Slashdot Mirror
Privacy is a Biological Imperative?
sevej writes "As a lead-in to an article in the August 2007 issue, Scientific American recently published an interview with Carnegie Mellon computer scientist Latanya Sweeney regarding the trade-offs between security and privacy. Dr. Sweeney provides a refreshing counter-point to Sun Microsystems CEO, Scott McNealy's 'famous quip', 'Privacy is dead. Get over it.' She advocates the idea that privacy is not primarily a political expediency, but rather a biological one. Suggesting that technological design doesn't have to take a 'soup OR salad' approach, she calls for changes in the way present and future computer scientists are trained. Dr. Sweeney is quoted as saying, 'I think if we are successful in producing a new breed of engineers and computer scientists, society will really benefit. The whole technology-dialectics thing is really aiming at how you should go about teaching engineers and computer scientists to think about user acceptance and social adoption [and also that they] have to think about barriers to technology [from the beginning].'"
I told ye I had grog in me veins.
Yo ho ho a pirates life for me!
Avast!
Ohhh, you said Privacy
liqbase
If someone is a biological imperative, we would be proactive about defending ourselves to protect our biological functions. If you're cold, you shiver. If you're still cold, you put on clothes. If you don't, you die.
If you're thirsty, your mouth gets dry. You drink water. If you don't, you die.
There is no biological response, yet, to keeping your information private. When you get a new credit card, do you read the contract that is included with the application? It's all there. When you install new software, do you read the contract? It's all there.
If you don't like a contract because it gives up what you consider private information, don't sign it. If you feel you need the item or service, find an outlet selling it that won't breach your privacy. It's quite simple. If there is no outlet for that service without giving up what you deem important, find out why. Many times it is State-intrusion in a market that creates a monopolistic cartel of providers. Don't blame that market for the privacy issues, blame your government that created the cartel (mercantilism, not capitalism).
Privacy to me is useless. I can't think of one reason why I need or require complete privacy. If someone wants to peep on my wife and I in bed, I close the shades. Big deal. Financially, it already makes little to no sense to have personal credit or a good personal credit score, because of past government interventions. I still track my credit report monthly, and am alerted to changes. If someone wants to try to steal my identity, let them try -- I already have an inexpensive insurance plan against identity theft. Privacy, to me, is irrelevant in my life.
What is important is the freedom for me to work the way I want to work, and have fun the way I want to have fun. If either of those issues "become public," so be it -- they're who I am. If someone doesn't want to work with me because of what I like to do, so be it, they're free to associate or disassociate with me. What do I have to hide?
I find that funny. So why do you close the shades then if you don't need privacy? What exactly are you hiding? If you had nothing to hide, you'd keep the shades up!
The human being needs space and to be able to have his/her own thoughts, feeling, and actions, be their own.
Why should be give up our right to privacy? It is a Constituational right. But it is also a personal right. Stop for a moment to consider how much you want other people knowing about your bad habits. Opposite side, of that picture, do you really want to know how much lint come from your neighbors...... pockets?
I say no. Privacy is needed for inner peace of mind. This includes the knowlege that you are not being watched 24/7. People are more stressed out stuggling to keep their private lives private rather than enjoying their lives.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Many monkeys will go berserk if you just stare at them, and staring at a charging feline will very often stop it dead on it's tracks; this is why thai farmers will wear masks on the back of their heads, it will stop tigers from attacking.
Animals need privacy, too, and will make sure they get it.
If you consider privacy to be a trivial matter then why is the removal of privacy one of the first things done to prisoners, cult members, or hostages to break them down mentally? Forcing someone to strip is a form of this (that is why genitalia is referred to as "privates", right?). By removing privacy you break down the wall between a person's sense of self and those around him. You make them feel completely vulnerable and helpless. It is a form of abuse. Just because you have "nothing to hide" right now doesn't mean you always will or maybe you are just an exhibitionist by nature.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Do power players show their cards to each other? Why not? Because a poker game is a (somewhat) adversarial situation, in which disclosing information give an advantage to your opponents, which they are likely to exploit.
A large number of human situations involve some degree of negotiation and are to some degree adversarial. Knowledge can be power, and knowledge can be money. You don't need to be a control freak to want to retain some degree of control.
Not that I expect to get the better of a car deal, but I still don't necessarily want the salesman to know how much money I can write a check for today, and he doesn't necessarily want me to know the financial state of the dealership or his sales goal for the month and how many cars he's sold.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The article in this slashdot story seems particularly relevant to your position.
While you claim the information is all there in contracts, most contracts are written in ways that only lawyers, or those trained in legal rhetoric can understand (just an observation). So it's not as clear cut as you think and that is the problem. Too many people view the world only through thier own set of blinders and don't/wont'/can't see beyond them. Training computer scientists to consider the impact of technology and how it affects users wether that is in UI desing, privacy and security, stability, what ever, is certainly a benefit. Unlike any other discipline that I can think of, programmers and designers have a huge impact in how technology is used or not.
While we are all used to the file system structure in Unix and Windows system, does it really make the most sense for an average user who hasn't necessarily been trained to think in heirarchies? Probably not. And if you reply with "Well, users should learn to think that way, damnit" that shows you don't understand the nature of the problem.
There is a visceral response most people have when their privacy is invaded, very much akin to fight or flight. Whether that is nature or nuture is immaterial. The result is still there. If you know that your privacy may be invaded, perhaps the shock is less, but it is still there. Do you really think if I provided you with your personal information like your financiual history, sexual history, book buying habits, you would not have a reaction?
Awareness it s good thing.
privacy is about the sovereignty of the individual. It has been around for a very long time.
government's took it away. The idea the the need for privacy dictated in law has only been around for a few hundred years.
I also happen to believe that there are different types of privacy, and that privacy is implicit in any relationship.
Meaning, If I choose to share information with a credit card company that's fine, but the data is still private between me and the Credit card company. Saying the credit card company can share your information implies that it's not yours anymore. It also mean information about you is being used and you have no control over it. Which is wrong no matter who is using it.
Our founding father understood this, and made it so the government can not take those things that would be private to the citizens. While allowing people to choose who the bring into there person ring of privacy; Which can include everybody.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What do I have to hide
The hundreds of tiny embarassments that everyone is guilty of.
Society to date has depended on much of what one does being private - everyone knows that 90% of men masturbate (and 10% lie about it), but it's not polite to discuss or exhibit, and it's embarassing to be discovered. This is, perhaps, irrational, but it is also the way things are.
Maybe you don't want people knowing that you bought Hairspray on HD-DVD. Maybe you don't want people knowing that you're gay. Maybe you don't want people knowing you had an abortion. Maybe you don't want people knowing your great grandfather owned slaves. Maybe you don't want people knowing you smoke weed. Maybe you don't want people knowing you donate money to the Republican party. Maybe you don't want people knowing you did 3 years' hard time - whether or not you were actually guilty. Maybe you don't want your abusive ex-husband to know where you live.
The other alternative is to make sure you stay both legal and conformant to all social norms. Which, even if possible, isn't the way most people want to live their lives.
Given society as it currently is, those are your choices. Your personal crusade to change the social norms such that nothing legitimate is embarassing any more, though possibly impressive, is unlikely to bear fruit before privacy is eliminated.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Americans tend to mistakenly think in terms of rights granted by their federal constitution.
This is an especially ironic error since the U.S. Constitution was written in terms that make it clear that rights do not come from a constitution. You have rights, period. The U.S. Constitution does not list your rights. It lists the legitimate powers of government.
So, when someone says, "You have no constitutional right to privacy." they are making a fundamental mistake. They are suggesting that your rights are enumerated, when, both implicit in the structure of the U.S. Constitution and explicitly stated in Amendements IX and X: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Privacy is a natural right. Without it, many other rights become a nullity.
I wrote parts of this stuff
That is, in part, the problem. One of the arguments against including the Bill of Rights was that the enumeration of certain rights would implicitly mean that some rights are more protected than others. The inclusion of the 9th was intended to avoid that problem.
Clearly, it has not succeeded.
Insofar as we wish to abide by the intent of the founders, there should be no distinction made between the rights enumerated by amendments 1-8, and the rights collectively enumerated (not that the phrase actually makes sense, but I hope you take my meaning) in the 9th (and 10th, for that matter).
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
That has to be the worst false dichotomy I've seen this week. There's no need to choose between privacy and socialization. Just because I like playing video games with friends and arguing with people on Slashdot doesn't mean I want strangers to watch me masturbate or examine my bank statement.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
This is absurd. Take a little look at history before you start talking about lions and such.
The idea of privacy is a very, very recent. Most societies have a point in their history where everyone in the community lived together, ate together, maybe even slept communally. Even if there were walls, the neighbors would usually know when Jones' were working on making another kid.
If modern humans enjoy privacy, it is the effect of social change and perhaps overly comfortable living. Certainly not biology.