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

Yes, well ...

[ScrewMaster]

he's right ... but the thing is, the Federal Government isn't doing this to provide us with more security, they're doing it to provide themselves with more power, power over us. Consequently, they don't much care about our privacy, and there's no reasoning with them on that score.

Re:Yes, well ...

[Kazoo the Clown]

he's right ... but the thing is, the Federal Government isn't doing this to provide us with more security, they're doing it to provide themselves with more power, power over us. Consequently, they don't much care about our privacy, and there's no reasoning with them on that score.

You're right about that-- but they also don't much care about our security, for the same reasons. As long as some "bread and circuses" rewards them political brownie points, they can pass legislation "designed to increase security" that actually decreases it, and they can still come out ahead while the rest of us lose...

If you want either security or privacy, the absolute last place to look for it is the Federal Government-- they're much of the problem, not the solution.

Re:Yes, well ...

[slarrg]

To prove your point, let's propose to make congress the most secure place on earth by taking all of their privacy away. If removing privacy makes them secure they should do it, however, if removing their privacy makes them less powerful....

Re:Yes, well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

All Americans suck because they'd gladly trade their privacy (without even knowing it) for the mere perception of security (without even verifying that the trade went through).

Sufficiently general?

Darwin's law of terrorism...

[gillbates]

Terrorists who get caught don't continue to plan attacks...

The fundamental problem with the privacy-vs-security argument is that it is a false dichotomy:

1. When someone says, "I have no problem with the government listening in on my conversations or reading my emails," I ask, "Are you a terrorist?". Inevitably, they reply in the negative. Which leads me to ask, "How then, does the government reading your emails make anyone more secure?" Often, this results in an awkward silence, and then they begin to get it.
2. Sometimes, they'll quip, "Well, how do they know who the terrorists are if they don't read all of the emails..." To which I reply, "If a terrorist is so dumb so as to discuss their plans over the phone or email, how much damage could they do?" I'll remind them of Richard Reid, who was so dumb he didn't know plastic explosives couldn't be detonated with matches.

The fundamental problem with eavesdropping is that it assumes that the bad guys are willing to divulge key operational details over an insecure channel. Even the dumbest of criminals knows to shut up when the cops are around. So who do the feds expect to catch? That's right - ordinary Americans like you and me. When we become a "problem" to those in power, they'll have hours of phone calls and pages of emails, in which they will find something - no matter how innocent - which, when taken out of context, sounds nefarious. The famous quote, "Give me six sentences by even the most upright man and I will find a reason to hang him..." (or similar) comes to mind.

Rather, I think it is helpful to expose the lies used to increase the amount of political power wielded by the executive branch.