Schneier On a Generation Gap In Privacy

goompaloompa writes "In the Japan Times, Bruce Schneier writes that a passing conversation online is not what it may seem and that maintaining your privacy is becoming even more difficult as social media and cloud computing become the norm. Furthermore, while users in Japan may think they are secure, their level of protection may vary when the computers that store their data are overseas. At the root of the problem is a new generation gap: old laws incapable of covering current-day scenarios. Quoting: 'Twenty years ago, if someone wanted to look through your correspondence, they had to break into your house. Now, they can just break into your ISP. Ten years ago, your voicemail was on an answering machine in your office; now it's on a computer owned by a telephone company. ... We need comprehensive data privacy laws, protecting our data and communications regardless of where it is stored or how it is processed. We need laws forcing companies to keep it private and delete it as soon as it is no longer needed, and laws giving us the right to delete our data from third-party sites. And we need international cooperation to ensure that companies cannot flaunt data privacy laws simply by moving themselves offshore."

Comments

Privacy, hah.

[Ethanol-fueled]

We need comprehensive data privacy laws...forcing companies to keep it private and delete it as soon as it is no longer needed, and laws giving us the right to delete our data from third-party sites...We need international cooperation to ensure that companies cannot flaunt data privacy laws simply by moving themselves offshore."

Fat chance. Just don't write anything on the goddamn internet. Maybe you missed the memo, but MySpace and Facebook aren't cool anymore and Twitter only serves to further cheapen your existence. The internet fads will only devolve in content while they expand their data-mining capabilities. The only way that our leadership (and the corporations who own them) will fix the internet is if enough people get tired of it and withdraw altogether from its data-mining fast-food for the brain. Problem is that there are too many infantile latchkey kids out there who won't last 5 seconds without blinkenlights or deluding themselves into believing that others actually give a shit what they have to say.

My own online presence involves only downloading, passive viewing of news websites along with E-mail and trolling Slashdot, and what I write in the latter two are not personal or representative of my meatspace self. Fuck the internet. The meatspace reigns supreme.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Which is lovely, until all the organisations you necessarily deal with — government departments, financial institutions, employers/clients, and so on — start putting personal data about you on their own systems that you don't control.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[gnick]

... along with E-mail and trolling Slashdot, and what I write in the latter two are not personal or representative of my meatspace self.

Hallelujah. I'm the same way. When I go home to 1313 Mockingbird Lane and shoot up (with the smack that I buy from my buddy Lance and his wife Jody) and get high with my girlfriend (Trixie, who I rent from the corner Central and Missouri here in Springfield, IL), I'll jump on the Internet but completely anonymously and provide no personal information whatsoever. I don't even log into Slashdot normally, it's just that I sometimes forget and have Firefox v3.0.2 remember all of my passwords, Springfield National Bank account details, and tax return information and forget to block it. (How do you block cookies again? Oh well, I'm sure that the privacy-protection-software pop-up I just clicked on will take care of it.) Moral of the story - If you say nothing about yourself and hide in the shadows like I do, nobody will know anything.

Fuck the internet.

Yeah, what's it ever done for anyone? Personally, I prefer the days when I could call Amazon up on the phone and have them read me a list of everything on the fucking planet until they got to the $15 item I was after.

Seriously though. Set your own level of paranoia. Some people want to be invisible - That's getting tough, but it's possible. Some people don't give a crap who knows what - That's actually probably pretty safe. There are huge masses of people out there putting everything out for public view. Hide in the masses. Then, presumably like most of slashdot, there are people like me who lie somewhere in the middle. I'm in New Mexico. I'm a guy in my early 30's. I'm married with kids. All that's true, and I'm comfortable associating it with the name gnick. Meh. There are so many leaks in the system that leaking a few details is far less scary than the info about you that's most likely being leaked elsewhere. And identity theft is a PITA to fix, but it's unlikely to hit you. We all know somebody who's been bent over a barrel and seriously inconvenienced by it, but even if you're a complete idiot your chances at immunity (or at least minimal pain) are pretty good.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Sockatume]

what I write in the latter two are not personal or representative of my meatspace self.

Surely that's the whole reason why content on the internet is so incredibly banal? Connect people to the web, give them an anonymous persona, and the sense of group integrity and social self-preservation that keeps them from blurting out pointless rubbish at random passers-by vanishes, along with any reward they would get from carefully crafting high-quality verbal output.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[n0tWorthy]

We need comprehensive data privacy laws...forcing companies to keep it private and delete it as soon as it is no longer needed, and laws giving us the right to delete our data from third-party sites...We need international cooperation to ensure that companies cannot flaunt data privacy laws simply by moving themselves offshore."

Read Cryptonomicon http://www.amazon.com/Cryptonomicon-Neal-Stephenson/dp/product-description/0060512806 for a much deeper look into privacy issues.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[ciderVisor]

deluding themselves into believing that others actually give a shit what they have to say.

tl;dr

Re:Privacy, hah.

[jdgeorge]

Geez, okay, I get it! It's your lawn... I'll get off of it.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[metamatic]

Fat chance. Just don't write anything on the goddamn internet.

And then when people search for you, you can be sure that all they'll find will be inaccurate information published about you by other people--who probably dislike you, or else why would they be motivated enough to write about you--and information published by corporations and government bodies.

Yeah, that'll show them.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[ColdWetDog]

Connect people to the web, give them an anonymous persona, and the sense of group integrity and social self-preservation that keeps them from blurting out pointless rubbish at random passers-by vanishes, along with any reward they would get from carefully crafting high-quality verbal output.

Did you just analogize the Internet dropping LSD?

Did you?

Re:Privacy, hah.

[amplt1337]

the sense of group integrity and social self-preservation that keeps them from blurting out pointless rubbish at random passers-by vanishes, along with any reward they would get from carefully crafting high-quality verbal output.

Not true. I have excellent karma.
Poopy-head.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should I reply to this? ;)

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that credibility is a pay-to-play game. Dubious.

I don't have a problem with using my reputation as bait but I don't let it be my REAL reputation if I can help it. You don't often hear the truth from anyone and baiting the hook is the only way to lure in anyone who's after something.

As with all things, security through obscurity is the rule. The only way to learn anything is to see what attracts people when it normally shouldn't. That can take you up to the gates, but if you really want to pursue the criminal, you better have some good backing. Back atcha, Kimosabe! ;)

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the second amendment is for.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[PitaBred]

And when that happens to everyone, society will learn that the shit on the Internet isn't to be taken as gospel. I give it 20-30 years, barring any unforeseen government coups or anything.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Eil]

Twitter only serves to further cheapen your existence.

Yes, my existance has certainly been cheapened by having the ability to stay up to date and in frequent contact with dozens of friends, family, and co-workers who I otherwise would never have the time to talk to on a daily basis.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Nyder]

yes, you are so much better then all of us here.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Nyder]

Fat chance. Just don't write anything on the goddamn internet.

And then when people search for you, you can be sure that all they'll find will be inaccurate information published about you by other people--who probably dislike you, or else why would they be motivated enough to write about you--and information published by corporations and government bodies.

Yeah, that'll show them.

yes, because everything on the internet is true

Re:Privacy, hah.

[metamatic]

Apparently you missed the part where I used the word "inaccurate".

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...kids out there who won't last 5 seconds without blinkenlights...

Ah, i LOVE blinkenlights...

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I go home to 1313 Mockingbird Lane and ...

I live there, you insensitive clod.

Re:Privacy, hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

:) :) :) But we should still impress upon the politicians to pass laws before they themselves get so used to this that they can't understand why privacy is an issue anymore....

Look at the bright side.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Some 20 years from now, the confirmation hearings for supreme court justice nominations will get to be really interesting. Also the mud slinging and sliming and negative ads during election campaigns are going to be even more entertaining than it is now. We will be living in really interesting times.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[eln]

Probably, but the optimist in me hopes it will go in a different direction. Maybe the ubiquity of embarrassing photos of people during spring break or whatever will make such things less shocking and less worthy of note in the future, and people will finally learn to lighten up a bit. After all, you can't very well use your opponent's topless photos against her if she can just counter with photos of you doing keg stands in college. Maybe it will force politicians to move beyond these petty personal attacks and actually start debating the issues again. But seriously, your scenario is probably a lot more likely.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[damburger]

But where every single candidate for every single public office will have pictures of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke after an ill-advised underage tequila session, will people by necessity stop holding public figures to absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards of personal behavior and start paying attention to how well they actually do their fucking jobs?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[commodore64_love]

I hope you're right.

The American fear of their own bodies is borderline psychotic. So what if Miss America posed topless, or Miss Obama is wearing shorts? Who the fuck cares? Even if you're religious surely you must recognize that God created the human body, and what God creates is holy, not sinful. A naked human is as "godly" as a naked cow or naked deer or naked tree.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[maxume]

Imagine if we ended up in a world where the two most recent American Presidents had admitted to cocaine use and the one before that had a reputation for sexual dalliance.

(Bush's use of cocaine is more controversial than Obama's, but his alcohol related antics are a reasonable replacement if it turns out that he never used coke)

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Rogerborg]

After all, you can't very well use your opponent's topless photos against her if she can just counter with photos of you doing keg stands in college.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What you can do is to buy more screen space and time for your opponent's topless photos, accompanied by even more sinister music, and distribute bumper sticks and shirts that say "T is for Topless. T is for Terrorist." and "I'll be sober in the morning - virtue is lost forever"

We're just heading for the gutter faster.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Tikkun]

I don't imagine that the country will suddenly become less hypocritical 20 years from now, we'll just have less people running for office, attempting to become police officers and working in the intelligence community.

Assuming that things keep going this way, boring mediocre people will run the country. Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[TubeSteak]

But where every single candidate for every single public office will have pictures of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke after an ill-advised underage tequila session, will people by necessity stop holding public figures to absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards of personal behavior and start paying attention to how well they actually do their fucking jobs?

Your premise is false.
Not every single candidate will have pictures of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke.
Further, the "absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards" are either written into Constitution/laws or the rules of order/ethics.

You can't have a respected office, no matter how good the candidate is, if they're a drunken lout in their off hours.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[gad_zuki!]

Or what will happen is what is happening now: people who are technophobes with little to no online presence will be the only ones winning elections. So the guy who thinks using a Mac is too hard will be running your country. Or the girl who has never contributed to an online discussion.

Perhaps people of the future will be more understanding, but considering we're seeing people waltz into town hall meetings with guns, yelling like nuts, and using loaded terms like "youre hitler!" today, something tells me things will get worse before they get better.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Ethanol-fueled]

The American fear of their own bodies is borderline psychotic.

Maybe 20 years ago. Thankfully for us chubby-lovers everywhere heroin-chic is no longer a fad. 14 year old girls are willingly sending nekkid pics to entire groups of people with the push of a button. American beaches host chubbies and even fatties, along with skinnies, in bikinis. If there's one good thing the internet did, it's show people how they look compared to other normal people and not models.

Some alarmist religious idiots and other "moralists" used to say that porn caused unrealistic expectations about bodies and behavior. Quite the opposite, it actually made people more comfortable with their bodies! Next time your girlfriend whines about her love handles, just put on a porno and tell her that she's a goddess compared to the women on-screen with the fake tits, beat-up roastbeef pussy, and zit-covered ass. You guys know what I'm talking about. Making a porno is a prerequisite to becoming a celebrity nowdays.

Celebrities themselves are no longer the gods and goddesses people idolized. Now they're just clowns, average airheaded rubes caked with makeup and airbrushing and made famous with "leaked" sex tapes.

One more thing: god dosen't exist.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Ozlanthos]

I imagine that the 2010 elections will be entertaining enough. What I would really like to see is every single dem or repub who is up this cycle to be replaced by an Independent! The majority of American voters claim to be some variant of "Independent". If these people were to actually vote for "INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES"!!!! we probably wouldn't be in the current mess we are in. Not to say all Indies are by default "good", but more of them have no other political interest than to serve to the best interest of their constituents. And sadly we have yet to see that from about 60% of both the majority "political" parties. Most of them have become the result of the incestuous cycle dubbed "The Political Process" where they hop-scotch from political position, to business executive, to political position, to lobbyist. And we wonder why they don't seem to be listening to us.

-Oz

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You can't have a respected office, no matter how good the candidate is, if they're a drunken lout in their off hours.

I believe the point is not what they do in their off hours, but what they might have done in their off hours thirty years ago as a student.

People change. Almost everyone made some sort of "mistake" in their youth. In a sane world, we don't hold that against them long after it matters.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[mcgrew]

We will be living in really interesting times.

There's an ancient Chinese curse that goes "may you live in interesting times".

Re:Look at the bright side.

[gclef]

Winston Churchill?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[dwillden]

You can't have a respected office, no matter how good the candidate is, if they're a drunken lout in their off hours.

Please explain Senator Ted Kennedy then? A drunken, homicidal lout who has managed to stay in office for how many decades? And is deferred to with respect by many in both parties.

And please cite the relevant portion of the Constitution that states drunken college party pics are grounds for exclusion from holding office.

Most folks I know tend to think people usually grow up after leaving college for the real world. And thus would ignore such pics if not for the Media hyping every such incident ad nauseum.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[mcgrew]

I would vote for a candidate who admitted he had used drugs and wanted them legalize them. I would NOT vote for a hypocrite who admitted to using drugs and wanted them illegal; what other hypocracies would he bring to office?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[maxume]

He's not a politician, he's royalty.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[jhfry]

Actually... I give me a photo of a candidate and I will give you a photo of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke, or some other similarly embarrassing situation. The fact of the matter is that with current technology, it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate reality and well crafted lies.

At some point, the public will grow immune to slander, and vote with their hearts and minds. Considering we now have a "Muslim", "terrorist loving", "socialist", "anti-Christ", president who wants to "pull the plug" on the elderly to save a few bucks. Ironically, the truths about Obama, like the fact that he smokes and has used drugs, are basically accepted without concern. I have to believe that majority of the public has learned to see through the lies, and they are much more forgiving of past mistakes as long as the candidate doesn't treat the public like idiots and claim that they didn't inhale or that oral sex does not constitute sexual relations.

Finally, I agree with the GP... standards of behavior are worthless in judging someones ability to perform a give function. Not so long ago, those "absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards" would have essentially disqualified anyone who wasn't "happily" married, male, church going, and white. Not because people who are all of those things are better leaders and decision makers, but because of worthless standards by which people judged potential leaders. As we, as a nation, become more socially liberal, the diversity of our leadership increases. Eventually, someone who made mistakes in their childhood, dropped out of high school because of an unplanned pregnancy, but later went on to get a GED and graduate top of their class at Harvard would be considered a better candidate that one that was "bred" and groomed for politics due to life experience and perspective.

I agreed with our newest Supreme Court Justice when she said that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The job of a justice is to interpret the constitution. The act of interpretation REQUIRES life experiences by which to base conclusions, if it didn't then we wouldn't need the courts, as everyone would read the law and understand it to mean the same thing. We need to destroy all preconceptions about what a leaders should be, what they should look like, how they should live. Often the real leaders, and the best leaders, are exactly those people who break every mold.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[rcamans]

The internet empowers crackpots, wing nuts, extremist groups, crazies, conspiracy theorists, etc. It actually winds them up. So, no, I do not see it getting better any time soon.
And the Fibs, etc must just love this. Shows them the crazies. The feds are in no way going to limit their access to crazies. They are going to encourage it.
It will grow.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Anonymous Coward]

We will be living in really interesting times.

There's an ancient Chinese curse that goes "may you live in interesting times".

That's the joke. Well done, you caught it on the first bounce. Moron.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Anonymous Coward]

In 20 years the ability to fabricate photos and video of embarrassing incidents will be available to everyone for cheap or free. There will be no-one WITHOUT embarrassing stuff online, true or false.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[gnick]

Q: What other hypocracies would he bring to office?
A: Whichever ones helped him/her further his/her agenda and ensure re-election or continued powerful influence in politics.

That was too easy - Toss me another.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[poofmeisterp]

...will people by necessity stop holding public figures to absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards of personal behavior and start paying attention to how well they actually do their fucking jobs?

Amen, amen. This has, and always will be (with free speech, anyway) a disservice and stress-production factor to your NORMAL EFFING HUMAN BEING.

I've said enough.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[poofmeisterp]

When an economy collapses at the beginning of your term of office, and soars at the end of it, it was your *blank* idea.

Fill in the blank. ;)

Re:Look at the bright side.

[ColdWetDog]

Politics empowers crackpots, wing nuts, extremist groups, crazies, conspiracy theorists, etc. It actually winds them up.

There, I fixed that for you.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Anonymous Coward]

But where every single candidate for every single public office will have pictures of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke after an ill-advised underage tequila session, will people by necessity stop holding public figures to absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards of personal behavior and start paying attention to how well they actually do their fucking jobs?

"No, Johnny Q. Public III. You were born to the JQP Family. The Internet is not for you. It's for lesser people than Us. You were born into a social class which entitles you to go to parties where there are no cameras, and do what you like there, with your own kind. If you really screw up by inviting Mary Jane Proletarian to our sorts of parties and she ends up choking on her own vomit, at least there won't be pictures, and the family lawyers will smooth things over. You don't need the internet-based social network. You have a social network formed in blood and dollars. You're part of an elite. You're they. Politicians in Black."

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, because he's a Kennedy.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[TubeSteak]

And please cite the relevant portion of the Constitution that states drunken college party pics are grounds for exclusion from holding office.

First: I never said it was "grounds for exclusion from holding office."
I was specifically responding to the idea that candidates should be judged solely on merit and not on their behavior.
Bad behavior reflects not just on the person in public office, but on the office itself.

Second: Deliberative bodies set their own rules.
Who was the last US Senator, US Congressman, or State Governor that was impeached?
They usually don't even resign, just duck and cover until the heat dies down.

Last but not least: The United States Constitution
Article 1. Section 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Your State's Constitution may vary.
But if a House of Representatives decides drunken college party pics are grounds for exclusion, then you're excluded.
If you are in office and take drunken college party pics, they can kick you out or censure you as it suits them.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Ironica]

Or what will happen is what is happening now: people who are technophobes with little to no online presence will be the only ones winning elections. So the guy who thinks using a Mac is too hard will be running your country.

You mean like the President who had to fight to keep his Crackberry, and whose staff had to convert the White House network to work with their Mac computers instead of just Windows?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[PitaBred]

Naked was great until we ate from the Tree of Knowledge (stupid women... they're inferior for a reason). Once we had knowledge, we could know shame and sin, and nakedness leads to sin, so on go the clothes.

No, I'm not making this shit up. Someone about 1600 or so years ago made it up first.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[z-j-y]

What if Ms Obama shows up topless?

So there *is* some standard for anybody. And your standard is just different, not righteous.

b.t.w Ms Obama is fugly, that is a fact!

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Eil]

Or what will happen is what is happening now: people who are technophobes with little to no online presence will be the only ones winning elections.

Oh, you mean the exact opposite of how the current U.S. president got into office?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[lennier]

"Some 20 years from now, the confirmation hearings for supreme court justice nominations will get to be really interesting. "

Senator, let me ask you just this one question: Are you now -- or have you ever been -- a tank for the Horde?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[rcamans]

Ok, so politics and the internet empowers...

Re:Look at the bright side.

[conureman]

I have been noting this trend for thirty years already. The quality of our "Public Servants" went down the toilet in the '80s. The Peter Principle didn't cover the bit where everyone is HIRED above their level of competence. Supposedly this is a cyclic phenomenon, AFAIKT it is more of a one-way trend, like candy bar price/size.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[mjwx]

Winston Churchill?

No, no, no, he was a drunken lout in his on hours. Totally different issue.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Nyder]

hey, if she is hot, and has topless photos, she has my vote!

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Nyder]

Or what will happen is what is happening now: people who are technophobes with little to no online presence will be the only ones winning elections. So the guy who thinks using a Mac is too hard will be running your country. Or the girl who has never contributed to an online discussion.

TITS or GTFO!

Re:Look at the bright side.

[shentino]

"stupid women...they're inferior for a reason"

And who's to say that men are any smarter?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[PitaBred]

Slow down there, sparky

The more you move offline, the less privacy

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Sorry, but that's the bottom line. Move your data to the cloud; kiss the privacy of that data goodbye. Move your voicemail to the phone company. Same issue. Get your code developed in [offshore country of your choice], you can rest assured that some of that code will go to a competitor in [insert country of choice].
.
Anytime there's an entity between you and your data/property/money, etc. it's no longer really yours. You don't control it any longer.

Sometimes that doesn't matter. Sometimes it does. Big time. Plan accordingly.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[eln]

This is why I love cloud computing but hate "the cloud".

Cloud computing can be useful if used as a way to simplify IT tasks within your own IT organization. Having a cloud of easily movable virtual servers simplifies capacity planning and availability management. It can, if implemented properly, greatly reduce IT costs.

However, storing data on an external cloud is just as dangerous as outsourcing data storage and processing has always been. Companies have been well aware of the risks they take when outsourcing IT for many years. Sometimes, they feel the risk is worth it, or the data is not particularly confidential, and they go ahead and do it. Other times, they decide the risk is too high and keep the data in-house. Either way, the risk of data theft was always part of the equation. However, once you add a fancy new buzzword like "cloud" to what remains essentially IT outsourcing, executives' brains fall out of their skulls and they forget about risk management.

The risks involved in outsourcing to an external cloud are not appreciably different from the risks involved in outsourcing IT in general, but since we have a new buzzword for it now, we can rehash all of our old stories again and act as if all of these things are new and alarming.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Lord Ender]

Our current culture considers common human behaviors (especially sexual behaviors) to be taboo. We value our privacy because it allows us to practice the taboo behaviors privately while abhorring them publicly (so we can all be part of the hateful, hypocritical mob).

Perhaps an end to privacy is a good thing. Perhaps the realization that everyone practices taboo behaviors will cause us to accept them, freeing ourselves from senseless guilt, hypocrisy, and shame.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Move your voicemail to the phone company. Same issue. Get your code developed in [offshore country of your choice], you can rest assured that some of that code will go to a competitor in [insert country of choice].

Ooooh! I love MadLibs! "Get your code developed in Bootystan, you can rest assured that some of that code will go to a competitor in Cocksylvania.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[commodore64_love]

You are correct. I still have an answering machine. Not only is it cheaper than voicemail (no monthly fee), but also it's under my control. I have a public facebook page, but because it's public I am very careful what I release. Other citizens need to learn to be as vigilant.

Vice-versa, bosses need to stop being such prudes. If a teacher posts a bunch of wedding photos and in some of those she's drinking wine, DON'T fire the teacher for actions performed off-the-clock. Simply ask her to remove the photo. More importantly - teach the students there's a difference between an adult drinker (okay) and a child (not okay), instead of trying to keep them ignorant.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If a teacher posts a bunch of wedding photos and in some of those she's drinking wine, DON'T fire the teacher for actions performed off-the-clock. Simply ask her to remove the photo.

Why should she even do that? There is nothing illegal or inappropriate about either getting married or drinking wine.

If someone has a problem with photos such as you describe, then the problem is with the person, not the photo.

If that someone is the teacher's boss, then they need to find a new line of work, because they're lousy at supporting their staff.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[commodore64_love]

>>>Why should she even do that?

The key word, which you ignored, is the boss would ASK her to remove the photos. She certainly has the option to say "no" since this is a free country, but hopefully she would recognize that posting drinking photos (or using dirty language, or posting home sex videos) sends the wrong message to her kids. She doesn't deserve to be fired, but I see no harm in a boss simply asking her to use better judgment.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The key word, which you ignored, is the boss would ASK her to remove the photos.

Why should she even be asked to remove the photo, though? She is doing nothing wrong.

Posting photos where adults happen to be enjoying a glass of wine in good company is not against the law. On the contrary, countries where children are exposed to responsible drinking behaviour from an early age have much, much lower incidence of alcohol-related criminal activity.

She doesn't deserve to be fired, but I see no harm in a boss simply asking her to use better judgment.

I don't see anything wrong with her judgement just the way it is.

I would, however, have a problem with anyone whose judgement said that people should not be free to share photographs of themselves participating in perfectly normal and legal activities, just because they happen to be teachers and the children they taught were not yet allowed to take part in the same activities. That's just political correctness gone mad, and a terrible example of allowing an employer to interfere with an employee's private life outside work.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[fel0niousmonk]

You're onto something that the fearful will never understand, and will forever fight as hard against it as they can.

It's like pride and your perceived abstraction from pride-hurting activities trump freedom.

Many more people than are willing to accept it yearn for the womb every day of their lives.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Ironica]

However, once you add a fancy new buzzword like "cloud" to what remains essentially IT outsourcing, executives' brains fall out of their skulls and they forget about risk management.

I don't actually think that there's a whole lot of executives who have been around this block before and suddenly have forgotten what the issues are because it's "in the cloud."

Rather, "the cloud" has put a lot of electronic services within reach of companies who have NEVER had them available before. They haven't outsourced; they haven't even insourced. They just haven't done it at all. And they have no concept of what the risks are.

With Google Docs, any two-bit non-profit can shove all their data online for free. What's not to like? There are going to be companies that can't even afford to give their employees laptops signing up, because now their employees can work from home or the field in a way they couldn't before. It's like if someone suddenly started selling disposable cars for $49.95. People who have been driving for years wouldn't suddenly forget how, but a lot of people who couldn't afford to drive before would suddenly be careening around like maniacs.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[commodore64_love]

>>>Why should she even be asked to remove the photo, though?

Can you not read? I answered this question in depth, and thus there was no need to repeat it twice. For a teacher to stand in class and say, "Drinking is dangerous and damages your liver," while her or his students are browsing the web and seeing the teacher participating in said behavior, is confusing to the students. I think the principal has every right to REQUEST the photos be taken-down, just the same as the principal has the right to request teachers smoke behind closed doors, out-of-view of the kids.

This is no different than my own boss *requesting* I not travel internationally, unless I inform them, due to concerns about exportation of state secrets. Yes it's legal to travel, but it's still something they like to monitor. It's part of being a professional.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

If you're still confused, consider a boss has the same right of free speech as we all do. You can not take-away his right to make a request of an employee and/or forcing him to shutup.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Can you not read? I answered this question in depth, and thus there was no need to repeat it twice.

Well, no. You might think you did, but whatever you're thinking, you didn't write it.

In any case, now you're changing the rules, and suddenly our teacher is apparently standing up in class and saying that drinking is dangerous and causes liver damage. Leaving aside the fact that (assuming responsible drinking in moderation) there is no evidence to support your claim and plenty to suggest that a glass of good wine now and then actually has health benefits, where did this idea of the teacher being hypocritical come from? No-one's mentioned it before.

This is no different than my own boss *requesting* I not travel internationally, unless I inform them, due to concerns about exportation of state secrets. Yes it's legal to travel, but it's still something they like to monitor. It's part of being a professional.

No, it's part of being a slave. That's what they call it when others get to control and monitor you full-time. Go ahead and play along if you like, but personally, no employer of mine gets the right to tell me where I go on my time off, nor to be told where I actually went.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see that there are reasoned people on Slashdot, still.

Well-written. If I had had mod-points, I'd have modded you up.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[commodore64_love]

>>>suddenly our teacher is apparently standing up in class and saying that drinking is dangerous and causes liver damage

That's not "sudden". Virtually all teachers do exactly that - it's mandated by the law. How long has it been since you were in school? I got that lecture at least once a year from my teachers, and yes it would have seemed contradictory (from the student viewpoint) to visit Miss Apple's webpage and see her drinking only a few hours/days after she told me it's dangerous.

>>>no employer of mine gets the right to tell me where I go on my time off, nor to be told where I actually went.

GRRR.

Yes, well, this is why I'm an engineer that's trusted with a gov't clearance, while you're still just flipping burgers, helping Walmart customers, or whatever non-professional job you hold. I'm willing to take-on the restriction of informing my boss "I'm flying to England next week" and thus I get better pay, greater responsibilities, and a nice office. You on the other hand refuse to do that (because you're stubborn) and thus can't get a decent job. Like teaching.

Re:The more you move offline, the less privacy

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Virtually all teachers do exactly that - it's mandated by the law.

Not where I live, it's not. Please open your eyes and realise that there are more people in the world (and on the Internet) than those where you live.

You on the other hand refuse to do that (because you're stubborn) and thus can't get a decent job.

Why do you post things like that? Do you somehow think that insulting me will make your point any more valid, convince me that you're right, or convince anyone else who might be reading this that my point of view has less merit?

You're wrong, by the way, as a cursory glance at my posting history would make obvious.

errr.. yeahh....

[Sefert]

"Twenty years ago.... they had to break into your house. Now they can just break into your ISP". They make it sound like that's easier, as though they're getting into your shed. I had someone break into my house last year, and trust me, these Mensa candidates wouldn't have 'just broken into my ISP' instead. They could barely put together a sentence. If you've got an organization powerful enough after you that they can break into your ISP (which is for 99% of us a major corporation with serious security) the locks on your house weren't exactly a challenge anyway. I'm surprised Schneier is comparing two such flagrantly uncomparable things.

Re:errr.. yeahh....

[Attila Dimedici]

There are two important differences. One, if they break into your home, there is a good chance you would know that someone had, if they break into your ISP, there is a good chance you won't know that someone broke in (even if you do, you probably won't know if they were after your stuff). Two, if someone breaks into your home, they only get your stuff, if they want someone else's stuff, they have to break into their home. If someone breaks into your ISP, not only can they get your stuff, but they can get the stuff of everyone else who uses that ISP.

Re:errr.. yeahh....

[Diss Champ]

If someone breaks into your ISP, it's not just your information they get. Say the ISP has the data for N people. If more than 1/N people of loose morals are capable of breaking into the ISP, your odds of having your data exposed are larger this way than your odds of having your data exposed by someone breaking into your house. Making simplifying assumptions like people being equally interested in breaking into houses and ISPs, and one person per house etc of course.

My gut feeling (which may be wrong, gut feelings often are when it comes to security) is that your correspondence is much much safer in your house, unless there is a particular reason someone wants your particular information rather than information to fish through. Furthermore, most people are STILL vulnerable to the house break-in, as there is sufficient information there to fool the ISP through a social engineering vector. Also, the people who broke into your house probably didn't care about your information, from your description they were likely just after the tangible properly.

Finally, the ISP may simply sell the information anyway.

Re:errr.. yeahh....

[commodore64_love]

>>>They make it sound like that's easier, as though they're getting into your shed.

It is easier to access data on an ISP. Just ask anyone who's been sued by RIAA or MPAA - in most cases the ISP will turn-over your personal information with a simple phonecall by the RIAA/MPAA employees, whereas information stored inside your home requires a *search warrant* issued by a judge.

Your data is safer at home, with constitutional protections, than in the hands of an ISP that doesn't care about your privacy.

Re:errr.. yeahh....

[MaerD]

"break in" was probably not the best choice, true. The point remains, however. 20 years ago the police would have to serve you a warrant to get information or private correspondence. Now, depending on your ISP/email provider all that may be needed is for a company to have a lawyer write a subpeona, or best case serve a warrant (that you may not even be made aware of) to your ISP.

Do you now see where the problem comes from? It's not from Joe Hoodlum trying to steal and pawn your Computer.

Re:errr.. yeahh....

[TheRaven64]

They wouldn't break into your ISP, they'd just buy the data from the minimum-wage employee who is pissed off about the abuse he gets from customers.

Re:errr.. yeahh....

[QuantumRiff]

I bet that quite a few of your friends know enough about you to reset your password on many popular sites, including online email accounts. they don't have to "break in" they just give the server your dog's name, the town you were born in, etc.. and voila, there is all your very personal information... Not to mention, just a google search is kinda terrifying. I have several comments archived in google from some very dumb basic questions I asked 8 years ago about IT stuff. Or just smart ass comments. Is my next potential employer going to look me up, and figure I haven't changed in the last 10 years or so? Not all privacy violations are criminal intent.

Re:errr.. yeahh....

[jdgeorge]

Right. When people break into your house, they're usually after your Stuff. When they break into your ISP, they're after your Information. You're right; these are very different things.

When they get your Stuff, the damage is usually immediate and obvious, and your stuff might even be returned. When they get your information, you have no idea what the damage will be, when it will manifest itself, or where it has gone.

All only by your choice....

[Lumpy]

voicemail held by the phone company? only if you dont use an answering machine or you use their VM service. you CAN change your cellphones settings to ring your own VM system at home.

Email, use IMAP and yank it all from the servers. They cant read your email from 2 weeks ago if it's not there.

Also encrypt. It's not hard anymore.

Re:All only by your choice....

[chill]

Also encrypt. It's not hard anymore.

Good luck getting every other person you send e-mail to to start encrypting or dealing with it. I get more hassles from non-geeks who call me up and say "what's this attached to your e-mail" than you can shake a stick at. Yes, I explain it to them. When I get to the part where they have to remember to click "encrypt" button, then enter their passphrase to send e-mail it all comes to a screeching halt.

I wonder how many mail servers are configured to accept SMTP over SSL/TLS? Every node along the way can't sniff your mail if the server-to-server communication is encrypted. They'd have to actually hack the sending or receiving server, as opposed to just sniff traffic.

The younger generation

[Jafafa Hots]

has lived their entire lives online, they twitter about their bowel movements... I don;t think they even think about privacy as being something desirable.

Re:The younger generation

[greenreaper]

Damn right. You have no real privacy anymore. Get over it.

Re:The younger generation

[maxume]

So what am I thinking right now?

How about now?

Re:The younger generation

[Anonymous Coward]

How about someone like me?

* I don't participate in social networking
* I don't participate in online discussions (except anonymously on occasion)
* I don't sign up for anything, online or off
* I don't own a cellphone
* I pay with cash only for 95% of my transactions
* I change my credit card # every 2 years
* I generally keep to myself both online and in real life
* Avoid government whenever possible (for example I have twice refused to claim unemployment when my hours were cut by 40%, and I certainly don't regret it)

Does this make you angry? Reason I ask is because you seem to be irritated that other people exist who actually respect privacy and desire it for themselves.

Re:The younger generation

[ZeroExistenZ]

You were thinking how your personal thoughts are still private, thinking you could prove that point.

Re:The younger generation

[gclef]

(reads maxume's mind)...ick. Pervert.

Re:The younger generation

[Kjella]

Maybe I'm just not young enough anymore, but I don't agree. I'm fairly indifferent about privacy when it comes to telling people where I've been, what I'm doing or where I'm going because for most of the time it's of absolutely no interest to anyone but the friends and family even if I shout it to the world. Now if I had a stalker or crazy ex-wife or whatever else that would make it matter, it's completely different. Then I need to shut out those people, but I'd still consider it their wrongdoing that I need those access controls. Bugger off and leave my life in peace.

Exactly the same applies if there's a government stalker. I don't want to keep my life a secret because they got some orwellian control freak vision, it's something I could do in response but I'd rather fight for a government that didn't do that sort of thing. The whole reasoning that "if you don't want the government to know, you must make it impossible" is sad and not consistent with reality. If you followed me into a grocery store you'd know what kind of tooth paste I use, but if I knew anyone cared I'd do my best not to reveal it for the hell of it.

The fact that people can blog and twitter so freely about their life is a good sign, it's a sign they feel confident in their ability to live their life openly and still without undue government interference. Maybe that's because the people are naive and don't realize how the government manipulates them, but that's a bit too simplistic. I mean you can say the same about free speech, maybe the dissidents are just being naive and really put on the death list for when the revolution comes but I'd say people openly criticizing the government is a much better sign than people too afraid to say a thing.

Re:The younger generation

[juan2074]

they twitter about their bowel movements...

If you can't get privacy, overwhelm them with shit.

Re:The younger generation

[gnick]

You still make it pretty easy.

You are male, between 30-50, live in either Montana, New Hampshire, or Arizona, and own (at a minimum) one rifle and 2 hand-guns.

Am I getting close?

Re:The younger generation

[Anonymous Coward]

So far off base that you may as well have stayed home.

Re:The younger generation

[Aaron5367]

Woah, hold on here, I'm 17. I don't twitter, but I have friends that do. We care about privacy more than that statement makes us appear to. While they don't slashdot, I know that I haven't found one post (higher than 3) that I've disagreed with about privacy, and I think they would probably feel the same. Now I'll wait for someone to prove me wrong.

Re:The younger generation

[Eil]

Also, their presence on your lawn is far less than fully appreciated.

Problem with laws

[ashtophoenix]

Yes we need (better) laws for protecting our privacy and data.
Yes we need much greater awareness than there is currently.
But some politician will create a law above all privacy laws which allows the breach of our data/privacy because of national security. I wish Internet companies that live on data, posts, tweets would make people more aware of their privacy but then that would go against their whole business model.

I mean there are a limited number of people who really understand and care about privacy. The masses are happy tweeting and posting along, many of them are teenagers who couldn't care less.

Totalitarianism

[Arthur B.]

We need comprehensive data privacy laws, protecting our data and communications regardless of where it is stored or how it is processed. We need laws forcing companies to keep it private and delete it as soon as it is no longer needed, and laws giving us the right to delete our data from third-party sites. And we need international cooperation to ensure that companies cannot flaunt data privacy laws simply by moving themselves offshore.

And snazzy uniforms for the global information police I guess...

Re:Totalitarianism

[Anonymous Coward]

We need comprehensive data privacy laws, protecting our data and communications regardless of where it is stored or how it is processed. We need laws forcing companies to keep it private and delete it as soon as it is no longer needed, and laws giving us the right to delete our data from third-party sites. And we need international cooperation to ensure that companies cannot flaunt data privacy laws simply by moving themselves offshore.

And snazzy uniforms for the global information police I guess...

So the point you are trying to make is "any effective set of laws is inheirantly totalitarian"? If you are a true anarchist this might make sense; but even on Slashdot, most people are infavor of having some laws (and some level of enforcement of the same) limiting specific behaviors (like theft of physical property).

offline != secure

[Anonymous Coward]

"'Twenty years ago, if someone wanted to look through your correspondence, they had to break into your house. Now, they can just break into your ISP."

Yeah... But anyone can be break your house (it does not require any skill) but breaking into your ISP is not a job for Joe Lambda.

Caring about privacy

[Arthur B.]

People who really care about their privacy do not yell about privacy law. They use secure systems, they keep their life private.

I think people who are vocal about privacy are just trying to signal that they have interesting lives. If your life is boring and common, it has very low information entropy. By hinting that you have some private information, they're often trying to imply their life is interesting. And when they're done yelling, they twitter what they had for breakfast.

Re:Caring about privacy

[Abreu]

Problem is, it's not always up to you.

You might keep your own secure systems, but your clueless friends keep "tagging" you in their Facebook photo albums, your client's secretary puts your name and contact information in the cloud, your ex-wife posts a big blog entry about the time you went drinking on company time...

Re:Caring about privacy

[Arthur B.]

In this case you bitch to your friends about their lack of discretion and if they don't get the hint you consider not hanging out with them, at least not where cameras are around. The third party (in this case Facebook) has nothing to do with it.

This is news?

[badzilla]

People can read your unencrypted e-mail? Stuff you post on the internet hangs around longer than you think? Maybe there really are people who didn't already know this.

Diction complaint

[russotto]

Dammit, it's "flout", not "flaunt".

Can we apply the laws to governments too?

[Shivetya]

I do not mind the calls to have companies be required to adhere to stricter privacy laws, but damn, the elephant in the room are government agencies. I can probably win this bet, very many of the same people who want these restrictions favor universal health care in the US. Do you not see the connection?

Want the best example of how companies are burdened with privacy or similar laws that the government just ignores? Medicare. They use SSN on about everything. Private companies can no longer do this but Medicare prints your SSN on their cards!. So while some may trust the government more than a private company there is one major risk here, that information is put in an easy to identify public place. As such its not hard for the bad guys to get a lot of information about you in just a single source.

Privacy laws are fine, just enforce them on both private and public organizations.

Re:Can we apply the laws to governments too?

[fel0niousmonk]

I think you've got that bet backwards:

I'd guess that those who oppose health care/insurance reform, are the same people that want their 'due privacy' .. as another commenter pointed out .. so that they can be one of the hypocritical masses who prefer to shun the taboo activities in public, but want to practice their taboo activity in private. Those who don't want to share the 'burden' of health care would similarly not want to share their information, and thus would be offended by those who would prefer to live in a society where hypocrisy & fear do not reign, hand in hand.

Re-define privacy

[houghi]

Many people say that you do not have any rights once you do something in public. However I think times have changed and we should be reconsider what we call privacy.
Once when you did something stupid in public, the few (100?) who saw it remembered the fact and not the person. They would say: I saw this guy doing that and such.

Even if it was somebody you knew, you might not have an idea that it was that specific person.

Then came the ability to take pictures. Only if you were very important would people see it and relate the fact with the person.

Now each and every person that does something stupid could be traced down for the rest of his or her life. "Not doing stupid things" is not an option. That is how you learn.

Will this ever change? No, because there is a louder cry of 'freedom of the press' then there is of 'privacy for all people'. The reason is because those defending the first can shout louder, because they ARE the press.

Unfortunately the 'press' is not about freedom of the press. It is about making money.

Give up already

[doti]

Face the new reality.

Information wants to be free.

Re:Give up already

[mcgrew]

Information wants to be free.

That tired old cliche is still around? You could as honestly say that information wants to be private, or information wants to be valuable.

When information isn't free, neither are you.

Re:Give up already

[poofmeisterp]

Could you define your statement? What IS information? How do we separate it from objects, from id?

Re:Give up already

[doti]

Anything that can be digitalized.

Re:Give up already

[poofmeisterp]

Something to chew on.

Re:Give up already

[doti]

example

http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/gadgets/~3/gVkJkrhvZCI/carrier-cant-stop-ha.html

Re:Give up already

[poofmeisterp]

Sorry about the delay; I've been kinda ill.

Okay, read up on it and received your example. What is it you're trying to get at with information wanting to be free? ( btw, this is a question, not an attack :) )

I would interpret that as Humans wanting to ensure that information is shared, based on their own designs of communication methods to accomplish said task.

Could you explain?

Re:Give up already

[doti]

It's more than just wanting to share information.

It's that it's naturally hard to prevent information to flow. Like holding water downhill.

Water wants to go downhill, like information wants to spread.

We don't need more privacy laws

[foniksonik]

What we need are more clarity about laws regarding basic rights and their nemesis discrimination.

The average person in their average life does not need privacy. They need discretion from their peers and the public regarding their personal life and laws which protect their right to live how they choose without discrimination.

Yes I advocate transparency. The truth will set you free and all that...

The only people who *need* privacy are those who are a) doing something illegal or unethical and want to keep others from finding out or b) doing something competitive and want to keep their progress from their competition.

People in category (a) deserve no legal cover for their actions.

People in category (b) have a thing called security which they should implement to provide a deterrent to unwanted attention or disclosure.

Everyone else just needs to know that their insurance won't go up if they are found to practice aggressive sexual methods or that they suck at cooking and start fires on the range every other weekend trying to cook.

People will be better off when their neighbors know about their weird behavior and learn to accept it (just like those neighbors will be better off when you find out about their quirks). This is called living in a community and it's about time we got back to it instead of trying to live in isolated 'privacy' gardens where we think we're the only ones who have issues and everyone else's lives are perfect.

Think of all the anxiety and social problems this would prevent. It's hard to discriminate against some group of people when you find out that all of your friends are in that group.

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The average person in their average life does not need privacy. They need discretion from their peers and the public regarding their personal life and laws which protect their right to live how they choose without discrimination.

And the day a national newspaper publishes pictures of your private sexual encounters for millions of perverts to salivate over, will you still think we don't need privacy then?

And the day someone steals a silly video you made, publishes it online a you personally become a worldwide joke, will you still think we don't need privacy then?

And the day you are arrested for urinating behind a bush and are now subject to the all prying eyes of termagants and vigilantes the world over, will you still think we don't need privacy then?

People's private habits will always be a source of derision, ridicule and contempt for others, even those with habits of their own. People will used any excuse to laugh at, mock and inflict violence on others. You go find the nicest homosexual couple in your town and put up a big sign outside their house saying "Nicest gay couple in town reside here"; I guarantee you they will be egged, stoned, assaulted or killed with a month, no matter how placid the local populace. Now ask yourself, how easy should it be to put that tag up in Google maps?

Privacy means more than just keeping your private details a secret. It means keeping yourself safe from other human beings. We are social animals, and that means we will gang up and rip someone apart as easily as we gather together and cooperate on anything else. All we need is sufficient excuse.

You say people don't need privacy. Well I think that Max Mosely needed privacy. I think that the Star Wars Kids needs privacy. I think that people who were caught taking photgraphs of themselves in high school need privacy. I think these people were vulnerable and needed our protection from newspapers, databases and the crowing mobs howling with delight at their misfortune. I think they needed it and we let them down. What right should any of use have to any privacy whatsoever if we can't protect the people that need it most?

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people who break the law are always immoral and clearly don't deserve the same rights others have. If they broke the law, they should be punished, QED.

We've never had unjust laws in this country--and the people who broke them clearly deserved full punishment.

Now go pick my cotton before I hang you.

*troll*

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[necrognome]

The only people who *need* privacy are those who are a) doing something illegal or unethical and want to keep others from finding out or b) doing something competitive and want to keep their progress from their competition.

People in category (a) deserve no legal cover for their actions.

In other words, "People who are doing something unethical deserve no legal cover for their actions." 'Unethical' may be defined as "belonging to a class of activities that my peers and I disagree with or find distasteful." Your argument, and the fact that many others have similar positions, actually makes an excellent case for privacy.

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[Doctor Faustus]

those who are a) doing something illegal or unethical and want to keep others from finding out or ...
People in category (a) deserve no legal cover for their actions.

The problem is, people disagree about what is and isn't ethical. I have no ethical problems at all with the fact that my wife and I are dating another couple; there's no way in hell I'm going to tell my in-laws about it, though. Meanwhile, there were two Palin babies talked about in the last election, and I think it was morally wrong not to have aborted either one.

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[uberdilligaff]

The only people who *need* privacy are those who are a) doing something illegal or unethical and want to keep others from finding out or b) doing something competitive and want to keep their progress from their competition.

You are stating a common fallacy, and you are dead wrong. You make the false assertion that anyone who doesn't wish to share everything about himself has committed some heinous misdeed. I choose what personal information I care to reveal about my self or my doings -- and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is illegal or unethical.

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect." -- Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, 1928

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[uberdilligaff]

Amen to all your points. And to your sig as well!

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[foniksonik]

You are making the false assertion not I. I didn't say anything about the legality of yours or anyone else's actions. I said that unless you are doing something illegal - as in already determined to be a crime - your actions can not be in need of laws to protect them. Your actions do need laws to protect your right to perform them - not to hide them from public view.

I stand for legislation that allows more freedoms not less. Privacy laws are not enforceable, they don't protect you when they are infringed and they can not put the cat back in the bag so all they are good for is gaining compensation for a perceived transgression, nothing more.

I'm saying that you should not be able to take me to court for publishing some information about you that I know or for not *protecting* data that you store on my servers.

This is what contractual agreements are for. You want me to not disclose some information you want kept undisclosed - have me sign an NDA. You want your phone company to not publish the transcripts of your phone conversations - make sure the contract you sign has that as a stipulation.

If someone breaks a contract with you then you have every right to sue them into bankruptcy.

If you're just pissed that everyone now knows about your love affair with Jar-Jar Binks - so what, I don't want my tax dollars or any other public interest going to your defense. You chose the lifestyle and if you're not man (or woman) enough to accept public ridicule for your choice then maybe it wasn't such a good choice to make.

OTOH I do think there should be more strict laws and greater penalties for the public if they discriminate against you based on your preference for fantasy flops. Certainly if anyone trespasses on your property or threatens you or harasses you they should be held accountable.

Certainly your CC, SSN and Bank Account information should not be treated with disrespect, however again this is a contractual issue not a privacy issue. Security of financial data and personal IDs have little to do with privacy and everything to do with fraud, impersonation, and other crimes.

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[foniksonik]

"belonging to a class of activities that my peers and I disagree with or find distasteful."

YES. These people don't need LAWS protecting their right to hide such information from public view.

Nobody needs LAWS to keep other people from finding out what they are doing. They need LAWS to protect their right to do things.

The best example I can think of is "Don't ask don't tell". A homosexual man or woman can be enlisted in the military as long as they don't disclose that they are homosexual. This is a protection of ONLY their privacy, not a protection of their lifestyle. The reality is that homosexuals are still discriminated against and if they want to stay in the military they can not even discuss the discrimination as it would disclose their sexual preference which would be grounds for dismissal.

Homosexuals don't need laws to protect their privacy, they need laws to protect their right to live the lifestyle of their choice without fear of persecution.

The same argument goes for nearly all activities which some may find unethical or immoral. You don't need laws protecting your right to hide your behavior, you need laws protecting the behavior itself.

Some may say that privacy laws are a bridge from when society decides something is worthy of discrimination until the day it decides that something actually should be protected. I say it is a crutch people use to avoid taking a side.

Unless some activity is criminal in that it harms your person or your property - the other person should be allowed to do that activity.

This applies to guns, drugs, sex, marriage and any other topic you can think of.

We have laws which govern the use of guns - guns themselves do not commit crimes. Enforce those laws which say that a gun owner must be a free citizen (no felony convictions), must register the gun and add in some mandatory safety and training - we do it for a driver's license, why not for a gun license... and then let anyone who qualifies buy whatever kind of gun they are rated for (not everyone can drive a motorcycle legally on the street, you must pass a special course).

We have laws to prohibit driving under the influence of any drug, marijuana included, and which make robbery, loitering, vandalism, etc. illegal - we don't need special laws just for drug users. Now I am all for adding rehab to the penalty to those crimes if you commit them under the influence. You obviously have a problem and need treatment if you're committing crimes while high. Maybe you're just a criminal who likes to get high. You should go to jail for being a criminal, not for doing drugs.

My point is that we don't need more laws to make more things illegal. We need more laws to make more things explicitly legal and to protect those who participate in these behaviors from any sort of discrimination.

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[foniksonik]

I have never seen any of those people before. Have their lives been ruined somehow? That Max Mosely guy definitely didn't need privacy for instance. Who cares if you hook up with 5 prostitutes and act out some Nazi fantasy? Does that affect anyone?

Rather than sue the newspaper, Max should have been suing anyone who discriminated against him based on his personal sexual fetish preferences, including companies he had relationships with or anyone else.

Star Wars Kid should have sued You Tube or anyone else who published his property without his consent and they should have sued whomever uploaded it and taken them to criminal court for defrauding them.

Yes it's a serious issue but not to do with *privacy*. Nobody cares about Star Wars Kid anymore. Now he's got a story to tell his grandkids.

OTOH if he is kept from getting a proper education or is left unemployed, then he's got a discrimination lawsuit and rightly so... again who cares.

"and that means we will gang up and rip someone apart as easily as we gather together and cooperate on anything else. All we need is sufficient excuse."

This is what we need laws against. Not laws that let us hide from people but laws that allow us to be open and free without worrying that a gang of people can come and attack us for being different.

Your privacy laws just perpetuate the problem... it's a walled garden and not a very good one. You can't enforce privacy laws. You can only provide judgements after privacy has been infringed. They don't even act as a deterrent, not for individuals and not for businesses... they only put up a false security through obscurity defense for you.

Re:We don't need more privacy laws

[TheTurtlesMoves]

In my experience if someone is "outraged" with someones personal life, its because it mirrors something in their personal life that they are ashamed of. ie a cheating husband that it not yet busted, tends to be outraged that his busted friend cheated on his wife....

How scared should i be?

[AP31R0N]

Can someone give me a non-Fox News explanation of how worried any should be worried about this? Some /.ers are privacy freaks who are so egocentric as to think that *everyone* is out to get them all the time. i'd like to hear from a non-paranoid person about the real risks involved.

i'm inclined to think that the elephant doesn't even know the ant exists, let alone cares about where i bought lunch last Tuesday.

What is the REAL likelihood that any given person would be the targeted and what is the realistic harm that someone could do? And what sane precautions should one take?

Re:How scared should i be?

[gclef]

It's not that people are paranoid, but there are occasional events that are creepy, which point to a need for more privacy.

The one that was the tipping point for me actually happened to a co-worker: in the mid-late 90's he was taking AZT (yes, he had AIDS). The creepy part came shortly after getting his first AZT prescription filled...a few weeks after his first prescription he started getting mailed advertisements for graveyard plots. Yes, his pharmacy had sold the fact that he was taking AZT to a marketing company, who realized he was about to die & tried to sell him a grave. It's not that he was being targeted in any malicious way, but I think it's clear (at least, to me) that his privacy had been badly violated by his pharmacy.

That's the sort of thing I use as a model for privacy. In the intervening years, health data has been (somewhat) protected, but I think it's still a valid point for consideration: you may not think of your own information as important, but some of it can still be used to make some very creepy conclusions about you, and will be used in some very creepy ways if you're not careful.

Re:How scared should i be?

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of predators will grow as long as there is easy prey.
As long as people set themselves up to be easy targets, and as long as there exists financial opportunity in reading other people's communication, any 'safety in numbers' will be temporary while the ecosystem adjusts.
Even if you do happen to be somewhat of an exhibitionist, I bet you still sometimes get order confirmations and the like in your mail that you wouldn't want rerouted.

Re:How scared should i be?

[qwijibo]

One of the legitimate concerns of the privacy advocates is the collateral damage that comes from easy access to information. A lot of data is collected and assembled to look for correlations between persons of interest. Once a pattern is identified, the people that match the target are of interest. The same general approach is used for law enforcement and marketing purposes. Using marketing tactics for law enforcement just seems like a bad idea.

For example, if you buy sudafed and shop at an auto parts store, you might be manufacturing meth. Hopefully someone would think to look for abnormal quantities/frequencies before wasting resources on investigating those leads. However, if you live in a state that tracks sudafed purchases, stocking up may not be such a great idea if your purchasing pattern clearly exceeds what someone could typically use.

Zero privacy with corporations above the law

[edfardos]

Simple communication privacy pales in comparison to banks sharing your financial information with credit agencies, utilities which require a social-security number in order to provide power and water, medical insurance companies sharing your medical history with each other to make sure you're not insurable if you get sick, homeowners insurance companies colluding to put all your private claims information in the global CLUE database to make sure you never file claims, lest you'll never be insured again.

At least arbitrary communications can be encrypted and you can actively fight for your privacy. The bigger problem is corporatism selling your privacy as these companies operate above the law and government that supports them.

But, that's just me, I could be wrong,

edfardos

Actually... No it isn't.

[denzacar]

At least not for the last 433 years.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaunt

* Main Entry: flaunt
        * Pronunciation: \flont, flänt\
        * Function: verb
        * Etymology: perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse flana to rush around
        * Date: 1566

intransitive verb
1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice (a great flaunting crowd -- Charles Dickens)
2 : to wave or flutter showily (the flag flaunts in the breeze)

transitive verb
1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade (flaunting his superiority)
2 : to treat contemptuously (flaunted the rules -- Louis Untermeyer)
synonyms

-- flaunt noun

-- flauntingly \flon-ti-l, flän-\ adverb

-- flaunty \-t\ adjective

usage
Although transitive sense 2 of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard
(meting out punishment to the occasional mavericks who operate rigged games, tolerate rowdyism, or otherwise flaunt the law -- Oscar Lewis)
(observed with horror the flaunting of their authority in the suburbs, where men...put up buildings that had no place at all in a Christian commonwealth -- Marchette Chute)
(in our profession...very rarely do we publicly chastise a colleague who has flaunted our most basic principles -- R. T. Blackburn, AAUP Bulletin).

If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake.
Use of flout in the sense of flaunt 1 is found occasionally
("The proper pronunciation," the blonde said, flouting her refined upbringing, "is pree feeks" -- Mike Royko).

Re:Actually... No it isn't.

[Bat Country]

Make that 80 years

Re:Actually... No it isn't.

[jdgeorge]

I think the important note there is:

If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake.

Flaunt may have been used as a synonym for flout for many years, but it has been commonly understood (by those familiar with the word flout) to be a mistake for that entire time.

Similarly, although the term "chaise lounge" (commonly accepted in the US) is a creation of people who did not know French, it is considered a mistake by those familiar with the original "chaise longue".

In other words, it is still wrong, for all intensive purposes.

Re:Actually... No it isn't.

[maxume]

Baaaaaaahhhhhhhh. What about intents?

I have been trolled, excellent work sir.

In the End

[flyneye]

In the end , you will find, we need harsh extrovert penalties for anyone opening our privacy up for scrutiny. Whether a court order is involved or not , the data guardian should have to fear for his and his families lives. At a court order the data could be accidentally irretrievably "lost" rather than shared. HaXoRs could be tracked down by connection and their physical address shared with the data owner. Judges who order data under their popular misconception of constitutionality should be deleted themselves. Irretrievably.
            The future of privacy is in your hands. How badly do you want it? Enough to fight? Kill? How about your freedom?
Makes ya think, donut?

What is telling is the number of comments

[bjdevil66]

As of this post, there are only 48 comments - pretty low for a front page Slashdot article. Admittedly, this is only Slashdot, but if there was even a slight correlation with the lack of thought about the issue in the general public, that would suggest that apathy abounds on the issue and that little is going to be done about it.

Privacy is less important to people that ever. Many are more concerned with the opposite - their own celebrity and 15 seconds of fame...

Two People Not Private

[b4upoo]

Privacy is a lousy concept. If an utterance is made to another person then it is not a private matter at all. If I receive a communication from another person am I not free to make it as public as I wish?
              In other words if people have their panties in a knot over potential harm from their words then don't speak or write them. The ultimate in privacy involves keeping your mouth shut.

Norm for who?

[Drakkenmensch]

...maintaining your privacy is becoming even more difficult as social media and cloud computing become the norm.

Cloud computing is becoming the norm in pundit tech discussion perhaps, but in the real world where I work local software still rules. Perhaps before we invest heavily on server-side processing, we should improve our ISP services to cut down on nickel-and-dime use billing and frequent disconnections and traffic shaping...

e-mail privacy and the real root of the problem

[mce]

Twenty years ago, if someone wanted to look through your correspondence, they had to break into your house. Now, they can just break into your ISP.

Not in my case. I constantly (as in "every 70 seconds") download any newly arrived mail from my ISP to my own machine and then delete the copy on the server as soon as I have a local one. And I have every intention of keeping on doing this for as long as I'm mentally able to process e-mails. This way, they still don't have to break into my house again, but at least they have to break into my computer, where I can plug any holes and trace the log files.

Yes, my setup does mean that I can not easily read my e-mail when I'm not at/near home. But I honestly don't see the big need for that, even though I regularly spend the night in other locations (my dad's home, hotels during business trips, ...). And I ever were to really expect some important mail at a time when I can't be at home, all that's required is to unplug the network cable before I leave and plug it back in afterwards. Big deal.

Of course all this does not solve the mass problem of computer illiterates who use gmail just because somebody they know knows somebody who told them that - unlike Microsoft - Google surely does not mean any evil. Trouble is, that most of those people are hooked by stuff that some "computer expert" tells them to do. If we were to tell them not to use their ISP as their personal archive and tell them how to set up their system properly, they mostly wouldn't even know the difference while still being much safer. So the real problem are not the unwashed masses, but the geeky/nerdy types who like to show off how they could in theory read mail while climbing the Everest and who tell mom and dad that this is what they need too in order to be trendy.

Not exactly

[ubrgeek]

> 'Twenty years ago, if someone wanted to look through your correspondence, they had to break into your house'

Don't know if it was 20 years ago, but that's simply not true. If you were dumb enough to not shred the stuff, the minute it hit the garbage on the curb, it was fair game. It's no different than in this case. Find (and use) reliable encryption (or whatever) and you're taking stronger steps to protect yourself - just like shredding your documents.

There really is a generation gap.

[Animats]

About nine years ago, when phones started to get GPS capability, I was asking people what they thought of having their location tracked. Older people were horrified. Teenagers wanted a live map with all their friends on it.

The cell phone industry was hesitant to roll out GPS-based people tracking applications for years. Helio was the first to really do it, with their "Buddy Beacon" system. (This only worked if both parties had a Helio phone, so it wasn't that useful given Helio's tiny market share.) Now it's a common phone capability.

Re:There really is a generation gap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you also ask the Teenagers about their parents having a live map with them on it ?

Re:There really is a generation gap.

[ubrgeek]

You're right! That damn map at the mall kiosk ... always knowing exactly where I am!

Re:There really is a generation gap.

[Animats]

Did you also ask the Teenagers about their parents having a live map with them on it?

Today, I heard an AT&T radio ad for exactly that.

Unsure

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't necessarily think that we need such laws. I think that the information the 3rd party sites choose to keeps should be EASILY outlined. None of the "Privacy Policy" bullshit. Let's face it, its legal ramble. As for services we pay for... Yeah, Telephone companies should not have acess to my voicemails. Or if they do, I want to not only to know about it, but I also want to know why, and I should'nt be paying them to spy on me! (I guess if they have it in their possession it isnt really spying)
Regardless... Things won't change, I just want to know what they are keeping before I sign up.. It was my choice to sign up.. right??

hacking the server is a better attack strategy

[gnu-user]

It's easy to make too much of cleartext SMTP. Though I can think of attack vectors that would enable wire sniffing attacks, most require significant knowledge of some middleman network architecture. Pretty much all SMTP traffic is traveling over switches, and non-trivial to tap.

Compromising the mail server is far more fruitful. At a minimum the cleartext SMTP traffic become much more accessible. Wire sniffing is passive, and therefore a little scarier, but server compromise is likely much more common, and more dangerous.

Get over it

[j_cocaine]

Boy, Bruce just keeps getting paid to pump out the same old specters, doesn't he? People don't want privacy! Why? Because by giving up information about themselves, they start, or enter, conversations. The value of the information they get back is greater than the loss from what they give out, because what they give out is usually pretty trivial. The bigger concern than confidentiality is integrity. Highly social sites like EBay and Facebook have already come up with ways to verify the integrity of information you're receiving from semi-anonymous sources. Banks, etc., generally do pretty well - if they didn't, there would not be such high adoption of online banking. Medical information is the next looming crisis, and we'll probably have some problems, then they'll get sorted out and we'll FINALLY have useful electronic medical records. Privacy isn't an either/or thing. It's about control, about trade-offs, and about protection that's equal to the risk. I really don't think pictures of my vacation need to require retinal scans to view. (But maybe yours do! That's cool!)

Facebook, et al - tools for personna projection

[not-my-real-name]

There is likely already information about you floating around somewhere on the internet that you don't control. The solution is not to stick your head under a pillow and hide. The solution is to take control and post information that you want people to know about you.

You don't have to post pictures of you naked and drunk. You can post comments about your research and technical interests. Talk about the wonderful experience that you're getting at work or in class.

Do you want the embarrassing pictures (posted by someone else) to be first in a google search for your name, or would you like comments about several different open source projects that you've contributed to to be first?

Take charge and drown out any adverse propaganda with the propaganda that you control.

Re:e-mail privacy and the real root of the problem

[cpghost]

Not in my case. I constantly (as in "every 70 seconds") download any newly arrived mail from my ISP to my own machine and then delete the copy on the server as soon as I have a local one.

IMHO, you're putting an unnecessary strain on the IMAP server of your ISP (70 seconds polling is really aggressive)... and it doesn't buy you any more confidentiality either. A "deleted" file on the IMAP server is merely unlinked, i.e. it is still present in the free blocks of said server, and can be reconstructed. Depending on the load of that server, deleted mails can remain readable many days, of not weeks and months after you've thought you deleted them.

Run your own mail server at home: it provides you with a lot more control and not just w.r.t. confidentiality. You can also fine-tune the anti-spam settings to your heart's desires. You may want to get your own domain and a static IP address though, but it's worth every penny.

You mean...

[denzacar]

...if I called you gay, you would understand that I am referring to your "joyful and carefree disposition"?

Language is a living, growing and changing thing.
Eventually, along the way, stroking your girlfriend's pussy in public becomes a lewd act.

Re:You mean...

[misexistentialist]

"Pussy" is a satisfying analogy, while condensing "flaunting the ability to flout the law" into just "flout" causes semi-explosive forces to build within one's cranium.

Re:e-mail privacy and the real root of the problem

[mce]

I actually do run a Linux based server and additional spam filter of my own. Works just fine, so I don't see the need for getting a static address. If my ISP ever folds, I might reconsider, but until then I just want things to work and keep on working as they have done for ages without (even one-time) hassles.

With respect to the 70 seconds: I've been doing this for about 14 years now (POP initially, later IMAP). If my ISP has an issue with it, all they need to do is contact me. They don't seem to think it's needed. For about 7 years I've done the same at my previous employer because I wanted to keep on using my unsupported Linux mail client even after they switched to Exchange. The IT group there - that I had excellent links with - never complained either.

With respect to the delete/unlink: so what? This applies to any out-of-the box system, whatever you or your ISP use. Each and every mail that passes through somewhere can end up being stored as a temporary file, even if it is just stored until it can be forwarded from one SMTP server to the possibly "temporarily unavailable" destination.

The thing with my setup is that the file is logically deleted within minutes of arriving. I don't care if it takes days to clear the free blocks. There's a world of difference between a script kiddie data thief being able to read all my 14 years of mail at the click of a button, or him having to collect and piece together the free blocks to only get a few days worth of data with holes in it.

20 Years From Now?

[srobert]

At my age, 20 years from now, I'll be in a nursing home being cared for by a younger generation of caretakers, who have never had privacy, or have any understanding of why old people (like me) seem to be obsessed with a need for privacy. "But Mr. Robertson the webcam in your bathroom is so the attendants can look after your safety. If you fall down we need to know about that."

Re:20 Years From Now?

[maxume]

Start putting more money aside, I'm sure better nursing homes will be perfectly willing to use technology that does not offend your sense of privacy (I.e., sensors will only display information if there is a problem, and they will keep an eye on you by actually coming by and knocking).

Trying to stay healthy is another good idea, plenty of my older relatives have been reasonably independent well into their 70s.

Re:e-mail privacy and the real root of the problem

[base3]

At work, I'd be surprised if emails routed in and out aren't stored separately from the copies you deleted for some period of time.

signs you are old

[z-j-y]

you are old, when you think everything young people do are stupid.

internet changed human history, and young people growing up with it will develop their own social protocols. how can one declare that the new way of interaction is wrong?

Re:e-mail privacy and the real root of the problem

[mce]

At work I didn't care about deleting stuff for privacy reasons. After all, those mails were work related. All I wanted in that context, was being able to continue to use my old e-mail client and it so happens that the easiest way to do that was to use fetchmail to retrieve all new mail and delete it from the server afterwards. The mails were simply stored as files on my UNIX account (the whole idea was that I insisted on using the unix command line friendly maildir format for storing mails). So the mails never even left the server room and they were automatically backed up as well.

On my home box I use a dedicated IMAP server, which allows any mail client to be used, but even so I set it up to still store the mails in maildir format.

I only mentioned the use of such a setup at work as a reply to the "you might overload the IMAP server" comment, nothing more.

Sorry Bruce, people have moved on.

[RockDoctor]

Some people are actually capable of reading and understanding what you (and others) say, then remembering it and acting on it. We understand that everything that we do on line has the potential to be remembered by the system, and therefore recalled at some future date. Therefore we only say things that we're willing to have recalled twenty years from now. Similarly we know that it's not impossible for someone else to read our mail, so if we want to send a private communication we write a document, encrypt it with an appropriate tool, and then transmit the encrypted version.

So, Bruce, as a journalist, you're going to have to find a different drum to beat on.

The people who haven't absorbed the message so far? Tough. They'll either learn, or fall behind economically (or politically, or culturally ; all in some fairly vague sense). At which point, they (and their descendants) might as well be dead. Tough.

My breath for yours

[Anonymous Coward]

And I want a yacht. And a fast car. And a mansion.

Bruce, let's hold our breaths and see who gets what they want first.