanks for not breaking the law.

Re:just ask...

[KudyardRipling]

In a world filled with the false gods of political, economic and social power, anyone proclaiming that there is only one G-d and all others are false will be martyred. For the cowardly, this would be something to hide. The Christians had the same problem in the pre-Constantinian Roman world. It became a tolerated cult under Constantine. It became a state religion some sixty-seven years later under Theodosius. When this happened, it became contaminated with state power and thus became henotheistic. This is the worship of one god but not to the exclusion of others. In this case, as in most others, state power is the other deity. Any time a people are in diaspora, they are vulnerable unless they are well funded and militarized to the point that their hosts realize it would not profit them to persecute (see Haman's discourse with King Achashverosh - "it would not profit the king to tolerate their existence").

Despite the fact that the following clauses sound like something from a geopolitical-apocalypic movie, just think of this for a moment:

Deport the Muslims, lose the oil; Deport the Jews, lose the problem.

Tell me that no national leader today has ever had this thought cross his/her mind.

Re:just ask...

[Jesus_666]

Hey, they were guilty of the crime of being, having been or being related to a Jew. That was a pretty serious crime back then. Of course it usually wasn't their decision and they already were before it was outlawed, but the crime was not becoming a Jew, it was being (etc.) a Jew, which they did at the time so they were clearly violating the law!

So if you object to your government declaring anything you are or do illegal and you can't even hide the fact due to no privacy: Tough luck, lawbreaker.


Yes, that's a damn cynical stance to take. And it is true, disgusting as it is. If you don't allow for the possibility of unethical laws (as many I-have-nothing-to-hide people do) what happened to the Jews was perfectly justifiable*. Abuse of power is common and it could hit you just as well as anyone else - and not only through the government but also through corporations etc.


* Now that's a last half of a sentence I don't want to get quoted out of context on...

Re:just ask...

[aadvancedGIR]

Even before WWII, Jews were a good example of that.
In the middle age, they were forbidden to become a craftman, an army officer, a public servant or, of course, to join the church. Therefore, one of the few profession beside peasant that wasn't worth protecting from them was banker. Sometimes later, that profession wasn't unworthy anymore...

Re:just ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if my comments here on Slashdot are eventually used against me in some way.

Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if your nickname here on slashdot was eventually used against you in some way... I mean, come on, "ScrewMaster"?!? WTF?!?

Re:just ask...

[ScrewMaster]

It's the name of an industrial data acquisition system I used to sell.

Re:just ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever wondered why so often, when people are pulled over for something insignificant, like a non-working tail-light or headlamp, they are often frequently arrested for an outstanding warrant? It's often because the desire of the prosecutorial system (not so judicial these days) is to allow small lapses to fester and not act on them... In this way, unpaid tickets are often left to become outstanding tickets, misdemeanors, and then warrants issues for these lapses. Police do not go out to act on these warrants, allowing a large back-log to pile up and increasing the odds that of the citizenry that are stopped for a small warnable offense, you'll find someone with an outstanding warrant.

In the same way, when people are suspected of something without concrete evidence, such as abducting children etc, their records are searched for such "outstanding warrents" which are then used to place the person in custody while they search for more evidence. (e.g. the poor little girl who disappeared in Sarasota, FL, and her kidnapper). It's to the District Attorney advantage to have as many outstanding warrants as possible, particularly for piddling li'l charges so that they can say it's not worth the effort to track down these individuals for these minor warrants, but for them to have a bank of chargeable offenses for wherever and whenever they'd like to really get at someone.

Alric Kangaroo

It takes a thief...

[bloatboy]

Show of the same name featured person after person who claimed they had nothing worth stealing. Moreover, that the loss of their worthless material possessions would mean nothing to them.

Once they saw their homes being ransacked, they very quickly changed their tunes. Many felt nausea, revulsion, and commonly, fury.

So, for those who claim you have nothing to hide, you could take a lesson from these people, but, I acknowledge that YMMV.

(oh noes! I should've posted as an AC)

Re:It takes a thief...

[Ziwcam]

Show of the same name featured person after person who claimed they had nothing worth stealing. Moreover, that the loss of their worthless material possessions would mean nothing to them.

Once they saw their homes being ransacked, they very quickly changed their tunes. Many felt nausea, revulsion, and commonly, fury.

So, for those who claim you have nothing to hide, you could take a lesson from these people, but, I acknowledge that YMMV.

(oh noes! I should've posted as an AC)

IIRC, It wasn't that these people claimed they had nothing worth stealing. Nor was it that the loss of their possessions would mean nothing to them. The premise of the show was to show how quickly a thief could go through your house and take you for almost everything you have.

Many of these people thought they were taking proper precautions against thieves, others knew they were under-protected, but agreed to appear anyway. Either way, the team was usually in and out of the house in approx. 5-15 minutes, taking just about every valuable you can think of.

Re:It takes a thief...

[bloatboy]

I agree that most people in the show were as you described. There were several (albeit, a minority) who were more like what I was saying.

Construct of freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

The perception of freedom is necessary because without this core conviction intellectual thought is simply not possible.

Re:Construct of freedom...

[Creepy Crawler]

So you think that non-free men cant intellectually think?

Or do you think contracted people, or political theorists in China, or people somehow indebted to another arent capable of intelligent thought?

In other words: Prove it.

Re:Construct of freedom...

[SmurfButcher Bob]

I think his point is that non-free men will be shot if they speak their conclusions.

End result... the same, the rest of us will never hear what they have to say.

new definition of "short essay"

[Gospodin]

It's a 23-page PDF. I read up to the table of contents and gave up.

Re:new definition of "short essay"

[EsabaCZ]

Hitler said the same thing in 1942. We all know how that story ended.

"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both - benjamin franklin "

Re:new definition of "short essay"

[Cryolithic]

Yay for Godwin!!

Re:new definition of "short essay"

[mooingyak]

Is this a mis-parented comment, or did Hitler really complain about a 23 page pdf in 1942?

If so, got a reference?

Re:new definition of "short essay"

[Anonymous Coward]

... and unpunctuated, misquoted, staggeringly overused "rallying" slogans.

That should be the new instant thread-killer.

Re:new definition of "short essay"

[ultranova]

Is this a mis-parented comment, or did Hitler really complain about a 23 page pdf in 1942?

Yes. That's why he didn't let Field Marshal Paulus to retreat from Stalingrad: the Acrobat Reader kept hanging halfway through, until Hitler lost his temper. I think the whole world owes Adobe a hearthy thanks for their role in sabotaging Nazi Germany's war effort; now, if they only would understand that the war is over and stop sabotaging peacetime efforts as well ;(.

Re:new definition of "short essay"

[Sylver Dragon]

Having actually read the PDF, it is short. The author touches on a lot of ideas, and it is quite obvious that there could be some rather lengthy discussion on some of them. What is in the PDF is very concise and well written, and worth reading; especially if you've ever been in a discussion where the "Nothing to Hide" argument was trotted out.

Re:new definition of "short essay"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. That's why he didn't let Field Marshal Paulus to retreat from Stalingrad: the Acrobat Reader kept hanging halfway through, until Hitler lost his temper. I think the whole world owes Adobe a hearthy thanks for their role in sabotaging Nazi Germany's war effort; now, if they only would understand that the war is over and stop sabotaging peacetime efforts as well ;(.

Is that why the Germans bombed pearl harbor?

SSRN - Free Registration Required

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: SSRN requires "free registration" to be able to download and read the PDF document. Would be nice for that to be mentioned in the headline.

Re:SSRN - Free Registration Required

[Volante3192]

Odd...I'm not registered and was able to get it...

Re:SSRN - Free Registration Required

[Solra Bizna]

It doesn't require registration but it does require you to accept 7 cookies from them.

-:sigma.SB

Re:SSRN - Free Registration Required

[Anonymous Coward]

> It doesn't require registration but it does require you to accept 7 cookies from them.

Ah, that's it.

I also got a kick out of the "Download difficulties? Click here!" that wasn't a URL, but a Javashit popup. Enabling Javashit wasn't enough, and I gave up, figuring it was behind a subcription wall.

Your post was the missing link. Javashit had to be enabled and I had to disable the proxy that automatically eats Javashit-foisted third-party cookies.

A tip for academicians who think they're web designers: If you're going to host content that's critical of the Administration, at least have the courtesy to not require us to remove our tinfoil underwear before letting us read it. Whose side are you on, anyway? :)

Re:SSRN - Free Registration Required

[Intron]

If you have nothing to hide, why do you mind registering?

Proper response?

[oskay]

"So why are you wearing clothes?"

Re:Proper response?

[SnowNinja]

So why are you wearing clothes? I'm not ;)

Re:Proper response?

[Explodicle]

So why are you wearing clothes?

SnowNinja: I'm not ;)

It must be pretty cold!

Re:Proper response?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that he wants to hide his body; it's that others want him to hide it.

Re:Proper response?

[Technician]

"So why are you wearing clothes?"

Same reason given in the article. To be prevent being taken advantage of. Same reason I don't post my /. password, my credit card number, exp date code on the back, and SSN.

Let's face it, we have something to hide. Having nothing to hide is simply an illusion. If you have nothing to hide, post your street address, promise to not press charges and I'll gladly open your mail for you. We have pretty strong penalties for mail theft for good reason.

E-mail doesn't have the same expected protection because it transverses so many servers and routers in plaintext. It is not in a secure (paper) wrapper to prevent reading/copying/archiving so it is well known that email is a target of inspection. It's viewable with no trace unlike it's paper counterpart.

Cell phone calls are protected by law unless monitored by the government, but that is the same for your copper POTS line. In both instances, illegal taps are possible and do happen. It boils down to the risk of getting caught.

Re:Proper response?

[Anonymous Coward]

To prevent you feeling inferior.

Let he

[Anonymous Coward]

who has nothing to hide, take down his blinds first.

Seriously. Ask these people if they have blinds in their windows. Then ask them why. Same goes for computer passwords, window tint, or anything else.

Why do I want privacy? Because it's none of your damn business.

Re:Let he

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I get your point, but I have really dark curtains because it's 108F outside! Block the sun or pay a higher electric bill. Same with the window tint. My car has a black vinyl interior (old car).

All things being equal, some laws DEMAND privacy. If I were to do my wife doggy style on the front lawn, I'm sure that some folks in blue uniforms would show up. Ditto if the same were done in the house without blinds.

illegal vs ethical

[bluprint]

Off-hand, the main problem with that argument is that it assumes that legal behavior and ethical/moral behavior are exactly the same.

If the government is watching, they are obviously looking for anything they don't like. This could be generally illegal behavior, or behavior that is threatening to the continued operation of that institution.

In either case, if you accept monitoring because "you have nothing to hide" you assume that the standards of what should be allowed and whether the institution should continue to exist should rest with the government. To put it another way, you assume they have perfect judgement in regard to what should be happening in regard to monitored behavior of citizens.

So (for example), maybe the government should be overthrown (because it does some badness such that it deserves to be disolved). Obviously any existing government that needs to be overthrown isn't going to support that notion. By targeting the government's ability to monitor, we better allow for the possibility that a government that is no longer serving the needs of its people might get overthrown (I'm assuming, for the purposes of this example, that "being overthrown" is probably necessary on some regular basis).

Re:illegal vs ethical

[GrayCalx]

I find it interesting in your response that you only use the Government as your example. Do you agree that the same could be said for Google? Do you believe Google is worried about threats to their continuing operation by spying on old women in their apartments or cats peeking out from behind a set of blinds?

Or what level of "watching" do you define as illegal/unethical. What about any number of the satellite sites that I can zoom in to view a relatively detailed view of my property. Should I now begin to contemplate the overthrow of said company? Or even the fact that my satellite tv company sells my viewing habits to the highest bidder. Sure thats all right there in the contract when I sign up with them, but is that not also an necessary assumption formed from where you live? London for example, isn't it assumed you are most likely being videotaped if you are on a public street in London, and if thats the case whats the difference between that and the contract I signed with my satellite company?

Now lets go back to your Government example. I'm going to assume from the site you advertise that you're from the US. What if a Chinese satellite has begun some sort of wiretapping on your phones, with no possible way to persecute or in any other way punish you for your observed actions. Is the Chinese government's "ability to monitor" now a target? Is it the enraged citizens responsibility to teach China a lesson... and if so how is that even remotely possible?

What about little Billy Smith from down the street? Who you caught peeking in your bathroom window perhaps trying to catch a glimpse of your wife getting out of the shower. We have laws, in the US at least, peeping-tom laws, or again are you only considering privacy a concern when the US government (specifically this administration I'm guessing) becomes involved?

Its all fine and good to question authority, any good democracy should, but this is not a simple issue of the American Bush-run Government being the only entity keeping track of private citizens. And while your anti-administration attitudes are most definitely applicable to this issue, they are not the only aspect to it.

Re:illegal vs ethical

[Mr. Underbridge]

Off-hand, the main problem with that argument is that it assumes that legal behavior and ethical/moral behavior are exactly the same.

You're still giving them too much credit. The argument also assumes that perfectly *legal, ethical and moral* behavior/characteristics could never be used to harm their owner. Counterexamples of things I wouldn't want my government/employer/friends/insurance to know about me that break no ethical, moral, or legal bounds:

The types of sex toys I use with my wife

Medical conditions I suffer from

The fact that I occasionally pick my nose

My affinity for Jane Austen movies

Whether I'm currently looking for a job

My love of midget porn

How often I masturbate

I could go on, but I think you get the point. ;)

Re:illegal vs ethical

[bluprint]

I find it interesting in your response that you only use the Government as your example.

The focus of the article was government surveillance. I was responding to spirit of the article I think.

Do you agree that the same could be said for Google? Do you believe Google is worried about threats to their continuing operation by spying on old women in their apartments or cats peeking out from behind a set of blinds?

Or what level of "watching" do you define as illegal/unethical. What about any number of the satellite sites that I can zoom in to view a relatively detailed view of my property. Should I now begin to contemplate the overthrow of said company? Or even the fact that my satellite tv company sells my viewing habits to the highest bidder. Sure thats all right there in the contract when I sign up with them, but is that not also an necessary assumption formed from where you live? London for example, isn't it assumed you are most likely being videotaped if you are on a public street in London, and if thats the case whats the difference between that and the contract I signed with my satellite company?

Government surveillance is more problematic than surveillance done by most other types of institutions because government has the power to do just about anything. I can watch your house, I can even watch a couple houses. To the extent that I might try to do bad things, since I am an individual, my resources are limited. To the extent that surveillance is necessary for me to do bad things (because I need the intel first, either to determine my mark or for tactical reasons) I am limited in the amount of surveillance I can do.

Google clearly has more resources than I do. Obviously, they are capable of doing much more surveillance.

Government has many more resources than that. The amount of surveillance possible in that environment is virtually unlimited (with regard to resources; hopefully they are limited for political/social reasons, which they are). Because they are capable of doing more surveillance, there is reason to become more concerned about such surveillance by them than by others. You probably don't need to be very concerned about surveillance done by me. Even if I'm doing it, I'm probably not doing it efficiently enough to warrant a great deal of social concern.

The other thing that makes government surveillance more interesting than google surveillance, is the possibilities of what can come of that surveillance. Lets hold other factors equal and assume that google, me and government are all capable of doing the same amount of surveillance. Clearly I am the least capable (from a measurment of resources) of causing mass damage. Sure, an individual could make a living hell for another single person, or a few people (e.g. serial killers). But in terms of large scale impact, acting on surveillance to cause mayhem is obviously more difficult for me than for Google.

To continue the logic, then Google is more capable of causing mayhem and government the most capable. Not only does government have unimaginable resources, they can even change the laws, thereby in many cases taking action that would have previously been considered unacceptable, and in the minds of many making it now acceptable. They have vast resources for propaganda to the extent that just changing a law doesn't pursuade enough people, they can advertise. This puts government in a position to cause a tramendous amount of harm, while still having support of many people. How far would government have to go for everyone (or virtually everyone) to quit supporting them I wonder? It's not hard to find atrocities in history (both recent and ancient) committed by governments that were still widely supported.

On the other hand, how long would it take of Google doing plainly bad things before everyone was against them? How many villages do you think Google could bomb before everyone agreed we should do something about Google? Or, perhaps I should

Re:illegal vs ethical

[bluprint]

I get your point, private information, above and beyond the issue of legal/ethical can be sensitive. However, my comment was focusing on government. Generally, any behavior government doesn't like they outlaw. So "illegal" is a metaphore for "things my government doesn't like and for which they may take action against me." There is no metaphore for "things my employer doesn't like and for which they may take action against me." The problem still exists with regard to the employer, but I think it's important to hold seperate the dealings of private entities (and employers should be considered "private") and public. Government has much more capacity to do harm and no rational or constitutional (I'm also biased toward U.S. government in this discussion) justification to act differnetly between two individuals on the basis of "size of dildo" or some such.

On the other hand, if I choose not to associate with you because of your affinity for midget porn, that's my perogative and I should certainly be allowed to persue that.

Re:illegal vs ethical

[Anonymous Coward]

So (for example), maybe the government should be overthrown (because it does some badness such that it deserves to be disolved). Obviously any existing government that needs to be overthrown isn't going to support that notion.

I can't help thinking that turn-about is fair play. We should certainly be able to monitor our government in action, shouldn't we?

Oh, what's that you say? Executive privilege?

Re:illegal vs ethical

[myowntrueself]

If the government is watching, they are obviously looking for anything they don't like. This could be generally illegal behavior, or behavior that is threatening to the continued operation of that institution.

In the UK they have the 'Antisocial behavior order' which is just begging to be used for political suppression. After all, to pseudo-quote Tony Blair:

"Of course criticising the government is Antisocial Behavior. I mean, you can't get more antisocial than attacking the government, now can you?"

(Disclaimer: I don't know whether or not 2-faced Tony ever actually did say that, but I'm fairly sure that he (or someone practically indistinguishable from him) will).

Re:illegal vs ethical

[Dhalka226]

On the other hand, if I choose not to associate with you because of your affinity for midget porn, that's my perogative and I should certainly be allowed to persue that.

If you are given that information voluntarily, yes.

I think what the OP would object to, and I would agree, is the idea that you or anybody else has some sort of a right to have that information about a person without that person's permission.

Whether you are Random Slashdotter #557000 or Government Agent #557000 with information about me that I don't want you to have only matters in the "how much harm can you cause me?" sense. Frankly, sometimes private citizens having information can be worse.

Re:illegal vs ethical

[bluprint]

"Frankly, sometimes private citizens having information can be worse."

It may be that sometimes private citizens actually act worse than government, but to say it "can be" worse I think is misleading. Government clearly has the resources and scope to commit much more mayhem than any single individual, as a matter of maximum potential.

I think what the OP would object to, and I would agree, is the idea that you or anybody else has some sort of a right to have that information about a person without that person's permission.

I would maybe kind of agree, depending on further conversation. The thing that I think most people do wrong, is to not keep private information private. I don't think I should have to have express permission by you to act on public information. If you fail to keep private information private, I am not obligated to abide by some sense of de facto privacy just because you were too lazy, drunk or whatever to keep your private info to yourself.

Where I think this should differ with regard to our government, is that I don't think our government should be able to treat you differently (prison, higher taxes, whatever) because of the midget porn thing. They simply, as an institution, should not be allowed to accrue, consider or act on that information.

Re:illegal vs ethical

[ajs318]

The thing is, governments can and do make laws about what other people can do or say about you, and there are procedures in place for dealing with most people and organisations' excesses of authority. For instance, you can't be subjected to disciplinary action at work because of anything you did while you were off the clock, outside company premises and not wearing company uniform. If your vegan boss tries to fire you just because you ate a beefburger one Saturday, an Industrial Tribunal will award you a nice wadge of cash and your old job back.

But to whom are governments ultimately answerable, if they exceed their authority?

Re:illegal vs ethical

[Mr. Underbridge]

Government has much more capacity to do harm and no rational or constitutional (I'm also biased toward U.S. government in this discussion) justification to act differnetly between two individuals on the basis of "size of dildo" or some such.

Ah, but the thing is, I know I'm not doing anything illegal or immoral from a governmental standpoint, and I *still* don't want the clowns messing with my shit. That's the crux of killing their 'nothing to hide' argument. I don't trust that the materials my government finds in a search will remain confidential - ie, leaks abound, things get made public, get in public records, etc. Then it finds its way to my employer, newspapers, etc.

For that reason, though I may be doing nothing immoral, unethical, etc, I don't want anyone messing in my private life. Period.

whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

All attractive people *should* be legally required to stay naked on warm days because they have nothing to hide.

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

'All attractive people'

Blanket statements like that only show ignorance. You must qualify the remark. I'll help.

All attractive females *should* be legally required to stay naked on warm days because they have nothing to hide.

Re:whatever

[CyberLord Seven]

...Ummm, excuse me but that should read "All females that cyberlord_seven finds attractive *should* be legally required to stay naked on warm days because they have nothing to hide.

There, that's MUCH better. :)

Re:whatever

[Amouth]

ahh but why should we limit it to only warm days.. what about the brisk days.. they can stay inside when cold.. but then require them to stand next to an unblocked window...

just an idea :)

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

I would like to nominate you as my vice president. Clearly, we share the same ideal and values.

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

"on warm days because..."

No, cold days too. You get to see how big their high-beams are on colder days.

Re:whatever

[CorSci81]

I prefer the broader definition. Some people want to see the attractive males as well. Turnabout is fair play after all. Or do you have something to hide?

Re:whatever

[csnydermvpsoft]

All attractive females *should* be legally required to stay naked on warm days because they have nothing to hide.

Don't they usually have the most to hide?

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

'Turnabout is fair play after all.'

Not in my world. In my world I get to have my cake and eat it too. Besides, there's no such thing as an attractive male.

Re:whatever

[xero314]

All attractive people *should* be legally required to stay naked on warm days because they have nothing to hide.

All attractive females *should* be legally required to stay naked on warm days because they have nothing to hide. Is it just me or is their no substantial difference between these two statements.

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, there's no such thing as an attractive male Assuming you're male, this must include you too. Good luck with the whole dating thing :-P

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

A douchebag and a homophobe! I bet you're great at parties.

Re:whatever

[mashade]

Yes. It's just you. ;)

Re:whatever

[CorSci81]

Sadly attractiveness of men to women usually factors in more than looks (e.g. $$$). But yeah, he did just basically call himself fugly :-)

Re:whatever

[terrymr]

This is slashdot, there are no women !

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

Yes, and every other male. By definition, you are attracted to everyone you find attracted. I have one hell of an ego but even I don't turn myself on.

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

Contrary to what most homosexuals would have you believe, it is possible to both find male on male relations disgusting AND be confident in your own sexuality.

Personally, I couldn't care less about what others with hormone deficiencies do. But I don't especially enjoy seeing male forms clothed let alone nude. There are comparable views. A greasy pile of feces, slugs, cockroaches, etc. I'd rather not surround myself with these unappealing things.

Re:whatever

[gomiam]

I guess you don't watch football (neither U.S. "football" nor male European "soccer"), male basketball, male baseball, and so on. Almost no war movies (there are few with women roles), and... ok, do I need to keep going?

Save your apparent disgust for real problems. And no, seeing naked people isn't one per se. By the way, you talk about hormonal deficiencies. Please provide contrasted references (translation: I call bullshit).

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

'I guess you don't watch football (neither U.S. "football" nor male European "soccer"), male basketball, male baseball, and so on.'

Nope.

'Almost no war movies (there are few with women roles),'

I watch movies to be entertained by the story and events, not to see the people. I read books with male characters as well. I don't freak out in locker rooms and I've showered with 30 other guys before.

Not preferring to see naked guys does not mean I am incapable of living in a world that has other males in it.

'Save your apparent disgust for real problems.'

Disgust is not a choice. Either I find something disgusting or not. I find the idea of having relations with other men disgusting, get over it. I enjoy eating escargot, many find that disgusting; I don't particularly care. Why do you care what I find disgusting?

'By the way, you talk about hormonal deficiencies.'

We are not hermaphrodites, nor capable of asexual reproduction. Our sex drives are powered entirely by hormones (mainly testosterone and estrogen). Therefore any hormone combination that does not lead to desiring the opposite sex is an imbalance. Now, if you do desire the opposite sex and use members of the same gender in the same manner as masterbation then that is something else now isn't it?

There is nothing bad about having a hormonal imbalance, everyone spends their teenage and adolescence in a state of hormonal imbalance and females are constantly in a state or hormonal imbalance from the time they are 12 until they complete menopause. Many straight men have an excess of testoterone with shrunken testicles and bald heads.

Perhaps you don't like the idea because while it is something homosexuals are born with, it would make them 'abnormal'. Apparently my gay sensitivity courses were a waste of time because I don't care about making people feel normal. So far I haven't met any of these mythical 'normal' people and I am not about assure someone their behavior is 'normal'.

I don't care if you are gay, I don't care if anyone is gay. Be gay, marry one another, live life. I don't especially care. Provided you aren't into PDA that would make me uncomfortable we can even be friends and hang out. If you hit on me I won't respond in a violent manner. Will I find it disgusting? Probably, but no more disgusting than if an extremely unattractive female hit on me.

Back to the topic at hand. Straight guys couldn't tell you which guy is supposed to be attractive. We have no clue, because we aren't even slightly attracted. Females on the hand can tell when other females are attractive (although they have different tastes). This concludes the basis for my theory that all females are subconciously bi. Therefore, attractive females being naked makes for nice scenery for all.

Re:whatever

[zolaar]

First, I must note that I do not disagree with you in the slightest.
Second, I must warn you that I cannot resist the urge to be cute. And so..

Alright, you rogue. I'll play your game.

Borrowing arguments from an ancestor or great-great-uncle post:

• Because the fashion police get to define what's attractive, and they keep changing the definition.
• Who watches the watchers?

And adding my own:

• I may not have anything to hide today. Tomorrow, however, things may change (when they plead for me to cover up my lumpy, pock-marked body, as I am beginning to negatively affect the local tourism and the childrens' nightmares have gotten too horrible to describe).
• It is entirely short-sighted. Cold days, for instance, have their merits as well. Any unattractive shrinkage due to cold will excuse the person from naked party time until the temperature is warm enough to return attractively. Naked party time will also be mandatory if lower temperatures enhance any features deemed attractive.

Oh, oh boy. Oh boy. Oh, jeez. Look at that. Look what I've done. I would be worried for my karma, if I had any worth worrying about.

Re:whatever

[Taevin]

Our sex drives are powered entirely by hormones (mainly testosterone and estrogen). Therefore any hormone combination that does not lead to desiring the opposite sex is an imbalance.

Yes, hormones play a strong part in our sex drives. That is, our desire to experience sexual gratification. That has nothing to do with the object of attraction and arousal though. Unless of course you're suggesting that tweaking hormone levels will cause any human being to experience any number of paraphilias? If sexual orientation is a pure function of hormonal balance, why do people undergoing hormone therapy not exhibit wild changes in sexual preference and why do adolescents not vary their preferences from one day to the next? The reason you don't see this is that hormones are relatively simple chemical messengers (although there is no doubt they have very complex effects). Testosterone is not coded with a little message that says "Oh God, I want to fuck a vagina!" nor is estrogen coded with one that says "Oh why is there no penis inside of me!?" Hormones are much more like electrical switches: as long as the circuit is closed (the hormone is present at the receptor), some action occurs. And there lies the problem with your argument. It's not a hormone balance that affects sexual desire (or at least not in the manner you describe). In fact, it's testosterone in both men and women that drives the libido. Sexual attraction is purely in your head.

There is nothing bad about having a hormonal imbalance, everyone spends their teenage and adolescence in a state of hormonal imbalance and females are constantly in a state or hormonal imbalance from the time they are 12 until they complete menopause.

Well, typically a hormonal imbalance actually is "bad" in the sense that it changes the normal functioning of the body. An abnormally high level of testosterone will increase muscle growth but also have other consequences like increased aggression.

Many straight men have an excess of testoterone with shrunken testicles and bald heads.

Many gay men also have bald heads. Androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness) is caused by prolonged exposure to dihydrotestosterone in those at risk for the condition (which includes some women). You seem to be trying to imply again that straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone that clearly make them big burly masculine men, not at all like those wussy queers. Of course this is not the case, and taking your reasoning earlier (that homosexuality is an undesirable trait in terms of reproduction, caused by a hormonal imbalance) we can see that these hyper masculine straight men you speak of would actually be less desirable in terms of reproduction because excessive levels of testosterone cause testicular atrophy. In other words, your balls are tiny because you're producing very little sperm which make up the bulk of testicular mass.

Perhaps you don't like the idea because while it is something homosexuals are born with, it would make them 'abnormal'.

I'm pretty sure the opposite is true. Homosexuals and those who agree with them are pushing to show that homosexuality is something you're born with, abnormality be damned. It's not so bad being abnormal when people are alright with it, which is more likely to be true if it is genetic (I don't recall abnormally tall basketball players being condemned as a crime against God).

Straight guys couldn't tell you which guy is supposed to be attractive. We have no clue, because we aren't even slightly attracted.

I'm going to call bullshit here too. I would posit that it is our society that has told men that they are not allowed to find other men attractive, because that is homosexuality with no shades of gray. It's possible that many men, perhaps including you, have internalized that message to the extent that they truly cannot find any man attr

Re:whatever

[Alioth]

You must have a fair degree of self-loathing then (assuming you're male) every time you look in the mirror.

Contrary to what most homophobes would have you believe, it is possible for a man to find another man to be good looking WITHOUT being sexually attracted to him.

Re:whatever

[m50d]

AND be confident in your own sexuality. Personally, I couldn't care less about what others with hormone deficiencies do.

Yeah. A whole lotta confidence in your own sexuality I'm seeing there.

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

they should probably hide their rolls, flaps, and flub. the rest of us don't want to see it...

Re:whatever

[vuffi_raa]

actually if all hideously unattractive people were made naked instead it would seem like a treat when you get to see the attractive people naked- otherwise attractive people would be less interesting naked, society's views would change and you would be left with the more clothed people having an allure....

Re:whatever

[computational super]

Watch, out, there - you're going to chase away the one woman who's still reading slashdot...

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

'If sexual orientation is a pure function of hormonal balance, why do people undergoing hormone therapy not exhibit wild changes in sexual preference and why do adolescents not vary their preferences from one day to the next? '

Because those on hormone therepy either already have a reversed sexual preference, are taking more of their gender's predominent hormone, or have the levels of hormone carefully regulated. Aside from that, human beings do have an intellect as well. If you have urges that conflict with what you have always desired you aren't going to jump on a table and start dancing and singing showtunes.

'You seem to be trying to imply again that straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone that clearly make them big burly masculine men, not at all like those wussy queers.'

No, I'm saying that SOME straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone. I know it is easier to debate if you take every comment I made about people and attempt to turn it into some sort of blanket statement. Unfortunately for you, I don't generally use any blanket statements and even when I use phrasing to a blanket effect it is usually a slip and not what I meant. We live in a complex world, there are exceptions to everything. There are billions of people, exceptions could include millions.

You can claim that homosexuality is a choice and I would agree that it is possible to choose it. However, a homosexual can usually be spotted on the subway wearing a formal business suit. It isn't about simply physical size, there are plenty of skinny straight guys and there are bulky gay guys. Even a homosexual won't dispute that, its called gaydar. It isn't a perfect system, you will have false positives but there is a distinction that can be detected without concious consideration. There is something physical and innate that most homosexuals are born with. If you would claim that it isn't a hormonal imbalance that makes homosexuals feminine and attracted to men; so be it. I'm not married to the theory. I'm open to other possibilities.

'Well, typically a hormonal imbalance actually is "bad" in the sense that it changes the normal functioning of the body.'

Yes, and so is eating fast food.

'So if you're suggesting that every man I've known that has made some comment about the attractiveness, or unattractiveness as the case more often is, of another male is bisexual or gay, I'm not sure how it helps your argument that male-male attraction is abnormal because that criterion would select for just about all of them.'

You seem to have an obsession with normal vs abnormal. EVERYONE IS ABNORMAL in numerous respects. Hell, lets get the cat out of the bag, I'd venture that MOST men have had incestrial thoughts at some point and had desires to have sexual relations with underage females! That would make MOST men abnormal! Oh my!

That said. We are talking about finding someone attractive, not unattractive. Attractive requires a level of attraction. Unattractive is a term that can be used to describe those that are neutral to you or something ugly that repels you. Seeing a fat plumbers crack repels me. Seeing someone with a gross disformity repels me. I do not see men as a sex object and therefore do not have the ability to judge how attractive they are, therefore they are all unattractive to me. Seeing a clothed male stirs no more feeling of attraction in me than seeing a phone or sidewalk. Sorry, that is just how it is.

You suggest this is some sort of result of a rigid anti-gay movement damaging me psychologically. I suppose it is possible but that seems a strange view. After all, while I have nothing against homosexuals (and have very close friends who were homosexual), I still don't think anyone could claim homosexuality is a natural state for a healthy adult with neither a damaged psyche nor a chemical imbalance of any sort. Humans are designed to reproduce and homosexuals can not reproduce. It may take awhile (amusingly BECAUSE the anti-gay mentality has caused homo

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

'Contrary to what most homophobes would have you believe, it is possible for a man to find another man to be good looking WITHOUT being sexually attracted to him.'

It's not even possible for a man to find a woman to be good looking without being sexually attracted to them at some level.

'You must have a fair degree of self-loathing then (assuming you're male) every time you look in the mirror.'

I didn't say I loathed men, I said they weren't pleasant to look at.

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

'Yeah. A whole lotta confidence in your own sexuality I'm seeing there.'

Sorry I'm dense. Your post implies there was something there that showed a lack of confidence. Connect the dots for me, where was it?

I believe homosexuality is caused or at least agitated by hormone deficiencies therefore I must be afraid I am gay? That is an impressive stretch.

Re:whatever

[kalirion]

It's you being sexist by not considering non-females as "people."

Re:whatever

[Taevin]

Because those on hormone therepy either already have a reversed sexual preference,

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that hormone therapy is used to "treat" homosexuality? If so, I would love to see a reference to a study that shows evidence of some effect other than increased rates of depression, suicide, mania, and/or violent behavior.

are taking more of their gender's predominent hormone,

If they are taking more of their primary sex hormone (say an athlete on anabolic steroids, shouldn't that cause an imbalance which, as you say, causes changes in sexual preference?

or have the levels of hormone carefully regulated.

If those levels are being carefully regulated (by a physician trying to restore the normal balance), it would be treating an imbalance -- a state change causing a change in sexual preference if hormone balance has a direct link to sexual attraction.

If you have urges that conflict with what you have always desired you aren't going to jump on a table and start dancing and singing showtunes.

Indeed, which is why there are plenty of homosexual men and women who lead perfectly normal heterosexual lives. You can bet that if what you say is true and they could simply alter their testosterone levels to make all those gay feelings that make it harder to live the lives they've chosen go away, they'd be all over it.

No, I'm saying that SOME straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone. I know it is easier to debate if you take every comment I made about people and attempt to turn it into some sort of blanket statement. Unfortunately for you, I don't generally use any blanket statements and even when I use phrasing to a blanket effect it is usually a slip and not what I meant. We live in a complex world, there are exceptions to everything. There are billions of people, exceptions could include millions.

Good, I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps I was just reading too much into that statement but in a post filled with negative views on homosexuality along with claims that gay men have an abnormal testosterone balance, perhaps you can also see how someone else might have seen a strong implication in the statement "Many straight men have an excess of testosterone"? That is, the implication that only straight men produce excess testosterone and gay men have some other testosterone imbalance (as in, too little)?

You can claim that homosexuality is a choice and I would agree that it is possible to choose it. However, a homosexual can usually be spotted on the subway wearing a formal business suit. It isn't about simply physical size, there are plenty of skinny straight guys and there are bulky gay guys. Even a homosexual won't dispute that, its called gaydar. It isn't a perfect system, you will have false positives but there is a distinction that can be detected without concious consideration. There is something physical and innate that most homosexuals are born with. If you would claim that it isn't a hormonal imbalance that makes homosexuals feminine and attracted to men; so be it. I'm not married to the theory. I'm open to other possibilities.

I would make no such claim, as it is my opinion that homosexuality generally is not a choice. I see sexuality as two sliding scales of sexual orientation and sexual preference. Orientation is simply the product of your genes, evironment, whatever else that forms the basis of your sexual desires. Preference is what you choose, although if you pick a point too far from your orientation, it's likely going to cause significant problems that make it an unhealthy choice. As far as "gaydar" goes, it could be attributed to the fact that homosexuals produce different odors than heterosexuals (i.e. pheromones). It seems to me though that while humans may have some response to pheromones, it's not significant enough to make

Re:whatever

[shaitand]

'Good lord I feel like I just wrote a thesis.'

I hear you. Thats why I will refrain from a point by point response and just respond to what I think is the meat of your post.

'Whether you intend it or not, it comes off as "Yes you're a horribly broken and unnatural freak of nature, but it's ok. It just means that you serve no useful function and society and the human race would be better off without you. Don't worry though, I don't hate you."'

How can my post 'come off as' anything? Either I said it or I didn't. It is inappropriate to read things into my statements, if I meant 'x' then I would say 'x'.

I think we have fundementally different views of the world. You are attempting to place emotional emphasis on statements in a way that doesn't even make sense to me. For instance, 'horribly broken'. I never said anything of the sort. I did say broken but someone with high blood pressure or a cold is broken. I really don't have any 'feelings' on the subject at all. I don't find broken functions to be an emotional issue. If I had atheletes foot and you pointed out that you viewed people with athletes foot as broken I wouldn't be offended. I certainly wouldn't view you as having said I was 'horribly broken' but rather just indifferently stating a factual point. Another example is 'unnatural freak of nature'. I don't believe in freaks of nature. I don't view those who are different from myself as freaks. Maybe you aren't self concious because of people treating you as a freak, maybe it is YOU who are intolerate of those different from yourself and therefore view someone pointing out differences as attacking.

'It just means that you serve no useful function and society and the human race would be better off without you.'

I never said anything even vaguely resembling this. I believe the only KNOWN purpose of the species is to survive and perpetuate itself. The most obvious way of doing this is to breed. That is neither an implication nor a statement that those who can't (or don't) breed are useless or worse a burden.

'It's just plain dishonest when you try to seem tolerant'

I don't try to seem anything. This entire discussion is for your benefit. I also wouldn't describe myself as tolerant. Indifferent is a better word. Homosexuals (as a group) and homosexuality isn't really something I consider an important issue.

'then immediately turn around and say that it's on the same level as a deformity'

I don't have negative feelings about people with deformities so I fail to see the point. Deformities cause the impairment of some function. I could have said bad teeth for example and the point would be the same. I chose deformity because it is a physical flaw that one is born with. How 'horrible' the impairment is something that varies individually.

'it's only because enough people have rallied to it's defense that it hasn't yet died the death it deserves.'

I never said anything of the sort. I did say that having a sexual preference that causes them not to mate and have offspring would effectively result in the genes not being selected in the long term. How is that offensive? It's factual.

If that is what you were referring to then I either miswrote or you misread. I didn't say anything about people rallying to its defense, I said that the anti-homosexuality movement is what has led to the spread of homosexuality. I didn't explain my reasoning though. It is the gay bashers and bible freaks who have caused homosexuals to be afraid of living a lifestyle in accordance with their sexual preferences/orientation. This has led to marriage to women and having children despite the fact that homosexuals aren't attracted to women. I also certainly never said anything homosexuality deserving death.

'Don't worry though, I don't hate you.'

Isn't that why we are having this conversation? You have decided I am gay bashing? Of course, if I don't hate gays, then I am merely stating my opinion and not bashing at all.

'Er, well, since I'm bisexual

Re:whatever

[m50d]

I believe homosexuality is caused or at least agitated by hormone deficiencies therefore I must be afraid I am gay? That is an impressive stretch.

*shrug*. That was all i was getting at.

Re:whatever

[ArsenneLupin]

Sadly attractiveness of men to women usually factors in more than looks (e.g. $$$). And what about attractiveness of men to men?

Re:whatever

[CorSci81]

Depends on how long they plan to know each other :)

Re:whatever

[CTachyon]

Because those on hormone [therapy] either already have a reversed sexual preference, are taking more of their gender's [predominant] hormone, or have the levels of hormone carefully regulated.

That's fucking bullshit. Read about Alan Turing sometime. One of the most brilliant computer scientists who ever lived, saved countless lives in World War II by helping to crack the German Enigma cipher, and unabashedly gay in a time when that wasn't permitted.

A few years down the road, when he was arrested and convicted in 1952 for the crime of being gay, he was forced to choose between prison time or hormone "treatments". Fearing prison, he chose the hormones. The injections used estrogen to counteract his natural testosterone levels. The lower testosterone levels reduced his libido, making him less interested in sex with men.

In effect, the injections chemically castrated him. They also had the side effect of making him grow breasts. He committed suicide two years into this inhumane treatment.

Testosterone increases libido in straight men, gay men, straight women, and lesbian women alike. Gay men do not have any identifiable differences in hormone levels. There is no blood test to identify gay men from straight men. The "unbalanced hormone" ideas about sexual orientation were disproved long ago, in the psychiatric dark ages of the 1950s and 60s. It's complete bullshit.

Any power given to the good cops...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is given to the bad cops too.

Allright,

[Anonymous Coward]

I had about enough from you fu&*ing terrorists! Assume the position!

Changes in the American definition of morals

[easyEmu]

I would bet that privacy was a concern in years past, because people did not want others all up in their k00l-a1d if they did not even know the flavor. Now, many people could care less if you know about their extra-marital affairs, dishonest practices, that they like p0rn, etc. Morals, or at least keeping up appearances was at one time important. Maybe my line of thought is a little extreme here, but I am not sure if past Americans were concerned if the FBI knew how much money was in their bank account, but they did care if their neighbor knew how little they gave to the church each week. Privacy concerns stemmed from social status not "big brother". Any thoughts on this?

Re:Changes in the American definition of morals

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Seconded, Except the bank account part. If the FBI knew about your bank account, I'm sure that they would give that info to the IRS. Is there anyone who wants the IRS to know about the contents of their bank account? (Although there would be no reason to have your taxes done. The IRS would already know everything and just send you a bill.)

Privacy as a civil service

[backslashdot]

Why put on make up or wear clothes if you have nothing to hide?

Oprah Winfrey. Paris Hilton.

Folks, sometimes privacy is a civil service.

The Useful Idiot

[Sitnalta]

Who says you have to be doing something illegal to be persecuted? So to answer the question "I've got nothing to hide" my response would be "Don't worry, they'll find something."

There's nothing to hide in (xxx) too

[LittleStone]

xxx can be:-
having sex with a spouse: tell these "nothing to hide" supporters letting others to watch them fucking!
pooing: tell these "nothing to hide" supporters letting others to watch them pooing! .....

Cut the cutsie sayings

[loteck]

Here's a real cute 'saying', and it's the only one that matters:

"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

In the US, this is the foundation of privacy. It is a mandate to those who govern from the people who allow them to govern. If you really need to ask why, your ignorance of history is so staggeringly complete that it can only be attributed to being negligently willful.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Tell that to the American citizens of Japanese descent during WW2.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[secPM_MS]

But this says nothing about monitoring a person's movements in public - where and when you go anywhere. Something that anybody in a public space can see is public. The lack of privacy in small towns is legendary - and not necesarily all bad. This issue is being framed as a governmental monitoring issue alone. This is an oversight. What if all the monitoring were publically available (say on the local cable network) so that you had to assume that everybody - the police, your family, your friends, and your minister could know where you went and what you did in public? Would that be better or worse? In some respects, that is what living in a small town still is. And a small town in Utah even more.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[QuantumG]

Holier than thou attitudes and quoting the constitution doesn't work on everyone.

Sometimes you actually have to educate people out of their self induced ignorance of history before you can get them to understand why privacy is important. And even then, there's always people who will believe "it can't happen here."

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

That's their loophole right there in bold face. They just continually dilute the definition of "unreasonable". Search warrents were to burdensome, so the patriot act gives us NSLs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Le tter) which require no judicial oversight. Similarly for wiretaps. If you question it, then you're the enemy. You support the terrorists. Which, of course, is now grounds to wiretap you as well.

The statements I've made in this post are probably more then enough to justify an NSL to my ISP & /. to figure out just who this AC really is. I clearly need to be watched.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[Myopic]

You are unfortunately wrong. The 4th amendment is not the basis for the American freedom of privacy, though it should be. First, it only applies to searches, which unfortunately has not been defined as "anything which provides information", but much more narrowly. To me, the basis of the freedom of privacy is the 9th amendment, which to me says that the freedom of privacy is so basic and fundamental that it literally goes without saying, but courts and most legal experts disagree with me (though I think the founding fathers would agree). The fact is that there is no constitutional basis for privacy, and the Supreme Court has had to kind of invent one, reading it into the "penumbras" of other rights. I think they should have just hung it on the 9th amendment, and been done with it forever. Instead, with Roe v Wade, they made that penumbra argument, and it has been waning ever since.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[ajs318]

There's a very simple reason why the Founding Fathers never mentioned privacy in the US Constitution.

Not so very long ago, privacy used to be readily available. If you wanted to have a conversation and not be overheard, you could just go for a walk in the woods. If you really wanted to make sure, you might even probe the undergrowth with your cane to make sure nobody was hiding in a bush.

The Founding Fathers never envisaged microphones, tape recorders, video cameras or anything like that. Come to think of it, they probably never envisaged a time when there wouldn't be plenty of open space in which anyone could place themself beyond earshot.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[stewbacca]

Define "unreasonable". Once you can do that, we can solve this whole privacy problem.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me explain something about the concept of "public" property and "public" services.

Government, unlike a private business, group, or individual, holds the special right to employ coercion against you -- meaning deadly force or threat thereof -- to get you to buy their product.

If that doesn't explain why it is absolutely necessary to have strict limits on the size and scope of government, then we are hopelessly destined for total oppression.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

... or a member of the current U$ administration.

Re:Cut the cutsie sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think 200 years ago, the founding fathers appreciated just how much information could be collected on so many people in public. Video cameras everywhere are one thing, but we're pretty close to having the technology to efficiently mine those videos. When you decide to run for president, what's to stop someone from broadcasting every instance of you adjusting yourself in public? 20 years ago, finding "wrongs" on video would have been a monumental task; 200 years ago, if no human saw something, there was no long-term record of it at all.

My from-the-hip response to "nothing to hide"

[Todd Knarr]

My response to people who say "You've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?" is this:

Well then, you'll have no objection to having the transaction register of your checking account and credit cards published daily in the newspaper, will you. Nor a record of your phone calls, incoming and outgoing. Or having all your e-mail, personal as well as work, automatically copied to your boss, co-workers and spouse. After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?

It's not a matter of having nothing to hide. Even people with nothing to hide nonetheless have a lot of things that they don't want broadcast to the world. It's called one's personal business. A really good example is buying your wife an anniversary gift. There's absolutely nothing to hide there, but you still don't want her finding out about it until you give it to her. There's many things in life that're nothing to hide in the sense the "nothing to hide" crowd is using the phrase, but that nonetheless you want to keep private (at least from all but a selected few).

Re:My from-the-hip response to "nothing to hide"

[Corporate Troll]

Actually, for a normal law-abiding person... You could indeed publish everything you stated. Let's go over this:

1. transactions of my checking account: got salary, paid phone bill, paid electricity bill, paid rent, paid cellphone bill, paid isp bill, paid credit card bill, (...many more bills later..) saved up some money on savings account.
2. credits cards: buy food, buy gasoline, buy food, buy food, bought flowers for my wife,....
3. phone calls outgoing: called mom, called wife, called wife, called wife, called boss in the morning because I'd be late, called a computer store because my order hasn't arrived yet, called cleaning services to know if the carpet is ready,....
4. phone calls incoming: wife, wife, wife, sister wanting to know when her new graphic cards arrives, wife, wife....
5. e-mail: most work related stuff already goes to boss and/or coworkers and my wife wouldn't read it because she doesn't understand it anyway. Private mail? The jokes I forward and the petty news about the family? Please enjoy yourself, it's not really that interesting.

Now, I am exaggerating. I do agree with your "anniversary" example. That however is not how privacy is meant. If the FBI/NSA/KGB/Al'Quadia knows that you got her 25 red roses, she's not going to know. Privacy in this case really is from the big brother type. After all, if you bought your wife a Porsche on your credit card and she accidentally opens your statement, she'll know.... (Note: I do not advise to buy Porsches on credit cards) Those kind of "secrets" have nothing to do with privacy. Anybody else in the world could and may know, as long as it isn't your wife.

Re:My from-the-hip response to "nothing to hide"

[R3d M3rcury]

I don't really care if the government knows I'm buying my wife an anniversary gift.

The issue really is that we don't know how the government is using this data. For example, as George Bush put it, "If you're talking to Al Qaida, we want to know what you're saying" seems pretty legitimate on the surface and most of us would agree with it. But how reliable is the information that I'm talking to Al Qaida? How many links away from the original source do we track?

For example, I have a friend in Saudi Arabia. Does the fact that he's muslim and from a place that supports terrorism make me a suspect if he calls me? Do all who talk to me become suspects? Do all who talk to them become suspects? If I become a suspect, how long do I remain a suspect? Will I have to get strip-searched if I get on an airplane two days after talking to my friend? A week? A month? A year? The rest of my life? Is there a way for me to know that I'm a suspect? Is there a way for me to get off of a suspect list?

What oversight is there to determine that the government has reasonable suspicions? What oversight is there regarding the sharing of this information with other government entities, both foreign and domestic?

To me, that's the privacy issue. Yes, I have no problem with the concept that if "the bad guys" are talking to each other, "the good guys" should be listening in. I just like to make sure that I have an advocate when the government comes forth with the claim that I'm a "bad guy" who deserves to be listened to and that my status as "bad guy" is reviewed from time to time in order to determine whether it is worth listening to me or not.

Re:My from-the-hip response to "nothing to hide"

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of how with "nothing to hide", would be willing to sit on on your hands, on the curb, while cops with dogs ransack your car?

Try explaining that one to your boss, friend, or mother, who is driving by.

Nothing to Hide, Yet

[PaladinAlpha]

I read the linked essay and found it thorough, if a bit dry. My own thoughts on the matter parallel, I'm sure, that of most people here: sure, I may not have anything to hide right now, but if the government has absolute watch over the people, that gives it the ability to do a lot of dangerous things -- the ability to isolate and persecute groups or individuals through selective legislation, or the ability to further its own ends unfairly. Indeed, who does watch the government? When people speak of having nothing too hide, they forget that the government of this country (any country) is just as human, and just as prone.

Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[mcrbids]

Privacy is dead. Get over it.

A famous quote by a powerful man. I don't think I need to cite source.

But it's true, and pretending otherwise is just more head-in-the-sand thinking. What's important is what we actually DO about it. How can we prevent the bad stuff with lack of privacy from happening? Nearly 10 years ago, an insightful author at then-amazing Wired answered this question in a way I've not seen matched or beaten anywhere else.

It's not the fact of being private or not, it's what's done about it and why. If we keep pretending we have something we don't, we'll be hurt by things we didn't know were there. We couldn't deal with slavery until we acknowledged that it existed and was a problem. A smoker in denial will remain a smoker until he/she can acknowledge his/her status as a smoker.

I, for one, find it far more effective to deal with what is than what I'd prefer there was to work on, and the reality is that privacy is dead.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[NickFortune]

A famous quote by a powerful man. I don't think I need to cite source.

Why that's right. I expect everyone here knows that the quote is attributed to Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems. According to a reporter for Wired he was speaking at the launch of Sun's Jini technology in 1999. It's just that by saying so up front, you can avoid sounding like an insecure thirteen year old putting on a pose to try and hide the fact that he's too lazy to type three words into Google.

Again according to Wired, McNealy was commenting in response to Intel's recent U-turn regarding placing unique identifiers in each of their chips. So it more likely that McNealy's comment was self-serving, rather than indicative of his being a fount of Ethical Truth. Although in fairness, his comments do have a measure of truth in a networking context - you can't do much without leaving your IP behind you. But then again, this was also before the use of NAT gateways and dynamic IPs became quite so widespread, so even then, he doesn't have too much credibility.

Incidentally the correct quote would seem to be "you have zero privacy anyway, get over it". This at least is to McNealy's credit, since "privacy is dead" is a profoundly stupid thing to say. Privacy cannot be dead, because it was never alive. Privacy is some fragile, endangered creature that can be slain by a terrorist bomb, or by an uncaring government. Privacy is a courtesy we offer to one another. And if groups, be they government departments or struggling computer companies, should choose to withdraw this courtesy it is by their choice that they do so.

Nearly 10 years ago, an insightful author at then-amazing Wired answered this question

That would be David Brin, well known writer of science fiction. I suppose that when you say that, he loses some of the gravitas that might otherwise attach to "an insightful author". Perhaps that's why you shied away from citing Mr.McNealy as well.

That said, I have to admit that have some sympathy for Brin's views on this matter, at least as he went on to develop them in Earth. He seems to think that the problem with lack of privacy is not the lack itself, but the asymmetry of the arrangement. Various groups are allowed to know all they like about me, but I am not allowed to know anything about them. The trouble I have there is that I didn't find the picture of society in Earth particularly appealing, and I'm not at all convinced that it would work as advertised. It did make for an interesting novel, though.

I, for one, find it far more effective to deal with what is than what I'd prefer there was to work on, and the reality is that privacy is dead.

Well, I still don't think it's especially useful to anthropomorphise abstract concepts, especially ones founded in courtesy and dignity. On the other hand, if you really believe that, perhaps you'd like to show us the way forward. You could start by posting your real name, email address, age, racial background, social security number, marital status, any major illnesses, any history of family illness. Just for a start. I'm sure once we see well you fare in a post privacy world, we'll all be eager to join you.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just occurred to me, I'm posting as "anonymous coward" that should say something about slashdots view of privacy!

Anyhow, you're right. Privacy is dead, was dead a long time ago.

Consider the man who had TB and got on a plane, everyone wondered why they didn't use this anti-terrorist information to stop him, no one mentioned hey, this technology was for the prevention of terrorism, NOT to stop people with disease. The LAST thing we were concerned about was his privacy rights.

We actually want OTHER people to have their privacy invaded, some of us don't want our personal privacy invaded however.

I chalk it up to general apathy and a serious lack of empathy toward our fellow citizens.

We don't care about other people, as evidenced by that woman who recently died in a convenience store of knife wounds while other people were SHOPPING, completely ignoring her.

If we can casually ignore a dieing person bleeding on the floor while we're doing our "shopping" we certainly don't care about other peoples privacy rights.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a book by Jerry Pournelle (I think, it's been a bit) about a society that has cameras everywhere people existed with the video recorded. The end effect was that laws were reduced to what could actually be enforced because EVERY law was ALWAYS enforced (for the 98% of the population that wasn't connected anyways).

Society ended up with more tolerance in some ways because of the equal enforcement of laws removed all the bad ones. (eg locking up every single underage smoker couldn't happen.) As a whole people were more efficiently ground down so there was more of a upper/lower class boundary though.

It was an interesting book on the subject, hopefully I can find it tonight and add the name for people here.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[mcrbids]

Why that's right. I expect everyone here knows that the quote is attributed to Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems. According to a reporter for Wired he was speaking at the launch of Sun's Jini technology in 1999.

Got it so far...

It's just that by saying so up front, you can avoid sounding like an insecure thirteen year old putting on a pose to try and hide the fact that he's too lazy to type three words into Google.

Well, it took a few tries to parse this sentence, since you mix the "you" and the "he", but eventually the truth comes out - you think I'm too lazy to type 3 words into Google. Which is fine, I guess, but I really didn't think I needed to cite the source, since the idea is clear. That you immediately bring up the party I was referring to underscores my point nicely.

That would be David Brin, well known writer of science fiction. I suppose that when you say that, he loses some of the gravitas that might otherwise attach to "an insightful author".

And why would that be? It takes a good understanding of science to write good "hard" Sci-Fi. Perhaps you labor under the misconception that only "authorities" have anything of value to say?

On the other hand, if you really believe that, perhaps you'd like to show us the way forward. You could start by posting your real name, email address, age, racial background, social security number, marital status, any major illnesses, any history of family illness. Just for a start. I'm sure once we see well you fare in a post privacy world, we'll all be eager to join you.

Don't have to. Millions of people already have. And, you might enjoy the fact that some of them are actually 13!

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Has this been confirmed by NetCraft?

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[NickFortune]

Well, it took a few tries to parse this sentence,

Apologies for the style and tone; it's just that people quoting McNealy out of context to try and justify increased levels of government intrusion is a pet peeve of mine. I probably went a bit over the top

you think I'm too lazy to type 3 words into Google.

I'm trying not to make assumptions about you - but you sound like you're too lazy to type three words into Google. It as if you said to yourself "well, I can't remember if this was Scott McNealy, or Jonathan Schwartz, but if I just say I'm sure you all know who I mean then everyone will assume I do know, and I don't have to risk embarrasing myself by getting it wrong".

The trouble is that once people get that impression, it undermines your credibility, since the reader can't help but wonder what else you might be trying to fudge.

Think of it as feedback.

but I really didn't think I needed to cite the source, since the idea is clear.

Then don't provide a citation at all. This is Slashdot, not a paper for an IEEE conference - you don't need to cite anyone. But if you do, don't be half-hearted about it; it reflects badly on you, and weakens your credibility.

Perhaps you labor under the misconception that only "authorities" have anything of value to say?

No, but then neither do I think that Larry Niven understands astrophysics in the same depth as Stephen Hawking. If there's a debate about black holes, Hawking's opinion is going to carry more weight. If you think that Brin's opinion is as good as anyone else's, then have the courage of your convictions and say so up front. "Noted SF author David Brin makes this case far better than I ever could in a wired article from the 90s..." is all you need to write.

Don't have to. Millions of people already have.

Well, anyone who publishes their bank details and social security number on MySpace almost certainly falls into the category of "idiot" and can be safely ignored. I'll make an exception for Hasan Elahi as I will for anyone who is doing so to make a point about privacy - if you'll provide a link to the specific page. In the general case though, I don't think human ignorance and carelessness carries much weight in this debate.

And, you might enjoy the fact that some of them are actually 13!

What interests me is your disinclination to practice what you preach. You post under a pseudonym and include no personal data on your profile - not even a link to a web page. You may not value anyone else's privacy, but you certainly value your own. Oddly enough, that seems to have been Scott McNealy's attitude as well.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

And he still hasn't published his credit card numbers.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[mcrbids]

What interests me is your disinclination to practice what you preach. You post under a pseudonym and include no personal data on your profile - not even a link to a web page. You may not value anyone else's privacy, but you certainly value your own. Oddly enough, that seems to have been Scott McNealy's attitude as well.

Well done on missing my entire point - but you didn't read the David Brin's article, did you?

With increased technology, and perpetually dropping costs for monitoring equipment, the odds that your actions will be recorded is increasing exponentially. But who watches the watcher? To "practice what I preach" I'd have to come up with some way of knowing who is reading my SS#, finds out my website, email, etc. When that's done, and protections are in place to prevent abuse of knowledge like that, I'll post my SS#, website, email, etc.

Feel free to comment further, but don't do so until you have actually consumed my point rather than just knee-jerk react to my words and accuse me of being 13.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[NickFortune]

Well done on missing my entire point - but you didn't read the David Brin's article, did you?

This is what I wrote two posts back:

[Brin] seems to think that the problem with lack of privacy is not the lack itself, but the asymmetry of the arrangement. Various groups are allowed to know all they like about me, but I am not allowed to know anything about them.

His solution is that all surveillance information should be available to everyone, and then we could each watch one another and keep the system honest. And it's a good plan.

The trouble is, the first time the proposal is taken seriously, there's going to be a lot of handwaving about IPR and national security and terrorist threats, and the first thing that will happen is that we'll see a great long list of people and organisations who are exempt. And then we'll have no legal And when the legislation passes, we'll find that we have surrendered the last of our rights to privacy, and that the watchmen are no more watchable than before.

In order for that not to happen, you need to change the way an entire culture thinks. You need to persuade Coca-Cola to leave the AV feed on the boardroom when secret formulae are being discussed. You need to get Microsoft to stop deleting every email that might ever be deposed in a court of law; you need to get the CIA to accept that it's oh-kay for foreign governments to know the names and addresses of all their agents overseas. And frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon.

But let's suppose I'm wrong about that. If you can do social engineering on that scale, then why not just engineer things so people don't abuse their authority in the first place? For that matter, the two are not mutually exclusive.

And that, I think, is where we find ourselves at issue. When you say "privacy is dead. Get over it" You're suggesting that the debate already over (I strongly disagree) and that we should all meekly accept increasing levels of surveillance now whilst we campaign for greater openness and accountability at some future time. As far as I'm concerned, that's the wrong way round. You put the infrastructure in place so that we can watch the watchmen, and maybe I'll happily accept that they can watch me more closely in turn.

But until that day comes I continue to value my privacy.

As it seems you do your own.

Now, tell me again how I missed your point.

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[mcrbids]

Finally! You post something reasonable, and explain SOME kind of position rather than just rail on mine. For the most part, we've argued semantics. But I have a question for you:

When you say "privacy is dead. Get over it" You're suggesting that the debate already over (I strongly disagree) and that we should all meekly accept increasing levels of surveillance now whilst we campaign for greater openness and accountability at some future time. As far as I'm concerned, that's the wrong way round. You put the infrastructure in place so that we can watch the watchmen, and maybe I'll happily accept that they can watch me more closely in turn.

But until that day comes I continue to value my privacy. But your privacy is already losing to increasing levels of surveillance right now while we debate it.

A) When you buy a beer at the local Kwik-E mart, your credit card gets dinged. That record is processed in near-real-time. You think this hasn't been abused? Think again - credit card records are routinely accessed by our wonderful government for criminal investigations.

B) When you drive through many intersections (especially in the UK, less so in the USA) there are cameras on the light posts. You don't think that OCR can be used with the (very standard font) license plates clearly posted on your car? How ELSE do they send me an automated ticket if I run a red light? 3 seconds at google turns up this.

C) Police cars routinely have 360 degree cameras mounted on them. (It's more common to record everything going out the front windshield) This makes anything that happens near a police car a matter of record. Another 3 seconds to google for this example.

D) AT&T, the NSA, and the amazing GW Bush administration recently got their hands caught in the cookie jar - a case I'm certain you have at least some passing familiarity with.

E) Public records once shrouded in the halls of obscurity are now easily searched online. Locations for registered sex offenders. Anybody who's committed a felony crime. (at least in my jurisdiction) Landownership records, and property deeds.

F) You call your phone company (or any other large XYZ megacorp) for any reason and the first thing you hear on the phone is "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes". What do you really think that means?

And it goes on, and on, and on. How private did you think you are? Even as a reasonably knowledgeable person, it's probably far worse than you imagined.

And so, I say again: "Privacy is dead. Get over it!" not because it's defeatist or counterproductive or anything like that - it's just TRUE. And the problem (if you feel that this kind of transparency is a problem) is getting worse with every passing day. At the rate things are developing, your nightmare world where the watchers watch everything and we have nothing to protect ourselves with is already well underway!

Do you have a better suggestion than Brin's world?

Re:Privacy is dead. Get over it.

[NickFortune]

And so, I say again: "Privacy is dead. Get over it!"

And I say again, that's a stupid thing to say. Privacy is not some lifeform that can be slain, never to walk the earth again. It is a courtesy that we customarily extend to one another; one important enough to be protected by law in many countries. "Privacy is dead" might make a good sound bite for a controversy loving CEO, but as a basis for argument it grossly misrepresents the issues

But your privacy is already losing to increasing levels of surveillance right now while we debate it.

I think you're conflating privacy with surveillance. Yes, there is more and more data being gathered on all of us. However, the availablily of the data does not invade my privacy any more than does the window in my front room. However, if you stand outside my house and peer in through that window for long periods of time - that's an invasion of privacy, and you can expect me (or anyone else you try this with) to get annoyed about it.

It's not the availability of the data that invades my privacy - it is the abuse of that data. And that battle is far from over.

And the problem (if you feel that this kind of transparency is a problem)

Now, if you'd been reading my posts, you'd know that I don't have a problem with - let's call it Brinian Transparency - as such. I just don't believe it's ever going to happen. It only works if it works for everyone, and the principle offenders are the ones who have the most compelling case that their doings should be exempt from transparency. So the police will claim they need their privacy lest we enable organised crime to evade the law; corporations will predict the collapse of the economy if their precious trade secrets fall into the hands of overseas competitors; the President will become a target for terrorists, if his movements become public knowledge; and so on, until every body large enough to afford their own lobbyist has cobbled up a reason why they should not be part of it all.

The only people who will be transparent will be the likes of you and me.

Do you have a better suggestion than Brin's world?

This is the trouble with basing arguments on the writings of SF writers. In their profession they need to devise scenarios that are internally consistent, but the initial assumptions of that world need be no more than mildly plausible. In fact a legitimate use of S/F is to examine some of the more extreme ends of the probably curve. The problem with this is that when they come to write seriously, they don't always examine their starting assumptions as rigorously as would a scientist or a scholar.

Brin's solution might work - if you can get the infrastructure into place. But that's the part he skips over, both in the Wired essay, and in Earth. So if you can explain how you think we can establish this blessed social order then by all means do so. But until you do, I'm not going to stop objecting to invasion of privacy any more than I'm going to sponsor research into Tree-Of-Life-Root, just because Larry Niven's vision in Protector was so compelling.

Do you have a better suggestion than Brin's world?

We can make sure that privacy (as defined above) is recognised as a basic pre-requisite of a sane society, and we can work to ensure that unwarranted abuse of personal data is a criminal act, and that it remains a criminal act. And we can campaign to set some sensible limits on where people want to put these blasted cameras, as well, see if we can stop the rot before we get to Orwell's nightmare, with cameras in every home.

And in the meantime, we can even campaign for greater transparency in governments and corporations - because I don't think Brin's idea is a bad one, any more than I think faster than light travel and limitless cheap energy are bad ideas. I just don't want to adopt a social policy that's dependent on any one of the three, at least until we get reasonable grounds to think they might be achievable.

Giving up privacy to read about why not to???

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with this? Having to set up an account just to read his paper on privacy? Isn't that backwards?

Has someone posted a bittorrent or something to the PDF without the account requirement?

Equating public monitoring to Privacy violations

[Tempest451]

I ask this. Is it my right to walk down the street naked and expect no one to look at me? Whats under my cloths is my business, but is that still the case if I am naked in public? Everyone wants to speculate on the coming of a future police-state if the cameras go up. If we are gonna debate the issue, debate them on what they currently are.

Thank you!

[necro2607]

I have been wondering about some good simple explanations of why that argument is so fully retarded, that could be easily understood by any person thoughtless enough to say "I have nothing to hide". Considering how often I hear that coming up in regards to privacy issues, it's about time we have some ammunition against the #1 most annoying argument that supports lessenning of privacy... heh !

There are things that government is not entitled.

[Zombie Ryushu]

I do have things to hide. Things that are legal, but I still want to keep private. University Pin Numbers, System passwords, personal journals, stored E-mail documents. The government is not entitled to those things. The government is not entitled to any information about my computer. Even outside the realm of law enforcement, if I had nothing to hide, scammers and spammers, and bot net harvesters would have access to my boxen!

Now, yeah, I have porn. Legal consenting adult porn. I'm an adult, I get to have those things. If I have no expectation of privacy in my own affairs, in my own dealings, in what adult I choose to have sex with (or marry). I'm entitled to that. The fact is, in (western civilization) if you have porn on your computer, you are considered to be a 'bad person'.

The problem with the US Government and any other government, is the breakdown of probable cause. These days, cause is whatever the authorities want it to be. There is massive inequity in society, so, all of those who are vulnerable adults have things to hide, we do have something to fear, overbearing governments tend to be the enemies of free people.

In this current climate of fear, you have to be brain dead to think we all have nothing to hide or fear. We all have things to hide, we can only trust our law enforcement officials to a certain arms length extent.

Even worse is, the public at large in counties like Canada, the US, and UK, seem to be electing authoritarian governments that have no respect for the rule of law. I think there are large segments, even if still minorities of the populations of prominent Western nations who don't believe in the various constitutional traditions of their people. They want kings, and they want strong men who will 'keep the bad people away'.

One possible answer is of course

[Arthur B.]

That someday you *may* have something to hide. The argument presupposes an omnibenevolent government. Although people could argue about the benevolence of the current government historically many governments are widely regarded as indisputably malevolent, which is argument enough.

It's hardly a "fallacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire concept of privacy is based around concealing "wrongs"; that is to say, keeping from public view what would be embarrassing, damaging or otherwise socially unacceptable.

If this were not so, there would be no need for privacy.

The hard fact is, technology has already made the 20th-century concept of privacy obsolete; anyone who promotes it is clinging, Luddite-like, to an ancient ideal irrespective of reality and scientific advancement. When high-powered directional mics can discern from half a mile away conversations held inside unshielded brick buildings, is it your right to prohibit interception of your leaked signals?

Privacy is a responsibility... viewing it as a right only puts you at a disadvantage, reliant on the state to protect you against the inexorable tide of progress.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[moeinvt]

"Privacy is a responsibility... viewing it as a right only puts you at a disadvantage"

When we talk about our "Rights" in terms of those inalienable freedoms that our Constitutional Republic is founded on, we are specifically talking about prohibitions on the GOVERNMENT. Technology does not render our Rights "obsolete". Just because the government "can" spy on us doesn't mean that we have to give them permission to do it.

"Privacy" is my responsibility in the sense that I need to take certain precautions to protect things like my personal financial information, or trade secrets that I don't want to share with competitors. Privacy is my RIGHT, in the sense that I should NOT need to protect myself against unwarranted government snooping.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[Kintar1900]

I wish I had mod points right now. Someone mod parent Insightful, please?

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[UncleTogie]

When high-powered directional mics can discern from half a mile away conversations held inside unshielded brick buildings, is it your right to prohibit interception of your leaked signals?
Depends... Is WiFi theft illegal in many areas? Why?

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[miskatonic alumnus]

The entire concept of privacy is based around concealing "wrongs"

Like fucking, for instance. Everyone knows that fucking is wrong, yet we keep doing it. We damned sure don't want our children to know about fucking; and we do what we can to conceal it from them. We ought to plant cameras in everyone's homes to make sure that they don't fuck. All these fucking people should be shot --- evil, sinning bastards.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[fastest fascist]

Technology does not render our Rights "obsolete". Just because the government "can" spy on us doesn't mean that we have to give them permission to do it. No, but do you expect them to stop doing it if you ask them to? Our societies are very much hierarchical, we DO have a clear ruling class, and they do things as they please. Your chances at having privacy are directly dictated by your ability to make it difficult or impossible to watch your actions. Governments can't be trusted not to use technology available to them - they have well-established branches whose very job is precisely to conduct surveillance in secret, and if you think the distinction between foreign and domestic threats to their power makes any difference to them, think a bit harder.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[nine-times]

Just because the government "can" spy on us doesn't mean that we have to give them permission to do it.

And this sentence is very important. We may have forgotten, but the government in the USA was founded on the idea that government must not be a foreign entity which controls the lives of people, but rather a body of the people which has been granted certain powers by the people for particular purposes. The government ought not have powers that the people have not granted to it.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[harrkev]

I wish I had mod points right now. Someone mod parent Insightful, please?

OK. I just did.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[dgatwood]

The entire concept of privacy is based around concealing "wrongs"; that is to say, keeping from public view what would be embarrassing, damaging or otherwise socially unacceptable.

If this were not so, there would be no need for privacy.

What's the URL to the webcam in your bathroom? Oh, yeah. That lecherous 80-year-old down the street called. He'd like your teenage daughter's school schedule. If you don't want telemarketers calling you at three in the morning, then why did you buy a telephone? Oh, and would you please email your updated bank account information to i0wn3djoo@myreallysleazybusiness.com; they can't seem to get at your bank account since you changed the account number. By the way, you can't work here because you have a history of carpal tunnel syndrome; I downloaded your medical records from the Internet. Oh, and I borrowed your car. I took the liberty of writing down the code number and making my own set of keys. Hope you don't mind me having that number.

Yes, some of those things you can protect yourself, but it is often necessary to provide that information to other people. Your babysitter might need your daughter's schedule to know when to pick her up. You might have to give out your phone number so others can reach you. (You do have friends, right?) You might need to give the bank account number for direct deposit of your paycheck. You might need to release your medical history to an insurance company or to another doctor when your previous doctor retires. You might even need to give that code number to the car dealer because you lost a set of car keys.

We can't always control our private information, and it is for that reason that we have privacy laws---not to be a complete safeguard against people stupidly failing to protect their private information, but to provide reasonable limitations on businesses and government when that information must be provided to them for some legitimate purpose. To claim that privacy laws are no longer useful is naive even for a Slashdot troll.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[The One and Only]

I think it is illegal to steal someone's WiFi router. Oh, you mean simply logging onto someone's network? Yeah, that can be prevented if I set my router on any setting except "LOOK AT ME I'M AN UNSECURED WIRELESS NETWORK EVERYONE LOG ON!".

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[xero314]

Where are my mod points when I need them? Or am I the only one that thought that was worthy of a +1 Funny?

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but do you expect them to stop doing it if you ask them to? Our societies are very much hierarchical, we DO have a clear ruling class, and they do things as they please. Your chances at having privacy are directly dictated by your ability to make it difficult or impossible to watch your actions. Governments can't be trusted not to use technology available to them - they have well-established branches whose very job is precisely to conduct surveillance in secret, and if you think the distinction between foreign and domestic threats to their power makes any difference to them, think a bit harder.

Then there is only one recourse against such abhorrent creatures: Destroy them.

Oh, the day will come.. yes, that will be a day of days.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[dwarfsoft]

Fucking is only considered wrong to those on Slashdot who like to hear the sound of one hand fapping.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[poopdeville]

Good job posting anonymously. ;-)

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[hob42]

I was thinking the same. Had mod points yesterday, and didn't find anything worth modding... *sigh*

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[blahplusplus]

"Like fucking, for instance. Everyone knows that fucking is wrong, yet we keep doing it. We damned sure don't want our children to know about fucking; and we do what we can to conceal it from them. We ought to plant cameras in everyone's homes to make sure that they don't fuck. All these fucking people should be shot --- evil, sinning bastards."

Actually you illustrate that human's beings don't necessarily need privacy in this instance, they simply need not be disturbed. If you're neighbors wife is hot and she's an exhibitionist is it wrong? The whole idea of private fucking is a cultural phenomenon, there are other cultures that could have cared less.

To put it another way: Privacy is simply a word we use in place of "self defence from the other", the 'other' being ideas, ways of life, certain traits, characteristics, behavioural norms, abuse of power, etc, in our attempt to prevent frustration, disturbance, fear, attack on our character, negative feelings, fear of discrimination and a host of other ills.

We want privacy simply because... the majority of people on planet earth - suck.

James madison said it correctly in the federalist #51

"... But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?"

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like fucking, for instance.

"Wrongs" was put in scare quotes, and the part immediately following your snip clarified:

keeping from public view what would be embarrassing, damaging or otherwise socially unacceptable.

But, as long as we realize you were just reaching to make a joke and didn't have any serious point, that's okay. Good joke.

Re:It's hardly a "fallacy"

[Jesus_666]

I think that there should be a right to privacy and that it should be allowed to simply not exercise it (same with certain other rights). Bang, suddenly everyone is happy, from J. Random Geek to Mary T. Exhibitionist... except for the executive branch of government, that is.

Note that the same doesn't apply to governmental agencies and (under certain circumstances) companies: In these cases full transparency should be employed unless completely impossible (e.g. national secrets).


The people should be protected from inquiry unless they explicitly wish not to. The government should be open to inquiry unless that would threaten the country.

More objections

[gurps_npc]

Here are a few more of my favorite ones:

While I may trust this CURRENT government to know what I am doing, we have a democracy. I don't trust the unknown, possibly Islamic fundamentalist government we may have in 30 years not to hunt me down and kill me for being jewish.

While I personally have nothing to hide, I have friends and family that occasionally come over to my house, and use my phone/computer/etc. I do not know that THEY have nothing to hide - specifcally my 80 year old grandma that has glaucoma and lung cancer cooks home made brownies and I don't know that she has not made some special ones just for her.

The question is NOT "what do I have to hide", but instead "what makes you so freakin paranoid that you are wasting your time (and my tax dollars) investigating EVERYONE instead of the few people you have actual evidence of wrong doing"

Trust is a two way street. You want me to trust you with my embarrasing secrets? fine, you have to trust us with yours. Like say, who did you speak to about those secret energy meetings....

Re:More objections

[Reziac]

Bingo. "If you have nothing to hide, show us your papers, Komrade!" isn't just about privacy. It's about the paranoia of those who want to know about everything you do. After all, what they don't know about MIGHT be plotting to overthrow THEM.

A slightly off-topic follow up question

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I recently was asked why I had refused to allow myself to be fingerprinted by the state, considering it was "voluntary" but carried with it some negative consequences. My answer primarily was "they have no right to do so, and I'm not willing to participate in a system I have a legitamite moral problem with." Everyone else in the cconversation had been fingerprinted already and couldn't understand what the big deal was.

So, can someone offer a better explaination than "I stand at the top of a slippery slope" with regards to fingerprinting?

Re:A slightly off-topic follow up question

[Cytlid]

Uhh... you've copyrighted the impressions left behind from your fingertips?

Re:A slightly off-topic follow up question

[sxtxixtxcxh]

wait... so you're asking us to give you a better explanation for why you have a problem with being fingerprinted?

Re:A slightly off-topic follow up question

[Actually, I do RTFA]

wait... so you're asking us to give you a better explanation for why you have a problem with being fingerprinted?

Yes. Why is this strange? My explanation makes people look at me like a tin-foil hat guy. I want a better, i.e. more palatable, way of explaining this.

Re:A slightly off-topic follow up question

[DGolden]

I'm not sure about fingerprinting - certainly, I don't think one should be obliged to give a fingerprint if asked, but if someone collects a fingerprint you've left, or DNA sample from the biological gunk all humans leave in their wake, I'm not sure I'd consider it a privacy violation. The problem arises if it's used as _evidence_ though - it is relatively easy to grab someon's fingerprings and constuct a fairly convincing false fingerprint stamp, and scatter someone else's DNA about a crime scene, if you want to frame them. So, since everyone has DNA and you just can't help leaving it everywhere (stop sniggering down the back) where any so-and-so could collect it, the problem is with what often seems to be the legal system's blind trust in forensic evidence.

Hell, people still tend to blindly believe video "evidence", even after TV shows with computer-reconstructed historical characters have aired on national TV. Sigh.

Re:A slightly off-topic follow up question

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to answer this is that there is no way that the state having your fingerprint is going to help you, so why do it?

It's not like one day the state is going to make you a lottery winner because they found your fingerprints someplace, and call you up and give you a $100 million dollars.

So it's not going to help you, and the only way it would help the state is if you were planning to commit some kind of terrible crime. So I would ask your friends who got themselves fingerprinted if they were trying to help the state because they were planning some kind of crime, and wanted to make it easier for the state to catch them.

If it won't help you win the lottery, and you are not planning to commit any crimes, it would only waste your time and the state's to get fingerprinted.

Why does the government have something to hide?

[bigtrike]

If the government has not done any illegal spying on US citizens, why must the records remain sealed?

Re:Why does the government have something to hide?

[mkosmo]

The people are stupid. Why would you tell them anything?

Re:Why does the government have something to hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

And... the Government isn't stupid?

Re:Why does the government have something to hide?

[illumin8]

The people are stupid. Why would you tell them anything?

Nice attitude. Do you by chance work in the office of our vice president? All kidding aside, this is a very stupid argument to make. How about "we deserve as taxpayers to know how OUR money is being spent."

Re:Why does the government have something to hide?

[mkosmo]

Nice attitude. Do you by chance work in the office of our vice president? All kidding aside, this is a very stupid argument to make. How about "we deserve as taxpayers to know how OUR money is being spent."

I'm really not kidding. Does Steve Jobs tell everything about upcoming products to stockholders? No. You (if you're not a stock holder, just take the analogy as if you are) gave him money, too. Believe it or not, our government CAN'T be all evil. It is in fact elected by us, thus, we directly supported it. Thus, we directly instilled our trust in it. Thus, it is entirely the fault of EVERY AMERICAN if the government does something that people don't like. As a republican-democracy, it is their responsibility to act on our behalf. The notion being that they know best. You decided your legislature knows best. You decided that the President knows best. The majority spoke. If you push a car off a cliff, you can't decide to go back and not push it off once its already falling. It just doesn't work that way.

Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

He explains privacy well, but he fails to address that the survailance is supposed to only apply to communications originating in the united states and ending in a foriegn country or the other way around.

But anything and everything that enters into or leaves the soverign territory of the United States is subject to inspection and regulation without warrant.

Those telephone calls oversees?.. the government has the explicit right to monitor them.

Those emails overseas and surfing of overseas web pages... the government has the explicit right to monitor them.

When you leave and enter the united states... customs has the right to search you and your baggage without a warrant.. its all the same.

Re:Bogus

[moeinvt]

"Those telephone calls oversees?.. the government has the explicit right to monitor them."

"Those emails overseas and surfing of overseas web pages... the government has the explicit right to monitor them."

Where are you from? In the United States, the government doesn't have any "rights", they have the powers that were explicitly delegated to it by The Constitution. Please provide a link or reference to the laws which grant government the power to monitor the phone calls, e-mails and web surfing activities of U.S. Citizens without a warrant. (statements by FOX News and government officials don't count).

Re:Bogus

[fyngyrz]

He explains privacy well

No, he really doesn't. He doesn't even understand it. For instance, he says "If you shove me, you are not leaving me alone. You may be harming me, but it is not a problem of privacy." It is a problem of privacy; one person's right to shove another is strictly limited by the idea of permission, that is, the existence of an inherent boundary, and the permission - or lack thereof - to cross that boundary. This is the same concept as putting a letter in an envelope. There is an inherent boundary there, and you do not have permission to cross it. These boundaries, existing in many social, legal, financial and physical circumstances, are all direct manifestations of privacy. The constitution brings the concept to the table in unflinching fashion: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." There it is again. Boundaries. Personal, property, records, possessions. Privacy is a facet of liberty; the real problem here is that as far as the government concerned, liberty is just a quaint old word and the constitution an annoyance at most.

Re:Bogus

[CynicArmy]

"unreasonable searches and seizures" As long as the government / congress / parliament defines what constitutes a 'reasonable search and seizure', the concept of such boundaries is just a concept, something nice to give you the reassuring feeling that the powers manipulating your life cannot do everything.

the need for privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

if we dont like what someone is doing, or just dont like them, then what do we usally do? We talk about what we dont like about them.. is that wrong, no. But if that person finds out about it what do they try to do, shut us up. and if its a person with power, like the president then you just commited a crime if they say so. And off to prison you go, just for stating your opinion....

what i tell the girl next door...

[pablo_max]

Why should I take the camera out of your bathroom if you have nothing to hide? Or..why should I get off this ladder outside your bedroom window if you have nothing to hide?
All kidding aside, these people are morons and there is really no way to reason with an unreasonable moron. My advice, get yourself a camera like I did ;)

I'm not so scared of the Governement ....

[iknownuttin]

as a whole. I'm scared of the individual in Government who abuses his knowledge against me.

And I hate this data collection by commercial interests, such as, credit bureaus and Choicepoint. And it really pisses me off that in order to get a job, you are now required to have a background check that also includes a credit check - even if your job has nothing to do with handling money. (What's happening is folks with a lot of school debt are not getting jobs because they "fail" the credit check.) And I have no way of checking their data - I think it is completely unethical that ChoicePoint collects this data without allowing me to check it, let alone without my permission.

Flip Side

[Cytlid]

I think the biggest argument *for* "I've got nothing to hide" is the fact that plenty of people will partake in illegal activity if they think noone is watching. I hate to say it, but I think it's a minor part of human nature.

I call it the halo effect. Watch it, next time your driving. People cut you off, don't use their turn signals, speed, basically drive like idiots. Place a patrol car in the mix, (in fact the second it comes into sight of any of the aforementioned asshole drivers) and suddenly, without warning, little halos appear over every car and everyone is just a cute little perfect driver doing what they're supposed to.

I love making the analogy of drivers to general society because it allows you to observe people acting privately in a public place. The isolation of the driver from everyone else (aka no real communication) gives this sense of "tunnel vision" where basically people drive as if they're the only ones on the road at all, and somehow the other cars are not really people but automatons just getting in the way.

So the major premise of the "I've got nothing to hide" crowd, is that plenty of people do, and the ones that squirm in their seats are usually the ones who just might ...

I'm all for privacy, and don't want too much of my rights eroded away, but honestly, I really don't have anything to hide. I think it's the level of monitoring or whatnot that scares people.

I didn't read the essay. But I can imagine the guy is outraged at people's nonchalance. "I've got nothing to hide" may generally be perceived as "I don't care", and that's what the author is most likely trying to avoid.

Give me the middle ground ... I do care if you monitor me too much, but I also do care if you do the things like drive like an asshole when you think noone is looking. With the proper checks and balances, neither side will get overconfident.

Re:Flip Side

[Anonymous Coward]

had we dealt with the reasons why people do illegal things [speeding, tailgating etc...] they shouldn't need to be watched like a hawk. I know that is oversimplifying things and won't completely eliminate the problem but it is a hell of a lot better than the world becomming a disturbingly accurate portrayal of 1984 isn't it?

Re:Flip Side

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing I do different when a cop shows up is I stop speeding. And it has nothing to do with thinking that speeding is wrong, and everything to do with being afraid of the punishment. I assume that's what they want, but they also taught me that the safest time to speed is in a pack of other speeding cars, where it's the most dangerous, and not in the middle of the night on an empty highway.

Re:Flip Side

[value_added]

I call it the halo effect. Watch it, next time your driving. People cut you off, don't use their turn signals, speed, basically drive like idiots. Place a patrol car in the mix, (in fact the second it comes into sight of any of the aforementioned asshole drivers) and suddenly, without warning, little halos appear over every car and everyone is just a cute little perfect driver doing what they're supposed to.

Halo effect is a great term.

I'm reminded of a Dr. Phil episode where the guy was "on trial" for watching too much internet porn. Putting aside the deeper issues of the subject, Dr. Phil demanded to know why, if he loved his wife as much as he said he did, and was as committed to the marriage as she was, he would do something that knew he would have to hide his wife.

The wife and audience nodded silently.

Internet porn, bad driving, personal grooming and bathroom habits, telling white lies, stealing glances at attractive passersby, hell, the list is endless. We're all human and have failings that we believe to be entirely forgivable so it's understandable when people say, "I just don't care about privacy." On the other hand, it's worth reminding those people that such commonplace forgiveness is rarely extended when those failings are taken out of context, recorded on tape or video, and presented in edited from in front of a TV audience or, worse, a courtroom.

Re:Flip Side

[Myopic]

I'm all for privacy, and don't want too much of my rights eroded away, but honestly, I really don't have anything to hide. I think it's the level of monitoring or whatnot that scares people.

Please send me a photograph of your genitals, a list of your fetishes, a complete history of your lifetime drug use, full bank account records, a list of every politician you have ever voted for, all the cache and history files for your web browser, medical and dental records (including any STDs you've ever had), and your social security number. Just like the government, I totally pinky swear not to misuse any of the information.

Me, I have plenty to hide, so I won't be sending you any of the same information back.

Re:Flip Side

[Red Flayer]

I think there are two parts to the "halo effect", and they likely operate in different proportions in different people. First is the fear of punishment -- most of the people you refer to do not feel that their actions are really wrong (or else they wouldn't do them) -- they fear the consequences of getting caught. The second is that the patrol car may remind them of their behavior, which they actually do feel is wrong, but "forgot" about that -- the external moral compass of the patrol car awakens their internal moral compass. You may observe this when the patrol car turns off, and a portion of the speeders do not resume their terrifying race.

Why is this relevant to privacy? Because among the people doing immoral things out there, some may come to the realization that their behavior is "wrong" in some sense because they are forced to come to terms with the risks of getting caught. In other words, some people are in denial about (or are just ignoring) the immorality of their actions.

All that said, I still believe invading somone's privacy is a piss-poor way to help them see their actions for what they are. Also, I think the people who respond in this fashion are a small minority; the fear of punishment is a much bigger motivator for most people to cease immoral actions.

One last comment on this topic, and it has to do with people who believe that moral codes are handed down from $AUTHORITY -- these are often the people who would act immorally if they were not told what action was moral or not. It's sad to say that most of our lawmakers, IMO, are of this breed -- which is why morality is legislated in the US.

Re:Flip Side

[Cytlid]

All of that is on my myspace page. Which, btw is easy to check but not easy to find.

Re:Flip Side

[stewbacca]

You are so right. Most asshole drivers aren't assholes because they don't know any better; they are assholes because they don't agree with the rules, and don't feel they should apply to them. They only look "not to get caught". Like any idiot at Wal-mart who's fat-ass spouse just waits in the car in the fire-lane for them to do their 45-minutes of shopping.

Re:Flip Side

[stewbacca]

Stupid argument: I'll gladly send you a pic of my junk. Everyone has genitals, big whoop, and my junk is pretty much average, I imagine. I have no fetishes, other than I like naked women. I've never done drugs. You can't have my bank account, because I don't trust my bank not to give my money away. I've voted about 55/45 Republican/Democrat, and I'm not ashamed to have done so (even though I've made some dumb votes in the past...cough, Perot, cough). You can have my cache, right after I remove my bank info, and you are welcome to my medical and dental records too. Surprise, you'll find no STD's. And even if you did, why would you care? I'll even give you my social security number, because it is too easy to get anyway. It is impossible to live in the cacoon of privacy that most of you are advocating on here.

So, I guess I really don't have anything to hide, and according to TFA, that makes me total boob who can't think for myself.

Re:Flip Side

[radl33t]

I like this halo effect, but I'm not sure I buy it.

I don't really care what others think of my uhh brazen road manners. And I definitely seek a connection with my fellow motorists. I try to make eye contact with everyone on the road. Correction, everyone I pass. Know their car make/model/condition/passenger #/gender/race/current activity. That is part of driving for me. When I notice the pope I either disguise my behavior from their POV (which usually doesn't last long) or I step in line like joe blow. I just don't want to pay fines. e.g. I'm just avoiding punishment.

I drive like what most people would call a maniac. I tear across lanes quickly enough to frequently upset people. Something I have never really understood is 'cutting someone off.' I would describe myself as rude and aggressive, but others don't have to react to my driving, simply be aware of it. I always accelerate through holes in traffic. People get all pissed off at various degrees of proximity, but I would never create a need for someone to brake. I make no mistake about it, driving is a dangerous F%#king business, but the way I see it-legitimate or not-the risks I take seldom match the complete and utter detachment from reality I see on most motorists' faces.

BTW, rude and aggressive on the road is something like my Mr. Hyde, which also fights your analogy. I'm not here to shit on your argument with my bizzaro anecdotal story. I guess, in some meandering way, I want to contain that analogy to define the complacent drifters who coast through life completely oblivious to their surroundings and the deeper effect of their lack of participation and awareness!

Heh heh. I've got nothing to hide, unless my disclosure would cause me injury, which could easily stem from legal or illegal acts.

Re:Flip Side

[Myopic]

Great! We're agreed then. Send all information to governmentknowswhatsbestforyou at gmail.com. Seriously, I just registered it, I will really receive your information.

Re:Flip Side

[stewbacca]

And what do my balls and my voting record have to do with the government?

Re:Flip Side

[Myopic]

They are both things that the government will know about if they watch you all the time. Also, your private conversations with your wife, lawyer, doctor, and priest. Also, tons of other shit you might not want to be public. And, after all that, also some things that might be illegal, or marginally legal.

Re:Flip Side

[plague3106]

I think the biggest argument *for* "I've got nothing to hide" is the fact that plenty of people will partake in illegal activity if they think noone is watching. I hate to say it, but I think it's a minor part of human nature.

So in other words, a majority of people do things they do not believe is wrong, yet it makes perfect sense to have laws making said activities illegal.

I call it the halo effect. Watch it, next time your driving. People cut you off, don't use their turn signals, speed, basically drive like idiots. Place a patrol car in the mix, (in fact the second it comes into sight of any of the aforementioned asshole drivers) and suddenly, without warning, little halos appear over every car and everyone is just a cute little perfect driver doing what they're supposed to.

Well, I assume you drive like an idiot then too, since you made the blanket 'people drive like idiots.' Therefore the majority of people drive that way, and you are likely in the majority. Of course you'll claim that YOU don't drive like an idiot. The odd thing is that most others would make the same statements as well.

Also, it seems to me to be MORE dangerous when a cop car is around, because people are now braking suddenly and with no reason to continue going UNDER the speed limit. Basically, everyone is now watching the cop instead of concentrating on their driving.

I love making the analogy of drivers to general society because it allows you to observe people acting privately in a public place. The isolation of the driver from everyone else (aka no real communication) gives this sense of "tunnel vision" where basically people drive as if they're the only ones on the road at all, and somehow the other cars are not really people but automatons just getting in the way.

I take it you've never walked on a major city's streets, like Philadephia or NYC. People walking perceive others and just being in the way also.

So the major premise of the "I've got nothing to hide" crowd, is that plenty of people do, and the ones that squirm in their seats are usually the ones who just might ...

If "plenty of people" are violating laws, perhaps we need to re-evaluate if said laws should even be on the books at all.

I didn't read the essay. But I can imagine the guy is outraged at people's nonchalance. "I've got nothing to hide" may generally be perceived as "I don't care", and that's what the author is most likely trying to avoid.

I didn't read the article either, but I'm not going to speculate that its actually about another topic (apapthy).

Give me the middle ground ... I do care if you monitor me too much, but I also do care if you do the things like drive like an asshole when you think noone is looking. With the proper checks and balances, neither side will get overconfident.

Perhaps if people are cutting you off and 'driving like assholes' you're doing things you shouldn't as well, like being in the passing lane but not passing anyone.

Re:Flip Side

[plague3106]

Better yet, post it all here. After all, he doesn't care about who sees that info.

If he really had nothing to hide, he'd give out his bank numbers too. But notice he suddenly says "I don't trust my bank." Very interesting... he doesn't want to give information because of a trust issue... hm..

Re:Flip Side

[plague3106]

Not quite. Some traffic laws (speeding) are based on lies and are really there to generate cash for the government and for the police to continue justifying their jobs. There's even studies to show that the "safest" speed is the one people would choose on their own if there was no limit.

FWIW, in the early 70s, there were no speed limit laws, yet it wasn't a constant steam of crashes ever five seconds. Go ask your parents, they'll tell you.

Re:Flip Side

[Myopic]

Yeah. He never sent me his info. He talks a big game, but in fact, he really does want his privacy. Everyone does.

The "nothing to hide" agument is bullshit x 3

[Barterer]

More specifically: 1. There are things that are perfectly legal, but embarassing or uncomfortable to expose. Do you want officer Peeping Tom to rifle through your wife's underwear drawer? 2. Some laws are unjust and should be broken. 3. Frame-ups, in combination with bullshit "forfeiture" laws. Do you trust that cop not to "find" bag of weed in your very nice car? And if he does, do you expect to keep it?

Just follow them around recording them...

[TWX]

...and play back the tape on prime time TV. Or, just cut to the things that they really don't want, like picking wedgies, adjusting bra fitment, picking noses, kissing and getting touchy-feely, or parts where they did something mildly unethical, lewd, crass, rude, or some other behavior that would embarass them. Or just zoom in on women's low-cut tops and cleavage, or butts and "whale tail" thong sightings...

I guarantee that nearly everyone who saw such footage of themselves would be horrified beyond belief. When I was in high school I did a presentation on why video surveillance of innocent people was wrong. I hid a camera (which was very hard given the size of the average camcorder in 1995) in the classroom where it recorded, from a side vantage, my presentation and the class receiving the presentation unawares. I had the instructor's permission so that someone was aware of what I was doing. To underscore my point, to end my presentation I walked over, exposed the camera for the class, stopped the tape, took it out, and put it in the VCR, to play it for the class for a few minutes. The students, by and large, were irate. Even (maybe especially) those who were defending the position that surveillance was okay were mad. The principal received at least four telephone calls from angry parents, and several students complained quite angrily or tearfully to the teacher how what I did was wrong. There was no punitive action taken upon me (the Principal was very cool about some of this sort of thing), and the students learned a valuable lesson in privacy.

Re:Just follow them around recording them...

[TWX]

Oh, and to counter the arguments about those who say that it's wrong for a citizen to do it but is okay for the government or for law enforcement, get the footage from government cameras via Freedom of Information Act and show that, especially the derogatory or particularly revealing things that are caught, and air that. And, also try to find examples on tape of officers doing illegal things that aren't prosecuted...

Re:Just follow them around recording them...

[stewbacca]

I wouldn't be horrified to see myself picking a wedgie or my nose, because I (well, WE) do it all the time...why should it bother me (or you, or anyone else for that matter)? If it bothered me, I wouldn't do it in the first place, but I do...so what?. We are too prude, as a society, and that is the problem here...not privacy. What's next? I get embarrassed because somebody saw me breathing in public/sweating on a hot day/scratching my armpit/doing a breath check, etc.?

If you've got nothing to hide...

[ReverendLoki]

If you've got nothing to hide, then you won't mind taking off your clothes for me.

Don't know about how well it works in a realm of debate and discourse, but so far it hasn't gotten me anything but slapped in the singles bars.

Re:If you've got nothing to hide...

[cerberusss]

If you've got nothing to hide, then you won't mind taking off your clothes for me.

Well, I'd like to, but that would require me to wear clothes in the first place. That's right, I work from home. :-D

What about next years government?

[vidarh]

A person may or may not have something to hide from the current government, but our insistence on privacy isn't merely about today, but about tomorrow, next year, next decade.

History is full of oppressive regimes that turned against it's population years after being heralded as liberators or elected. Why should we not fear what the government might consider a crime tomorrow, or next year?

Biggest. Double. Standard. Ever.

[Brad Eleven]

I'm 100% befuddled by this gang's insistence on spying on us, while they want to hide everything. Now that the Congress is finally exercising some oversight, they cite "executive privilege."

It is my opinion that people who want to be elected or appointed to public office ought to agree to be monitored as a primary condition of the position. I'm far more interested in people who can perform demonstrably than I am in someone who looks good on the telly.

It looks to me like the terrorists won. Our rights are disappearing, the state has spent all of the tax money and more, and we seem to be returning to a feudal system.

Re:Biggest. Double. Standard. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my opinion that people who want to be elected or appointed to public office ought to agree to be monitored as a primary condition of the position.

But you forgot an obvious loophole: the recorded material would not be legally accessible by anyone under age 140, because of its explicit and violent content. Those people have something to hide - that's what diplomatic immunity and censorship has been invented for (if you drop immunity and privacy, censorship will still do the job).

Doesn't download for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it require javascript or something?

Also the name attribute on the download link contains quotation chars...

Name=""I've Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"

Perhaps they'd be interested in my paper entitled, Name=""I've Got Illegal Quotation Chars in an Attribute Value" and Other Misunderstandings of Basic HTML"?

Just point to the Bush administration

[Anonymous Coward]

They have so much to hide, yet they claim they are doing nothing wrong.

Just because...

[lordvalrole]

you have nothing to hide doesn't mean something can't get used against you in the future. People who say that "they have nothing to hide" either they are lying or don't think about what they are saying. Laws can change and laws are different in every state, in every country, and in every situation. Just saying that you have nothing to hide doesn't mean that it can't be used against you 40 years from now. Take a look at celebs and politicians. People dig and dig until they find something that is controversial and that can be used against them even though they did it 10-20+ years ago.

I am sorry but the least people know about me the better. I don't want people knowing everything I do or don't do. I don't want the government to use whatever data mining they have gathered about me and use that later. We can't stop terrorists by data mining. We can't stop terrorism because it is abstract. Start taking away any more freedoms in America it will start pissing more people off and homebrew terrorism will start happening.

Unless we can make the government completely crystal clear and see exactly what they do behind closed doors...they aren't welcomed into mine.

Who knew that minority report could feel so real these days. Americans could care less about these topics. As long as they have American Idol and entertainment...they could care less about our government and our freedoms. One of the best quotes from a movie and it holds true today.

Gracchus: Fear and wonder, a powerful combination.
Gaius: You really think people are going to be seduced by that?
Gracchus: I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it.
-gladiator

Re:Just because...

[stewbacca]

I keep seeing this argument that they'll change the laws and go back in time to punish us, but nobody is providing any real examples. You can hypothesize all you like, but until the government actually does it on a systemic basis (not just isolated cases), then your point isn't valid.

Re:Just because...

[plague3106]

Well, read your history books on the british colonies around, oh say 1776. There IS a reason they built the government the way they did.

Easy Answer:

[raehl]

Identity Theft. EVERYONE has something to hide. The fewer people that have access to your private information, the harder it is for people to steal from you.

The more people, even people working for the government, that have access to your information, the easier it is for you to be turned into a victim. And in the case of things like identity theft, the less you THINK you have to hide, the more attractive of a target you probably are. (Upstanding citizens probably have good credit to exploit.)

Re:Easy Answer:

[demachina]

"The fewer people that have access to your private information, the harder it is for people to steal from you."

True. The problem we have with identity theft, at least in the U.S., is the mechanism we use to identify ourselves dates to a 1936, a nine digit number which, when tied to your name opens nearly all doors to identity thieves. The key problem with it is it used to identify you which means you CAN'T keep it secret because you have to use it everytime you need to identify yourselves for employment, banks, credit cards and assorted other purposes. We got away with it back in the age where everything was on paper and moved from point A to point B by hand, and the paper was locked up in buildings, but in the computer and network age it is pure insanity that we still rely on this archaic system for identification. It is an engraved invitation for hackers to get rich, especially when combined with the online use of credit cards and banks. The staggering losses to identify theft are going to just continue to explode and amazingly no one is doing anything about it.

The solution is well known and wouldn't be that hard to implement. The social security administration urgently needs create a public key digital signature repository and allow people to go to a Social Security office, prove their identity and register their digital signature. Then everything which requires electornic identification needs to require a person use their digital signature and private key to prove their identity. If you don't create a digital signature then you continue with the current system and are extremely vulnerable to identity theft. If you have a digital signature then you have some confidence that when you bank, or use your credit card online that there is a system at work that doesn't date back to before the computer age. You could even go in and change your digital signature once in a while, something you can't easily do with your name and social security number.

Re:Easy Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that so many people think a National ID system will lead to violations of privacy. Hopefully, countries which teach their children math will implement a reasonable way to establish identity and then we can bank with them :)

Re:Easy Answer:

[MoneyT]

Consider the other side of the coin though. If everyone knows everything about me at any time, then I can always prove that the identity theft that was comitted was actual theft, and not me just trying to get a free computer. Consider the recent rape case at duke. One student could almost completely prove they weren't there for the alleged rape based on a series of privacy invasions (taxi records, dorm records, ATM suvielence records and cell phone records). Without any of those records, it would have been a he said she said argument.

Re:Easy Answer:

[demachina]

We already have a national ID system...its just a bad one.... the Social Security number.

The only thing a digital signature system would add to government power is the ability to track each time your signature is accessed to verify your identity, but when it comes to taxes, banking and employment they already are notified most of the time when your social security number is used.

Re:Easy Answer:

[Ikester8]

Without any of those records, it would have been a he said she said argument. Despite all of the exculpatory evidence you noted, and much more besides, he was prosecuted anyway. He truly did have nothing to hide, because that was exactly what he had to do with the events of that evening.

Re:Easy Answer:

[ElectricRook]

It's not about identity theft. It's about the right to be left alone. Even if you do something that brings you to the public spotlight, you still have a right to privacy.

Consider that if you played a major part in a political movement to change some government office. Say close down the local mosquito control office. You will infuriate a whole lot of people. They will get really mad at you. But these are people who have a powers over you, that may have little boundary. Privacy, is about the government not having any personal ammunition to harass you for your un-popular beliefs.

Re:Easy Answer:

[Dragonslicer]

One student could almost completely prove they weren't there for the alleged rape based on a series of privacy invasions (taxi records, dorm records, ATM suvielence records and cell phone records). I'm sure some people still think so, but I think you'll find that most people don't consider it an invasion of privacy when such records are obtained by court order. I don't recall offhand if that was the case in your example, but all of those records would be legitimate targets for search warrants granted by a court.

Re:Easy Answer:

[danaris]

It sounds like a great idea.

Unfortunately, if it happens any time soon (longer if Hillary is elected, hopefully less so if Obama is elected), you can bet pretty safely on the government using a big corporate implementation of public key crypto for it...so every single person in the country will need to put their new SS# in the hands of (for instance) Microsoft.

...Yes, I'm feeling pretty cynical tonight.

Dan Aris

Re:Easy Answer:

[fractoid]

And when people (not many, but certainly some) people lose their private keys through accident or misadventure? Either they cease to officially exist, or they can identify themselves through existing, insecure means. The former is obviously not acceptable, but the latter breaks the whole system wide open because it's then only as secure as the weakest link, ie. the initial identification process.

I'm not saying you're on the wrong track, but this problem seems to me to be typical of the concept of identification as a whole, rather than any particular implementation of such.

Re:Easy Answer:

[demachina]

"Either they cease to officially exist, or they can identify themselves through existing, insecure means."

I'm somewhat less concerned about the physical identification process since that is a long running weakness in our ID system until you inflict cradle to grave biometrics on us and I wouldn't touch that hotbutton with a 10 foot pole. If someone has to go in to a social security office or embassy with 2 ID's and be scrutinized by a human being that is better than the current system where one person can harvest a million identities and credit card numbers and use them electronically from some place in Russia with pretty much no check on them.

Having to go in to an office to reset your signature would be a serious impediment to identity thieves. They could be photographed and fingerprinted, for example, and have the info attached to the account so in the event there is a fraud there is evidence of the culprit. It would also be possible to setup automated notification if your signature is changed so you know immediately when it happens. You would forbid changing the notification address and the private key at the same time to insure notification gets to the previous owner of the identity.

The thing that is urgently needed NOW is for a digital signature as a requirement for any online financial transactions. If online theft continues to explode everyone is going to eventually stop trusting online anything especially after their first encounter with identity theft.

I appreciate the potential for government abuse of a "national" ID system like this but the current abuse of our ID's by thieves completely trumps that problem and this is a pretty modest extension of the existing social security number "national" ID system which is completely inadequate in the age of computers and networks.

Re:Easy Answer:

[stewbacca]

If you are worried about political backlash in your cause, can you honestly say you are a staunch supporter in the first place? I mean, if you believe in something, you stand strong for it, no? I stand for unpopular beliefs all the time, yet I never back down from them, just because they are unpopular.

Re:Easy Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds a lot like the security through obscurity comments that run rampant on /.

Re:Easy Answer:

[Kirth]

You're absolutely right. The first thing this invasion into your privacy brings is not "more security", no matter who does it. The first things this will bring is "more identity theft".

Guess what, identity theft is a smaller problem in Europe with its more stringent privacy laws, than in the USA.

Re:Easy Answer:

[nasch]

It sounds like you're saying, "it's OK for political dissidents to be harassed, because if they really believe in their cause they will put up with it". I hope you're saying something different.

Re:Easy Answer:

[raehl]

Guess what, identity theft is a smaller problem in Europe

Ok, assuming we accept this unsubstantiated assertion as true...

with its more stringent privacy laws, than in the USA.

That doesn't mean that this has anything to do with it. It could simply be because the USA has SS#'s and Europe doesn't.

Re:There are things that government is not entitle

[Tempest451]

"The problem with the US Government and any other government, is the breakdown of probable cause. These days, cause is whatever the authorities want it to be. There is massive inequity in society, so, all of those who are vulnerable adults have things to hide, we do have something to fear, overbearing governments tend to be the enemies of free people." Ya know, you act like the government is some foreign entity separated from the people, but in the U.S. the goverment for the people, by the people, and of the people. Even if some tyrannical prisident made it into office, he couldnt order the military to suspend civil rights. Why? Because ours is a volunteer military made of same citizens who would be effected by any unlawful order handed down by the government. And even the poorest of us can raise our right hand and become a member of the most powerful military on Earth.

Mod parent UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the most insightful posts I've read in a long time.

Worth quoting:

[Anonymous Coward]

As one commenter aptly notes: ...
To me, the "I have nothing to hide" argument basically equates to "I don't care what happens, so long as it doesn't happen to me"30

One of the difficulties with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it looks for a visceral kind of injury as opposed to a structural one. Ironically, this underlying conception of injury is shared by both those advocating for greater privacy protections and those arguing in favor of the conflicting interests to privacy.

A behavior fundamentally at odds with the role and authority we have given our government is wrong, even when no one can be shown to have been harmed by it.

It's not just the government

[FranTaylor]

The government outsources everything now. They (or one of the companies they hire) could collect up all of your email and web surfing logs and send it to credit agencies, insurance companies, even your employer.

What if you emailed your friend that you had a crummy day at work, and the next day, your employer waves a copy of it in your face and says "you're fired".

What if you surfed around looking for alternatives to your current insurance, and your carrier decides to drop you because you're not a loyal customer?

They could do it all in the name of 'maximizing shareholder value'.

Lame article ...

[Syncerus]

Well, I downloaded the PDF and waded my way through the turgid prose. The sad truth is that the subject is very interesting and timely. Unfortunately, the author really has nothing insightful to say on the subject. The 25 pages of text are clunky and directly focused on academic publication. He writes a great deal, but doesn't SAY anything. How can he say so little with so many words?

The only thing that I took from his publication is that he doesn't like the Bush Administration. That's fine with me; everyone is entitled to his own opinion. My problem is that this issue as such is far greater than any current administration. It's one of the fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual and the state, and deserves to be treated as an issue of profound significance.

If this is the best justification of our right to privacy, then we're in serious trouble.

Re:Lame article ...

[DerekLyons]

Well, I downloaded the PDF and waded my way through the turgid prose. The sad truth is that the subject is very interesting and timely. Unfortunately, the author really has nothing insightful to say on the subject. The 25 pages of text are clunky and directly focused on academic publication. He writes a great deal, but doesn't SAY anything. How can he say so little with so many words?

Precisely. The article summary claims that Solove's essay "exposes the faulty underpinnings of the "I have nothing to hide" arguement", for my money it singularly fails to do so. (Except in the context of the complex and opaque theoretical philosophical universe he creates in the paper.) He misses the point (to my mind) by a country mile - there are no 'underpinnings' to the argument. It is a (if I may borrow a term) Platonic arguement. He weakens how own case by diving off into the philosophical and theoretical rather than adressing the issue head on.
 
 

The only thing that I took from his publication is that he doesn't like the Bush Administration. That's fine with me; everyone is entitled to his own opinion. My problem is that this issue as such is far greater than any current administration. It's one of the fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual and the state, and deserves to be treated as an issue of profound significance.

Both Solove and Schneier have both allowed their political dogma to become the dominant force in their writings. You see the same thing here in many of the Slashdot replies - most of them hare off into tinfoil hat conspiracy land, and few analyzing the quality of the thinking. (Mostly because this kind of essay preaches to the Slashdot choir, largely an uncritical lot so long as you agree with the Hivemind.)

Re:Lame article ...

[dch24]

You'll forgive me if I am a little hazy on what a Platonic argument is -- do you mean trying to prove that a loss of privacy is acceptable because the person is ideal, inculpable, and guiltless?

My personal stance is that privacy is a privilege, and not easily won. However, since every person has the innate ability to think in private, we will have to draw a line on what "wiretapping" crosses the line and persecutes the person for their thoughts. Criminalizing thoughts never worked. You can't outlaw an idea. Further, since it is impossible to punish thought-crimes, I'd say that advocating thought crimes becomes a good indicator of unjust persecution.

If the IRS wants to know how much money I made, they can trust me to report it accurately or they can try and "wiretap" me for an entire year. I might never touch some of my income except to calculate -- in my head -- how much money I made (e.g. offshore stock). OK, I'm not an accountant, but it seems like a good analogy. The only way to get compliance from the citizens of your country is to trust them. You'll never be able to control their thoughts.

I think this is why a representative form of government is a good idea. And since constant 24/7 surveillance is oppressive to any person worldwide, it's got to stop. There will eventually be enough people who dislike the powers that be for their surveillance that a backlash will come -- so hopefully the distasteful behavior will be modified before the backlash becomes overlarge.

Re:Lame article ...

[mdsolar]

Hum... I also read it and what I took away is that "I have nothing to hide" is an argument that makes privacy a personal issue whereas privacy is a public or civic issue. Just as your right to vote only has meaning if everyone has a right to vote, or when justice is denied to someone else, justice is also diminished for you, reducing privacy hurts you even if it does not hurt you directly because it reduces the practice of the rights of assembly or freedom of speech. If people stop signing petitions because they are worried they'll come under closer scurtiny then our government begins to fail to function.

Your position that it is an individual-state thing is just what he is arguing against. It is the individual who can say "I have nothing to hide." but that turns out to be a red herring. The right of assembly is obviously not an individual right but a right of the people. You can't have an assembly of one. I think he is arguing that privacy is similar. An individuals can obviously skip a meeting if they don't want to attend, and there are people who put their whole lives up on the web. No assembly or no privacy at their individual discretion, but the people cannot be deprived of these rights because our government cannot get along without these things. Without these things it is not a government of the people but of whichever despot has managed to claw his way to power. The author picks on this administration because it is showing so many despotic tendencies.

Re:Lame article ...

[Deliveranc3]

Suggestion for when that happens in an acedemic paper, go back and read something YOU wrote earlier on the same subject.

Re:Lame article ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that Soloves' paper is too long. Most of it seems like self-promotion of previous works. Kind of like "this [insert claim] is true because I wrote it in [insert paper]". I waded through all of it and came out with the following:

* He believes that "I have nothing to hide" is a bad statement because its a gross oversimplification of the whole privacy field.
* Privacy is hard to measure, define, enforce and value.
* The very nature of knowing someone is watching may stop people doing good, as well as bad (chilling effect).
* Privacy is a social concern (such as balance of power) not just personal.
* Individual privacy violations are much less important that the sum of all violations (death by a thousand cuts).
* Courts and citizens fail to recognise the true damage of privacy violations because the damage is abstract and the effects accumulative and hard to measure.

Summed up even further: "Resist privacy violations because they usually (varies from case to case) do more harm than good in a democratic country."
Summed up totally: I don't have any more answers to the problem than the average /.'er.

In other words, unless you're looking for famous quotes or citations you won't get anything out of reading it that you couldn't figure out yourself.

As for my own beliefs. I'm of the view that giving people too much power is generally a bad thing. Since information is power (easily proven), and people are sometimes corrupt and stupid and selfish and untrue (no need to cite examples here!) and since a government or corporation is primarily made up of people - then it follows that the following law is probably true:

Cowards Law: Giving away information for any purpose may eventually lead to you being harmed. Therefore, only do it when you have to or really, really want to.

To me it is no different to handing out firearms in a bar and hoping you wont get shot. Just because it is possible that you won't get shot, or that all the patrons might spontaneous cooperate to shoot a terrorist bomber, doesn't instantly justify your initial stupidity. A stupid action with a lucky outcome is still stupid.

The next time someone tells you they have nothing to hide I strongly recommend taking advantage of their obvious weakness and insist on them telling you their bank account number and PIN. If they hesitate, then kick them in the nuts and steal their credit card. Otherwise get on with your life and follow Cowards Law to the letter. You'll thank me for it.

Privacy Tools and Weapons?

[Saint]

What I would find interesting would be a study of those who responded with the "nothing to hide" argument as compared with those who say there is no longer a need for personal weapons such as guns.

I believe that privacy tools are very comparable to personal weapons in some respects. Others apparently think so as well -> http://www.google.com/search?q=second+amendment+en cryption+tools&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozi lla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.

I just wonder how many people who are deeply opposed to personal gun ownership are strong privacy advocates. I am also curious how many people who are gun owners, yet fit into the "nothing to hide" category.

Re:Privacy Tools and Weapons?

[DGolden]

Well, if the gun is intended as a deterrent, you might want people to be aware you're armed rather than hide it, so you don't need privacy for that.

Might be interesting to see if there's anyone who is against privacy and for a requirement (not just a right) to keep/bear arms...

Privacy is dead, deal with it...

[jjh37997]

"Privacy is dead, deal with it," Sun MicroSystems CEO Scott McNealy

However, "If any citizen can read the billionaire's tax return or the politician's bank statement, if no thug - or policeman - can ever be sure his actions are unobserved, if no government agency or corporate boardroom is safe from whistle-blowers, we'll have something precious to help make up for lost privacy: freedom," author David Brin.

And the number one reason...

[rumblin'rabbit]

To articulate what you just said...

I consider the most important reason for privacy to be simple human dignity.

We all deserve a chance to live our lives with self-respect, and that is impossible when we cannot conduct our personal affairs with discretion. Being forced to disclose every detail of one's life is degrading to almost any human being.

Re:And the number one reason...

[Reziac]

With privacy, you are a person. Without it, you are a nonperson.

This is why I insist that of all the things you can give your kids, the single most important gift is privacy -- the assurance that he is a person, capable of achieving trust, not an object that can never be trusted.

Thus privacy enhances moral behaviour, rather than detracting from it: Personhood engenders responsibility. Without personhood, why should anyone give a fuck about the consequences of their actions? Look at the behaviour of kids with overbearing parents -- they are the MOST likely to rebel. Adults are just older kids.

They can watch me all I want

[paladinwannabe2]

As long as they don't object to everyone watching them. A Society where everything is open is better than one where most things are hidden, but both are better than a society where the 'elites' (Be they governments, corporations, or secret societies) get to know everything about me but make it illegal for me to look up information about them. All I want is the same level of privacy that our Senators and Police receive.

Re:They can watch me all I want

[Intron]

Ask any judge in criminal court whether he minds his name, address, home telephone and picture being posted online.

Woot it's 1984 all over again.

[Anonymous Coward]

What good for the Executive Brance of Government doesn't apply to the rest of us. The White House Rulz !!!

Robert H. Jackson, RIP

[Tackhead]

> I'm in the minority because I like the Bush administration, but I do have to say that Ashcroft pissed me off when they imprisoned Tommy Chong. For the longest time anyone could buy drug paraphernalia in head shops. There was no law against it. Then suddenly Tommy Chong gets arrested ex post facto. They changed the interpretation of anti-drug laws on the fly so they imprisoned a man who did nothing illegal, and had no chance to stop doing it once they declared it illegal.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

And for those who don't like Rand, how about this quote, from a guy who preceded Rand by 17 years, and just might have been qualified to have an opinion on jurisprudence, seeing as how it was his entire career and stuff.

"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."

- Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General (1940-1941), Supreme Court Justice (1948-1954), from a speech given in 1940

Re:Robert H. Jackson, RIP

[CodeBuster]

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

- Cardinal Richelieu

Re:Robert H. Jackson, RIP

[mvdwege]

So that's two quotes predating 'Atlas Shrugged' saying the same thing. Once again Ayn Rand is shown up as the shamelessly derivative parrot she was.

Mart

Re:Robert H. Jackson, RIP

[Reziac]

The earliest quote that I've seen on the subject is from several hundred years previous. I expect there is some similar thought expressed in the early Greek and Roman writings. Anyway, it's clear that thinking men have grokked the concept for a long time, probably for since there first existed ANY government with sufficient power to coerce its citizens.

Well, have you *seen* Bruce naked?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Actually he's thin enough that he's probably fairly good-looking, though he's not the correct gender to be my type....)

I think I'll post this anonymously anyway.

Technology driven ethics?

[ClosedSource]

If a right of privacy is obsolete because technology allows listening from a distance, than a right to life was made obsolete years ago because high-powered rifles can kill you from a distance.

It would be very foolish to abandon a right every time a technology makes it more difficult to protect.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[jfclavette]

Like copyright ?

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[megaditto]

Actually, you should welcome the technology since it gives you the best privacy possible: the privacy of a fly in a dungpile. Everyone has plenty of dirty little secrets, so unless you are some kind of a radical political figure, a troublemaker, or a chomo, you really do have nothing to worry about.

Also, I would rather be listened in by a computer grepping for a keylist of words than a human that can flip out and either going postal on my ass or abusing the info she got (raiding my fishing spot, posting a pic/address on my children to a paedophilia blog, or whatever).

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Dun Malg]

Like copyright ? Despite what the name may lead you to believe, copyright isn't a right, it's a restriction of rights.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a right of privacy is obsolete because technology allows listening from a distance, than a right to life was made obsolete years ago because high-powered rifles can kill you from a distance.

A ridiculous comparison. The "right" to privacy is based on, in this age, willful ignorance; hardly comparable to a directed, intentional assault against another human being's life.

If you want to argue that your leaked signals should be protected by the government rather than yourself, and that anyone using technology to harmlessly -- as in, not causing physical harm -- intercept the signals that you carelessly allow to radiate beyond the psychological boundaries you've naively constructed, then you are (inadvertently?) arguing for an abolishment of the idea of "public" space altogether.

Your signals are your responsibility. Relying on the government to "protect" you against passive technological interception (to avoid another ludicrous, fallacious assassination comparison) of your unprotected and/or unintentional broadcasts is not only inefficient, it just won't ever work. Laws will not protect you against science.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Nyph2]

Your signals are your responsibility. Relying on the government to "protect" you against passive technological interception (to avoid another ludicrous, fallacious assassination comparison) of your unprotected and/or unintentional broadcasts is not only inefficient, it just won't ever work. Laws will not protect you against science.

You always have to take care to avoid sketchy situations where you're likely to be maliciously targeted, whether you're guarding against being snooped on, conned, robbed, or murdered -- despite the legality of the activity you're avoiding. But making it illegal decreases the number of people willing to risk doing it, and offers some legal recourse if despite your best efforts it's done anyway.

You do not get to abdocate responsability simply because it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't also be illegal.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[mr_matticus]

No it's not. Copyright is for the creator (as, logically, it should be, since it's their private property and copyright is one of a number of tools designed to get people to share their property with society [not their contemporaries, but society itself, so immediate benefits are not meant to be realized]). It's a restriction (and a partial, temporary one) on the other half. All laws restrict someone from something. If they didn't, what would they accomplish?

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[gomiam]

I disagree: for thousands of years mankind has progressed with copyright and author rights, and now you tell me a concept designed to censure (sp?) printers is protecting author's rights? Yeah, sure. I guess Bach really needed copyright protection, and so did Shakespeare and Cervantes.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[mr_matticus]

Shakespeare had a tumultuous history with money. He died broke. In any case, artists in the classical sense sold their works once. Only the wealthiest of wealthy people could afford to commission them, and they were kept in private collections. Government got into the game in the 1700s to bring art to the people, by spreading the enormous cost of a custom piece of art across many people buying prints of it (or copies of a phonographic recording, or DVDs, or what have you). That system is largely successful, evidenced by the fact that you aren't apparently aware that original works by "legendary" artists cost the equivalent of millions (plural) of dollars in some cases (and that artists living today are often paid millions for their work as well--authors, actors, sculptors, painters, playwrights. Copyright protections allow for a "art co-op" to form so that normal people can enjoy it in their homes without spending more than they spent on their car (or possibly their home, in some cases).

You already get access to the work for dirt cheap. A DVD even at $50 would still be an insanely good deal to commissioning your own film, even with 300 of your best friends. Asking for lower prices is one thing, but asking to have it for free is just as greedy and immoral as the RIAA.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[dangitman]

Also, I would rather be listened in by a computer grepping for a keylist of words than a human

False dichotomy. Who do you think operates the computers? Without humans to act on the data, the computers are useless.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[ClosedSource]

What's interesting to me is the theory I read many years ago that the whole concern about proving that a work of art was original wasn't so much because the original was superior to the copies, but rather to try to preserve the concept of exclusivity (and thus value) that modern technology rendered obsolete. (Note that I'm not claiming that artists' rights are obsolete)

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Mr2001]

Copyright protections allow for a "art co-op" to form so that normal people can enjoy it in their homes without spending more than they spent on their car (or possibly their home, in some cases). Copyright isn't necessary for that. You can start an "art co-op" simply by finding an artist, getting a quote on some new piece of work that interests you, and getting your friends to pitch in to hire him. Once he's done, everyone gets access to it whether they paid or not.

The artist is happy because he's been paid for his work. You and the other contributors are happy because you got what you paid for (you wouldn't have paid if you didn't think it was a fair price). Everyone else is happy because they get access to this new work at no cost, and they can do whatever they want with it.

The most common mistake people make when they see this idea is to think that you're providing some kind of "charity" by paying for a work that others will be able to enjoy for free. But that's not the case at all: you're paying because the creation of this work is worth something to you. You know that if it doesn't get funded, it won't get made, and you're willing to pay some amount to live in a world where this work exists. It's like a group of neighbors pooling their money to repave the road: even if the cranky old guy at the end of the road doesn't pay, and he gets to enjoy the paved road for free, the other neighbors are still getting their money's worth.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[mr_matticus]

Copyright does nothing to prevent your proposition. You and your friends can certainly commission a piece and release it to the world. That doesn't mean that people should be forced to give up everything. If 1/3 of the people on the street won't cough up money for the road, the cost per person is probably greater than the benefit. Taking away copyright is like forcing those other two thirds to pave the road, knowing full well that they're paying 50% more than what's fair.

I'm all for people giving things to the public domain. In fact, I have contributed money to a local sculpture project for the restoration of an historic building--I get no particular benefit from it, since I don't live in or near the building, but I'm a fan of the artist and I have money to spare. However, I don't believe that artists should be forced to cede control to the nonpaying masses under any circumstance. If someone creates a painting and wants to sell it in toto exclusively, that should be their right as the sole owner and creator. If they want to "license" it by preparing official copies and selling those prints at whatever price they choose to whomever will pay for them, they should be able to do that, too. If they want to release it into the public domain, they can do that too. If the terms of a given work are too restrictive or distasteful in some other way, you can buy your art elsewhere. It's quite simple, really.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Sique]

No it's not. Copyright is for the creator No. Copyright is for the copyshop. It was created to protect the printing press operators from other printing press operators printing the same work. Copyright was a necessity when technology came available to make cheap copies, because the technology itself was very expensive and thus the investment in copy-technology had to be protected. Otherwise the price of the copies would have dropped to their "fair price" (which is the cost to create yet another copy). If you look at 18th century legal statements, you will always find that copyright was always a debate between copists.

Now the investment to perfect copy technology is so small that virtually everyone can be his own copyshop, and thus most people who do copies don't care if their neighbor is copying exactly the same work.

What you were referring to is the Berne Convention, which is a different kind of beast :)

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[gomiam]

Government got into the game in the 1700s to bring art to the people,

Which government, you say? The same government that ordered a copy of every published work to be sent to them? You call that protection, I call that censure. Or perhaps you refer to the U.S. Government that decided that British copyright didn't apply any more. No, copyright has always been a mind construct of control: the only difference between then and now is that the controller isn't the government (and the jury is still out on what's worse). See how much good did copyright do to the author of the story that Disney plagiarized in "The Lion King"

That system is largely successful, evidenced by the fact that you aren't apparently aware that original works by "legendary" artists cost the equivalent of millions (plural) of dollars in some cases...

Excuse me? Is culture available because of copyright or is it available in spite of it? I don't see design studios getting paid once and again for each copy of their products: they are paid to do some work, they do it, and that's the end of it all. Do you get paid whenever someone makes a replica of a pot you created? Most artisans don't. And remember that, because the difference between artisan and artist is that the artisan does the work expecting to get paid, while the artist doesn't. But somehow this has been conveniently forgotten. Otherwise you would expect Rolls Royce to receive a royalty every time one of its cars is at an exposition or even a classic car meeting. Know what, that doesn't really happen. By the way, which original works by legendary artists cost the equivalent of millions? Written texts? Music? Architectural designs? The only thing I can think of costing millions is movies, and that's because there's a whole industry behind trying to reap benefits left and right: I suppose you know movie producers moved to Hollywood because it was dirt cheap compared to New York (see a bit of the film history of the time).

Asking for lower prices is one thing, but asking to have it for free is just as greedy and immoral as the RIAA.

Please don't try me to sell me the "oh, but it's so cheap" line. First: it isn't. I have bought quite a few tapes and discs, so I would know. Latest ones I bought were Internet downloads: I heard music from an author, looked her up, found the recording company would send half of my money directly to the artist if I bought the WAV files and bought them. I guess you will find it interesting that the least I could have paid was just $3. I paid more, which shows I will pay for what I like instead of getting a degraded copy from eMule, if I'm given the option. There usually is no option: you either pay through the nose or get such a restricted access to the material (I can't bring my own food and drinks from home? What the hell?) it isn't worth it. A run-of-the-mill CD with two songs accompanied by filler costs $20. Sorry, I don't buy it (neither in a literal nor in a figurative way). Paint me greedy: a disc I download isn't a disc I would have automatically bought, no matter what the recording industry says. That's one of the reasons private copy right exists (at least on continental legislation): the other one is, basically, "too many people are going to make copies like it or not, and we can't prosecute them all; we'd better make it a law and try to guide it".

Anyway, I think we have gone off-topic long enough: it was privacy what we were supposed to be talking about :-)

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Mr2001]

Copyright does nothing to prevent your proposition. Correct. My objection to copyright isn't based on that proposition. I was simply pointing out that your "art co-op" doesn't rely on copyright.

That doesn't mean that people should be forced to give up everything. No one would be forced to give up anything. If you don't want people to listen to your song, then keep it private or don't record it in the first place.

Taking away copyright is like forcing those other two thirds to pave the road, knowing full well that they're paying 50% more than what's fair. Not at all! The only thing those two thirds would be "forced" to do is consider how much it's worth to live on a paved road. If the cost of paving is greater than the benefit they'll receive, then they can choose to keep living on a dirt road.

Similarly, if living in a world with one more Ashlee Simpson album isn't worth $5 to me, then I won't give Ashlee Simpson $5 to record another album. I will, however, happily give $25 to a band I like, because living in a world with one more of their albums is worth that to me. It doesn't matter whether anyone else gets to hear it for free, because I'm not the kind of jealous prick who cries foul when people who value something less are able to get it for a lower price.

However, I don't believe that artists should be forced to cede control to the nonpaying masses under any circumstance. Neither do I. If they don't want other people to have control--by which I assume you mean the ability to enjoy and share the work--then they can keep their creations to themselves. But if you choose to give your work to strangers, you're voluntarily giving up that control.

If someone creates a painting and wants to sell it in toto exclusively, that should be their right as the sole owner and creator. The problem is, that's fundamentally incompatible with everyone else's right to learn and share information that they come across in their daily lives. You're asking everyone else to cede control of their minds, mouths, hands, computers, and CD burners to these artists. And as far as I can tell, the only thing they get in return is an opportunity to cede their money as well: to buy copies that they're still only allowed to use in specific, limited ways.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[mr_matticus]

If you don't want people to listen to your song, then keep it private or don't record it in the first place. False dichotomy. Your entire premise is based upon an all-or-nothing approach to rights. That's not the way it should be, however much more simple it makes your argument. If I want to specify specific partial terms to the release of my work, I should be able to do that, too. I could do that without copyright with standard form contracts, but to do so would be tedious. If I want to list some work of mine for $5 million, I should have the freedom and flexibility either to sell it for $5 million in toto or to sell copies a million times for $5. If you're not the "kind of jealous prick who cries foul when people value something less" then it stands to reason that you should have no problem with people who get a higher price than what you think is reasonable. You might not be a jealous prick, but you live in a world full of them. The law must reflect that. Contributing what you think is worthwhile to those who deserve it must go hand in hand with the artists and their agents being able to set the prices and terms as they see fit. It's only fair. You should get to pay what you feel is right, and they should be able to give up as much ownership as they feel that contribution is worth.

he problem is, that's fundamentally incompatible with everyone else's right to learn and share information that they come across in their daily lives. You're asking everyone else to cede control of their minds, mouths, hands, computers, and CD burners to these artists Their freedom to have control over someone else's work? Hardly. You don't have any rights by default--it's someone's private property. They're choosing to share that property with you under specific terms, which every legal theory in the world allows, with or without a default copyright agreement on the books. They are not giving up complete control by offering a portion up for sale, nor should they be expected to. If I own a building and convert it into townhomes, I can sell those townhomes to other people--they do not get to own the entire building for the sales price of that condo. What occurs is a joint ownership scenario, with limitations spelled by the person offering the goods. You don't get to take out loans against the entire building or remodel it to suit your tastes or sell it to someone else. You have specific and in many cases limited rights to the portion you paid for. If you didn't get the kind of control you wanted or felt was worth the agreed price, you should have purchased elsewhere. The RIAA is a manipulative cartel and should be dealt with, to be sure. But there's nothing wrong with artists specifying the terms and extent of control they're offering for a particular price. It doesn't step on anyone else's *right* to do anything. It's their work, plain and simple. Their terms.

No one is ceding control of anything. They're failing to gain commercial control over it. Knowledge continues to move uninterrupted in the minds of individuals. You only run into legal trouble when you cross into something that extends beyond the private sphere. You can write as much fan fiction as you want about $TV_SHOW as long as you keep it to yourself. You can think whatever you want. You can't interfere with the commercial interests of the rightsholder, is all. There are some problems with that balance, but that is a natural phenomenon that occurs with all laws.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Mr2001]

Their freedom to have control over someone else's work? Hardly. No, their freedom to have control over their own actions and equipment. My computer is capable of copying CDs; preventing me from using it for that purpose takes control away from me. I am capable of reading a book aloud to an audience; preventing me from doing that is limiting my speech.

Artists always have control over their own work, and no one can take it away without literally robbing them. If record a song onto a tape, then you own that tape and you can do whatever you want with it - the only way to take that control away would be to take the tape away. What you're talking about is control not over your own stuff, but over other people's stuff.

You don't have any rights by default--it's someone's private property. If it were really "private", I wouldn't know about it in the first place! A song that's been broadcast on the radio is public, just like that 09 F9 number became public the moment it was posted to the internet. You can't take a number back out of someone's head once you've told them what it is, so if you choose to tell them what it is, you have to live with the consequences.

If you didn't get the kind of control you wanted or felt was worth the agreed price, you should have purchased elsewhere. Funny how you're only willing to apply that logic to consumers. I mean, I'd say that if an artist doesn't sell as many CDs as he hoped, that means he should have come up with a better payment arrangement in the first place.

But there's nothing wrong with artists specifying the terms and extent of control they're offering for a particular price. It doesn't step on anyone else's *right* to do anything. It's their work, plain and simple. Their terms. Exactly... if by "their work" you mean the time and effort they spend creating or performing something. They can put whatever conditions they want on that. If someone doesn't even want to take his guitar out of the case until he's got a $10,000 check in his pocket, that's his right.

But his rights stop there. He doesn't own the vibrations in the air that come out when he picks the strings, he doesn't own the sequence of notes that someone in the audience memorizes while listening to that performance, and he doesn't own the sounds that the audience member produces at home later that night with his own guitar and uploads to YouTube.

No one is ceding control of anything. They're failing to gain commercial control over it. I already have control, commercial and otherwise, over my own actions and equipment. Copyright asks me to give that control up for someone else's benefit.

You can write as much fan fiction as you want about $TV_SHOW as long as you keep it to yourself. You can think whatever you want. Well, artists can have as much control as they want over the information they produce, as long as they keep it to themselves. But once again, you're only willing to apply that logic to the peasants.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[mr_matticus]

No, their freedom to have control over their own actions and equipment. That's what a law does. Any law, about anything. It does not a good argument make. You're saying you should have the right to do anything you want with something you do not own completely. If you own 1% of a company, you don't get to make executive decisions on your own and you could very easily get shot down most of the time. Buying a DVD or a print of a painting is not entirely unlike buying stock. You get something (a licensed disc) but not the whole cow.

If it were really "private", I wouldn't know about it in the first place! A song that's been broadcast on the radio is public... You clearly didn't read the paragraph. A work when created is private property. WHEN THAT ARTIST CHOOSES TO SHARE IT WITH THE PUBLIC, it is at that time that rights begin to be assigned to others. You expect them to hand over all rights at that point, which makes no sense at all. It imposes a binary state where none exists.

I already have control, commercial and otherwise, over my own actions and equipment. No you don't. You have physical access and capability. You do not have legal control. I'm holding cash. I have the equipment and ability to create reasonable copies of it. The law is asking me to give up that control. Do you see how absurd that argument is?

But his rights stop there. He doesn't own the vibrations in the air that come out when he picks the strings, he doesn't own the sequence of notes that someone in the audience memorizes while listening to that performance, and he doesn't own the sounds that the audience member produces at home later that night with his own guitar and uploads to YouTube. A gross misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the law. You don't own information. You own the legal monopoly to use that information commercially. You can do whatever you want with that knowledge as long as you don't become a competitor in a commercial sphere. After the copyright expires (which I believe should be no longer than the greater of 15 years or until the artist's death, but that's beside the point), you can do absolutely anything you want with it.

Re:Technology driven ethics?

[Mr2001]

That's what a law does. Any law, about anything. It does not a good argument make. It means the loss of freedom has to be justified. If you're going to pass a law that limits my freedom, it has to provide some kind of benefit.

You're saying you should have the right to do anything you want with something you do not own completely. No, I own my voice, my computer, and my CD burner. Completely.

What else is there, the number that I want to burn onto the CD? It makes no more sense to complain that I "do not own [the number] completely" than it does to complain that I don't own the word "complain" that I'm using in this very post. I don't need to "own" a word, whatever that might mean, in order to use it in a comment, and I don't need to "own" a number in order to write it onto a disc.

If you own 1% of a company, you don't get to make executive decisions on your own and you could very easily get shot down most of the time. Buying a DVD or a print of a painting is not entirely unlike buying stock. You get something (a licensed disc) but not the whole cow. That's OK, I don't want the whole cow. Just the disc, and the ability to use the equipment I've paid for and the body I was born with to learn and share whatever I might learn about the disc I've paid for, including such facts as what color it is, how much it weighs, and what sequence of bits is stored on it.

No you don't. You have physical access and capability. You do not have legal control. I'm holding cash. I have the equipment and ability to create reasonable copies of it. The law is asking me to give up that control. Do you see how absurd that argument is? Yes, because there's a tangible benefit to all of us from limiting the supply of cash, essentially the same benefit that's provided by trademarks. Copyright, on the other hand, restricts everyone's actions for little, if any, benefit.

You can do whatever you want with that knowledge as long as you don't become a competitor in a commercial sphere. That's a meaningless qualification when you realize that every form of distribution is considered commercial competition. If I give a copy of a CD to my friend, it doesn't matter that he never would've paid a dime for it if he had to buy it; copyright advocates still insist on counting it as a lost sale.

After the copyright expires (which I believe should be no longer than the greater of 15 years or until the artist's death, but that's beside the point), you can do absolutely anything you want with it. Great, so a song comes out today and I might be able to use it in interesting ways 50 or 60 years from now? What an insulting compromise. You may as well say "forever less a day".

No, Minister...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Minister. You tell us that, if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear? Well then, take your clothes off. Strip. Right here, right now, in front of the cameras. Once you've done that, read out all the details of the credit cards in your wallet, on the air. And once you've finished that, for the grand finale, you can squat down and take a shit for us.

What's that? *YOU* have something to hide? Well now, who'd have thought?

previous Slashdot answers

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the first this has come up. Some previous posts from Slashdot:

One:

1. People have an annoying habit of abusing their power. [...]
2. There are secrets people have that aren't illegal. [...]
3. Because there are lots of little things we do every day that break the rules. [...]

Two:

Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. [...] But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself.

My take

[TheDarkener]

I've heard the "I have nothing to hide" response many times. Look at it from outside the box:

It all comes down to WHO has this information (and for what purposes). EXAMPLE: I, for one, have a big problem with public security cameras. Why? I really don't give a sh*t if everyone watches me walk/drive/ride my bike down the street. The problem I have is that EVERYBODY can't watch me, as I could them. A few "privileged" people can. That gives them a certain power over the general public, which is bad (IMHO).

But why? Who cares if some guy/gal can watch me and others can't? Well, the thing is, we're all human. We all have the same fallacies, including when we're given a certain amount of power over others, we tend to want to use it. Some might just laugh at people picking their nose at a stoplight, others might start noting when certain people go certain places. This creates a very dangerous situation. Certain people will have a lot of information about other peoples' lives, which makes me, anyway, very uncomfortable. What if I have an argument with someone in another car at a stoplight? What if that person is the security monitor's friend? What if that person asks the security monitor to find out where I go after 5:00pm every day, so he can meet me there to put a bullet in my head? That gives them unfair advantage, because I cannot do the same thing. They are monitoring my life, but I can't monitor theirs. It's unbalanced, and unfair.

I believe Google is a GOOD company. They collect information about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING available on the web and beyond - and they allow EVERYONE access to it, not just a few people who might get power trips and use the information to their advantage.

I have no problem with having cameras IN MY HOME, as long as EVERYONE ELSE does too, and it's all available online for anyone to view - no special privileges, no "Access denied", and let's take it a step further and allow you to see who's viewed your cam and at what time. That's not 1984, that's just using technology in a fair manner.

I also have a problem with Myspace and "Private" profiles. That is completely counter-productive for a social networking site. The point is to meet other people, find out about them, etc...but if their profile is set to private, you can't see but their default pic and their headline. That just makes other people want to retreat into "security" mode because it makes them think they should hide their information, too. Now, you don't have a social networking site - you have a bunch of people who have advantage over others, because they can see your info but you can't see theirs in exchange.

I have a Youtube profile (link in my sig). I upload vlogs about my personal beliefs, things in my life, etc. because I saw others who were open with themselves and felt like I could benefit from doing the same thing. And I did. I feel so good about being able to put myself up where ANYONE can see and hear me speak my mind - it's made me a much stronger (and open) person. It creates a stronger community, based on openness and equal power over information. I can watch other peoples' vlogs/videos, and see what kind of person they are too. I've made many friends over YT, and I encourage everyone here to consider vlogging.

Now if YT made people start paying for the privilege of uploading videos, that creates separation too. Not everyone has 20 bucks (or even 5 bucks) a month to spend on something like vlogging. It would allow a certain subset of "privileged" folks to express themselves, and others not. That's bad.

It's the same with software. We *all* know open-sourced software is good because it allows anyone to see how it ticks, and modify it for themselves. But take what Microsoft did with the BSD TCP/IP stack (under the BSD license) - they took the code for free, and made billions off of it, giving nothing back (AFAIK). It creates imbalance, and imbalance is bad.

You give what you take, and that makes the world thrive.

Just because you're a voyeur doesn't mean that

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you're a voyeur doesn't mean that I'm an exhibitionist.

Or even if I *am* an exhibitionist, that doesn't mean I want *you* watching.

And it's really annoying that the current Administration are not only voyeurs but also prudes ... they should at least make up their minds.

You don't understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

That persecution stuff all happened like, sixty years ago.

Wouldn't dream of it now. We're all 'civilized' and have learned from our mistakes. (Despite having continually repeated them for the past six thousand years.)

Is privacy just a cultural concept anyway?

[pclminion]

In other places the idea of strict individual privacy is an alien concept. There are languages where there is no sensible translation of the phrase, "Mind your own business." As an American I cherish my privacy but isn't it possible that the want/need for privacy is in fact a learned social behavior, and NOT something intrinsic to all people everywhere?

Hell, in times past, newlyweds had to have sex on their wedding night in front of witnesses. Sometimes their parents.

I'm afraid that as more and more people decide that they don't need their privacy, they will communicate this idea to their children and grandchildren. We're possibly heading toward a future where privacy has been completely devalued.

I'm not worried about my privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

....as much as the whistleblowers.

Whenever someone tells me "i have nothing to hide," I ask them about the gov't employee who finds out we're committing horrible war crimes that no one knows about yet. He doesn't have anything to hide, but he deserves protection.

And another thing...

[TheDarkener]

If the GOVERNMENT isn't doing anything illegal, they have nothing to hide either. They should be as transparent to us as we are to them.

EQUAL RIGHTS. The government works for THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.

Third definition

[phorm]

Actually, the third one is a good point. There are a lot of abuses of personal information, and the more that is available the more abuses there will be:

Because you might do something wrong with my information.

All the companies that "lose" your credit card info and others seem to get slaps on the wrist. Having your credit ruined can ruin your life. Now how about if somebody gets access to your more personal info. Suddenly you're an even better target for stalking, extortion, and more. *NOT* good.

Even if the government wasn't going to abuse this information (and they will), security leaks and hacking would lead to it being available to those that would have no problem abusing it.

Privacy and the Bush Administration

[RNLockwood]

So, let's see if I understand the privacy argument. One don't deserve privacy if one has something to hide and one shouldn't care about loss of privacy if one has nothing to hide. Is that right?

Therefor the Bush Administration's refusal to allow staffers to testify to congress regarding the Justice Department purge proves that they do have something to hide.

Re:Privacy and the Bush Administration

[SoulRider]

You seem to have forgotten that it never seems to apply to the type of person that would use that type of logic to justify taking our privacy away from us.

I have nothing to hide if ...

[wytcld]

I have nothing to hide if every member and employee of the government is entirely faithful to the laws and to reasonable ethical norms, and would never abuse the powers of justice for political ends. Given the recent thorough abuse of the Department of Justice for political ends, coupled with my reasonable belief that high members of our current government most likely are literally guilty of treason, and will be without restraint in avoiding just consequences for their treasons ... yeah, I have nothing to hide. There's no reason they would accuse anyone politically like me of "siding with the terrorists" now, is there?

new definition of "pedantic and long winded"

[spun]

I trudged through ten pages before giving up. It doesn't get any better. The best way to describe it: a smart author who likes to use big words is trying to explain what is in fact a very simple concept to people he considers to be slightly retarded. I mean, he goes over and over and over the same point, in the same long winded and pedantic fashion. Jumpin' Jeebus on a fricken pogo stick, man, either assume we are smart enough to get it and give it to us short and sweet, or add a little meat to the bones of your argument instead of just repeating yourself over and over.

There's a difference

[Dancindan84]

There's a difference between having nothing to hide and having nothing illegal to hide. I'm a fairly law abiding citizen, but there's still legal things I do that I don't want people to know about. Should the government be able to subpoena my cable company to find out I watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer?... I hope not.

Who gave them the right?

[Vorlath]

This "nothing to hide" thing is irrelevant to the discussion. This is a classic reversal of the object of the argument. It's not the one being observed that is of concern, but the one who is doing the observing. Who is giving this person the right to snoop on you? If they have the right to snoop on you, you should have the same right to snoop on them and the argument ends there as they'll never allow it. Poeple just get caught up that government officials should have more power than citizens. This is completely wrong. They are human just like you. Only when things go wrong can they act. Preventive measures have never worked and only make things worse. Just look at Iraq.

Re:There are things that government is not entitle

[CRiMSON]

You are obviously not following Canadian politics closely. I suggest you dig deeper, before you assume. You'll sound like less of an ass.

Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "Are you comfortable with your children being watched as they go to school and back, walk around with their friends? Are you OK if you can never see who they are or when they are doing it?"

Ah, you see it coming too

[Anonymous Coward]

"Islamic fundamentalist government we may have in 30 years"

People seem incapable of doing the math. Once this group is in the majority, they simply outvote everyone else ... bye-bye democracy.

Re:Ah, you see it coming too

[gurps_npc]

The one advantage we have is that by definintion they don't get along with anyone, not even other islamic fundamentalists. Just like in Iran, they are likley to start suicide bombing each other's churches before they ever become the majority.

Privacy because government is a threat

[bxwatso]

The political norm throughout history is a dictatorship. We live in a comparably new and rare environment of rule of law, and here and now are the best place and time in history by almost every metric. IMO, that is not a coincidence. Even in today's world, nearly half of people are not what I would describe as free (China, Middle East, most of Africa). One reason why privacy and our liberties matter is because our privacy and rights of free association and speech are weapons to keep government power in check. As the great F.A. Hayek pointed out, the path from a liberal society to Hitler or Stalin can be amazingly quick.

The US Federal Government has proven that it will use tools designed to catch gangsters to prosecute abortion protestors (RICO) and tools designed to catch terrorists to catch drug dealers (Patriot Act). Governments will always use every tool available to them to expand their power and to pursue their agenda. This is why someone might think he has nothing to hide, but a future government might decide otherwise.

The only answer is to be vigilant against government power grabs even if they seem reasonable at the time.

Simpliest answer?

[WindBourne]

When the feds are realizing that they are a capable of tapping ALL of us and then decide that they want a new capability: The ability to change the conversations/communication in real time. Now, everybody can be guilty. All because they did not stop the violations in the first place. This is going to happen in the EXACT same fashion that hitler took control; a bit at a time.

Re:Equating public monitoring to Privacy violation

[Elemenope]

A person has a reasonable expectation that if they are on a street, that other people will be able to physically see them.

I would argue they do NOT have a reasonable expectation that, simply because they are walking down the street, their movements will be catalogued and recorded and placed in a database such that those movements are accessible to government/private enterprise/creepy stalkers, nor do most people believe that it is appropriate that such logs of public movements are kept about them.

That's the difference.

The disconnect is that because of distributed surveillance (i.e. the ubiquity of video cameras), it is no longer necessary to have a guy follow around the surveilled subject with a camera/pad of paper in order to form an effective record of movements, destinations, and public activities. Thus people can brush it off because it is not directed *at them* personally. The end effect is the same, however. Distributed technologies in general are scary because one of the main psychological effects of distribution is that people no longer recognize what they used to be able to recognize easily as the consequences proceeding from the action because its corporeal 'source' is diffuse.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[bossvader]

It's very hard to convince someone of this, though, when it's their party in power. Especially when they think their elected leader was largely chosen by God.

And given that their selected leader was chosen by God, then any abuses by those in power are conveniently justified -- especially any abuses necessary to keep them in power. Wow!... All's I got to say is ... if that is true... God's got a wicked sense of humor...

So if you value your privacy

[taskiss]

Why are there HUGE numbers of people posting their lives on-line, photos on facebook, opinions on slashdot, etc, etc, etc.

You're giving it away by the barrel full and whine about a thimbleful?

Re:So if you value your privacy

[demon]

It's not about never revealing anything - it's about being in control of what you reveal, instead of being told what you will and will not share, and whom you will and won't share it with. If I want to write my thoughts up on a weblog (I don't, but if I did...), and I make it public, I just made a conscious choice to put that out there. It's not like being spied upon - there no one's *asking* you to share, your privacy is invaded - thereby stripping away your choice. That's what it all comes back to - choice.

Re:So if you value your privacy

[taskiss]

Being in control of what you reveal? Stripping away your choice?

Kenneth Lay would love to be able to control what he revealed. So would Scooter Libby, et al. It's a great idea and it's a damn shame we had issues like Enron, etc. I know "privacy" is the dream everyone's passing 'round these days like a joint at a 70's rock concert, but that was then and this is now.

If it all came down to choice, then of course everyone that has something going on they don't want to be made public would choose privacy. That leads directly to the argument at hand - "if you've got nothing to hide..."

It doesn't come down to choice though, not even a little bit. It comes down to a balance between what I want and what everyone else wants. At this point I can hear the clicks of the libertarians cutting and pasting the 4th amendment, and they honestly have a point. However, they wish to extend that so they can be in public and still be in private (however that words).

Balance is where it's at. Push on one side of the scale and watch the other side move. The "I've got nothing to hide..." folks are just reacting to an issue that they realize they have no control over by doing what they need to for their sanity's sake.

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference".

Quite simple: Who said laws stay the same?

[Opportunist]

You have nothing to hide. Yet. You sure that your sexual preference will be legal forever? Are you sure that the information you're freely sharing with your friends has not been patented and thus you're infringing? Can you be certain that laws won't change and suddenly what you've been doing forever is suddenly "illegal"?

Find out their hobby and start constructing around it.

They like fishing? So, are you sure your lure isn't found to be "cruel to animals", or that the sink you use isn't going to be seen as environmentally threatening? Or that fishing isn't outlawed altogether because your enjoyment doesn't matter concerning how cruel it is to the fish?

It's model trains? Say, are you aware that the information you love to download about those tracks belong to the company that made them, and that they can come after you for infringing their copyright? And the buildings you use for your almost-like-real miniature towns, they look incredibly well suited as a three dimensional map for a terror attack. You sure that "model train club" isn't just a front?

They're into traveling? So you don't mind the feds to know where you go, that's fine... but you're aware that the political climate can change in many parts of this world quickly, right? Say, you traveled a lot to Gernericstan, and they just recently turned into another Afghanistan... care to tell us what exactly you did every time you went there?

At the very least the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude can get you into a lot of unpleasant situations. Laws change, and not to the "better". They're more and more constricting, less and less freedom to do what you please is left, and sooner or later there will be a law that makes you a target, because what you used to do is suddenly very illegal. Smoking is on the verge of being outlawed in some countries. Would you like to be known as a heavy smoker? It's quite addictive, so the feds will KNOW that you don't simply quit, or that it's very, very hard to. They will want to watch you, just in case you fall back into your old habit.

And this can happen in many ways. Nobody just lives to work, people have their pastimes and hobbies. It can happen that your hobby is suddenly outlawed.

And, just to get Godwin into this posting somehow, the first (that I know about) to come up with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" spin was Joseph Goebbels. If you don't know the guy, look him up. And ponder for a moment what this means.

If complete surveillance is in place, there is no chance to overthrow an oppressive regime. Any kind of dissent will be immediately identified and eliminated. By allowing it to happen, you throw yourself to the whims of the state. Essentially, you're giving up your liberty. If you trust your country and your government, most of all, if you trust it not to change in a way you wouldn't enjoy, it's no problem.

For me it is a problem. I cannot predict the future.

Re:Quite simple: Who said laws stay the same?

[stewbacca]

All interesting points that would be more believable if you would provide some historical precedent. You may not be able to predict the future, but you can highlight the past.

Re:Quite simple: Who said laws stay the same?

[Opportunist]

*throws you a book "German History 1934-1945"*

I'm pretty sure you find more than you want to. The easiest precedent would be the political, where it became quickly illegal to be any kind of politically interested person but a national socialist. To the point of being life threatening. Being sexually "deviant" was equally problematic. And let's not talk about "racial" differences.

But that's just the better known parts of the book. Basically, it was forbidden to be anything but what they considered "normal". People who had relatives in Russia (or the eastern parts of the German Reich that were lost during WW1) were considered "suspicious" and often equally treated as the forementioned people groups. People who "knew too much" (like, had interesting talents or educations) were forced to either work for them or vanish as well. Think it's impossible that you'll soon see laws here too that outlaw working abroad if you're a cryptography expert? Or that you could become "interesting" if you're a demolitions expert?

There's more than that. European history between the fall of Napoleon and the First World War is full of examples of countries that wanted to have minute information about their subjects, enforced censorship and interfered with their peoples' lives down to the most intimate moments. And now think of the possibilities, given today's technology compared to what was available back then.

Re:Quite simple: Who said laws stay the same?

[stewbacca]

Oh gee, thanks. As if I, a degree holder in Germanic Langauges and Literature, NEVER heard of this 20th Century Germany business.

I was merely pointing out that people on slashdot should provide real examples (when possible), instead of theoretical predictions, because it strengthen's their original point. Yes, I've been guilty of it as well, but I grow tired of people's predictions, when they simply just need to cite the past.

Think it's impossible that you'll soon see laws here too that outlaw working abroad if you're a cryptography expert?

I AM a cryptologic expert, and I DO work overseas. Maybe it would assure you to surf on over to here http://www.stmarytx.edu/ctl/ before you make anymore predictions. There are checks and balances, and there are entire agencies in place to prevent all the things paranoid slashdotters keep predicting.

Star Trek vs Privacy

[Kev_Stewart]

It's Slashdot so I feel a Star Trek slant might be in order :)

In Star Trek we live in a world of tolerance - where all nations and cultures get along just fine, and the persuit of wealth and power is "no longer the force that guides us". We only work to improve/enrich ourselves according to capt. Picard.

Yeah right!

At the first sign of trouble they'd start digging into my holodeck records and would judge me based upon what they find there (yeah so I'd have created and shagged just about every ST babe that ever existed from Joan Collins to Jeri Ryan - who wouldn't?)

That's no problem in Star Trek because the person making the judgement has a great deal of integrity, knows you personally, is of sound character and always does the right thing. But it's all fiction of course.

Until the people in government demonstrate the same moral integrity that they do in Star Trek (it'll never happen), I'd prefer to keep everything I say and do as private as possible - regardless of how mundane it is. ...apart from letting slip all my secret Star Trek fantasies on Slashdot for all to see. /just got back from pub.

Re:Star Trek vs Privacy

[Cro Magnon]

Until the people in government demonstrate the same moral integrity that they do in Star Trek

Actually, they do! Unfortunately, they use the Romulans & Cardassians as their role models.

The Insider

[Anonymous Coward]

Look over anything with a fine tooth comb long enough and you're bound to find a fault. One of the guiding principles of a society creating laws is that they must be enforceable, and a constant eye on everyone makes almost anything enforceable. Perhaps one of the best examples of this are sodomy laws still in place all around the world, imagine how many homosexual persecutions would of occurred as a result of a constantly watching government, if in an unmonitored world it's unenforceable ie, you're never going to find out about two consensual male adults having sex then who exactly is affected and why would it be legislated against? It was in theses grounds that many Australian states abolished sodomy laws. The right to 'hide' shouldn't be what is looked at most closely here, it's the write to determine what is 'wrong' and part of that is enforceability.

Implied Individual Right in Fourth Amendment

[jonduck]

Not that I can add much useful info, but "Privacy", though not explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, is an Implied Right. I did a quick Google search for "federalist papers privacy" (without the quotation marks). This is one link I found:

Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/pri vacy.htm

And here is a lengthy quotation from that article:

Sir William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the right of an Englishman to be secure in his home (1763)

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail -- its roof may shake -- the wind may blow through it -- the storm may enter -- the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of that ruined tenement.

Pitt's famous comment sums up what until recently many people saw as the heart of privacy, the right to be let alone within one's home, safe from the powers of the government. In America, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes this notion that the people have a right to be safe in their own homes, and it is a notion reinforced by the Third Amendment's command that soldiers shall not be quartered in private residences. The notion of privacy as security from prying, from having one's personal behavior or business displayed in public for all to see and comment on, is the invention of the industrial age. In ancient times, and indeed up to the 18th century, privacy in the sense of solitude, isolation, of space for one's self, was unknown except for the rich or the nobility. Most people lived in small, bare housing, the entire family often sleeping together in one room. Indeed, as a legal concept, "privacy" originally referred to a form of defamation, the appropriation of one's name or picture without that individual's permission.

But as Western society grew wealthier, as a middle class grew with the means to afford larger houses where members of a family could have separate spaces of their own, the meaning of privacy also changed. Now it became a matter of individuality, of people assuming that what they did beyond the arena of public life was no one's business except their own. Neither the government, the media, nor in fact anyone else had any business knowing about their private life.

Privacy, in its modern meaning, is very much related to individuality, and is a right of the person, not of the group or the society. "Without privacy," the political scientist Rhoda Howard has written, "one cannot develop a sense of the human individual as an intrinsically valuable being, abstracted from his or her social role." The opposite is also true: Without a sense of individuality, there can be no perception of a need for privacy. (and further)

The idea of privacy could be found in the political philosophy of John Locke, as well as that of Thomas Jefferson and others of the Founding Fathers. Federalist Papers 10 and 51 laud the idea of privacy, and the liberty embedded in the Constitution was that of liberty from the government. Whatever else it may mean, the Fourth Amendment clearly protects the privacy of the individual in his or her home against unwarranted governmental intrusion. As for the failure to mention privacy by name, it was not the only right that is implicitly rather than explicitly protected, and to make sure that people did not misunderstand, Madison in the Ninth Amendment pointed out that the listing of certain rights did not in any way mean that the people had given up other rights not mentioned. None of which makes any statement "about doing something wrong".

I notice...

[msauve]

that you're posting "AC." What are _you_ hiding?

simple...dont go out without this

[talledega500]

http://www.mysecureisp.com/

In hiding

[fm6]

At the base of the fallacy, as Bruce Schneier has noted, is the "faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong."

Or put it another way: locking the bathroom door is not an admission of guilt!

Re:There are things that government is not entitle

[Aaricia]

Next thing you know, Porn will be made illegal and some sexual practices you enjoy will get you into jail.
Your post can and might be held against you in a court of law - or did you cloak your IP?

Another way to circumvent protected privacy

[AltEnergy_try_Sunrei]

A very recent example from CNN. Doctors apparently do not break the patients privacy when they remain anonymous: "The prognosis is not good and he is not likely to survive," a member of the medical team that treated him at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow said on condition of anonymity because details about patients' condition are not to be made public." This is of course the media twisting the patients right to privacy...

Well then

[jackthomas]

'Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear' or in other words ' those who fear persecution, should be persecuted.'

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[nschubach]

... if that is true... God's got a wicked sense of humor...

God made Woman, right? I'd say that's about as wicked as someone could get.

Because it's AMERICA

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same reason you can't just start rounding people up and executing them.
If you want an argument then how about this: If you have nothing to hide and you have done nothing wrong then you won't mind if we throw you in jail. Eventually we will get around to charging you with something and putting you on trail. Since you've done nothing wrong you have no reason to expect that you won't eventually be acquitted and shouldn't mind the inconvenience or cost. At some point you will be free again and can pick up your life where you left off. If there's nothing to hide then why won't your president allow his testimony and documents to be subpeonaed regarding the federal prosecutor firings. If they have nothing to hide then waltz right into their house and rummage thru all of their belongings. Oh yeah, here's one more: because it's the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!! Tell them if they don't want to live in a land of FREEDOM then get the hell out and start their own country. They can call it Oceania.

Nice post, mod up (nt)

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Steven Rambam

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.hopenumbersix.net/speakers.html#pid2

This article is embarassing

[The Only Druid]

The article makes a simple, fundamental pair of mistakes that renders it pointless and redundant: (a) there is a difference between complaining about the transparency of so-called invasions of privacy and complaining about the actual invasions (he does only the former); and (b) there is a difference between keeping information private from the government as opposed to keeping it private from private individuals.

By neglecting these points, he just engages in intellectual puffery. He hasn't argued at all against the "I have nothing to hide" argument, because he hasn't even addressed it. Chicanery.

Geese ... Gander

[brian_d_w]

Shouldn't the same logic apply to the government? Why is it ok for the feds to make everything secret? They must be doing illegal things to justify their instance on secrecy for official proceedings. If I have no right to privacy, why do they?

Re:Geese ... Gander

[stewbacca]

Because divulging information about your private life (most likely) has no affect on national security, but divulging government secrets to the average citizen does. People not trained in handling sensitive material have no idea of how to safeguard it.

Re:Geese ... Gander

[Anonymous Coward]

The congress, at least, is allowed to keep secrets.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 5:
"Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy"

Note that the section does not limit what may be kept secret.

How about..

[Safiire Arrowny]

How about because *everyone* has something to hide, even if it's just some silly small thing, and they deserve to be able to hide it.

From the fact that maybe you like to wear womens clothing, to some brilliant idea you have for an invention, people need privacy.

Things get simpler

[hey!]

if you have a definition of privacy. But the definition of privacy is very, very tricky. In practice, privacy gathers together a wide variety of things that seem to be connected, but no in an obvious way.

It could be people listening in on your phone calls.

It could be people working to ruin your reputation or to spoil a relationship you have with somebody, by selectively chosen but roughly true stories (false light).

It could be somebody secretly watching you.

It could be somebody openly dogging you as you go from public place to public place.

It could be somebody looking over your shoulder as you conduct a bank transaction.

It could be your neighbor's spotlight shining in your bedroom window at 3AM.

It could be somebody failing to uphold a responsibility they have to treat information they hold about you in confidence.

After years of thinking about this, I have come to this conclusion: all these things are in one way or another crimes against autonomy. Even the neighbor's spotlight it a crime against your right to direct your own attention. As a result, I came up with this definition (which I describe further in a blog entry):

Privacy is the right of an individual or group to be free from unreasonable interference in the conduct of their affairs or in their thoughts.

This covers an important point: privacy is not just about being "left alone". It is about being able to engage with others without third parties (like the government, your boss, or your next door neighbor) sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.

So, the idea behind "You have nothing to hide" is really much, much more sinister than it sounds. It implies, in effect, that you are nobody, at least when it comes to making decisions for yourself. It is not for anybody else to decide what you should or should not hide.

Nothing to hide now.. but...

[josepha48]

... do you speed, do you j-walk, do you masturbate or have sex without the intent of having children? Well the first 2 are already against the law, but what if they all were to become against the law? Would you be breaking the law then? What if preying was made against the law ( and I am not talking about public schools )? What would have to become against the law, before you were breaking it, or are you already doing things that you should not be?

I guess then people would value their privacy.

I have something to hide

[KitsuneSoftware]

I have something to hide. And I am not alone: my credit card number, my medical history, and commercially sensitive projects I'm working on, to name but three.

No, of course I don't trust the government not to leak that information like water from a sive — as someone with qualifications, I know how incompetent they are with IT.

Best.Essay.Ever on the value of privacy

[geekotourist]

What I think is the Best Essay Ever on Privacy comes from the former privacy commissioner of Canada. In his 2003 overview to his privacy report to Canada he writes why privacy is a fundamental human right, and he warns Canada not to give away rights now eroded or gone in the U.S., especially if it's at the U.S. government's request. It's a short sharp essay, well-worth the reading.

Sad part is that 4 years on Canadians have been forced to adopt what he warned about, and the US has gotten worse. Thing about the proverbial frog in the stovetop bath is that everyone thinks that if you know about the frog in the pot, you can't possibly be the frog in the pot.

A few extracts:
"In the months immediately following September 11, I was in fact quite optimistic that, with regard to privacy, the Government was on the whole being balanced and thoughtful in its response. But now the floodgates appear to have burst. Now "September 11" is invoked as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis and persuade us that we live in a suddenly new world where the old rules cannot apply. If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it - and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered. But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy - the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us - is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being.

"The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.

..If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.

But there also will be tangible, specific harm. [..Examples given...]

If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted... we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm...If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free..."

" One of the clearest lessons of history is that the greatest threats to liberty come not when times are tranquil and all is well, but in times of turmoil, when fidelity to values and principle seems an extravagance we can ill afford. History also teaches us that whenever we have given in to that kind of thinking, we have lived to regret it. At the time, the loss of freedom might seem small, trivial even, when place

Everyone has something to hide

[maspatra]

Seriously, everyone has something to hide. Even if you don't think you do, you do.

As TFA says, maybe that something isn't something illegal, per se. But who out there doesn't have something personal and private about their lives that they would be upset or embarrassed if it was known to the public at large, or even just a few random strangers? I don't think I've ever committed any crime in my life worse than jaywalking and I still don't want other people reading my email or listening in on my phone conversations; it's none of their goddamn business. Show me someone that's comfortable with anything and everything about their lives being aired to the public and I'll show you someone with serious psychological issues.

This more than anything else is why privacy laws are so important--in fact I'd go as far to say that if that means that some people pull off crimes or whatever that they might not have gotten away with sans privacy, that's just the price to pay. I'd be willing to take the chance that something awful might happen to me or a loved one because quite frankly, without privacy life would suck.

Re:Everyone has something to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, everyone has something to hide. Even if you don't think you do, you do.

Or, as Cardinal Richilieu famously said, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

The three levels

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The illegal: Everyone has covered this one already. Who watches the watcher, changing what is illegal, etc.

2. The immoral: What if you doing something that's not illegal but is immoral, like cheating on your girlfriend/boyfriend. No laws are broken, but it's not something you would want to "share" with everyone. I would want to hide this but still I have not broken any laws.

3. The embarrass: What if I am taking tap dance lessons. This would be a big "I don't want to share" item that is not illegal, doesn't hurt anyone.

So If I was asked do I have something to hide, It might not be want they thing.

P.S. If I were to take Tap dance lessons, I think it would be my right NOT to have anyone know about them.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[Anonymous Coward]

... if that is true... God's got a wicked sense of humor...

God made Woman, right? I'd say that's about as wicked as someone could get.

Yeah. I'm female. I read slashdot, lurk in the forums. I run linux, I'm not in tech, I like dating geeky men but sometimes I wonder why all the men here sometimes complain there are no women around. Usually, unless of course its the typical conversation about how if women wanted to be in tech bad enough they would do it anyway - that's a whole other conversation.

Anyway, duh:
Ha ha. Just a joke, I mean I get it. But I don't like the extreme Christians saying women are wicked and I don't like it here either.

So you're just making a joke right? This would be the part where I roll my eyes, back out of the conversation and head for more enlightened pastures, surely there are more interesting people to talk to rather than brick walls with their stereotypes. And you look around and wonder why where the girls are.

Another way of saying this - phrases like this just don't appear when men realize women are present because its no longer funny. Same as the female joke about training her man isn't as funny when some guy is around. Its just rude.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[Anonymous Coward]

"Emaculate"?? Firefox spell checker says it is misspelled. And then Yahoo suggests "ejaculate" instead. But dictionary.com says it is only a verb, not an adjective. So it seems as if you are trying to say "clean the election"??? What would that have to do with anything?

Maybe you were looking for the adjective "immaculate". But that would mean literally an "election without spot or blemish". Again, unclear. If you were somehow trying to link the usage of one of the above words trying to imply religion in the selection of a leader, then you look just plain stupid.
 
Yeah, I know it was a joke. It just would have been funnier if it made some sense.

So bury it already

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell the US people about the wiretaps. Show the people the money handed to the corporations for the Iraq clean up. Tell people about where your agents are and what they are doing there. Print up the internal memos for corporate board meetings. Show what internal memos HP had. Unredact SCO's information.

If privacy is dead, then secrets don't exist. So stop keeping them.

"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 12 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the joke was about women being wicked, just being difficult to understand and relate to for people fitting the slashdot stereotype.

Having sex in the living room.

[YourMotherCalled]

I hope this example wasn't used in the article...

So let's say you're at home, you've got nothing to hide, you don't beat your wife, you don't molest children. Because of that you decided that it would be OK for the government to install some cameras in your home. You know, to catch burglars and stuff.

You've had the cameras installed in your house for about six months and they're very well hidden so you've mostly forgotten about them.

But one night, while you and wifey are watching a movie, you both get a bit frisky and start "doing stuff". After about 20 minutes of healthy romping you suddenly realize that all the lights in the living room are on and the cameras have been recording your every move.

Was anyone watching the recording at that exact moment? Who knows? What's known for sure is that your play time was recorded and is available.

Nothing to Hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing in your head.

Plenty of good reasons for that, actually

[Moraelin]

Heh. Actually, if anyone takes _that_ as their master trick question, they might be surprised how many valid responses there are to that, that _don't_ boil down to being ashamed of one's own body or having any reason to hide it. Now I'm actually all for privacy, but a question like that almost begs one to take the piss and play the devil's advocate:

- because I don't want to catch a cold,

- because, as it happens, I don't tan even if I spend two weeks on the beach (yes, it's not just because the monitor doesn't tan), and I'd rather not get burnt or even a cancer (UV tends to occasionally have that effect) just to make a silly point,

- because there are laws against that. (There are no laws about talking to your friends on the phone, though, so then why still insist that you need privacy there?)

- because when I sit on my computer chair on a warm day, I'd rather sweat my shirt and undershirt than get the chair itself wet and greasy (no matter how you are built, your skin does produce at least a bit of grease.)

- because when I'm outside and sit on a bench or better yet, on a rock, I'd rather get my pants a little dirty than get dirt and god knows what bacteria on my own skin. I'd also rather have dirty splinters and whatnot scrape against by pants than scratch my skin. (A lot of bacteria and viruses, e.g., herpes, can only get in through scratches and wounds.)

- because, frankly, I'd rather not see most _other_ people do the same. Let's face it, there are plenty of people out there I'd rather see clothed. Just go to any nudist beach and you'll notice the problem with lack of quality control. 'Nuff said.

- because clothes do offer some degree of protection against insects. Even a fly landing on your skin can be more distracting than one landing on your jacket.

- because clothes can serve as some degree of decoration, if you care about your image.

- because even if you're going for an erotic effect, sex appeal is only 10% what you have, and 90% what you leave to imagination. _Almost_ undressed, even if it's at the level of sexy lingerie, can actually be a bigger turn on than actually completely undressed.

Etc.

That's generally the problem with that kind of The Big Question to drop on non-believers and make them realize the error of their ways. It tends to actually have, no offense, of an "OMG, I'm enlightened now! I must give up everything I thought and join your cause!" effect than people imagine when they come up with it.

The Government?

[drooling-dog]

The argument I like to use is that it's not just "the Government" that is spying on you; it's whoever the Government authorizes to watch you. Whoever that is can have all sorts of motivations that have nothing to do with the enforcement of legitimate laws. You can be messed with because of your political opinions or affiliations, or because someone with authority has a personal vendetta against you. Maybe someone "on the force" would like to buy your house for less than you'd like to sell it, or maybe your kid is dating the wrong person's daughter, or maybe someone with connections wants your job. It could be anything.

The "if you have nothing to hide" argument supposes a great deal of trust in not only the Government, but also all of the people empowered by it. It never ceases to amaze me that it is always conservatives - who otherwise profess to abhor "big government" - who advance it.

history repeats

[Zulu]

I've got nothing to hide! Spy on me! .. time passes ..

Oh shit, the government just made having my color hair illegal! Now what do I do!

Only naked people can make that claim

[RexDevious]

And if my experience with nudists is any indication, even then, that claim is not always true.

So the next time some claims that they've "got nothing to hide", ask them why they're wearing clothes. You'll quickly find them making a very compelling arguement for privacy. Or naked, in which case you should probably back slowly away, and stop taking advice from people on slashdot.

Nothing illegal to hide but...

[Anonymous Coward]

- It's not illegal to listen to gangsta' rap but that doesn't mean I want my boss finding out. - It's not illegal to subscribe to playboy TV but that doesn't mean I want my mom to know. - It's not illegal to play Dance Dance Revolution but that doesn't mean I want my friends to see me. - It's not illegal to have the sh!ts for 2 weeks but that's for my doctor to know. - It's not illegal to smoke marijuana.... oh wait. In any case there are plenty of things worth keeping secret that AREN'T ILLEGAL.

Wired were almost a quarter of a millenium late.

[nick_davison]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Of course, had the British government of the time acted a little more like the current U.S. administration, he would have been arrested as a terrorist, jailed with habeus corpus suspended, and there may well not be a U.S. administration today to ignore his wisdom.

I have plenty to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah, I smoke pot, drink and drive, speed, litter, steal, vandalize, jay-walk, loiter, pee in the bushes, ride my bike on the sidewalk, let my grass get too tall, curse, make too much noise, whatever. It's absolutely fucking impossible to live in America without breaking some law somewhere. This isn't in the future. This is NOW.

Yet, I'm a "good" and "productive" citizen - non-violent, never been jobless since I graduated from college, been married for 20+ years, raising a family, stellar credit, never injured anyone, no car wrecks, blah blah blah.

PRIVACY IS MY RIGHT. If I'm not given it, I will take it. As long as I am not causing a problem, nobody, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY, has any right to know what I'm doing. There's a reason I like the great outdoors. If I break some law out in the woods, and there's no surveillance there to catch me, AND I didn't harm anyone else in the process, did I really do anything wrong? The answer is NO.

Don't have anything to hide? Bullshit. Yes you do. We all do. And history has proven that the ones that proclaim the loudest that they have nothing to hide are the ones that cry foul the loudest when they get caught doing something they shouldn't aught to do.

And yeah, I'm hiding right now. I think this is the first time I've ever posted AC.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[nschubach]

Yeah, I guess that could be read wrong.

As a side note, that was way more analysis of that one post than was truly needed.

And you wonder why I'll never understand women... Reminds me of those "What you say vs. What women hear" emails.

sexual offender registry

[falconwolf]

See how you feel if you imagine they put your name on such a list.

A few year back or so this teenager was put on a sexual offender registry in, I believe it was Gainsville, FL, something about him "exposing himself indecently" or some such and because the hassazment he went through he eventually killed himself.

The constitution offers the means to make changes; but this is not convenient enough, and so we are faced on all sides with unconstitutional law, and told that it'll all be worked out in court if necessary, and in the meantime, comply or face the music.

Ah but a couple of those methods used in court, Fully Informed Jury and jury nullification, the courts try to prevent. Even though they were used by Founding Fathers of the USA. Jurors are told they can't look up or investigate themself and if they do they can be disqualified from the jury. And judges tell jurors they must just make a ruling on the facts of the case, they're not supposed to decide if a law is unconstitutional nor are they able to follow their conciousness. Personally I've been called for jury duty twice, hoping to get selected as a juror for a drug trial, so I could vote "not guilty" saying drug laws are unconstitutional. However neither tyme was I even called up for questioning.

Falcon

Re:sexual offender registry

[networkBoy]

"neither tyme was I even called"
most awesome word selection error ever!
I'm used to the their/there/they're and read through them, but that one caught my eye ;)
-nB

Re:sexual offender registry

[Moodie-1]

You forgot

'follow their conciousness' . That's just as bad!

Go through their stuff

[neveu]

The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent. Is there a way to respond to this argument that would really register with people in the general public?

Whenever someone gives me that argument I get up and start rifling through their personal stuff -- desk, purse, closet, whatever. When they object I tell them they have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide.

parable from usenet 1993

[Flunitrazepam]

Newsgroups: alt.privacy.clipper,sci.crypt
Subject: A Parable.
References: <1993Apr20.013747.4122@cs.sfu.ca> <1993Apr21.210353.15305@microsoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug

scottmi@microsoft.com (Scott Miller (TechCom)) writes:
>Stikes me that all this concern over the government's ability
>to eavesdrop is a little overblown... what can't they do today?
>My understanding is that they already can tap, listen, get access
>exc. to our phone lines, bank records, etc. etc again.

Well, they can't listen in on much of mine, since I already use
cryptography for much of my electronic mail, and will start using it
for my telephony as soon as practical.

However, allow me to tell a parable.

There was once a far away land called Ruritania, and in Ruritania
there was a strange phenonmenon -- all the trees that grew in
Ruritainia were transparent. Now, in the days when people had lived in
mud huts, this had not been a problem, but now high-tech wood
technology had been developed, and in the new age of wood, everyone in
Ruritania found that their homes were all 100% see through. Now, until
this point, no one ever thought of allowing the police to spy on
someone's home, but the new technology made this tempting. This being
a civilized country, however, warrants were required to use binoculars
and watch someone in their home. The police, taking advantage of this,
would get warrants to use binoculars and peer in to see what was going
on. Occassionally, they would use binoculars without a warrant, but
everyone pretended that this didn't happen.

One day, a smart man invented paint -- and if you painted your house,
suddenly the police couldn't watch all your actions at will. Things
would go back to the way they were in the old age -- completely
private.

Indignant, the state decided to try to require that all homes have
video cameras installed in every nook and cranny. "After all", they
said, "with this new development crime could run rampant. Installing
video cameras doesn't mean that the police get any new capability --
they are just keeping the old one."

A wise man pointed out that citizens were not obligated to make the
lives of the police easy, that the police had survived all through the
mud hut age without being able to watch the citizens at will, and that
Ruritania was a civilized country where not everything that was
expedient was permitted. For instance, in a neighboring country, it
had been discovered that torture was an extremely effective way to
solve crimes. Ruritania had banned this practice in spite of its
expedience. Indeed, "why have warrants at all", he asked, "if we are
interested only in expedience?"

A famous paint technologist, Dorothy Quisling, intervened however. She
noted that people might take photographs of children masturbating
should the new paint technology be widely deployed without safeguards,
and the law was passed.

Soon it was discovered that some citizens would cover their mouths
while speaking to each other, thus preventing the police from reading
their lips through the video cameras. This had to be prevented, the
police said. After all, it was preventing them from conducting their
lawful surveilance. The wise man pointed out that the police had never
before been allowed to listen in on people's homes, but Dorothy
Quisling pointed out that people might use this new invention of
covering their mouths with veils to discuss the kidnapping and
mutilation of children. No one in the legislature wanted to be accused
of being in favor of mutilating children, but then again, no one
wanted to interfere in people's rights to wear what they liked, so a
compromise was reached whereby all homes were installed with
microphones in each room to accompany the video cameras. The wise man
lamented few if any child mutilations had ever been solv

Re:parable from usenet 1993

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You have proved that wise (intelligent/educated) people have no place in a modern society.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[nschubach]

Yeah, it was a joke and I'm an atheist, so no "extreme Christian" views from me. ;)

But you did just take that one joke WAY beyond what was needed. It was too much like that other stereotype. You know, the one where the woman blows something way out of proportion?

And I tell those jokes around my friends all the time (some of whom are women) and of course I hear the "training" and "whipped" jokes flying both ways. I guess the folks I hang out with take things with a grain of salt and leave them be instead of being confrontational about it. It's strange how different some people really are. And confusing as I mention below. (Yes, I'm back posting...because I didn't really know how to respond to this.)

wicked

[falconwolf]

. if that is true... God's got a wicked sense of humor...

God made Woman, right? I'd say that's about as wicked as someone could get.

I'd say it was wicked, and sadistic, of "God" if it didn't create Woman.

Falcon

Obit

[BrendaEM]

People who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear from O.b.i.t. .

--From Outer Limits

Identity Theft

[sgunhouse]

In these days of identity theft, you do have something to hide. I mean, in my state we've had several government computers lost or stolen with personal information on thousands of people on them. Even if you somehow trust that the government (as an entity) will not abuse the information, that doesn't mean that individual government employees will behave responsibly.

5, Insightful? Nigga, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing signals intelligence to murder is about on par with comparing illicit copying to stealing. Good for pulling heartstrings, logically fucked.

Mod parent way the fuck down.

Re:5, Insightful? Nigga, please.

[ClosedSource]

"Comparing signals intelligence to murder is about on par with comparing illicit copying to stealing."

Having not compared anything to "signals intelligence", I feel no need to justify it.

As service to those who weren't reading carefully, I was comparing the pickup of acoustic speech (yes, such a phrase is redundant but some readers need extra help) at a distance to firing a rifle from a distance. This was not an appeal to emotion, but a demonstration of the logical consequences of a theory that claims that technological advances make rights obsolete.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

"God's" work?

[falconwolf]

I honestly do disagree. While many of his underlings don't share his beliefs, Bush is a zealot who really does think he's doing God's work. His religious convictions can't really legitimately be called "Christian", except in the term's broadest sense, but he thinks every bomb he has dropped, every bullet he has fired, is part of a pure and noble cause.

Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill"? Many more have been killed under Bush's orders than all of those killed from bin Ladin's orders. And didn't he stand up in front of the world claiming Saddam had WMDs? Despite waiting I have yet to see the first WMD.

Falcon

Re:"God's" work?

[TekPolitik]

Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill"?

I suspect the original poster was pointing out that Bush labours under some major delusions. Of course "Thou shalt not kill" gets abandoned pretty quickly in Leviticus, but really, putting the civil and criminal codes of ancient Israel into a religious text was a pretty dumb idea all around anyway.

Wait a sec...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I have to give 'em my email address to download an article on privacy??

No

[nwbvt]

"One of the most common responses of those unconcerned about government surveillance or privacy invasions is 'I've got nothing to hide.' "

Change that to "One of the most common strawmen set up by those concerned about government surveillance or privacy invasions is 'I've got nothing to hide' and I'll agree with you.

I'm sorry, but how the hell is that Flamebait?

[Elemenope]

It was a reasonable, not particularly provocative, and respectfully phrased on-topic statement of opinion about the difference between the "privacy" one might reasonably expect while walking down a public street. What gives?

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I got the joke. In real life I hear them and with people I know its a wink wink and laugh thing because I know what they really think of me/women. With writing its not so clear. I mean, my comment is written with less of a rant and evil glint as a sigh and roll of the eyes but that kind of writing takes much skill or better emoticons :)

Yes, I agree your comment wasn't a big deal, it was just one of many that I read every day. I wish I could reply to them all as a sort of meta-comment but instead I can only respond to one.

All that I'm saying is, slashdot is full of mainly men making the occasional comment that smarts. I mean come on, I'm the evil creature that a wicked god created. And it scored +4 Funny. Sure I could pull the easy move and just leave, not say anything and not get into some stupid conversation where both sides are misunderstood, or I could point it out. I'm sure I'm not the only girl here, but I know not many girls stick around.

The extreme christian thing was just from personal experience - sitting around in Fiji while this man told me how I was the evil sex for eating the apple and screwing up adam, how I obey the man because that's what the bible says, how I was made from the rib which makes me lower than man. Blah blah blah.

Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask the Palestinians.

Argument of privacy

[suv4x4]

A: "Jesus, now they're making ISP-s hold data for 6 months in case NSA or whoever .. wants it.."

B: "Come ooon! Why would you mind them reading your mails and sniffing your traffic. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"

A: "You know what... pull your underpants down and walk out in public"

B: "What? WTF is wrong with you"

A: "Come on, pull 'em down, why not? You've got nothing to hide.. or do you..."

You didn't write what you thought you wrote

[ClosedSource]

"The "right" to privacy is based on, in this age, willful ignorance; hardly comparable to a directed, intentional assault against another human being's life."

Your statement is right: there's no comparison between believing in a right to privacy and committing a murder.

and it's none of your @)($#@ business

[Warshadow]

I've got nothing to hide, and even if I did it's none of your damned business!

I really dislike people who don't understand the concept of privacy.

ClosedSource, please never post to /. again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing interception of signals with an act of murderous aggression and getting modded to 5 because of it is totally fucking silly.

You're a moron, and so are the people who modded you up. Consensus approval does not make you insightful. You're an idiot.

Re:ClosedSource, please never post to /. again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it might be you just not getting the idea rather than the other poster being a moron.

Re:ClosedSource, please never post to /. again.

[Anonymous Coward]

A fallacy of faulty comparison is usually difficult to get.

The worst part ....

[diewlasing]

...about these arguments, is that when the gov. says "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide", it assumes the desire for privacy implies wrong doing.

King George

[falconwolf]

He had gangs of thugs, called "redcoats" who could enter your home, and take whatever they liked, and charge you with treason if you were friends with guys like Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. No trial was necessary, and you couldn't demand to see the evidence against you in order to contest it.

Actually a trial was required, the Magna Carta from 1215 AD guaranteed Habeas Corpus in which a person could not be held, imprisoned, without access to a court. However that King George, like the one we have today, disregards Habeas Corpus.

Falcon

Re:King George

[DeathToBill]

The real complaint about trials was that the Admiralty courts were given jurisdiction over the offences concerned. These were fairly summary courts where a conviction was pretty much assured. "Trial by jury" was a foreign concept, and the rules of evidence were not as favourable to the defendent as those in the regular criminal courts. So a trial was available, but perhaps not a fair trial.

Part of the problem, of course, was that most of the defendents were patently guilty under the law as it stood. The law was very unpopular and so juries were unlikely to convict, so the law was moved to a jurisdiction where a jury was not necessary.

Its a NON argument anyway.

[unity100]

See, you have NOTHING to hide when you go to the loo and take a dump. Its completely natural, and ALL the human beings who existed in the world for the last 10.000 years have been doing that, and all to come will be doing that.

yet, noone wants to be seen with his/her naked butt in the loo. noone wants prying eyes eyeing you when you lower your undergarments.

this is privacy. you want to be private about some stuff, which are considered private in our society. which is not only completely normal, but also healthy.

Have you ever played that game...

[element-o.p.]

...where you take what someone says, apply their words to a slightly different context, then make something that was said in innocence into something that is socially embarrassing? I've played both sides of that game from the time I was a teenager, and when you are just goofing off with friends, it's all in fun. Someone turns red and gets flustered, then everything they say to clear up what they really meant only digs the hole deeper.

We've all played that game, and we all know how easy it can be to string someone up with their own words when the context has been subtlety altered. Now imagine that it's not your friends trying to embarrass you for fun, but it's a prosecutor and he's trying to send you to the deepest, darkest hole he can find. What you said and what you did that got recorded in some computer database may be perfectly innocent, but that doesn't mean someone sufficiently motivated -- or paranoid -- can't twist your actions into something that appears very sinister to twelve of your peers. *That's* why privacy is important.

Give me six lines in a man's own hand ...

[TapestryDude]

... and I can have that man executed for treason. I can't remember where this quote comes from, but the gist is that if you set out to prove someone guilty, and your system has no proper checks and balances (fifth amendment, habeas corpus, etc.) then it's quite easy. We saw this happen with the Starr investigation of Clinton: every roadblock that indicated a lack of wrongdoing was interpreted as an ever greater conspiracy and ever greater guilt. Remember that amenesty international was started around a case of two men simply toasting "to freedom"; they were imprisoned for treason.

Re:Give me six lines in a man's own hand ...

[TapestryDude]

Found the quote:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_you_give_me_six _lines_written_by_the_hand_of/188939.html

Re:Give me six lines in a man's own hand ...

[timmarhy]

"We saw this happen with the Starr investigation of Clinton: every roadblock that indicated a lack of wrongdoing was interpreted as an ever greater conspiracy and ever greater guilt"

OH FUCKING GIVE ME A BREAK! Clinton was guilty as hell and you know it. hence all the road blocking. that's a really poor example as it deals with white house interference in the exact checks and balances you talk about

Dick Cheney has nothing to hide. You can't see it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Our beloved Vice President certainly doesn't agree with the "If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to anyone seeing it" argument. Everything he does is authorized by Executive and/or Legislative Privilege or his powers as Backup-Commander-in-Chief, and those powers allow him to keep you from seeing any of it. Because he knows what's good for you.

Dick's minions have already read this posting, but I'm posting as Anonymous Coward anyway.

taxes

[falconwolf]

One has to wonder if the founding fathers were time warped from then to now what they would think of the staggering tax burden the government they created inflicts on its own citizens. The tarifs of 1776 pale next to the staggering and intrusive income, sales and property taxes today, though in a curious inversion tarifs are rapidly disappearing in the name of "free trade".

People living during the Civil War would be staggered by today's tax burden. Pres Lincoln raised income tax to pay for the war to about 5% and the people were upset over that. They only accepted it because they knew the war had to be paid for.

I really want a government that builds roads(and taxes fuel to pay for that) and provides a bare minimum defense and police force. Not sure schools are even a proper role considering how bad public schools have turned out.

Yeap, have user fees, ie a tax on gas, pay for road building and maintainance. Reduce the size of the professional military and have a citizen's army like Switzerland. Include in that the requiremment for a rifle in each home, maybe excepting a conscious objector. Then get rid of all of those agencies, authorities, departments, and offices in the federal government that aren't Constitutionally authorized and the federal income tax can be significantly reduced if not eliminated. And that includes education. Leave schools to the locals, at the highest level, the states.

Falcon

Re:taxes

[Qrlx]

So you reduce the taxation rate but now you have all these fees when you want to drive, send your kids to school, etc. Are you sure it's really gonna be cheaper, overall? We have some substatnial regulation in the economy now, and we still end up with stuff like Enron. You think things will be more stable if we just release all controls completely?

Anyway, let's say it's all privatized. What happens when my kid breaks his arm on the playground, so I have to pay for his hospital bills, so I can't afford the toll on the road to work, so then I can't work to pay off my kid's hospital bills? I'm seeing some real inefficiencies and "hidden costs" in your plan.

I don't see how your proposed no-tax, no-service, private-everything system offers any improvement over the current one, and frankly it seems a lot worse.

Re:taxes

[falconwolf]

So you reduce the taxation rate but now you have all these fees when you want to drive, send your kids to school, etc.

First, schools. Schools are and should be paid for with property taxes not income tax. And the school system should remain in the control of those who live in the school system whether it be city, county, or whatever. As for driving, you're already paying a tax to drive, didn't you know there already is a tax on fuel? This tax should pay for all road building and maintainance with the money used only for that. Another tax is on license plates. If anything this should only pay to make sure vehicles on public roads are safe.

Falcon

applies for almost everyone...

[toxygen01]

"A popular response is: ``If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.`` [...] The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private.'' --George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

IF you have nothing to hide, lets change the laws.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

And start with "innocent until proven guilty" Lets just go flat out with "Guilty until proven innocent" because if you have nothing to hide, than surely whenever you are accused of breaking a law, you're guilty.

You need not worry about the State. The State has your best interest in mind at all times.

Phil Zimmermann's reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Phil Zimmermann covers it all in his "why I wrote PGP" article, from waaaay back
http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWroteP GP.html

As easy as A B C

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatsoever for any cause
seeketh to take or give
power above or beyond the laws,
suffer it not to live!

saying after me

Once there was The People
terror gave it birth
Once there was The People
and made a hell of earth!
Once there was The People
Listen oh, ye slain!
Once there was The People
it shall never be again.

The Best Privacy Test.....

[IHC Navistar]

Being a Republican, I believe in a smaller government, and outright REFUSE to let someone compromise my rights to life, liberty, privacy, property, and pursuit of happiness. However, their are SOME "Republicans" who tend to think that being a Republican means a bigger Big Brother, and are starting to act in complete contradiction to what it truly means to be a Republican. Bush is a PRIME example.

SO, whenever someone counters my 'right to privacy' argument with "Well, what do YOU have to hide?", I always say:

"Absolutely nothing. Just because I don't want someone knowing everything about me and my habits doesn't mean that I have anything to hide.". Then I ask, "I'd like to look through your credit card statements, FasTrack statements, telephone records, bank records, internet records, computer hard drive, your house, your dresser, and the dog house. Will you let me?"

The response has ALWAYS been "No way. Why should I?"

To which I reply, "Well, what do YOU have to hide?"

I always get an irritated look after the final line. But it proves a point: Just because someone doesn't want you snooping through their life doesn't mean that they are hiding things.

It's the people doing the snooping that have things to hide.

Re:The Best Privacy Test.....

[grgyle]

"...However, their are SOME "Republicans" who tend to think..."

When "some" becomes "most", perhaps you need to either redefine what Republican means, our create a new label that accurately describes your beliefs and platform. As it is, Republican has lost its useful context and meaning in language if it also requires a qualifier to clarify that you're not one of "those" Republicans.

Re:The Best Privacy Test.....

[CompCons]

You are not a republican... you are a libertarian...republicans are economically AND socially conservative (i.e. it's my money I want to keep it AND I have morals and everyone else should have the same morals). Libertarians are economically conservative and socially liberal (i.e. it's my money and I want to keep it and I don't care what you do as long as I can do what I want).

My crude but effective analogy is

[kennylogins]

Blah blah blah. The problem is this isn't a RATIONAL need. We're programmed this way. And that's why those types of point by point appeals are largely ineffective.
Frame it this way:
Why do we prefer shitters with stalls and walls vs. one in full public view?
Why do we have shutters and shades on our windows?
Is it because we all plan on doing something wrong?
No, it's just human nature. Privacy and personal space.

The best Response of All

[mombodog]

"I have nothing to Hide, but Everything to Protect"

to anyone that asks this say...

[timmarhy]

"can i watch your daughter having sex?"

after all, if she's over 18 she's not doing anything wrong, whats there to hide!?

moron's dribble the nothing to hide rubbish to push your buttons, push them back.

I ask people pointed questions.

[Lethyos]

Do you have nothing to hide in the bathroom when taking a shower? Do you have nothing to hide when you are making love with your spouse in your bedroom? If you have nothing to hide, you should not mind some cameras in there, right?

Re: "brawling frat boy"

[TallDarkMan]

As the the crazy cowboy... Even though I voted for him, and I still like him. I prefer to think of him as a brawling frat boy. Oh yeah... /sarcasm/ That's what I want: the school yard bully being given the keys to the Ammo Safe so he can take out some [insert chosen enemy of du jour here]! /sarcasm/

Everyone knows where he stands, he stands and fights to the end. Sure, I know exactly where he stands: ground zero of the state of denial. But 'fighting to the end?" You're right; but it sickens me, and more specifically, worries me that a God loving/fearing (interesting how it could go either way, eh?) people can be "gung-ho" for genocide.

But who do you want standing up for you when the shit hits the fan? Personally, I'd prefer to have someone who is concerned with the possibility of shit before it happens, not eye-for-an-eye retribution ('I'll finish that war you started, daddy!'), while being more concerned with political BS maneuvers.

Ya gotta admit, having the President of the US land a war-plane on a carrier sure sets up the "Holy-Fucking-Shit Batman" on our enemies. No I don't... and I doubt anyone with a decent brain in use would agree. I have the utmost respect for Naval pilots, seriously. But a great pilot or soldier does absolutely nothing to make you a leader worthy of running a nation. IMO: just the opposite; military thinking -- ...heh, oxymoron of the day... okay, say "training" -- instills "obey orders without question" mentality... and there's always a higher ranking officer... except for the pres-

8-|

Hey, I think I just figured out where our president's comin' from!

Big Brother loves you...

[Dragoon235]

The Thought Police only arrest those devious perpetrators of thoughtcrime. Therefore you have nothing to worry about. Those guilty of thoughtcrime will be rehabilitated in room 101.

Doubleplusgood duckspeaking:

        * WAR IS PEACE
        * FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
        * IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And now for something completely different: Big brother comedy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYQKDqjCEBQ

Its simple really

[Anonymous Coward]

The "I have nothing to hide" argument only works if you completely agree with the morality, agenda, and ethics of those that do the watching, or those that control the watching.

Fundamental Misunderstanding...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this retort:

I don't need my privacy: but you do.

When I choose to keep something about myself private, I do so not for my own convenience, but for yours. There are things I choose to keep private about myself because if I were to disclose some of them to you without disclosing all of them to you, a misleading picture of myself would be presented. You would be better off knowing that you did not know than you would be thinking that you do when you don't. And no matter how smart you are, there's no way any of you could handle knowing all of it.

Consider the following (all true) information about myself you may be able to gain through simple observation:

• I wash my hands 20 times a day.
• I eat the same food for breakfast every day. I eat a different food for lunch, but the same lunch every day. Dinner too.
• I refuse to eat anything offered by anyone else, ever.

Have you diagnosed me as suffering from OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), paranoid schizophrenia, or some other mental illness yet? Should you fear me? Or suggest treatment? Would you trust me to care for your children?

Now let me add one more piece of information you didn't have before:

• I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. I test my blood glucose (sugar) levels by finger stick about every 2 hours, per doctor's orders, meaning I test about 10 times per day. I wash my hands both before and after each test (total 20 times per day).

Suddenly the mental illness you were so certain of a minute ago doesn't fit, and my behaviors becomes completely understandable. But that only becomes apparent when you have the additional information. It's too bad you can't keep track of everything about everyone. That cubemate who's always popping pills? Maybe he is just getting high on company time, or maybe those pain killers are a legally prescribed and necessary treatment for terminal cancer.

And those mexicans looking for day jobs may be illegal immigrants, or maybe they're legal.

The fundamental point the nothing to hide crew always gets wrong is presuming that more knowledge leads to less questions. It doesn't.

A thought experiment shows this most clearly. Imagine a self-contained society consisting only of people matching the following descriptions:

• Everyone is the society agrees they have no need for their own privacy. In other words, none of them cares to keep anything about themselves private.
• No one in the society has any need to invade anyone elses privacy. In other words, none of them cares if everyone else keeps everything private about themselves.

Clearly such a society would be the most favorable one to those who promote the elimination of all privacy. But could such a society be made to work? I submit it could not. Such a society would be constantly tripping over itself for things each person is supposed to know but cannot possible keep track of. Every time a birthday gets missed, there would be no excuse of "I didn't know", it would become "I didn't care". Everyone would be deemed responsible to keep track of everyone elses nut allergies, meeting appointments, personal business contacts, etc.

Even now I wonder when the surveilled public of Great Britain is going to put two-and-two together and start wondering why, with all the privacy invasive technologies already deployed, they still can't pull muggers, rioters, and drug dealers off the streets.

I wonder why the Bush administration hasn't already used their Total Information Awareness assets to figure out weeks in advance that gas supplies are gonna get tight, forcing prices up, and respond accordingly. Or why, when they already know (thanks to the NSA) which U.S. companies are talking to which discount Chineese dog food importers, we have to hear the recalls from the manufacturers. Don't they already know who bought the tainted grain?

Silly liberals...

[Jeff Molby]

...always cherry-picking from the constitution. The sixth amendment clearly states "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy...."

This is war, not a "criminal prosecution". We can just lock 'em up until the war is over.

(No, I didn't actually mean a word of that. F@#$ this administration.)

You had me at Poindexter

[sc0ob5]

Possibly the biggest load of shit I have ever read. At any rate everyone has something to hide, if you didn't you would wear clothes, have doors, have curtains, use firewalls, etc.. Sure I may not do anything illegal but I still want my privacy. I don't want my private information going to the US government or any other government for that matter. You could say that the US government is a terrorist in it's own right and who is watching them?

What about capacity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something really needs to be done about all these damn fiber taps into the nets DFZ. :( I darn near tripped over the bundle some spook failed to label or route correctly on my way to the vending machine.

Honestly the worst thing a citizen can do is trust the government even if the government is great and mostly trustworthy...Mistrust is the only way they stay that way. The constitution can't win all of our battles for us.

I read the article and there were actually some new points on protecting the individual from society that never really came to mind in that way before to me but are actually the essance of why I care about this issue. Its an interesting read if nothing else and the quotes at the beginning were funny :)

simple

[DragonTHC]

Ask your friends who "have nothing to hide" if you can go through their bedroom dresser and drawers. Ask them to remove the vertical blinds and curtains from all their windows.

That's privacy. it's the same thing.

Attention ACLU members please!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the parent's link on jury nullification:

About 18 months ago, armed with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury tampering.

Please consider putting him back in the court house or another person as a set up to fix this. We need jury nullification back into the mindset of potential jurors nationwide. Such heavy handed actions by the governments of this nation must be stopped.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[Anonymous Coward]

waaah waaah

Shit...

[Oswald]

I read the damn paper, and I'm disappointed. How is this not a slippery slope argument? It amounts to "don't let them spy on you because someday when things have changed in ill-specified ways by undefined means there might be horrible consequences like, um, chilling effect." Letting bad people run around unobserved doing whatever they want has already screwed us. Convincing people that it's better to accept an increased risk of another unstopped attack than it is to put up with a computer scanning your phone calls isn't easy. "Can I watch you and your wife have sex?" just doesn't cut it as an argument with anybody with half a brain. They know that's not what the government wants.

The worst part is, I strongly believe in freedom from government surveillance, but I can't think of any better reasons than this lame paper comes up with. Please, somebody with some fresh ideas on how to frame this argument stand up and help us give the American public (and me, I guess) a clue.

drug paraphernalia

[falconwolf]

Clinton and the liberals gave a lot of leeway in that gray area, allowing head shops to essentially break the law, selling wares that were unequivocally intended for drug use.

Like what wares? Rolling paper? I used to roll my own cigarette. Pipes? I used to smoke a pipe legally, heck I smoked one while in the army. Bongs? Though I didn't have one I occassionally smoked some tobacco with bongs friends had. Needles? A friend is insulin dependent diabetic. She had to check her blood sugar twice a day and if her blood sugar was too high she'd give herself a shot of insulin. I know of nothing drug users and abusers use that does not have legitimate uses.

Falcon

Re:drug paraphernalia

[Myopic]

Yes, I'm talking about glass pipes and bongs. It's cute to claim they can be used for legal purposes (anything technically can, if it's a display object), but in fact they are used to do drugs. Nobody smokes tobacco out of crack pipes, even though technically you could. So Clinton took the lenient approach to that interpretation, and Bush took the hard line.

Needles and rolling papers are different, in that they have legitimate uses which actually occur in reality a nontrivial amount of the time -- still a minority, probably, but not infinitesimal, like smoking tobacco in a bong. But diabetics don't buy needles in head shops.

Hey, again, I didn't vote for Bush and don't support his enforcement of the drug laws because I don't support the drug laws. But I do support democracy, and this is a legitimate democratic action.

Glass

[AnyThingButWindows]

If someone makes the "I have nothing to hide statement", I usually respond something to nature of, "Ok, why is your house not made of glass?", or "Then tear down your house, and re-build it with glass walls". That usually makes them angry. :) hehe.

Most people probably think gays should be burned

[falconwolf]

at the stake, but it's not a law.

I doubt most people, more than 50% believe that. I doubt 25% believe that. About the only ones I can think of that do believe this are Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists as well as some Muslims.

Falcon

national id

[falconwolf]

We already have a national ID system...its just a bad one.... the Social Security number.

Actually the SSN can not be used as an id legally.

Falcon

Privacy in the bedroom.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I point a camera into your bedroom do you lose
the right to expect a little privacy. Obviously you
must be doing something wrong, or you wouldn't want,
or need, privacy.

So where is it?

[The Cisco Kid]

I went to the link, and all that is there is an 'abstract' of this paper, a 'suggested citation' and some other nonsense. There is something that appears to be a link to 'Download Paper' that doesnt do anything when clicked, in fact, it seems to be a link to the same URL given here - where is the actual text of this essay?

Re:So where is it?

[The Cisco Kid]

Nevermind, I found it.

German article about same topic

[magerquark.de]

If you are aware of the German language, the following article should be a must-read: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/23/23625/1.html

Its title is called "Wer nichts zu verbergen hat, hat auch nichts zu befürchten".

Whose privacy is it?

[DynaSoar]

> Is there a way to respond to this argument that would really register with people in the general public?

Yes. "I don't care if it's your rights and your privacy, you should do what I say with them because it's what I'd do."

If it's their privacy and it's based on their right to it, then they have the right to do with it as they will. Anything else is an attempt to infringe on their rights. Arguments over what someone wants to do vs. what someone else thinks they should do, using the implied excuse that their decision will affect how yours is treated, are at the base of the intractable-as-presented arguments over gun control, stem cell/cloning research and abortion. As much as I agree with the pro-privacy position, which is a protection of individual liberties, I'm even more for letting others make their own choices about their rights, which is what individual liberties means. If you can't protect your own rights without infringing on others' you don't deserve them.

My response to "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Then if you have nothing to hide, either, you won't mind this video camera I'm going to set up in your bedroom, will you?

We all have a psychological need to maintain some amount of "Personal Space". And that space isn't always measured in inches between people.

Definitions of privacy

[Harmonious Botch]

He doesn't understand your definition of privacy. You've enlarged the term so much so as to be synonymous with 'boundary'. He prefers a narrower definition. ( Mind you, I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, just different. )

He would - I think - consider privacy to be a subset of boundaries. The other sibling subset is propery rights. The distinction lies in whether or not the thing infinged upon is data. Acquiring the data of your telephone conversation violates your privacy. Acquiring your car violates your property rights. ( BTW, shoving you is also a property rights violation of the ultimate property - oneself. )

So, are all boundaries privacy, or are some privacy and some property rights?

In an immediate, practical sense, either view works. Both you and he would agree that the government should not be taping your phone conversation nor stealing your car. The only difference would only be how the indictment is worded when the car thief goes on trial.

Ultimately, I prefer his distinction. I prefer it because there can be multiple copies of data, but only one copy of your car. When you get your car back, the harm done to you is thereby terminated. When you get your data back, other copies can - and probably do - exist. The potential extent of the harm is theoretically unlimited. If there are different types of harm done, there should be different words to describe them. ( It is like having different words 'libel' and 'slander'. They are similar offenses, but radically different in their potential effects, so different words are used. )

The right to privacy

[Scotman]

There is a confusion here. These issues are not stated properly so they sound the same. Some facts will help clarify: 1. Laws exist to protect a country or nation. No law should ever be created that does otherwise. If there ever should be one created it is void by default. Like wise, anyone that seeks to harm that group voids his claim to protection under law, but only so long as that person remains a threat. Like wise, no law may threaten the prosperity of someone that strongly helps that group, nation,... etc. The idea is that you need to keep the group together and successful and support the actions that forward this and eradicate anything that harms the group. In this way, you can have a future. Laws exist to make it known what will and will not lead to prosperity. The penalty of law exists to make it undesirable to do harmful acts. 2. Not every one is a criminal. Most people are good and only need the occasional reminder to stay on the side of good and right. Those that truly are destructive will rarely even notice if their is a law there prohibiting their actions. So making laws that will put everyone into the right will never work and will only inhibit those that follow the laws. 3.Inspection before the fact. You can destroy any group in history by tying them down with inspections. That things move fast is the vital life line of anyone. Greater success, more money, a better life and so on often hinges on finding something successful and doing lots of it. But inspection will slow you down. If you slow everyone down with inspections you, all on your own, can take down anyone. Done in the name of finding the nar-do-wells it is sometimes mist that this alone can cause untold damage over many other forms. This has caused more damage in history than any other due to the simple fact that it gets mist. The only way it can be implemented without harm is to find a way to monitor that does not interfere with the rate of flow. Remaining off the path of traffic and only stopping those that are found to be problematic. 4. Criminals will not allow honest people to live successfully. There is a difference in personality between the person that seeks to help others and the person that seeks to harm others. Criminals adopt a method of thinking that seeks to find people that are successful and stop them. It is not just that they will take without compensation. They can just outright harm with no benefit to anyone. The more power a criminal is given the more destruction can be caused. Truly insane people are attracted like magnets to positions of power. Such people often mask their actions in the name of good. All the while ruining lives. For this reason it is important to remove such people and not to grant power until they are proven and even then not drop your guard. 5. One of the most favored activities of the criminal type is to find blackmail material. Why? Because if you knew that something was very harmful, would you do it? Not likely. And they know this. This posses a problem, how do you get someone to do something harmful that he would not do otherwise? More over, such a criminal personality is seeking to harm. So the thinking becomes: How can I force this person to harm with harmful means? After all, one of the most harmful things a person can do is to make another guilty of a destructive act. Such a person needs information that will bring about this reaction. Many a government surveillance agency has become the blackmail acquisition arm of a crazy person. The key difference was to make it possible to get information on people that were NOT criminals. As no sane person cares about the minor misdeeds of a good person. But to a crim, this stuff is like gold, you can't live without it. 6. The right to privacy under law. There has been argument as to should people have privacy. But in fact it was already decided when it was found that not having it is incredibly destructive. You have the right to privacy. These rights hold so long as you do not harm others. You are innocent until proven guilty because it is FAR more

Re:I have something to hide

[Ranger]

Why would someone wanting to hide a salami be rated troll? What if you had a vegan friend coming over to visit and couldn't stand the sight of meat and you had a salami laying on the counter. Wouldn't you want to hide it? Possibly in that box holding the big sausage pizza you ordered.

Obiously, you've never lived under a Junta

[synthespian]

(...) if they spot you doing something today which is not illegal and then make it illegal. They can't (in theory) prosecute you for it,(...)


I don't know that I understand you correctly but you seem to be implying that a Government can't take away previoulsy granted rights?

That is obviously not the case when you have abrupt discontinuities in the law. Such is the case, for instance, of coups d'état...

Today's law-abiding citizen becomes tomorrow's outlaw. Ask Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, Uruguaians, etc., everywhere the loathsome School of the Americas set its dirty paws.

Re:Obiously, you've never lived under a Junta

[Anonymous Cowpat]

X is not illegal You do X X becomes illegal Government can't prosecute you for having done X before it became illegal. In Theory. My point in that sentence is that not being able to prosecute doesn't stop them from prosecuting, as another replier has provided some examples of.
A government can do anything it likes and the most you can hope for is to seek some sort of remedy after the fact (which will be meaningless if what they've done is, say, killed you). It's for this reason that the people must provide for their own defence against government.

Re:Obiously, you've never lived under a Junta

[Phisbut]

X is not illegal You do X X becomes illegal Government can't prosecute you for having done X before it became illegal.

However, is X is not illegal, and you perform X routinely (every week, or every month). When X becomes illegal, Government doesn't have to prosecute you for having done X before, they'll just have to wait until you do it again. Sure, you *might* stop doing X once it becomes illegal, but that's only if you know it is.

Re:What's tongue-in-cheek about this?

[symbolic]

If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.

This is absolutely true. There's nothing tongue-in-cheek about it. I believe this was the basis for the 4th Amendment and something called due process.

Perfectly reasonable.

[C10H14N2]

Now, if someone could just define "reasonable."

Re:Perfectly reasonable.

[hey!]

"Reasonable" is easier than you think. It doesn't necessarily mean "correct", it means "justifiable based on the known evidence", or in this case "justifiable based on the subject's own actions."

Thus, if you contract with somebody to paint the inside of your house, it is justifiable for him to enter your bedroom within the agreed upon work hours and to see whatever will be seen as a result. Therefore it is reasonable. It is not reasonable for him to rifle through your drawers. It is not reasonable for a contractor who is supposed to paint the exterior of your home to enter your home under normal circumstances, but it is reasonable that he might see things through your second story window, which are not reasonable for somebody who is cutting your grass.

Besides...

[Greyfox]

They've always got something to hide. Dirty little secrets they think won't ever see the light of day. Look at all the people turning up on the D.C. Madam's list. I bet that a couple months before that came out they all would have sworn they had nothing to hide, either. Funny how little things like paying someone to slip them your sausage tends to slip people's memories. It'd be a neat project to find all these people infringing on our privacy and complete that sentence for them... "Yeah... I've got nothing to hide..." (Except that other guy you experimented with in that hot tub back in 2004 uh huh...)

Mod me down!

[stewbacca]

Go ahead and pummel me all you like, but anyone who truly has nothing to hide yet screams for their privacy most likely has a problem with authority, and in some cases rightfully so. However, just because I would like my municipality to install cameras in the downtown area, doesn't mean I care one freakin' bit if you are a chronic nose-picker, or that you have a fat butt. If, however, you are mugging little old ladies, or trashing public property because you are a stupid drunk, then I'd like to know. To counter this author's "misconceptions" about privacy, those charged with keeping track of all this "private" information have too much work to give a rats ass about normal people's weird habits. The NSA, for example, can't be bothered wasting 2 minutes listening in on your conversation, because they don't have enough operatives to handle all the REAL bad-guys in the world. In short: YOU aren't half as interesting as you think you are (and that goes for me too).

Re:Mod me down!

[Control Group]

Ah, yes. Security through obscurity.

Always a winning strategy.

Every bit collected makes you closer to jail

[MikePlacid]

You are missing one point I think. US has a precedent-based court system. So a law on the book need not be changed to make you a criminal overnight. Just a new case can be tried in your local court and "clarify" a statute a bit.

Actually I am amazed how anyone can say that he/she is doing nothing wrong. To state such a thing you should:

1. Know all the facts. There are statutory crimes. Prosecution does not need to prove that you knew that a girl you've privately written in your diary about - is age of consent minus one day old. If she is - you are guilty. No such thing as "she said she is 21" is relevant.
2. Know all law in the book. Finished law school already? Do you know how many paragraphs are in your state's Vehicle Code? Make a guess. Then check. Got it? Look at this one - it was not RETROACTIVELY changed. It is there from 1888...
3. Research all interpretation of the law given by the courts. Do you own any money to the state of Califronia? I am not talking about people not paying California sale taxes while shopping on Internet. They know they have something to hide. No mercy for them. Not here. But let's suppose you are doing consulting work via your own company in Connecticut. Strictly in Connecticut. Do you own CA taxes? Law on the book says: only if you are doing business in California. Problem is - court decisions have already clarified this "doing business" extensively. You can't just read the statute and say: nothing to hide, no taxes past due. Suppose collected data says: you transferred in LAX on the trip to Hawaii and used your laptop to pay your company bill. Paying your company bill has already been clarified as "doing business" by some court decision. You were on CA soil while doing business in 2002 - you owe this state $800 tax plus $700 fee for non-filing in time. Regardless of your company profits. And next year too - it's easy to start doing business in the Golden state, but to terminate you need to pay money and file proper paperwork. Not filed? that's five years in taxes not paid. (I am a bit exagerating here, but based on my own real life experience).

And, if such a case law clarification what "doing business" means is made after your data is recorded - it is NOT A RETROACTIVE change. It's just a clarification...

Basically, you should hire a lawyer just to answer this question: have you done anything wrong. 10 lawyers, even better. And they will not give you a definite answer. They will spent a year (at least) to study you monthly activity and research applicable case law. And you will get an estimate: you will be acquitted with 0.99999 probability. Based on the facts presented. Have you missed something? Are you sure this girl was 21? Have you mentioned that bill paid while in the airport?

Well, OK. Five nines. Good enough? But next month is also collected. Probability goes to square of five nines that is 0.99998. Then next month is also collected... Got the picture?

Every bit collected by the government gets you one step closer to jail. Yes, you. Never volunteer any information.

(excuse my English)

Re:Every bit collected makes you closer to jail

[computational super]

Are you sure this girl was 21?

Although you make some valid points, remember your audience - you're talking to Slashdot here. If there haven't been any, it's easy to be sure of their ages.

obPython

[itsdapead]

01 The number 1 02 The number 2 03 The number 3 04 The number 4 05 I eat babies 06 The number 6

Bad luck - you have breached the sacred doctrine of Python:

Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

You should probably fail to expect the Spanish Inquisition real soon now.

"Because government is inherently evil."

[tanstaaf1]

Although few have the thoughtfulness or courage to really examine the premise at the heart of government, this is the whole of it. Government starts with three people and one gun in a room. If one controls the gun, it is a dictatorship. If two control the gun, via some sort of private deal, it is an oligarchy. If two people control the gun by popular vote, it is a democracy. The idea that the three people can somehow share the gun is a fallacy - there is always a point of disagreement on some issue where the gun comes in to play; if there were not, there would be no need of a gun at all. No manner of allocation changes the fact that it is naked force which the tool of power and all methods of government rest on the presumption that some have the right to use that power against others who do not comply with arbitrary rules as dictated, and interpreted, by them. Unless you believe that "might makes right" - in which case Hitler was right - all government rests on an evil premise. The argument that there is some sort of "social compact" which somehow can rescue government from its premise is transparently ridiculous. Nobody gave me an opportunity to opt out of the system and, as Rothbard pointed out, if you accept the idea of a social compact overruling individual rights you need to accept the idea that the Jews, under the democratically empowered Nazi government, weren't murdered ... they committed suicide. Once you understand that government is inherently evil - because its premise is evil - most issues concerning form, and scope, and control of government become remarkably simple. Specifically, the Statist sophistry about how the innocent have nothing to fear from The Man with the gun, that "government is your friend", completely unravels. But don't expect The Man to agree with you. As I final comment, for those you encounter who are too dim witted to follow the logic of government's premise being evil, or who can't see how that is relevant to the issue of privacy, you might try pointing out that history has proven, over and over again, that bureaucracy gravitates naturally toward incompetence as government self-selects for incompetence and those who can work the system. Pretty much everyone has direct experience with nonsensical government bumbling of things which should be common sense. Why should anyone be okay with giving a known incompetent, any more than a known gossip, complete access to their private information? P.S. Support Ron Paul and the US Constitution. Neither is perfect, but at least they aren't arbitrary and they aren't evil.

Says who?

[LuSiDe]

The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent.

Says who? It really doesn't sound smart when someone pulls it. Rather hilarious. Perhaps they don't know much about the Stasi. See e.g. the movie 'The lives of others' (Das Leben der Anderen): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094 the Stasi allegedly used the same argument.

WTF kind of URL is that?

[Skapare]

I tried to download the paper. WTF kind of URL is that? There is a huge ID string in there. I can't believe they need that many bits to distinctly identify each downloader. I wonder what kind of private info they have discovered about me and are encoding in that thing? Why can't they just have a normal hyperlink if they aren't tracking people?

Finally Someone Said It

[sherriw]

Every time I express indignation about the latest blow to our privacy by the US and/or Canadian government, nearly ALL my friends and family have that exact argument: "I'm not worried about it, I have nothing to hide."

It drives me crazy because it's NOT about whether you have some dirty little secret you want to hide. It's about freedom. That's what privacy really is. Freedom that we are supposed to be guaranteed under the Charter/Bill of Rights.

Given the track records of both the Canadian and American governments, do you really trust them with the power that this information gives them over your lives? It's not just about terrorists. In Canada, the health care system is publicly funded. So, what happens if data mining turns up some unhealthy habits- like say you order takeout every night, or that you engage in dangerous sports.

How many people make minor upgrades to their house or property without the proper permits? Underage drinking, failing to file 100% of your online or out of state/country purchases on your tax return, etc. Most people do some kind of softly-illegal thing that the government would love to know about. And since the MPAA has the government wrapped around their finger, how about they peak into your life too.

It may seem paranoid to list these things- but forget for a minute that the government can be corrupt sometimes. Imagine we have a perfect government. You still don't want them knowing everything about you- for the same reason that you don't live in a house with glass walls, and for the same reason you don't want your portable phone being picked up by your neighbour's baby-monitor. Privacy is important and precious. It deserves more than the apathetic attitude of "I have nothing to hide"... because anyone who says that is a fool or a liar.

It has probably been said...

[gorfie]

I think it's highly obvious. Let's say you break no laws at all... ever. You go the speed limit, you pay your taxes, you buy all of your music / movies, and you never jaywalk. So you have no problem if a governing authority has complete knowledge of everything you do. Some may argue that you might pick your nose and someone would know, but the obvious retort is that there is so much data that no individual would know unless you did something wrong. Everythings's fine and dandy.

Fast forward 10 years later. The government has full access to your life - cameras everywhere, you have a tracking mechanism embedded in your arm, all your actions are logged, etc.. It has been this way for years. Now the government starts to limit your freedoms further to ensure your safety/wellbeing and the safety/wellbeing of your fellow citizens. You MUST brush your teeth three times a day. You can't consume salt, suger, alcohol, or red meat. You can't have more than one child. You and your family MUST attend government mandated education sessions from 6:00pm to 7:00pm every night - after you work your government mandated 9 hour shift doing what the government deems you are best at. The government has made so many laws that you are guaranteed to be breaking some law - and the government knows and they arrest you for it at their convenience.

This is an illustration of why we need to protect our privacy. You might have nothing to fear now, but if you give the government too much power you might not be able to stop them once you have something to fear. Or something like that...

Passwords

[boristdog]

If someone says "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"...

Ask them for all the passwords on all their accounts (including bank cards)

Hey, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear...

If the government has nothing to hide...

[Yfrwlf]

...shouldn't we be able to spy on it too?

Mod parent up!

[Jesus_666]

This is how to properly argue: Intelligently, well-written, equally well-informed and entertaining to read. Most excellent.

Isn't this just the logical result, anyway?

[argStyopa]

My question is, isn't the whole 'government intrusiveness' issue a logical result of the nanny state?

I mean, to put it in more pedestrian terms: if I can't make my house payment (or food, or car lease, or whatever) and so I have to beg you for money to keep me going, don't you logically have a vested interest in my activities? If you're lending me $ so my kids can eat, but then you see me drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette (or having a satellite dish installed), aren't you justifiably going to be a little pissed off?

Every time we hand power over the daily conduct of our lives to the government, we EMPOWER them to surveil, intrude, and legislate our activities. If we ask the government to ban smoking, we SIMULTANEOUSLY are asking the government to keep an eye in every public space to make sure there's no smoking.

To extrapolate further (and onto thinner ice, I'm well aware), if we hand over the complete responsibility for our personal safety to the government (say, by banning personal firearms), aren't we simultaneously giving them a perfect justification for watching us at every moment, so as to keep us safe?

Since the New Deal, we've had a populace which has WELCOMED government involvement in everything: who you can hire, who you can fire, where you can smoke, what you can smoke ... many of the rules made for the best of reasons. But the Founding Fathers (whom I respect for their foresight more every year) anticipated this, and laid out a government whose powers were STRICTLY circumscribed to a fairly small number of responsibilities. Sadly, Roosevelt's "Good Intentions" paved right over those limits while building the road to the current situation.

Slashdotters love to quote the old saying "People who give up an essential liberty for a little security deserve neither" when talking about the Bush Administration's efforts against global terrorism. What they don't seem to realize is that SAME aphorism applies to their government-backed college loan, or the laws that prevent employers firing them because they're gay. Personally, I don't think many of the people 'demanding' liberty could really handle the consequences of liberty for everyone - read Second Life's "The War of the Jessie Wall" (http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_07_archive.ph p) (Parts 1-5) & http://secondlife.com/notes/2003_07_14_archive.php ) (Parts 6-10). It's an eye-opening illustration of what happens when utopian ideals of freedom are applied generally, unfortunately Linden Labs chose to play God instead of seeing how this would eventually resolve itself.

Simply put: We can't have our cake and eat it, too. If you want to get rid of the overreaching Federal government sticking its nose into everything, then you have to also get rid of the Federal government that requires handicapped access, enforces affirmative action, supplies welfare, medicaid, and (allegedly administers) social security, sets educational & medical standards, and whole host of other things that people consider beneficial because they are in fact two sides of the same coin.

No, the solution is NOT to be compeletely open

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem I have is that EVERYBODY can't watch me, as I could them. A few "privileged" people can. That gives them a certain power over the general public, which is bad (IMHO)."

If only a few have the ability to watch you, then you can effectively control what they can do through laws. If everyone has the ability to watch and track you anywhere and anytime for any purpose, the situation basically becomes uncontrollable. And you have the ill side effect that people will use the ability for things that are legally ok but morally wrong.

"Certain people will have a lot of information about other peoples' lives, which makes me, anyway, very uncomfortable. What if I have an argument with someone in another car at a stoplight? What if that person is the security monitor's friend? What if that person asks the security monitor to find out where I go after 5:00pm every day, so he can meet me there to put a bullet in my head? That gives them unfair advantage, because I cannot do the same thing. They are monitoring my life, but I can't monitor theirs. It's unbalanced, and unfair."

If everyone has access to the data / monitoring, then you are statistically more likely to have what you describe happen than if only a select few have access to it. No kidding it's unbalanced, that's the way it is supposed to be. In terms of access to information everyone should NOT be equal.

"I believe Google is a GOOD company."

Good luck with that -- no company is ever "GOOD"; invariably, profit rules all.

"I have no problem with having cameras IN MY HOME, as long as EVERYONE ELSE does too, and it's all available online for anyone to view - no special privileges, no "Access denied", and let's take it a step further and allow you to see who's viewed your cam and at what time. That's not 1984, that's just using technology in a fair manner."

Boy, this is a scary statement. Maybe you've never actually read 1984.

Technology is never used strictly in a "fair" manner; it's a double-edged sword.
There's a whole trail of dead bodies to back me up.

Making something accessible to everyone does not implicitly make it "fair" nor "good".

"You give what you take, and that makes the world thrive."

Except that this is very naive in the fact that 99% of people will gladly take everything you offer without returning anything; so go ahead and offer it up, I'm sure nothing bad will happen (sarcasm)...

Better way:

[freeweed]

No, you pull down THEIR pants.

This whole question to me can be summed up in a single 15 minute debate I had in an ethics class years ago. One of the (female) students was arguing that surveillance cameras all over public places were a very good thing, because they could help prevent (or at least prosecute) rape/assault.

When I pointed out to her that she is many more times as likely to be assaulted/raped by her boyfriend/husband, and then asked her if it wouldn't make more sense to put a camera in her bedroom. I then asked if we should have the police monitoring her daughter 24/7, especially in their beds and in the bathroom, because again, they're far more likely to be abused by a family member (and in such private places as that) ... at this point she stopped arguing.

David by Michelangelo

[jotaeleemeese]

Enough said frankly. You are not only ignorant (hormonary deficiencies related to homesexuality? Ugh....) but aesthetically challenged.

"Mistake" vs. "Malice"

[The Angry Mick]

One of the biggest problems I have with the idea of "total" enforcement via total surveillance is that there is no distinction made between actions that are minor, or mistakes, and actions that are unadulterated acts of malice.

How many times in life have we done something that we later learned was against the law? Jaywalking; making a right on red when a sign says not to; parking outside the posted acceptable hours; ignoring the crosswalk lights; changing lanes without a signal; going five miles an hour over the speed limit; spitting on the sidewalk; playing a radio too loud; protesting outside of a "free speech zone"; wearing white after Labor day?

All of these are minor infractions and, in most cases, not worthy of police attention. Under a total surveillance society, all of these will become punishable events that can stay on an individual's record. The lists of "known criminals" will increase, along with the reasons for government to exclude someone's participation in Democracy. Employer's will deny jobs, or reduce wages, to those with long lists of minor offenses. Insurance companies will deny coverage, or will drastically increase rates to known "criminal risks".

Total surveillance is not Democracy; it is closer to KGB. And for something like this to come from a country that hated communism with the white heat of a holy crusade, is a sad irony indeed.

Re:"Mistake" vs. "Malice"

[coopex]

I doubt that they're going to make administrative infractions anything more than fines, since that'd be killing the cash cow for lots of places. Also, like you point out, so many people commit them, and don't really consider them a crime, that changing the punishment to hard time or such would be political suicide. However, the people in charge of such things don't have the best track record for acting rationally.

Re:"Mistake" vs. "Malice"

[The Angry Mick]

I don't think they'd be silly enough to convert the punishments for these kinds of offenses to "time servers", either. Like you said, they lose a revenue stream, and it wouldn't just be political suicide, they'd face outright revolution.

What they will do, though, is keep these offenses on file indefinitely. And what is on file will be shared. And what is shared will be used in ways they, hopefully, didn't imagine.

Yeah sure.

[jotaeleemeese]

Males are aware about which other males are attractive because they need to know who is a threat and who isn't in the stakes for mating with the opposite sex.

To say males can't tell which other males are attractive is most disingenuous and does not match with normal day to day experience.

Re:Yeah sure.

[shaitand]

'Males are aware about which other males are attractive because they need to know who is a threat and who isn't in the stakes for mating with the opposite sex.

To say males can't tell which other males are attractive is most disingenuous and does not match with normal day to day experience.'

Nonsense, males have their own pecking order and it has nothing to do with physical attraction. How do you determine when another man is a threat in the mating game? Easy, you watch the ladies. At no point do men need to be attracted to other men.

Preaching to the choir...

[PAH_III]

Seems like the slashdot community is all in agreement on this one. But I have another approach to offer that I think everyone here can appreciate: What if I'm in the middle of developing the next big thing (sliced bread, fire, the wheel, iPhone:-P)? Then I absolutely want to protect my privacy from others who would steal it and call it their own (especially the gov't). You're damn right I'd have something to hide, and it wouldn't have to mean that what I'm hiding is illegal.

What are you Hiding?

[groschke]

I don't want people to know what I am doing that is right, never mind wrong!

Privacy as IP

[edraven]

I think one way to think about privacy is in terms of Intellectual Property. Information about an individual ought to be considered the property of the individual. Just like physical property, the government has the right to appropriate intellectual property but they must show a clear, strong public good for the specific appropriation in question. They also need to provide reasonable compensation for the use.

For example, information about the telephone numbers that I dial ought to be considered my property. I implicitly grant access to that information to the telephone company for the limited purposes of connecting my call and billing me for it. For any use of that information beyond those I've granted, the telephone company should have to seek my permission.

Re:Privacy as IP

[PPH]

For example, information about the telephone numbers that I dial ought to be considered my property. I implicitly grant access to that information to the telephone company for the limited purposes of connecting my call and billing me for it. For any use of that information beyond those I've granted, the telephone company should have to seek my permission.

Not that I disagree with your point, but.....what planet are you from?

We (the public) lost the rights to this particular information to the telcos years ago. There was a court challenge of FCC privacy regulations and they were thrown out See this. As far as I can determine, the regulations have never been rewritten.

This is one problem with our (theoretical) rights to privacy. What we actually have is a right to be secure from search and seizure by our government. There is nothing in the Constitution that extends this protection to cover private entities behavior.

Re:Privacy as IP

[edraven]

See, this is why I used the words "ought to be". What I'm suggesting is that government and business concerns have gotten used to intellectual theft as a way of doing business. Maybe we should do something about it. And perhaps putting it in the very terms that business is using to explain their agenda to government is a good start.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[PPH]

If people have nothing to hide, then why do they close their bedroom curtains when making love?

Law Enforcement taping - same argument

[bondjamesbond]

So, why are law enforcement so up in arms over being videotaped??? If they don't have anything to hide, and it's a good stop, then what's the big deal?

Re:Equating public monitoring to Privacy violation

[Tempest451]

So you would prefer the "possibility" of someone monitoring you in public instead of having to accept it as a certainty? Dillusional much? What it is is spliting hairs to be able to sleep at night. You still need to address the danger of PUBLIC monitoring beyond "well I just dont think people would like it". Honestly I think that's really all it is.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[PhxBlue]

And /.ers wonder why they can't get girlfriends. :)

A democracy that was "created" by guns

[benhocking]

First off, a disclaimer: I don't own a gun, I don't hunt, and I'm even a vegetarian.

Guns kill people, they don't create democracies. One should think you people (Americans) had learned that by now...

One thing you need to understand about Americans is that our democracy was largely created by guns. We wouldn't have had a democracy in the 18th century if it hadn't been for our guns.

If the government has to be removed with guns you already live in a dictatorship.

Absolutely. But if you're not allowed to have guns when living in a democracy, then how are you going to get the guns to overthrow that dictatorship if/when it comes?

I'm not saying the gun argument is completely valid (we would need the support of at least some of the military as well if it came to overthrowing the government) - I'm just pointing out that it's not as invalid as you seem to think.

Go figure...

[DulcetTone]

The people I know who are obsessed with privacy are among the least interesting people I know, as far as the glimpses taken through the web cams I've hidden throughout their homes.

More Succinct Response

[Khammurabi]

Question:
"If you have nothing to hide, why should you worry?"

Answer:
"Because I don't trust you not to abuse the information you collect on me."

There is a huge risk of corruption when the people in power are allowed to know everything about a person and his or her activities, and the person being watched is not afforded the same liberty for the ones doing the watching. We essentially become surfs, or worse, slaves to these people in power.

When a government can, at a whim, imply that a person has done something "questionable" (not going into detail due to "security reasons") potentially ruining a person's life forever, what check exists to prevent those in power from abusing this for personal gain? Losing your right to privacy means that your right to make a living how you see fit is now subject to the whim of the government. No government should have that much power.

In simpler terms:
1. When the people in power fear the disapproval of the commons, you have a democracy.
2. When the commons fear the disapproval of the people in power, you have a dictatorship.

I read those two statements above and feel more and more each day that the United States is falling towards definition number two. Essentially a repeat of McCarthyism.

As a citizen, the only way I would willingly give up my privacy is if the government was not allowed to keep anything secret from a citizen. (Think the freedom of Information Act on mega-steroids.) This will never happen due to "national security" issues, so I must therefore push that personal privacy must be only allowed to be violated when clear, judicially overseen evidence is available and a reason to do so exists. Failing that we are handing the government a tool far more dangerous to its citizens than any terrorist could inflict on us.

People should still be allowed to make any aspect of their life public knowledge. But no person should be compelled to do so without clear evidence that what they are doing violates a law. The potential risk of abuse is too great to entrust this right to our current system of government.

Re:Wired: Emaculate Election

[redcaboodle]

God made Woman, right? I'd say that's about as wicked as someone could get.

Remember: when God made Man, she was only practicing

Nothing to hide?

[holophrastic]

I've always responded to the classic "do you have something to hide" with "I have nothing to reveal".

Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Emails with doctors, medical data, relationships with people, money issues....

There are several things that I consider private that could be easily abused and indeed some of these have been abused.

I have this "friend" who seems to be kept apace of everything I do, even better than I do. He has talked to me about things that he has no way of knowing without going through my emails. -- How do I put him in a place for privacy violations that I can not exactly prove? What if he works for the government and just is the kind of shithead to use the data to mock me, just because he can, and knows he can get away with it, as is increasingly apparent now?

What is to protect me from these "watchmen"?

"I'm not doing anything wrong*"

[skintigh2]

People often say "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide" when what they mean is "I'm not doing anything THAT THE GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS WRONG, THAT I KNOW OF, AT THIS TIME, so I have nothing to hide."

Did you marry someone of the wrong color? That would have landed you in jail 40 years ago. What would your employer do if he knew that little secret of yours? Did you change lanes without signaling, you erratic dangerous driver? Did you just litter that cigarette butt?

What if they start arresting people who worship the wrong God, or, God forbid, none at all? "But the 1st Amendment says they can't" Buzzz, sorry, wrong again. The Bill of Rights doesn't mean jack shit if they don't ever have to officially press charges, which they don't thanks to the Republicans suspending Habeus Corpus. You can sit in Gitmo for eternity now, and they can even torture and execute you without trial. Don't believe me? Google the Patriot act and the Military Commission act.

EVERYONE has something to hide

[sjames]

And I mean everyone. That's why we have doors and curtains. In fact, if we fail to hide some things we all have (and others about half of us have), it's a crime.

More seriously, there are many reasons to hide things. For one, there are a few actions that we know very well will LOOK like a crime even though it's not actually. Other things may be embarrassing socially but not criminal. Then there are ill concieved laws against things that cause no harm to others. The ability to hide those things is a safety valve for society.

For an example of the latter, in way too many places, any homosexual is automatically a criminal (or lonely) because of outmoded laws that were probably never widely obeyed in the first place. It's a good thing they had enough privacy to break those laws safely.

The U.S. military explicitly demands the right to privacy be utilized in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In most democracies, ballots are secret for good reasons. It seems that the U.S. Constitution recognizes the value of privacy.

Of course, the argument turns around nicly too. If the Attourney General, president, Congress, FBI, etc want to make the "nothing to hide" argument, then I await the download link for their email and transcripts from their phones.

That's the real test. We all know at some level that we would be REALLY creeped out if some stranger was watching everything we do. Anyone making the "nothing to hide" argument either hasn't really thought it out or they're well aware that it won't hold water but figure they'll be a privileged exception to the surveilance and don't care what their subjects want.

the link about the case

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the link to the case http://www.nbc6.net/news/2825486/detail.html

Note the statement :

Sarasota County sheriffs are focusing on 37-year-old Joseph Smith. He's identified as a convicted drug felon and is in custody on a probation violation charge unrelated to the disappearance of Brucia. Joseph Smith Smith, (pictured, right) has previously been arrested on kidnapping and false imprisonment charges.