Why Privacy & Security Are Not a Zero-Sum Game

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Ars Technica has up a nice article on why security consultant Ed Giorgio's statement that 'privacy and security are a zero-sum game' is wrong. The author reasons that, due to Metcalfe's law, the more valuable a government network is to the good guys, the more valuable it is to the bad guys. Given the trend in government to gather all of its eggs into one database, unless more attention is paid to privacy, we'll end up with neither security nor privacy. In other words, privacy and security are a positive-sum game with precarious trade-offs — you can trade a lot of privacy away for absolutely no gain in security, but you don't have to."

Comments

Re:Darwin's law of terrorism...

[gillbates]

The government is _not_ out to get you if you aren't breaking any laws.

Actually, this is not true - the search and seizure laws passed as part of the War on Drugs allowed law enforcement to seize money and property from suspects without ever charging them with a crime. Having myself been deprived of property by the police in just such a situation, I would be inclined to disagree with you. You seem to believe that the power wielded by the FBI has no implications for corrupt individuals. I would argue that such power is specifically sought by corrupt individuals, and the web is full of supporting evidence. Research McCarthyism sometime. Or the civil rights struggle of the sixties.

Or even the story of Randy Weaver, whose wife and infant were shot and killed by an FBI sniper. (And this because the Justice Department moved up his trial date without informing him. When he missed it, they issued a warrant for his arrest. And in spite of the fact that the sniper killed an innocent bystander, the sniper was given an award by the FBI. Think about that for a moment: our government issued an award to someone who killed an innocent woman and her infant child. And was later forced to pay a settlement - of taxpayer money, mind you - to her husband and children.)

And let's not forget that Egyptian student that from which the FBI wrested a confession under duress. A confession that was later shown to be false. And no, the FBI did not compensate him for his lost time.

But that's not the biggest problem, though. Certain laws are just plain immoral, and one cannot follow them without doing something wrong. For example, for many years in the US, racial discrimination was enshrined in law. In my state, Catholic pharmacists cannot legally practice their religion - they are forced to dispense birth control, even abortifacients, or face legal penalties. In the US, you are required to pay taxes on loan interest, even if you didn't collect any interest at all (because doing so would violate Mosaic law).

So, if you are an advocate for any type of social change, you can be considered a disturber of the peace, and prosecuted for just about anything. The idea is not that they believe you are actually guilty, but rather, by using the government's seemingly unlimited resources against an individual, they can deny the individual the ability to effectively function as an activist. The problem with email scanning, as I see it, is that just about anyone's words can be taken out of context to mean something nefarious. Which means that - even though you, if innocent, and able to afford a lawyer - will eventually be exonerated, the process will drain you financially and take away years from your life. Sure, its better than prison, but the act of being charged in the first place is a de facto fine.