21–30 of 83 posts
He has a book out: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0300172311 Giving to my father for Christmas. He is in the "nothing to hide" camp.
http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Hide-Tradeoff-between-Security...
I think the most powerful argument here is that just because one may think that they have nothing to hide, and they don't mind "having their picture taken naked and distributed to their neighbors" doesn't mean that they should enforce their beliefs on others.
To make the case for who is wrongly imposing their will, we need need a framework for measuring goodness. The author goes in that direction, talking about measuring the societal benefits of privacy and the systemic harms that privacy protects against.
However, the "secondary use" harm wasn't very compelling. Contract law seems to be the proper way to handle that, rather than privacy.
A better argument was that privacy protects free thought. Unfortunately, he mentioned it too briefly and didn't discuss the conflict of free speech and privacy in enough detail. Perhaps there wasn't enough space, but I think more explanation of how privacy expands "the range of viewpoints being expressed and the degree of freedom with which to engage in political activity." After all, those viewpoints are of little value to society before they are shared widely. One could argue that it's not privacy that is important, but protection against retaliation.
there's something that frustrates me about arguments like this. I think that technology is inescapably taking us towards a future where anyone and everyone can record everything that any individual does, perpetually, and at arbitrary scale. In many ways we are already there, especially in certain domains (gmail, facebook, cell phones, creep shots, etc). It sounds pessimistic to say "this is inevitable" and I'm sure m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A question. Can a mass surveillance system be designed in a such way, so it doesn't take away privacy or reduce civil liberties? If the answer is no, then it is simple. It should be illegal to spend tax money on such mass surveillance systems.
Yes it can, as it has been done before with the police system. You have a group of people watching society and reporting any criminal activity. It just so happens that the response system is already built in. Police don't go into private homes or search belongings without due process. It should be quite easy to design a system in that way. Cameras and other surveillance tools can only be placed in public places; this…
there's something that frustrates me about arguments like this. I think that technology is inescapably taking us towards a future where anyone and everyone can record everything that any individual does, perpetually, and at arbitrary scale. In many ways we are already there, especially in certain domains (gmail, facebook, cell phones, creep shots, etc). It sounds pessimistic to say "this is inevitable" and I'm sure m…
Maybe the solution should involve some sort of mass surveillance of the government itself, by the citizens.
however, some problems. someone has to have some monopoly on force? So the government has to have some information that is secret, for example, information about suspects in a criminal investigation. although it's possible that in a fully recorded society that need would go away! a police investigation would simply consist of reviewing the evidence recorded and acting, and a suspect couldn't run because everything is monitored and recorded.
this sounds pretty terrible! and I think it would be, unless, the institutions of a democratic and just society were preserved. given that any crime would come attached with "the whole truth" recorded, trials might be easier? cardinal richelieu is purported to have said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", but I'm not sure if 15th-century French monarchy is the same government as a modern-day democracy (say what you will about Manning et al) ...
I guess it should be possible to communicate anonymously for similar reasons as voting should be done anonymously.
In short, at the risk of trivializing the argument: The ability to gleam private details about people is having some power over them. The entire modern theory of government rests on limiting and dividing up the power of those in power. With mass surveillance, that balance is broken. Not only do we have private details on individuals, that knowledge is held by a small and unaccountable elite, protected by state secret…
A coworker used the following story, apt since he lives in a state bordering another country: "Let's say I go to Canada for a day trip, Montreal perhaps. I speak enough French to get around but it's not so good after an evening of drinking and socializing. The next morning, I wake up with a powerful hangover headache. A pharmacy is nearby, but my head is pounding too hard to read the labels so I go to the pharmacist. In broken French, I ask him for some Tylenol. He asks me 'what kind?' 'Just one,' I reply. He sells me a small bottle with a Tylenol label; I pop a couple and put the rest in my bag. After I return home--declaring 'nothing' at the border, of course, since I forgot about the bottle of medicine--I find the bottle and notice the word 'Codeine' on the label. Canada sells 'Tylenol One,' a compound with this addition. I'm technically guilty of felony drug trafficking of a schedule 2 narcotic into the United States as well as felony concealment (drugs). Are you certain you've never done something seemingly innocent that's actually a serious crime?"
When one of your people dies, it really hurts. If you were the one in charge of guaranteeing the safety of that person, its a failure much deeper and more profound than the worst startup company failure. Most people will be willing to do anything to prevent the loss of another life on their watch. The monitoring of communications seems almost small in comparison to the lengths that many would go to.
There are practical reasons for government monitoring of communications. Bad people have existed long enough that it's safe to assume the trend will continue. [1] Listening to their communications is the best way to stop them, or at least to ensure that they can't act openly. Very few innocent people will ever know that they're being monitored, and the risks to those people are very small.
Privacy could easily considered to be a basic right of all people. But it lives in a continuum like everything else that we value. Some times it's better if the government errs on the side of caution. And most of the time, people have nothing to hide.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
In short, at the risk of trivializing the argument: The ability to gleam private details about people is having some power over them. The entire modern theory of government rests on limiting and dividing up the power of those in power. With mass surveillance, that balance is broken. Not only do we have private details on individuals, that knowledge is held by a small and unaccountable elite, protected by state secret…
The "unwittingly do something illegal" is the most common refutation I've heard used. I think it's the most powerful as an example of the fallacy of this argument and an example of how unwieldy our laws have become in the United States. A coworker used the following story, apt since he lives in a state bordering another country: "Let's say I go to Canada for a day trip, Montreal perhaps. I speak enough French to get…
He has a book out: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0300172311 Giving to my father for Christmas. He is in the "nothing to hide" camp.