I like the passion and analysis of this entry, but I am always saddened to see so frequently a defeatist strain running through the commentaries here.
I frequenlty see assertions as to a basic rights on slashdot, that while I may agree with, I can also see that reasonable people coulld disagree with. I could propose many rights that would be quite popular, but might give people pause if they thought that it was a consitutional right. Some countries (someone help me out and find this? The Economist had a great article on this several years ago) have enshrined a more social set of rights, such as everyone having enough food, healthcare, etc.
While many would think those are fundamental rights, many would not want the government ot be responsible for ensuring all have those rights, at least amongst many US citizens. These reasonable disagreements is why we have the Constitution, which is what we have to hang our hats on, and is why we have Article V to change it when we need to. And sure, someone will probably point out the 10th amendment, but that talks about people retaining power, not asserting rights, which I believe is a subtle but important distinction.
Anyway, with all the energy I see here that goes into asserting fundamental rights, (one of privacy in this case) I was glad to see an entry that alludes to the basic problem. I would contend though that an assumption that it can't be changed because of "corporate America" takes away so much of its potential. If the world really is different because of technology, and this InterWeb thingy, then go the grassroots route. It is done here on many issues. And I think that I sense a defeatist attitude because of past failures (for instance, in securing a fundamental fair-use right interpretation that would be favorable to end users). If you don't like how laws are being intepreted, then fight for new legislatoin to clarify in explicit detail what is needed. Grass-roots campaigns that are against major money interests have shown signs that they could be very effective in a relatively short period of time. Take the story of Porkbusters, for instance. While all of its goals have not been met yet, in a short order of time, they have raised awareness and gotten promises (but to little action yet unfortunatley) that their "demands" are met.
And I think people should aim higher though. I would love to see a grass-roots campaign emerge from a place like Slashdot, that would push for something like a right to "privacy" . For instance, something like
"The right to privacy, being fundamental to a right of free though, shall not be abridged, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing . . . " (I would guess something about the time of the records in which one searched, but I just can't make it concise, like I think all rights should be stated)
Maybe one could not get to the point of passing a Constitutional Amendment, but I could easily envision a movement centered around such a right to be embraced by a large group of people. From there, given that much of the audicence would be techno-philes, and this InterWeb thingy, you have the seeds of an inevitable Viral Marketing campaign which would almost inevitably result in some senators and congressment sponsoring at least to strenghten privacy in our laws.
Not to single you out, and not to be alarmist, but I was a bit concerned when I looked through the comments on this subject and saw a very high percentage of jokes, and thoughts along these lines. I'm not trying to say that "THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER" either.
I do think, though, that it's surprising that there is such a non-chalant atttitude about terrorism in these forums. I understand the skepticism that generally comes from a crowd that has libretarian tendencies of distrusting the government generally shouting "TERRORISM!" (NSA, Iraq, Patriot Act, etc.).
That doesn't mean, however, that there isn't a very real threat of terrorism, at least in the future. I think most would agree, that IF terrorists got their hands on some (WMD - it doesn't matter what you personally define it to be, just as long as it elicits an "Oh Shit" thought in you if one were to go off) that would be a BAD thing.
And to the extent that the cost of developing bioligically dangerous agents has gone down, that makes it easier for some group to get hold of a WMD, this is at the least something to be concerned about, and be thinking about.
There are legitimate times where the the ideals of information sharing and privacy do not work well together. It is not clear to me that there is an absolute value that all information must be available to everyone and that there should never be away to track anyone down. Maybe that's the case, but I would like to see more people here who hold that belief to defend it against some very real and serious questions that our society should be asking.
Slashdot Mirror
While many would think those are fundamental rights, many would not want the government ot be responsible for ensuring all have those rights, at least amongst many US citizens. These reasonable disagreements is why we have the Constitution, which is what we have to hang our hats on, and is why we have Article V to change it when we need to. And sure, someone will probably point out the 10th amendment, but that talks about people retaining power, not asserting rights, which I believe is a subtle but important distinction.
Anyway, with all the energy I see here that goes into asserting fundamental rights, (one of privacy in this case) I was glad to see an entry that alludes to the basic problem. I would contend though that an assumption that it can't be changed because of "corporate America" takes away so much of its potential. If the world really is different because of technology, and this InterWeb thingy, then go the grassroots route. It is done here on many issues. And I think that I sense a defeatist attitude because of past failures (for instance, in securing a fundamental fair-use right interpretation that would be favorable to end users). If you don't like how laws are being intepreted, then fight for new legislatoin to clarify in explicit detail what is needed. Grass-roots campaigns that are against major money interests have shown signs that they could be very effective in a relatively short period of time. Take the story of Porkbusters, for instance. While all of its goals have not been met yet, in a short order of time, they have raised awareness and gotten promises (but to little action yet unfortunatley) that their "demands" are met.
And I think people should aim higher though. I would love to see a grass-roots campaign emerge from a place like Slashdot, that would push for something like a right to "privacy" . For instance, something like "The right to privacy, being fundamental to a right of free though, shall not be abridged, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing . . . " (I would guess something about the time of the records in which one searched, but I just can't make it concise, like I think all rights should be stated) Maybe one could not get to the point of passing a Constitutional Amendment, but I could easily envision a movement centered around such a right to be embraced by a large group of people. From there, given that much of the audicence would be techno-philes, and this InterWeb thingy, you have the seeds of an inevitable Viral Marketing campaign which would almost inevitably result in some senators and congressment sponsoring at least to strenghten privacy in our laws.
Not to single you out, and not to be alarmist, but I was a bit concerned when I looked through the comments on this subject and saw a very high percentage of jokes, and thoughts along these lines. I'm not trying to say that "THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER" either. I do think, though, that it's surprising that there is such a non-chalant atttitude about terrorism in these forums. I understand the skepticism that generally comes from a crowd that has libretarian tendencies of distrusting the government generally shouting "TERRORISM!" (NSA, Iraq, Patriot Act, etc.). That doesn't mean, however, that there isn't a very real threat of terrorism, at least in the future. I think most would agree, that IF terrorists got their hands on some (WMD - it doesn't matter what you personally define it to be, just as long as it elicits an "Oh Shit" thought in you if one were to go off) that would be a BAD thing. And to the extent that the cost of developing bioligically dangerous agents has gone down, that makes it easier for some group to get hold of a WMD, this is at the least something to be concerned about, and be thinking about. There are legitimate times where the the ideals of information sharing and privacy do not work well together. It is not clear to me that there is an absolute value that all information must be available to everyone and that there should never be away to track anyone down. Maybe that's the case, but I would like to see more people here who hold that belief to defend it against some very real and serious questions that our society should be asking.