With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
washingtonpost.com
With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#2It seems when most Americans are afraid, they automatically believe what the government tells them and that it solution will work to "save" them or protect them.
It seems to be exactly the same case with torture as well. Most seem to believe the US gov should use torture and that "it works". Facts be damned.
Mass surveillance doesn't work [1] either to stop terrorists, but facts (such as the panel reviews saying so), or logic be damned. If the government says it works, then it must be true, and must be what's needed - whatever the civil liberties cost.
[1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_f...
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#3I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting.
There continues to be very little discussion about the large-scale, societal effects from a total surveillance society: Writers and artists self-censoring themselves; power structures able to spy on, and control, entire populations; etc. The discussion should really be framed on the tragedy of the commons perspective: even if you don't care, that decision affects everyone. You should care, if not for your own privacy's sake, for our society's protection for its own decision-making ability.
Edit: From the article, discussing post-Snowden public opinion, showing that even when we care the most, a minority of people care about this:
> In that poll, a record-high 39 percent said government should not intrude on privacy, even if it limits the ability to investigate possible threats."
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#4I'm frightened that 63% of citizens in their sample value "protection" over privacy. When I've tried to explain the need for privacy to those outside of my circle, I always find my explanation lacking due to my inability to articulate why exactly privacy is important to me.
How have others been explaining why privacy is important?
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#5> The Post-ABC poll was conducted Jan. 12-15 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults reached on both conventional and cellular phones.
It seems to me people who are able to be cold called (haven't opted out/been careful with their phone number/screen their calls) will be much less privacy conscious than a true random sample
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#6I'm frightened that 63% of citizens in their sample value "protection" over privacy. When I've tried to explain the need for privacy to those outside of my circle, I always find my explanation lacking due to my inability to articulate why exactly privacy is important to me. How have others been explaining why privacy is important?
Privacy is like freedom. If you don't value it for its own sake, you're unlikely to see any reason not to sacrifice it for the sake of security (perceived or otherwise).
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#7I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient , it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting. There continues to be very little discussion about the large-scale, societal effects from a total surveillance society: Writers and artists self-censoring themselves; power structures able to spy on, and control, ent…
>> "I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting."
I've been pretty angry about the revelations over the last year. I'm a private person and don't want the government violating that. However - even though I don't say the things your friends are saying I still use Dropbox because getting my clients to switch would be a pain. I still use Google because DuckDuckGo just isn't good enough for me. I don't want to give up my privacy to anyone but it's just so easy to do without thinking the consequences through.
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#8I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient , it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting. There continues to be very little discussion about the large-scale, societal effects from a total surveillance society: Writers and artists self-censoring themselves; power structures able to spy on, and control, ent…
>> "I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting." I've been pretty angry about the revelations over the last year. I'm a private person and don't want the government violating that. However - even though I don't say the things your friends are saying I still use…
Right - that's fair, in my opinion. For work, I use closed-source software including Dropbox too. I should specify that I agree this is difficult or impossible to avoid, and that using these tools enables us to build things faster, which potentially is worth using them. I do it, too.
But I do want everyone to care. If you're using the tool because it's convenient, and you know that it could be spying on you, you should care about that. Apathy is what I'm fighting here, not Dropbox exactly.
I would love to move my work away from Gmail, Dropbox, etc, someday, but today isn't that day. (Uh-oh, am I like the rest of them?)
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#9I'm frightened that 63% of citizens in their sample value "protection" over privacy. When I've tried to explain the need for privacy to those outside of my circle, I always find my explanation lacking due to my inability to articulate why exactly privacy is important to me. How have others been explaining why privacy is important?
Privacy is like freedom. If you don't value it for its own sake, you're unlikely to see any reason not to sacrifice it for the sake of security (perceived or otherwise).
Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security
#10I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient , it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting. There continues to be very little discussion about the large-scale, societal effects from a total surveillance society: Writers and artists self-censoring themselves; power structures able to spy on, and control, ent…
>> "I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting." I've been pretty angry about the revelations over the last year. I'm a private person and don't want the government violating that. However - even though I don't say the things your friends are saying I still use…
DuckDuckGo has made vast strides over the past year, and you choosing to set them as your default browser will only help them improve faster. I had the same complaint as you roughly a year ago, and forced myself to switch for a month or so. After that month, I had gotten used to DuckDuckGo and haven't switched back. 99% of what I need can be found there, and for that last 1% of searches, it takes me approximately 500 milliseconds longer to type www.google.com into my browser address bar.