Slashdot Mirror
The Privacy Illusion
LoLobey writes "Scott Adams has an entertaining entry on his Dilbert Blog about the perception of privacy. He writes, 'It has come to my attention that many of my readers in the United States believe they have the right to privacy because of something in the Constitution. That is an unsupportable view. A more accurate view is that the government divides the details of your life into two categories: 1. Stuff they don't care about. 2. Stuff they can find out if they have a reason.' His post is written in response to some reader comments on another entry about privacy guardians and how swell life would be if we voluntarily gave up certain personal info."
is freedom and to be let alone, to live without fear. That is what is scary about a government that knows (or can if it wants to) every detail down to what color rash you had when you were in college. But Scott Adams is right, nobody has such a right, but it's something that is worth fighting for nonetheless.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
At the heart of the Constitution is the notion that the powers are government are derived from the people. That is to say, the government can only do what the people consent to allowing it to do. The document makes various references to this principle, some direct, others inferred. The Declaration of Independence was quite a bit more blunt on the topic. That said, the truth is... we're not all equal. Some people have more influence than others. Others have more money. And while we are afforded the right to vote, it's almost always voting who will represent us. We have no significant control over our government; Which was deliberate. The same people who said powers not expressly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the people also wrote in the so-called elasticity clause and created the electoral college.
So when people say there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, they're right and they're wrong... as is the other camp. The truth is, human rights are not derived from any legal instrument. They have always flowed from the same source -- a willingness to fight against their removal.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The first block of ammendments to the US constitution called the Bill of Rights is just an enumeration of the more abused natural human rights in the time of the US Revolutionary War until it's passage.
The Bill of Rights was mostly opposed at the time by those who feared that unenumerated natural rights would later be denied.
Privacy is a natural human right that must be defended by the courts and populace even if it didn't end up in the rights sampler called the Bill of Rights.
The US constitution only enumerates and codifies protections against the federal and sometimes lower levels of government, natural human rights also include protections against other people and corporations, hence for example laws against murder and stealing but even in their absence the ability to make common law accusation if breached.
While somewhat off-topic it puzzles me why these questions about privacy deal mainly with the government abuse of power (in the US at least). Living in a "socialist" country in the Northern Europe I can honestly say that I feel the government is protecting my privacy against companies and other private entities that might try to abuse this information about me rather than it being the big threat. While certainly not perfect or run by perfect people at least in theory the government represents the people for the people and is regulated by the people themselves while the private entities serve only the interests of a few and are in fact required to try to "maximize the profits for their owners" and thus to abuse their power to the full extent they can within the law (or slightly outside, which they can try to influence).
I am aware of the differences in the history, the fact that government used to be about the only entity with enough resources (but would claim this is not even close to being the case now) nor am I saying the government should be given free hands to do whatever.
But there seems to be such a difference in the standard mindset I would be interested in hearing some explanation for this.
Scott Adams compares our loss of privacy to the domestication of dogs. That is unsupportable nonsense.
According to Wikipedia, the current lineage of domesticated dogs diverged approximately 15,000 years ago. Our current American situation of lost privacy depends greatly on the electronic digital computer, which is around 75 years old. Therefore, Scott Adams was exaggerating by a factor of 200, and - more relevant - a difference of 14,925 years.
The pervasive surveillance society, including facial recognition and the networking of ubiquitous video cameras, is being implemented at present. Today is much more recent than 15,000 years ago -- 15,000 years more recent, in fact.
By suggesting that a national debate on our right to privacy is somehow not timely, and implying that we should instead accept that we have never had privacy, Scott Adams has deeply disappointed me. I really thought he was more intelligent than this, because his cartoon routinely makes fun of certain types of people for their stupidity. I figured that meant he was smart.
The appropriate time to have a national conversation about our rights to privacy and to be "secure in our persons" is now. Today.
What I hate about these articles that say there is no right to privacy in the Constitution is that they completely forget about the existence of the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What that amendment means is that "just because we did not list that right here, does not mean it does not exist as a right. There are many rights we did not list here, and this amendment is intended to protect them as well as those we did list already". And yes, it is very broad. It is supposed to be broad because it is supposed to be a check on government power and a protection of the publics general rights. The Tenth Amendment is written along a similar line. Both are intended to say "any power or right we did not explicitly give to the federal government, we give to the people and the states". They are supposed to be very very broad because they are supposed to have a very broad interpretation in order to protect personal freedom and the autonomy of the states. And I think a right to privacy easily passes the test for inclusion under the Ninth Amendment.
I disagree with anyone who says that the Constitution contains no right to privacy. It contains one, by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, by not explicitly denying it.
Scott Adams is trolling. Not for the first time.
Something he doesn't seem to worry about is that government (or large organizations) have a lot more power than ever to process information "they don't care about", to get information that they do. And use it.
For instance, by itself, it's very uninteresting for government to know that I read Dilbert. But if it knows of my Dilbert reading habits, it can correlate that information with other things about me. Maybe they can even draw causal inferences, like that people tend to change their political attitudes ever so slightly after reading Dilbert for years. With enough data and processing power, that's feasible.
The government can then decide to do something about Scott Adams. Not murder him, that's overkill. But maybe give him some personal problems, so that he becomes less influential. Or manipulating his attitudes, so that his role as an opinion-shaper becomes more to their liking. Again, with enough data and processing power, they can probably figure out an effective, non-violent way of changing Adams' behavior.
This wouldn't be cost-effective, you may say. I say it might well be. Influencing a lot of people ever so slightly is really a very powerful thing to be able to. Most governments though history would have leaped at the opportunity to have this level of control, in a non-intrusive manner - compared to the clumsy heavyhandedness of harassment and ruling through fear, it's both less risky and potentially more profitable (given enough data and processing power).
I think it's not feasible to keep processing power and data out of the government/big organizations' hands. Data is just too flightly - if it doesn't actually want to be free, at least it's very hard to contain. But we can get this flightly quality of information to work for us, rather than against us, by demanding radical transparency, and taking it if we don't get it (see Wikileaks).
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
...who has never read the US Constitution (something I have in common with probably 99% of US citizens), and whose primary knowledge of the Consitutional amendments extends only to the 18th and 21st Amendments, and the 5th amendment because I used to watch so many US lawyer shows (Perry Mason, LA Law, Ally I cannot comment on what, if any, privacy protections are given to the public in those documents - I suspect nothing explicit is included (, and further I suspect that any implied protections are based on individual interpretation of the wording.
From my perspective, the biggest issue is not that Law Enforcement agencies can conduct surveillance and gather information on citizens, but that that the checks and balances to allow investigation while preventing authoritarian abuses (i.e. the need to apply for a Judicial warrant before engaging in said surveillance beyond certain well-defined boundaries) have been eroded to the point where there seems to be no judicial oversight and no ability for the public to scrutinise the process after the fact.
Just select your favorite movie star, your next door neighbor, that girl from your childhood dreams, and boom, the rich get a full contact reprogrammed you who's going to do exactly as demanded.
What the hell are you talking about?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
there is no express Right to Privacy in the US Constitution. Period.
HOWEVER...
Ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Government is strictly limited to doing those activities which are specifically authorized to it by the Constitution.
Everything else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the People.“
Constitutionally, the specific right to privacy does not exist. It is a privilege granted by local Statute. Data Protection Act, wiretapping restrictions, US Postal Service regulations and limitations, the Copyright Act and the Federal Reserve Act are but a few examples of Statutes that bestow privilege on certain types and methods of information, but for that information only - nothing in there even about personal privacy.
All that said, there is an ancient Anglo-Saxon saying from the time of King Alfred (9th c.), which goes "A man's home is his castle". This is in fact part of the Code of Alfred and about the closest you'll get to an actual Constitutional statement about the absolute right to privacy. Back then, if you even turned up outside the walls of a fort uninvited or unannounced and flying the pennant of an alien House, you stood to be run through, and deservedly so. In England these days we have as closest analogue, section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 which provides for intentional alarm, harassment or distress but still no specific *right* to privacy. People have tried to apply section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in civil Law but this Act only applies against Public Authorities, which are immunised from prosecution (civil or criminal) under HRA by section 71 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which provides complete immunity if said corporate body turns evidence in *any other proceeding*.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I hope those who comment on Scott Adam’s article take note of his caveat, “written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view”. It’s a thinking-out-loud piece, which coming from Scott Adams, I enjoy.
I think he is wrong on two important points. One, I believe the Constitution does protect privacy, and I do not think Hitler analogies are self-refuting arguments. Hitler analogies are overused and too easy to make, which makes them fall on deaf ears, but not inherently self-refuting.
However, I do think Adams makes one good point. For those of you who are waging the war against the loss of privacy – news flash – you lost that war decades ago. Apparently you didn’t get the memo. It may be worth fighting to get privacy back, but it isn’t something we are in danger of losing. You cannot lose what you already lost. In this respect, I believe Adams makes a compelling case. Whatever privacy you think you enjoy is an illusion. It is a part of your life the government doesn’t care about at the present moment.
Privacy starts with protection from illegal search.
It's a shame that it wasn't extended further in the Constitution.
"Tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. The robber baron’s cruelty (and) cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- CS Lewis
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The other take I've seen on this is by howstuffworks.com 's Marshall Brain ; his ""Manna" short story portrays two visions of the future.
* One is a future what automation has taken over so many jobs that there is a large underclass of impoverished unemployed who are rounded up into social security camps, chemically sterilised, and guarded by robots.
* One is a future where automation has taken over so many jobs that everyone can have a basic income that ensure they can live "comfortably" doing whatever the hell they like - and the increasing efficiency of the technology means the level of comfort increases every year.
The privacy angle is that in the utopian version of all this, people voluntarily have implants that record and process all their sensory input, and AI agents watch to see if they are about to commit a violent action, and switch their motor neurones off to prevent them from doing it. I'm in two minds about this - on the one hand, I really don't like the idea of a machine watching me all the time, let alone able to paralyse me on demand. On the other hand, I would probably appreciate the sense of safety, and in a society where there are no unmet material needs, I'm guessing the pressure to commit violent crime would be virtually nil anyway. It relies on the proviso that the AI is both neutral and carefully monitored. If you concentrated this level of power in the hands of a dictator, you'd be screwed.
The natural trend with increasing technology in corporate hands is ubiquitous surveillance and enforcement of rules anyway - so you may as well pre-empt it and develop a system that serves us, instead of ruling us. If we just stick our fingers in our ears and ignore the problem, or stamp our feet and shout really hard that we don't like it, the technology is not going to go away.
The technology will get cheaper and easier - it's inevitable that ubiquitous surveillance will be in economic reach of large corporate players soon. Since it's inevitable that such a system will exist, you may as well have it serve us, rather than rule us. The hard part is knowing where that line is and ensuring that people do not cross it.
Because law enforcement has always used its powers on "bad guys" and criminals. Long before Anonymous, the FBI was running RUIN life on people for their own agenda.
The author insinuates, like most other police states, that everyone suspected by law enforcement is really a criminal, and power is rarely abused.
for the record the name man trusts catholic nuns to guard his data
"I would trust nuns to guard my personal information in the cloud. I would also trust nuns to keep the government from getting my information and using it for evil. But I would limit the job to nuns who have been in the habit, so to speak, for at least twenty years"
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/guardians_of_privacy/
Because the church does not evil. I mean they are a church. You must be a communist to think the church is evil.
Anyone who thinks that living in a police suvailence state, could you please link to another country on earth where it has worked, well, and the police do not abuse their powers? Link to biased outside media if you could.
But if you want to know what a police force, conducting secrect survaillence on US citizens looks like, you can google "Church Comittee"
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Church_Committee_Created.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
Then there is "COINTELPRO"
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&tok=gukAibuebXq64nmwN-zOUw&pq=church%20committee&cp=6&gs_id=h4&xhr=t&q=COINTELpro&pf=p&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=COINTE&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=5339a8ff113dcf96&bpcl=37643589&biw=1108&bih=647
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro
What we will have is that federal law enforcement will use their powers to undermine our democratic values by eliminating dissent/otherwise giving an unfair advantage to political canidates they agree with.
Anyone who comes accross damning evidences or otherwise criticizes the system, if not arrested, the FBI would have enough dirt that it could leak and destroy people's reputation. It could send neighbors against people, get people fired. Harrass spouses, friends, girlfriends.
You see the "things the FBI doesn't care about", changes when they want to single you out and make an extra-judicial example out of you. As Mario Savio, of the Berkley Free Speech movement.
And if you think that "congresstional oversight" is a magic bullet, when it just gives potentially unscrupulous members of congress something else to keep them in office.
Then we get to this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all
How long has the FBI been doing things like this before they got caught? This is a mainstream paper that in more modern times doesn't generally like to dig further than they need to. Good investigators like the FBI don't routinely get caught by half assed ametures link pro-journalists.
What happens when the government doesn't have the privacy? They say "oh no, we need the privacy that we deny you"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/minneapolis-police-pushing-for-more-license-plate-data-privacy/
If we shouldn't have privacy from governmnt because "oh who cares it's boring", then neither should any police, fire, rescue vehicle, or any politician from the public. It is not in the public's interest to make governmnt managers a higher class of citizen who can see all but not be seen.
1st flaw seems to be the point of the article that since the government has a certain amount of power to look into your private life then you should not care if they have more... So by this logic we should be ok if the government no longer needs warrants to get things hell they can get them now if they have a warrant anyway.
2nd Flaw "It isn't a real risk to law-abiding citizens" . There is no such thing as a "law-abiding citizen"; You probably broke several laws already today that you don't know about... Many states its illegal to spit or get a blow job, most of you at least broke the speed limit on a public road.
3rd Flaw he state that he Odds of the government becoming NAZI like are the same as be a meteor. This may be true at the federal level.... But the government is made up of many people at many levels and anyone of them could start giving you issues where an invasion of privacy could be a real concern, especially if you some how differ from the norm in their fiefdom. EX being gay, black, a different religion or political affiliation.
I would argue that there is a right to privacy, and that it exists regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. As a justification, I point to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A right does not need to be in the Constitution to be had. No rights are granted. Rather, the Constitution states that rights already existing may not be infringed.
I don't know why people forget the Fourth Amendment when they talk about privacy and the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Surely your computer and your personal information are the modern equivalents of "papers and effects" as the founding fathers saw it? Although referring to government powers, and not explicitly about what corporations might be able to do, (since the founding fathers could never have envisioned what the world would become), the very idea of a right to privacy is implicit in the Fourth Amendment.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped