Part One: Killing The "Inviolate Personality" 168
Jeffrey Rosen says he began writing The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America as an effort to understand the constitutional, legal and political drama behind the impeachment of President Clinton.
His exploration grew broader. The Clinton impeachment, Rosen later concluded, was really a window into a phenomenon that affects everybody, whether Kenneth Starr is after us or not: the erosion of privacy at home, at work and, especially, in cyberspace, where intimate personal information is increasingly vulnerable to exposure. All kinds of people -- litigants, employers, government agents and prosecutors, total strangers -- can now look with impunity at our diaries and e-mail, digital footprints and track the books we order and the Web sites we visit.
The Unwanted Gaze became an unsettling alarm of how technology and new laws -- especially those which spring from sexual harassment legislation -- have combined to make privacy nearly obsolete before most Americans have quite grasped just how much it's being threatened. When it comes to issues like technology and privacy, America is truly an unconscious civilization, blissfully trading away even prized and hard-won freedoms. (Yesterday, the White House announced that it planned to propose legislation that would set legal requirements for surveillance in cyberspace by law enforcement authorities.)
Invasions of privacy were a hallmark of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, writes Rosen, who's a law school professor and columnist. And increasingly, they are a legacy of the new technologies and software deployed on the Net and the Web.
Privacy used to be regarded as a nearly sacred American right. Keeping British soldiers and government agents out of people's homes and lives was one of the primary justifications for the American Revolution. But most Americans have barely blinked as their tastes, habits and preferences have been routinely tracked online. That apathy might be changing. "The public is nervous and increasingly suspicious of what online and offline advertisers are doing to them," the chief privacy officer of AllAdvantage, a Net advertising firm warned recently. As people become more alarmed, so will politicians. That means more laws from Congress, always a frightening possibility when it comes to the Net.
This broad-based assault on privacy --by no means confined to the online world -- threatens one of the cornerstone ideas of individual rights that dates back to the Enlightenment, and was embraced by the American legal system -- the idea of the "inviolate personality," the belief that a human being's innermost convictions, communications and tastes were private, to be protected from monarchs and governments as well as prying gossips. Online, this is an especially powerful idea. We talk to strangers all the time, assume all sorts of postures and personalities, express all sorts of opinions in all sorts of places, explore strange sites and spaces, leave all sorts of tracks. That freedom of exploration and expression is one of the most powerful things about the Net and the Web, one of the things that makes it unique, that so many people love the most about them.
In l890, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote that "the common law secures to each individual the right of determining, ordinarily, to what extent his thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others." That legal principle once prevented prosecutors from seizing and studying diaries, letters, and private papers. Thus many Americans were flabbergasted by the degree to which prosecutors could vacuum up the most intimate details of Monica Lewinsky's life, from her bookstore purchases to her private letters and e-mail. Whatever people thought of her relationship with this dunder-headed president, many were uncomfortable not only with the prosecutor's zeal but with the wide public dissemination her private life and records received in media and court documents. Lewinsky's "inviolate personality," however strange or narcissistic, was exposed and destroyed as thoroughly as anyone's in memory, possibly excepting Princess Diana.
Lewinsky -- along with much of the rest of the country -- was shocked to learn when agents seized her personal records and clothing that the right to privacy can be snatched away at any time. Her most personal e-mail messages to family and friends were posted all over the Web.
Rosen convincingly assigns a lot of the blame to recently-enacted harassment laws, which made the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky dramas possible. As sexual harassment law expands, writes Rosen, people can be interrogated about their consensual relationships on the flimsiest of allegations. During the l980's and 90's, he writes, the Supreme Court recognized sexually explict speech and conduct that created a "hostile or offensive working environment" as a form of gender discrimination, a legal evolution that made it difficult for lower courts and employers to distinguish consensual affairs from illegal sexual coercion.
The threat of harassment suits has prompted companies to wantonly invade their workers' private e-mail and personal correspondence -- even to rifle their desks -- almost at will. Online or in the workplace, the idea of the "inviolate personality" is vanishing, not by vote or legislation but by a gradual erosion caused by a series of court rulings and the advance of new information technologies like the Net.
The inviolate personality has also been undermined by diverse other culprits.
On the Internet, snoops are only one danger. In cyberspace, warns Rosen, the greatest threat to privacy comes not from nosey employers or colleagues who tattle but from the electronic signatures and footprints that make it possible to monitor and trace just about everything we read, write, browse, or buy. As people reading this know well, most browsers are configured to reveal every Web site people visit as well as IP addresses which may identify individual users. Often, this invasive software is even admired and hailed as cool new stuff.
But that information can be -- is being -- collected and stored to create detailed profiles of user tastes and preferences in shopping, reading and other habits, all of great value to hungry retailers, increasingly global megacorporations for whom mass marketing -- thus the gathering of personal information -- is nearly a religion. It will also inevitably be used by law enforcement. The FBI's "Carnivore" system, so named, agents, say, because it is able to quickly get the "meat" in huge quanitities of e-mail and instant messaging systems, consists of hardware and software that trolls for information after being hooked up to the network of almost any ISP. Once installed, "Carnivore" has the ability to monitor all of the e-mail on a network, from the list of what mail is sent to the actual content of the communications. Like other forms of searches and seizures, "Carnivore" requires court approval to be deployed. But it's capable of gathering an unprecedented amount of communications from targets in seconds, including personal and intimate messages many people believe are being sent anonymously.
In the Corporate Republic that comprises contemporary America, information gatherers are much more likely to be companies than cops. Rosen cites Amazon's creepy software that uses ZIP codes and domain names to identify the books most purchased by employees of prominent corporations. Amazon also touts its "recognition" software that tracks its regular customers' buying habits and makes personalized recommendations to them. Rosen also recounts the flap over DoubleClick, the Net's largest advertising company, which last year was forced to delay a plan to create elaborate dossiers linking users' online and browsing habits with their actual identities.
The combination of gender discrimination laws and new technology, and the risk they post to the idea of individual privacy, amount to a seismic change. Throughout the United States, the young in general and students in particular have no right to privacy at all. Their computers and writings are routinely seized and examined, and their e-mail, personal correspondence, writing and speech are increasingly taken out of context and disseminated to authorities and law enforcement agencies.
Democratic states have always drawn a distinction between public and private speech, recognizing that the ability to expose parts of our identity in some contexts that we conceal in other contexts is indispensable to real freedom.
Privacy is vital for the evolution of individual personalities, and for the formation of intimate relationships. It permits communications between friends, lovers and families. It is essential to freedom of expression and to any form of individualism, to the development of intellect and values. It's even essential to creativity. The idea that our reflexive reactions, frustrations, mistakes and missteps -- especially those expressed so freely, impulsively and widely online -- can at any time be disseminated to the world is a very real impediment to free speech and thought.
Next: Platforms for privacy?
Re:Sadly, it is..Question about software (Score:1)
Anyway, I think there are some good comments in this thread. You can draw a lot of information from this. I think in general there is a feeling that cryptography is not enough any more. There are/used to be a lot of people who feel/felt that we could safeguard privacy with pure mathmatics, and laws be damned. As I'm no great fan of government, I'd like to be in that faction, but it is not true. What good is your encryption if the secret police tortue your private key out of you? None.
There's some thoughts regarding this idea at "Twilight of the Crypto-geeks", <http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/04/13/lib
Since I don't like the transparent society, I think there is still hope for encryption and privacy. However, it is clear that encryption needs to be part of a larger privacy committment in society (note, not government). If people value their privacy, there are ways to protect it, and outrage when physical and/or legal methods are used to subvert their privacy or their fellow citizen's privacy.
A few people using encryption are a target to an oppressive government, but the masses using encryption provide a huge shield to *everyone's* privacy.
A good look at this topic can be had from _The End of Money_, by Richard Rahn <http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.a
You might want to pick up the book, Jon. It's an easy four hour read, and pretty entertaining. Beware, the author is an unabashed libertarian
Luke Francl
Only one reason for prying into Clinton's affairs (Score:1)
What was done to Bill Clinton would have been unconscionable had it been done to anyone else. Not because Clinton is scum. He is. So are millions of people whose lives should remain private. He deserved to have the law used against him for a single reason. He signed into law the bill that allowed expanding a sexual harrassment investigation into consentual affairs. He praised it as a step forward in women's rights. Every Congressman, President, and Judge should be held fully accountable by the standards that they set for the rest of us.
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:1)
Doesn't change a thing. Why shouldn't I be allowed to decide that privacy of my DNA profile is more important to me than the potential of receiving this kind of treatment quickly. And lest you point out that it's easy to say that when I'm healthy but I may think differently when I'm sick, I will in turn note that making hard decisions is part of life, and it's not for you to second guess whatever decision someone makes.
Re:Licensing programmers isn't the way (Score:1)
My concern is that the government will, without our input (except from fulltime pundits), enact just such legislation "for the good of society".
If we don't move first on this subject by creating an organization with by-laws that [1] suit our purposes and [2] blunt proposals from other players, then we will be someday (soon) forced to play by a rulebook written for us, not by us.
Btw: I don't think losing a license because of a corporation would be very likely. For example, I don't think I have ever heard of a lawyer losing his license that way.
In fact, I think that developers would be at an advantage if they had a professional society behind them which could defend them against a corporation.
To me, it's really a matter of chosing the lesser of two evils. The first evil (doing nothing) will result in shackles being put on us by others. The second evil also involves shackles but we would hold the keys.
Also, don't forget the difference in society between licensed trades (e.g., electricians and plumbers) and licensed professions (e.g., doctors and lawyers). If we do nothing we will be a licensed trade but if we act on our own we can be a licensed profession.
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:1)
I used to sell life insurance. Your medical records are available via a centralized facility called the Medical Information Bureau [mib.com]. It is used to check to see if (for example) an applicant is lying when he claims to not smoke before issuing a policy.
Yes, we needed your signature to release the information but the point is that the information is already being stored in a centrally accessible fashion.
This isn't robots collecting DNA samples (yet) but you should know that when a medical test is ordered, a lot of other information is collected along the way. Blood tests in particular test for a set of things at the same time. All that information is centrally accessible.
The only way I can think of in order to maintain traditional privacy would be to live in the woods as a hermit. Even then, it's too late because you left a trail of data as a child.
A lot more interesting information on this is here [privacyrights.org].
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:Sadly, it is..Question about software (Score:1)
I think that many of these issues should be handled by making the practice of software a licensed profession like law or medicine.
Right now, the only real players in this arena are the government and corporations who together have a largely shared agenda. There needs to be a third player with an agenda that is sufficently different so as to make a difference. Also, that third player needs to be sufficiently powerful so as to be a peer to others.
If in order to practice software commercially you had to be licensed; and if to be licensed you had to uphold a code of ethics; and if you could be "disbarred" for violating that code of ethics; and if that code of ethics contained statements about privacy such as "no user tracking without the user's explicit knowledge and consent"; then something about these issues could be accomplished.
Since I am here on this subject anyway, I would also point out that such a code of ethics could include clauses about not writing code with the purpose of breaking a competitor's product; not releasing programs without disclosing known bugs; and so on.
As things stand now, if a developer is told to do something questionable there is little recourse for the developer except to do it or quit. If, however the developer could say "that violates my professional code of ethics and if you insist then the Software Practioners' Professional Society will have something to say about it" then much could be accomplished.
There will be those whose blood pressure will sky rocket at the mention of licensing developers but to me it is foolish to ignore the inevitable in the hope that it will go away. Even plumbers and electricians are licensed and pretty much all the harm they can do is damage a single building. The distributed nature of software makes the potential for damage much greater.
Consider the total economic damage of a 747 crashing due to a mechanical failure. For this there is always a major international investigation that lasts years and heads do roll.
Now consider the total economic damage of a system which allows the propogation of something like ILOVEYOU. Where is the investigation? What rules and regulations are being imposed to prevent a recurrence?
This state of affairs will not be allowed to continue much longer. The field of software has been the "Wild West" for about as long as the real "Wild West" existed. Civilization (no matter what one thinks of it) is coming.
If licensing is inevitable, then we should take action ourselves now because we have a choice between being a trade and being a profession. If we don't make that choice for ourselves, it will be made for us and we probably won't like the results.
So, yes I think that software could prevent many violations of privacy. However, that software would have to become ubiquitous and transparent. No one currently with the power to accomplish that has any interest in making it so. It is up to us.
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Microsoft's Right? (OT) (Score:1)
The right to Innovate and Inviolate!
Sheesh. I need more caffeine... or less Microsoft... Or something.
---
seumas.com
Privacy (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:1)
There's still time... (Score:1)
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:1)
The issue is of scale. If the FBI (or CIA or NSA or
Outlawing technology because it can be used for nefarious purposes is never a good idea.
That's a straw man. I never argued for outlawing the technology. I argues for limiting certain uses by certain entities. For example, I see little point in trying to outlaw automatic face recognition from street video cameras. But I see a lot of point in legally prohibiting police departments from doing this.
When there is no way to ensure personal privacy, it's a good idea to ensure that the people who would invade it have no privacy either.
The same old point -- I don't think it compensates in any way. Let me ask you: because Jenny put a webcam in her apartment, does she now have a right to come into your home and put a webcam there? Can she invade your privacy because she has none?
Kaa
Your right.. (Score:1)
Re:We;ve never had privacy (Score:1)
Of course, that only applies if you want an abortion, and has nothing to do with privacy.
Seriously, though, the fourth amendment does guarantee a reasonable degree of privacy WRT the government. Of course, "unreasonable" is turning out to be as slippery a concept as "interstate commerce".
Re:Interesting choice of story (Score:1)
no need for irony tags
I was gonna review that book... (Score:1)
One of the interesting points (thus far) of the book is that it focuses on the legislative and judicial aspects of privacy rather than the technical. As fast as technology changes, it seems that the judiciary has in the short course of 100 years pissed away any ideas of personal privacy.
Of particular note is that many of the anti-privacy judgements by the Supremes were written by Sandra Dee^H^H^HDay O'Connor, many dissents written by Thomas. Also, several important lower court decisions were from our favorite jurist, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. So what? So, it appears that one of the lesser judges has been making smarter decisions on this case, and a judge revered (at least by the
The book also echoes some of the points of "No Logo": (and yes, this is obvious and redundant) money buys privacy.
If knowledge is our current currency du-jour, it is apparant that much of the current intellectual capital is being wasted either protecting the lingering threads of our privacy or tearing them down. For every hacker working on GPG and other encryption techniques, we have several working on Echelon, that crazy FBI scheme, and others.
Perhaps it's the dark side of the force versus the light? And it seems that many universities are being bought out by the quick, easy path of the dark side: disallowing free speech, signing up with M$ and others, selling out concessions to Coke/Pepsi.
Unfortunately, it is to end with the rebellion of the people. Doubly unfortunate is that most rebellions have been led by the bourgeous (sp?) shopkeepers and their children in universities. They were the first ones bought and sold.
University is no longer (hell, maybe in the US never was) a place for intellectual freedom and curiosity; it is a factory that turns out pieces of paper that entitle one to a higher salary. Perhaps in the natural sciences (and of this I am not sure) discovery is not allowed. However, in any of the humanities and social sciences, only dogma is allowed. Expect not to find any revolutionaries there unless they are of the chic, neo-hippy type, just waiting to put on their three piece suits and do five hours of pro-bono after 55 hours working for a corporate firm.
So we are left with the shopkeepers. Sadly, there are no more in the US. Or very few. Wal-Mart has pushed them out. Actually, consumers have pushed out the shopkeeper by shopping at Wal-Mart instead of at the local shop. Laws are increasingly tough on small businesses, despite the fact that they are the primary source of jobs for the current economic expansion. The deck is stacked. When you reach the point of having some political pull (say 50 employees) the governments heap crushing requirements on you. This may be the reason so many new companies do not last forever.
So, if they aren't working for or owning small companies anymore, where is the middle class? Here in Southern Maryland, they are owned by the government. If they don't work directly for them, they work for a contractor or other business that is 100% beholden to the gubmint. So there is no way they will rise up and demand the return of their privacy.
The upper class doesn't count. They can buy their own freedom.
The lower class? Most of them haven't had privacy in a long time, so nothing has changed.
So, while this may seem like a Katzian rant, things HAVE changed. And for the worse. The past 100 years (particularly the past 25) has seen the technology to allow unwanted intrusion skyrocket at the same time that the courts have ignored any pretense of paying attention to the fourth, fifth, and first amendment.
About a week back, I submitted an Ask Slashdot. In it, I requested information on what people thought was a fair email/web privacy policy for a company, given the current legal/judicial state. It wasn't posted. Is Slashdot not interested? Perhaps. Or perhaps this is yet another source of rebellion that is quickly mainstreaming. Or even worse: maybe what they say is right. Maybe it is easy to shout down the law, it is easy to complain about M$, it is easy to complain in general. But change is hard. Perhaps too hard.
Maybe we all like our air-conditioned homes and new cars too much to actually dare upset the balance.
Re:Paula announced it at a newsconference (Score:1)
But I don't expect all that many people to agree with me, so that's okay
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:1)
Are you advocating European-style privacy laws?
Please clarify what exactly is "personal information", and where this choice is made.
For example, are you suggesting that one should not be required to disclose my income when applying for a lease or loan, such as for an apartment or mortgage? Many people consider that personal information. What about medical histories and health insurance? There is no choice in the matter when an entire industry follows the same conventions.
What should determine your "right" to privacy, the respective industries, or government regulation?
ATTENTION (Score:1)
Internet for the masses? What did you expect? (Score:1)
Re:Am I undervaluing my Privacy? (Score:1)
The value you place on your privacy is exactly that; a personal value judgement. Your assessment is fine, for you. The key issue is that you get to make that choice rather than someone else making it for you.
Re:Sadly, it is..Question about software (Score:1)
No.
But I can't help myself, so I'll go on talking for a while. There are so many ways a user can be tracked, its like asking if _X_ can make a full-blown implementation of UNIX completely secure? There are always holes. And we (the humans) create our own holes in privacy when we give out information. Encryption and pseudonyms don't protect us against outselves.
Want to lose Karma? (Score:1)
LouZiffer
On the other hand.. (Score:1)
If anyone is stupid enough to organize major criminal activities through e-mail then they deserve to be caught just for their stupidness. Just like someone shoplifting in an obviously camera infested area.
However. If I find someway of bypassing your security measures that whatever law enforcement will become increasingly reliant apon, then I never did it, did I? I get away scott free.
Militant advertising is a whole other matter. I like how search engines now target advertising based on what you use for search criteria. I guess as long as the advertisers are aware of the growing resentment against them and that people now are probably more likely to associate negative feelings to a product in an ad.. at least moreso with our generation. I don't any of us are fooled by advertising any more.. This isn't the 50's.. As long as they're aware of that, then everything is fine. There's three main ways of presenting advertising: eliciting positive feelings i the viewer, 'reverse psychology' (our stuff sucks, don't buy it), and shock value (Calvin Klein is good at that one) but the younger generations have been so saturated and desensitived to media in general and advertising specifically that they would probably have to smear baby guts on the wall to get my attention anyway.
Privacy is private (Score:1)
Safety at the expense of privacy (Score:1)
So they install cameras to take pictures of license plates.
People are being shot with guns at schools and churches.
So they install metal detectors, cameras, and want a database of all gun owners in the country.
People die because they choose to smoke cigarettes.
So they sue tobacco companies for an absolutely absurd amount.
Drug dealers and other criminals are possibly using e-mail to plan their crimes.
So the FBI installs boxes at ISPs to copy all e-mail and other net traffic from it's users.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
Re:That's not so easy (Score:1)
I don't have any Mindstorms yet, butmay be down the road.
George
Software can, if you use it (Score:1)
I think software theoretically can give you some privacy on the net (as long as the NSA doesn't crack it), but it would have to be easy to set up, easily available, and totally transparent to use.
As a corollary, consider real world privacy. While you can theoretically increase your privacy by wearing disguises when you go out, and you could sweep your house for bugs, and you could keep a log off all the license plate numbers you see on the cars behind you, do you? Do you know anyone who does? So why would online privacy be different?
George
That's not so easy (Score:1)
...moderate me down and be done with it, alright?
You're gonna have to work a little bit harder to lost that triple digit kharma, try adding some hot grits next time.
Did you get the Exploration Mars addon yet?
George
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:1)
The X-Files may not be real, but Echelon and Carnivore sure are. If you take a good look at an FBI or CIA man and compare their mentality to someone who works or worked for the Soviet KGB, or the South African, Chinese, French, or Israeli secret services you'd be hardly pressed to find enough differences that matter.
Who Should Watch the Watchmen? It may be one of the most important questions of our time.
Scale is no longer the issue. (Score:1)
Brin isn't arguing that we should surrender our privacy in order to buy government accountability. He's arguing that we've already lost it, are losing it more, and we can't prevent it. And the only defense is to return the offense.
Interesting definition of atrocity (Score:1)
But Monica Lewinsky? That was an overinflated soap opera that virtually crippled a Presidency, distracted a Congress that resulted in a straight-laced prosecutor publishing the most salacious library of reading material at taxpayer expense.
Re:The opposite side of the coin (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:Interesting definition of atrocity (Score:1)
Sorry, I worded that in a confusing manner. I didn't mean to imply that the Lewinsky thing was an atrocity. I meant that it was an example of people judging others for really stupid reason.
I'm sure there are *real* atrocities involving the same type of judgments in the more recent past than WWII (I'm thinking in the 90s), but nothing came to mind so I just put other atrocities.
Something along the lines of that Sheppard kid in Colorado, or the basis of the movie "Boys Don't Cry." Although I don't think someone has to die for it to be an atrocity.
Sorry for the confusion.
Privacy not the issue? (Score:1)
*sigh*... Don't bother, YHBT... (Score:1)
Look up its posting history for the calculated, inflamatory nonsence it's posted before.
Google for its supposed employer: "NPO Technologies"... just like "steve woston"'s "jjjjulius games", there's no such company.
For the love of Bob, don't feed it anymore.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
WARNING: brash Yankee troll (Score:1)
We;ve never had privacy (Score:1)
Privacy is a farce, and it's never been garunteed by the constitution as a basic human right. Get over it, and move on.
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:1)
Good question. No I proabably wouldn't want to not reap the benefits of it. BUT I want to have the ability to MAKE this decision.
I want to know WHO does WHAT with my Data, with "me".
I have a european background and hey, if somebody in germany steals your papers then you have a problem, because you have to apply for them again. There is not much more harm done than that.
A friend told me recently that her driving license was stolen 5 years ago (in the US) and that person wrote a bad check with it. Now her credit rating (for a $20 check) is wrecked and she is fighting ever since then to get it back on track.
I agree. To get a lot of customized services people need to know, but the way the system is currently in the US it is very dangerous. Because for MOST companies the only YOU that exists is the one they have in their Databases. Somebody makes a mistake and YOU have to face the consequences in Real LIfe.
Maybe using DNA for Authentication is a solution. That way a stolen drivers license or check doesn't affect the individual that much.
But face it: In todays america, with all the information that is freely available, ANYBODY can ruin anybodys life.
And in that case: Yes, privacy is important. But I guess for that it is way too late in the US anyways.
Michael
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:1)
It's like that episode of Seinfeld when Elaine wasn't allowed to look at her own medical chart (I don't <b>think</b> this is based on reality, but it might be). Remember she was running around with it in secret, trying to sneak it out of the hospital, and some doctor or nurse confronted her with this maddened look in their eyes?
Well, yeah. M'point is, how is hiding someone's "file on you" FROM you justified?
I think someone's way ahead of you there. (Score:1)
--
Another idea (Score:1)
A more devious trick would be to infect other people's computers with a worm which doesn't spread per se, but it does surf. It does the same corrupting of the click-stream for thousands or millions of people that your personal corrupter does for you. NOW DoubleClick is seriously hurting, not only because their entire database is being seeded with corruption, but because the main "benefit" of their tracking (targeted ads) is diluted. People's patience with DoubleClick goes away, there's less click-through revenue, and their business withers before their very eyes.
--
Re:What? (Score:2)
Uh, you do realize that Jon is reporting on a book, not necessarily saying these things himself, right?
...phil
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:2)
Our society is increasingly reliant upon the fruits of technology, and despite what people think, this change is inherently at odds with the notion of personal privacy.
...
For instance consider the possibility for gentically tailored medicines, something that isn't too far ahead in the future. In order to personalise such medicines drug companies are going to require your DNA profile. Are you willing to give up on advances like this for the sake of some nebulous concept like privacy?
It is one thing for an individual or organization to say "we require this piece of personal data in order to provide this service, do you agree?", and quite another for the same entity to simply take this information and assume you want thier "tailored" service.
In the example above, a drug company is requesting that you reveal your DNA profile so that they can offer a targeted medical treatment. This is perfectly ok. However, if my DNA profile was available to any drug company that wanted it - without my permission - it would be an invasion of privacy.
I guess that my concept of privacy involves maintaining /control/ over my personal information. Organizations should not be able to share personal data that I have agreed to divulge unless (a) they recieve my permission, or(b) I give them a carte blanche (sp?) to do so.
--
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:2)
Well, what if you can't afford the drugs anyway, because your insurance company refuses to cover you based on your DNA profile? What then, smarty-pants?
-Isaac
The obligatory observation (Score:2)
Eh, I think that we should replace Katz with Senor Cranky [punchlinemag.com].
You confuse Privacy with Anonymity. (Score:2)
Privacy is the notion that I can stand in the street and say what I want (and of course be visible), but when I go home and shut my door and talk to my friend no one is watching me and listening without my consent.
Online, the same thing. If I post in a public forum, privacy isn't an issue as I've already made the choice to have my words be seen. But if I send a private email to someone, then it should in fact be private and free from people reading it at will.
Anonymity and privacy are not the same thing, so don't argue against one to say you can't have the other.
I Agree! (Yeah, right!) (Score:2)
Yeah, we should... we should like... maybe just all submit to our governments and walk around nude and live in houses built with clear glass and keep a log of every thought we ever say just in case someone somewhere would like to know it -- I mean, who needs autonomy and a sense of self when we can just become one fleshy glob of "citizens" existing to fuel aristocracy and economy!?
---
seumas.com
New pro-privacy program from The United Kingdom (Score:2)
A UK prof and regular e-mailer sends this:
Jon, one of my students has just completed a thesis that describes a
> system that allows you to send messages across the system that are
> guaranteed anonymous. The system assumes the use of PDA like machines
> but can definitely be made to work. Proivacy of content can of course be
> obtained by encrypting the messages. (Up to a point etc....)
>
> L.
The tradeoff (Score:2)
The tradeoff with the gender discrimination stuff is pretty interesting...It's a strong example of one kind of freedom colliding with another..But the loss of privacy online is particularly painful, as the thing most people I know love the most about going online is the freedom to explore.
Seems gender discrimination could be protected other ways?
Not responsibility -- safety (Score:2)
There are more issues at hand here than civil liability for libel, as in the case of damaging corporate profits through false rumours you mention. At the most trivial level, a person who damages corporate profits by telling the truth can be subjected to civil prosecution, and even if it is baseless, he/she can be ruined by the cost of litigation.
At a more serious level, the absence of privacy opens to door to political and religious persecution. Suppose my employer is a lumber company and, in this privacy-free world you advocate, he catches me online arguing in favor of banning the harvesting of lumber in national parks and fires me. Or what if he (or the local police) disapprove of my choice of religion? What about an online support group for rape victims? How about an anonymous tipster leading the police to a serial killer?
Privacy isn't just a matter of hiding from responsibility. It's often a matter of hiding from persecution or standing up for what is right without placing one's family at risk. It would be nice if everyone lived in a social class so fat and complacent that they'd gladly give up their basic rights to protect stock valuations, but the middle class of the western world is less than 4% of the world's total population. The privileged attitude of "let them eat cake" has a less than encouraging history.
Speaking of grocery store clubs.... (Score:2)
Re:The tradeoff (Score:2)
Journalism and privacy. (Score:2)
gender discrimination laws and being 'interrogated (Score:2)
Tying this to gender issues seems bogus... (Score:2)
from Rosen, via JonKatz:
Invasions of privacy were a hallmark of the Monica Lewinsky scandal,
Actually, what Kenneth Starr did with Ms. Lewinsky is what prosecutors -- federal, state and local -- do all the time. It's just in this case, it seems to have come about as part of a civil trial (the Paula Jones fiasco), which Mr. Starr used to attempt to fabricate a criminal issue.
It's not gender discrimination, per se; it's prosecutoral misconduct highlighted by a consensual relationship (leaving out whether or not it was sexual) that got invaded.
more JonKatz:
In l890, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote that "the common law secures to each individual the right of determining, ordinarily, to what extent his thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others." That legal principle once prevented prosecutors from seizing and studying diaries, letters, and private papers.
However, once a person's activities, including speech, take place in the public domain, they are free for scrutiny. So buying books online at Amazon means that those records can be supoena'ed. Buying books with cash at your local bookstore doesn't leave that kind of trail. The nature of various online transactions destroys anonymity unless specific -- and perhaps unfortunately, legislative -- prohibitions are put in place. I begin to appreciate the German constitution more and more -- they wrote into their Grundstutz, back in '48 and '49, that there were limits on what data could be collected by governmental and private entities. We need to do that here as well, as the EU has pointed out to the US government repeatedly ;-)
Further:
Thus many Americans were flabbergasted by the degree to which prosecutors could vacuum up the most intimate details of Monica Lewinsky's life, from her bookstore purchases to her private letters and e-mail. Whatever people thought of her relationship with this dunder-headed president, many were uncomfortable not only with the prosecutor's zeal but with the wide public dissemination her private life and records received in media and court documents.
I take it that people don't keep tabs on local trials, eh? Granted, living near particularly litigious Boston has some perks, but the behavior of Starr and his staff is no different from the behavior of the various Middlesex County DA's for the past 13 years. The only difference is that, if possible, the prosecutor's victims, in this instance, were even dumber than the usual ones up here in MA. Most of us would take the dress for drycleaning the next day, believe me. And, if asked a question on the stand that our lawyers couldn't successfully object to, most of the men I know would rather just say, "No, I didn't screw her. She blew me. Ask her."
more Rosen and JonKatz:
Rosen convincingly assigns a lot of the blame to recently-enacted harassment laws, which made the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky dramas possible. As sexual harassment law expands, writes Rosen, people can be interrogated about their consensual relationships on the flimsiest of allegations. During the l980's and 90's, he writes, the Supreme Court recognized sexually explict speech and conduct that created a "hostile or offensive working environment" as a form of gender discrimination, a legal evolution that made it difficult for lower courts and employers to distinguish consensual affairs from illegal sexual coercion.
I think that you only accept Mr. Rosen's conclusion -- that harassment laws are nearly exclusively gender-based -- if you accept his premise of same.
The Paula Jones suit was a civil suit. There was no legislation involved there. Like most civil suits, the lawyers presented whatever they could dig up -- and the fact that the president has round heels was what they dug up.
[I would not have imagined describing a man like that 20 years ago, would you?]
I feel that the judge allowed the plaintiff's lawyers too much leeway to invade the president's privacy. And her decision stated that basically, Ms. Jones had no standing to sue Mr. Clinton -- he wasn't the one who'd caused the uproar, the magazine that was paying for her lawyers had. Remember, the settlement came after Clinton had won the case, in order to forestall any appeal.
more JonKatz:
The threat of harassment suits has prompted companies to wantonly invade their workers' private e-mail and personal correspondence -- even to rifle their desks -- almost at will.
Perhaps the publishing industry is different from others, but I've *never* had a job -- and I've been in the workforce since 1977 -- where my employer didn't explicitly have (and abuse) that right. So, I don't see where harassment suits changed anything, except for premise that the company uses.
That's one reason I'm now a contract programmer -- they can't invade my desk here without a search warrant ;-)
I think you should try doing a reality check before accepting premises such as these -- it's just the same old story, with more explicit sex added...
--jas
Sadly, nothing new, nothing surprising (Score:2)
Ours is a diverse country, but sadly most people still don't respect that and fall constantly into an us versus them mentality - the result being a whole lot of "uses" battling for territory and for "their" version of being American.
And so, we're in an inquisitional mentality, glad to ferret out any information that is deemed "unAmerican." So we pry into your sex life, we check your email, we humiliate you for your operating system choice, we don't like your religion, etc.
We operate under the delusion of a promised land that will someday be perfect (ie only containing our selected "us"). So we're glad to keep having "revolutions" under the illusion that someday we'll get it right just like we did 200 plus years ago. Someday we'll have our promised land, heaven on earth, whatever, and be proven right for all eternity.
The end result is a country of people with their hands on each others throats, a broken political system, corrupt churches, and an insanely high crime rate. And, of course, we're constantly taking each others freedom away.
We could stand for freedom, but it seems that freedom for our "us" is what we look for first. As long as that occurs, people will have no problem taking away each others rights and freedoms, and ferreting out the supposedly inviolate personality.
So, start standing up for everyone then you can fight this.
Idea (Score:2)
Think of it in the same way as Jam-Echelon.
-cpd
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:2)
You'll be surprised. One of the functions of intelligence agencies around the world is predicting how key players are going to react to event. They have psychologists on the staff who read thick dossiers full of personal info and then forecast what would the person do in a given situation. That's rather routine and even if you can never get 100% accuracy, say, a ~70% batting average wouldn't be too bad, would it?
Unless of course you're a hardcore sociobiologist
What does sociobiology has to do with this? We are not talking about DNA.
And we should let our biological urges rule us then?
It's not a choice we have. You seem to believe in a Rousseau-like theory of mankind: there are base animalistic urges which the civilized man must control and eventually overcome. I can assure you it's much more complicated than that.
Making biological arguments is rediculous, technology has allowed us to go beyond what our genes would have us do.
Did technology help you get rid of your instinct of self-preservation? Or or need for security and approval? Will technology negate the love of parents for their children?
the Japanese place far less emphasis on privacy
You are mistaken. Japanese are very private people -- it's just that they are private about different things. The famous (or notorious) Japanese politeness, correctness and formality: this is a shield to preserve the privacy inside their heads.
But without security anyone can choose to do whatever they like to you and get away with it. What kind of freedom is that?
Nobody is arguing for anarchy (at least not me). Freedom and security/accountability/restrictions must be balanced against each other. Our disagreement is about the point of the correct balance: I believe you want to balance it at a point I call totalitarian.
Kaa
Re:Not quite that bleak (Score:2)
There is a slight problem with your analogy to the bricks-and-mortar world. In the physical world helpful salesperson saw what you were interested in and showed you something. Fine. Five minutes, or a day, or a week passes and he forgets all about it. In the online world your preferences and choices go into a database and, as far as you are concerned, stay there for eternity. That's not good and that's a big part of what makes data collection so dangerous.
"Now, Mr.Smith, I see it that ten years ago you were in the habit of buying at least a pack of condoms a week and a lot of alcohol. That leads me to question your moral standards and the suitability for this position. By the way, around that time you bought several bongs -- can you explain to me what a bong is and what do you use it for?"
Kaa
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:2)
Yes, but why do I have to surrender my privacy to do it?
David Brin and you seem to make the assumption that the government can be made transparent and accountable only if the citizens' privacy is destroyed as well. Why? Yes, I think that people in power should have less privacy that "normal" people. Yes, I think that government should be accountable, to a certain limit (I want neither rule by mob, nor rule by opinion polls). That's all fine. But what does this all have to do with stripping my privacy?
Kaa
Re:Sadly, it is..Question about software (Score:2)
unless encryption comes standard on Outlook and friends, nobody but the truly paranoid will send encrypted email.
Re:Software can, if you use it (Score:2)
That would be great, if the computer was easily set up to do the privacy work.
If J. Random Surfer can buy a computer at Circuit City that comes with privacy software loaded and configured, great.
Though I have scary visions of clippy.
"Hi, it looks like you are sending a sexually explicit love letter to your cyber honey. Do you want to encrypt it?"
George
Privacy is not synonymous with freedom (Score:2)
As technology becomes more sophisticated, and as we grow more dependant on it, and people in power want to have their provacy while removing yours, then loss of privacy for individuals is inevitable. The best defense is not to fight it, but to turn it to your advantage. Turn the camera back on the cameramen. Don't give your DNA to the insurance company. Or if you do, demand that the officers of that corporation make available their DNA records to its customers.
It's always a good idea to include in any debate over privacy the idea of a bilateral loss of privacy. Debates are almost always make the assmption that those in power will retain their privacy, while those not in power will lose. It doesn't have to be that way.
---- ----
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:2)
It should be included in the debate. I'm not saying it's a panacea.
As for "the legal system" preventing use of technology to invade your privacy, haw. Tell that to the Republicans that Clinton obtained the FBI files on (for instance). As if the government is some kind of shining bastion of ethical purity. The government is made of people, jsut like companies and families. And what people are usually afraid of is not that what they're doing is wrong, but that they will get caught.
When there is no way to ensure personal privacy, it's a good idea to ensure that the people who would invade it have no privacy either. If DoubleClick wants to track my browsing patterns, I can run Junkbuster. If it was not possible to run junkbuster, I would demand that DoubleClick executives publically reveal their personal browsing practices, both at work and at home. And I would take measures to discover what they were independantly, if possible.
Outlawing technology because it can be used for nefarious purposes is never a good idea. Who gets to decide what is dangerous? Let's say that your bank wanted to provide secure access to ATMs without requiring a breakable, loseable, insecure ATM card. They could have their ATMs perform face recognition, and/or ask for a voiceprint, etc. to grant access to your accounts. It would be more secure and more convenient. Now, if the government mandated use of the system for tracking "criminals," that would be bad. If it is not possible to make them not use the system in that way, then we can simply demand that those officials publically reveal their locations and movement habits as well, using the same or another system. It's about accountability and control. When "privacy" is used to increase power over someone else, that's bad. When it's used to increase power over your own life, that's good.
---- ----
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:2)
That's stupid. She voluntarily gave up her privacy. That doesn't mean I have to give up mine. If I somehow forced Jenny to give up her privacy, then perhaps I should be forced to gve up mine as well.
Like the use of encryption by private individuals? The publishing of information necessary to make LSD? The sale of anhydrous ammonia to certified large-scale farmers only, because it might use used to make a bomb, never mind the garden I have? Limiting what government can do is different that limiting what citizens can do. The people of a free republic grant certain powers to the government, not the other way around. Just say no to victimless crimes.
---- ----
freedom.net (Score:2)
Just curious...
---- ----
Re:That's not so easy (Score:2)
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:2)
"We don't need privacy, we have nothing to hide! Why do you want privacy, are you a pedophile or something?"
So you like the idea of coming home to a message on your answering machine that reads, "Hi, I'm from Happy Bear Pharmaceuticals, your doctor's office told us that you're HIV-positive, and we would like to extend to you a free trial offer of our new 'Margarita' drug cocktail!" Doesn't that strike you as something that maybe - just maybe - should be your choice to disclose?
About that law. . . (Score:2)
So it did. But it was my perception that in many cases the legislation raised the barrier to law enforcement having a little look-see at your personal life. The current wire-tap laws are inconsistant; it is easier, for instance, to tap a phone modem than a cable modem, due to regulations on the cable industry. The proposed legislation would set the same standard for tapping any Internet connection. It also gives judges more leeway in determining if a tap or trace is actually warranted. The big hole in the legislation the White House proposed is that it makes no mention of use of or restrictions on Carnavore, and other systems that mass-trap email, rather than a targeted trace.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Not quite that bleak (Score:2)
Now ask, how did they know what you might like? Simple, they looked at you, or they knew what you had purchased on previous trips to the store. I don't think Amazon's recommendations are that different. When I go to their store, I give them a certain permission to evaluate me, the customer.
On the other hand, targeting a certain, very small class of people, like executives, by using ZIP codes and domain names is a little more disturbing. Now they are passing the bounds of the information that they glean from merely *their* "store". That is, they must conspire with others to create this information.
I think most small brick-and-mortar operators would not be likely to share the customer purchasing decisions or consumer data with their friends or or store owners, and likewise online operators should follow a similar standard.
IMO, summing up, online retailers can collect information about me, but they shouldn't be sharing it, selling it, getting out of debt with it, or following me around like DoubleClick is wont to do.
And I think I can be reasonably comfortable online with that.
Zorn
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:2)
a) One company gaining some personal information about myself securely and confidentially in order that they can provide me with better service. Isolated nasty incidents may certainly occur, but I can't see any reason for a widespread unavoidable problem.
b) Some nosy people gaining personal information about myself that I chose to disseminate in plain text
c) The government having the right to collect such plain text information, require myself and other people to give up such information if they have it, and use that information as evidence against me in a court case
d) The government having the right to collect encrypted information about me in the same way and to demand of me the encryption key so that they can read it and use it in evidence against me.
There is _no reason_ why a) should pose any privacy problem whatever. At least in the UK, the Data Protection Act makes it illegal for the company to spread my data about, and I have the power to choose to use the company whose data integrity I trust.
b) does not have to be a problem since I can choose to encrypt my personal communications with people to whatever extent I like.
c) the same as b)
d) is the the only terrible problem that I see, and that is not an inevitable cause of the Encroaching Digital Age, but merely a stinky piece of UK legislation.
I see that there is great threat to the privacy of all people who don't care about the issues, or don't understand them. But each individual has the power to sort this out for themselves.
What? (Score:2)
Slightly more seriously, I think there are two points here - one is that too many people treat things said on the internet as though the conversation was private, forgetting that they are, in fact, broadcasting to the world. The internet has nothing to do with privacy. The second is that there seems to be less of a general respect for the separation of private life and public life. It seems like there was a time when you could say what you wanted in private and not have reporters try to dig it out of your friends to see if it could be made into a story. But then again, I'm probably wrong about that - Oscar Wilde's homosexuality trial comes to mind as an example of someone's private life not being left alone...
Living without privacy (Score:2)
- My business web site has my name, address, phone number, business license number, Dun and Bradstreet ID, and valid E-mail addresses. I have a listed phone number. I'm required to do this by the California business and professions code.
- Back in my aerospace days, I used to hold a high-level security clearance from one of the three-letter agencies, which meant periodic lie detector tests and a thorough background check.
- I was involved with a major company during the IPO phase, and had to report my financial transactions to the SEC, which published them. So my financial history is a matter of public record.
- I was an expert witness in a major court case [sf.ca.us] that resulted in some prosecutors losing their jobs. This got me some publicity.
- Most of the technology I've developed over the years is described in Internet RFCs, free software, published papers, or patents. I prefer to use trade secrets as little as possible.
None of this seems to cause me much of a problem. I've been threatened by someone whose Internet scam I exposed. They're now out of business and I'm fine. (So there.)So it's possible to live without much privacy. Once in a while I have to deal with some jerk. They usually lose. That's life.
Join me in rebellion! (Score:2)
Sexual Harrassment laws are just a sample of the horrid American legal system. When a person is accused of harrassing a coworker, their entire sexual history can be introduced as evidence. Yet during a rape trial, the victim's history can not. This is not a victim/criminal distinction, it is a female/male distinction. A victim of a crime has the right to privacy, but only when this privacy does not prevent certain crucial information from coming to light.
But this is only one of many errors. We also see affirmative action laws, designed to equalize, but instead promoting racism. When you wish to make people equal, does it make sense to raise one person up, and lower another? NO! True equality is that of a person using their inherent skills. A blind person is blind. To say that they deserve special treatment is wrong. A black person is black. That doesn't mean they need government assistance to get into college. A woman is a woman. She does not need to sue to get a job.
In fact, all of these supposed indifferences have been proven to be untrue. The female/male wage difference? Skewed by outlying data. 'Minority'/white college enrollment information? Incorrect census data. None of these injustices exist. But that doesn't matter, because the media can keep using them for stories, and the ignorant can keep believing. That is their right, isn't it Mr. Katz?
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:2)
I've said this before and I'll say it again. The right of privacy is tightly bound with the idea of egalitarianism. Privacy rights do not mean "Nobody gets to know anything about anyone." Privacy rights are when the same information about each person is either public or private, and people have an understanding as to which is which.
Suppose everyone's name, address and occupation and other information were all stored in public databases. And I mean *public* -- anyone can easily search the date for the information they want. So I know where you live, but you also know where I live. This would be a change in the way our society did business, but it would hardly be an erosion of privacy rights.
An erosion of privacy rights would be if certain individuals had more information in the database about them than others. Or if government organizations had access to even more information, but didn't share it, or even tell anyone they had it.
The fundamental loss-of-privacy situation is when aspects of your life are open to scrutiny, and the people examining you (and pointing fingers and laughing) have their own skeletons in their closets, but don't have to share.
--
Re:The tradeoff--refined idea (Score:2)
I understand your logic, but let's take this one step further to refine the idea at hand.
1) Someone is alleged to have broken the law (in this case, s/he might have sexually harassed someone).
2) We (as a society) have practiced that when someone is under suspicion, we will investigate the allegations to determine guilt.
3) Here's the twist, in today's modern society, we have progressed beyond asking the neighbor if he saw or heard anything strange around 10pm last night. Because of our connectedness via the Internet, electronic commerce and everything else, we have the ability not to only "ask the neighbor next door" but to look at credit card reciepts, phone records, usenet postings, etc.
The idea really at hand is if our investigators are justified in going beyond "asking the neighbor next door".
Paula announced it at a newsconference (Score:2)
The only problem with the above statement is that Paula Jones (trailer park hair and all) announced TO THE WORLD at a newsconference her allegations that she was "asked to touch it" by Clinton.
Therefore, she precipitated any and all investigations into her private life. Anyway, I honestly don't remember any "electronic invasions" into her private life, except for a stupid A&E Biography on her early years in Arkansas.
Am I undervaluing my Privacy? (Score:2)
If companies develop a "profile" on me, consisting of my web viewing, TV habits, or product purchases, it will result in better targeted advertisements.
Sure, I don't want someone stealing my identity, or gaining access to my assets. But I view Privacy as a curtain for criminals to hide behind. If there was 100% positive ID (DNA?), stealing your SSN would be worthless.
Carnivore, go ahead and scan all my email. While your at it, could you also filter out all that spam?
Re:The tradeoff (Score:2)
If you don't whip out the Chief Executive in front of an employee, you are less likely to have your "privacy" invaded in a sexual harrassment lawsuit.
Furthermore, if you refrain from getting overweight interns that are your daugher's age to give you hummers while you are in the office talking on the phone, the whole world is less likely to find out about your weird cigar fetish.
Also, if you resist the urge to lie about your frequent at-work affairs during a civil trial, you are far less likely to be found in contempt of court and fined $90,000.
As presidents go, we can do a lot worse that Clinton (and often have), but I'm sick of all this pathetic whining about how unfairly he was treated. If you think real hard, I'm sure you can come up with a better poster boy for privacy than this.
Technology making privacy outdated (Score:2)
Here we see yet another Katz rant about privacy and how we should all be alarmed about the rate at which we are throwing it away due to ignorance and apathy. It's good to know that Katz is at least consisten, if not original :)
But it seems to me that privacy as a concept is somewhat outdated and needs to be reevaluated in light of social and technological changes. Our society is increasingly reliant upon the fruits of technology, and despite what people think, this change is inherently at odds with the notion of personal privacy.
Why? Because to provide the services which people desire, providers are going to need more information. For instance consider the possibility for gentically tailored medicines, something that isn't too far ahead in the future. In order to personalise such medicines drug companies are going to require your DNA profile. Are you willing to give up on advances like this for the sake of some nebulous concept like privacy?
More personal information is the key to any number of services and advances that will benefit you as an individual rather than being for the use of a generic person made up of statistically generated market profiles. You may not like it, but the likes and dislikes of the average /.er are not those of the man on the street.
And the increased opportunities of all of this technology mean that threats to your personal safety and freedom are moving from the physical world to the internet. Whilst at the moment you're more likely to be shot by some nut with a gun than have your online details hacked, this will change as more and more of your personal information will be stored online.
When it gets to the stage that all of your most important business is stored and done online, privacy is something that favours the criminal rather than the innocent user. Thanks to the banner of privacy, criminals can hack your details with a much greater chance of getting away with it than if the internet is logged, verified and secured. Hopefully something like an online version of identity cards, already in use in some countries, will become the norm.
Anyway, privacy is something that will become increasingly irrelevent in the face of technological advances. The benefits of abandoning it are just too clear.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Sloppy research (Score:2)
Brandeis didn't become a Supreme Court Justice until 1916. Not to nitpick, but I hate sloppy research. This throws into question the accuracy of the attribution, of the entire article, and for some of us every other "fact" cited by Mr. Katz. Born in 1856, Brandeis easily would have been the youngest Supreme Court justice of all time in 1890!
Re:good article (Score:2)
Dear Fuckwits, (Score:3)
To them I say, your privacy will only be important to you when it's gone. When you become a criminal by governmental fiat or your own carelessness. Or, more likely, you commit countless, pointless crimes on a daily basis (speeding? jaywalking? installing a high-flush toilet in your bathroom? violating ordinance X or Y? copyright infringement?), and you just haven't been called out on it.
By the time your insurance company is raising your rates (or refusing to cover you) because they bought your DNA records or your grocery-buying habits, it will be too late for you. By the time you find yourself suddenly called out on the various infractions you commit on a daily basis for speaking out against something in the interest of those in power, it will be too late for most of us.
The transparent society will be a society based on blackmail. Transparency will never be equal for everyone or every organization.
-Isaac
Sadly, it is..Question about software (Score:3)
Sadly, it is shorter.
Next week I intend to do a five line column..Since I know many of you won't read the column, here's a question I'd love some help with. in the book, Rosen argues that new software..encryption, pseudonymous e-mails, etc. will return a sense of privacy to the Net. Is this so? Do any of you think software can really protect privacy from government surveillance and corporate tracking programs.
Re:Sadly, it is..Question about software (Score:3)
In a word, no. Encryption and other technological approaches are forms of hiding, not privacy. Privacy is when They aren't looking because They have no right to, not because They don't have enough computing resources to throw at the 2048-bit RSA cipher I'm using. Having to encrypt my mail definitely does not enhance my sense of privacy.
Look at it this way: my wife and I have an explicit agreement not to go through each other's papers. She can leave her personal journal on the hard drive, and I can leave my (old-fashioned paper) diary on my desk, and neither of us pries. That's privacy. If she had to encrypt her journal, and I had to keep my diary in a locked box, that might be security, but it would not be privacy.
Unlike security, privacy entails a basic respect for other people. The absence of that basic respect is the primary cause of the current erosion of our rights. Bad laws and bad company policies are, in this case, just an epiphenomenon.
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:3)
I fail to see how the loss of somebody else's privacy compensates you for the loss of your own.
The fact that I am not an exhibitionist does not imply that I am a voyer.
It's like agreeing to be kicked in the face once in a while provided that other members of the society also get kicked at least as often.
Kaa
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:3)
I do? Your whole post was based on the idea that privacy means hiding one's information.
concept of choosing to keep your personal data private is becoming outdated.
It's not a concept, it's a value. Different people think different things are important. Some people think their privacy is important, some don't. I guess what you are trying to say is that over time more people will decide that their privacy is not important to them. I disagree.
Sure, I'm advocating a choice here, otherwise that'd be rather totalitarian wouldn't it?
Sure? You seem to be rather fond of totalitarian solutions to problems, so no, I'm not sure.
Privacy is a product of today's society rather than being an inherent right. It's got a lot to do with the hang-ups that people have when it comes to their personal life. The Puritans have a lot to answer for IMHO.
That's not true. You seem to equate privacy with nobody knowing whom you fucked last night and what's your favorite position is. That's really a small and not very important part of privacy. Consider these two points instead:
(1) Information is power. If I know a lot about you, I can forecast what you will do in a given situation. I will know how to manipulate you and what buttons to push to get the response I need. Surrendering privacy means becoming powerless.
(2) I would link privacy to territoriality: both have the idea "this is mine and you can't have it". And territoriality is biologically determined in humans -- you cannot say that this is a product of some specific society.
Wait till direct neural interfaces become available
Have been reading too much cyberpunk recently? In any case, that has nothing to do with the present problems we have.
Security != police state. I'm not in favour of totalitarian police powers, just giving law enforcement agencies an advantage over criminals.
A lot of security == police state. Security is intrinsically opposed to freedom because security is about setting limits and predictability -- both necessary is certain amounts, but both limiting freedom.
And are you saying that now law enforcement does NOT have an advantage over criminals? Besides, I think that you are in favor of totalitarian police powers, you just don't like the label.
Kaa
good article (Score:3)
For the most part, Katz has raised some good points. Privacy is dead, or at least mortally wounded, and most people don't even know it.
Again, the largest threats to privacy are corporations whose only interest are the bottom line. I'm surprised Katz didn't mention grocery store discount clubs. Imagine tying your grocery store buying habits to your online shopping/surfing habits (thanks, DoubleClick) - and then linking that to your personal identity. It's not too farfetched.
From a story [uniontrib.com] in the San Diego Union-Tribune: "The data compiled by using those cards can be disseminated in a variety of ways. CalPIRG noted yesterday that there have been cases in which supermarket companies, using membership club data, offered customers' prescription information to drug manufacturers and provided law enforcement agencies with records of customers' buying habits to help in the creation of suspect profiles. One chain even allegedly threatened to detail the alcohol purchases of a customer who sued after falling down in one of its stores." Yikes!
Carnivore is worrisome, but not too unexpected - the FBI and other 3 letter organizations have been spying for years. Better the devil you know...
Finally, on company time I don't expect much privacy, except maybe in the toilet. It's their desk, not mine. It's their computer, not mine. It's their... see a trend?
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:3)
Umm... no. David Brin's premise, which I am also using, is that technology combined with power is and will erode personal privacy, and there's nothing we can do about that. You can't un-invent technology, and outlawing it creates the police state we want to avoid. Given that erosion of privacy is going to happen due to the technology existing and the will of those in power to use it, we need to re-think how to defend ourselves. The answer is, turn the cameras back on the cameramen.
---- ----
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:3)
We're not talking to private citizens here. We're talking about people in power. Wouldn't you like to see your FBI file? Shouldn't you be able to? I'd say yes. What right does the FBI -- even though it is composed of citizens like us -- have to spy on you in secrecy, and carry out covert operations that affect your life using that information, with impunity?
It's not at all about "misery loving company" as you said. It's about accountability. The U.S. government is supposed to be "of the people, for the people". Power ultimately rests with the people, not the government. If we're the bosses, why can't we check up on our employees?
---- ----
Yes, and the model is rape statutes (Score:3)
BTW, don't feel too bad for Clinton since he explicitly supported the laws that got him into so much trouble (and has said almost nothing about reforming that broken legal process).
Brian Carnell
http://www.equityfeminism.com/
THE FBI will Skull Fuck Your INVIOLATE Personality (Score:3)
--
Danger===entities misusing your private info (Score:3)
The real danger is how people or institutions (Ken Starr, et al) MISUSE the information gathered in the name of these investigations and then use them in way inconsistent to the purpose of the investigation (leaks, etc.).
Just think about Charles Bakaly (a Starr aide) who is in court right now fighting charges that he leaked info about the Monica investigation to the NY Times.
Privacy and SoapBox -- Incompatible ? (Score:3)
First, the internet is a public network accessible by anyone. The fact that it is called an internet as opposed to intranet renders assumptions about privacy rights as suspect. To the extent that there are things done that can cloak your identity, anonymity can be achieved, but I don't think people should be surprised if it isn't lasting.
In some respects, the cry for privacy rights is really a request to relinquish responsibility for voicing one's own opinion. We don't allow witnesses to testify in court anonymously. Why should we allow people to go into a financial chat room and unleash false rumours about companies that bring down their valuations? We are seeing now that people who thought they could get away with this are being prosecuted for making reckless and false comments, as they should be.
If you want the internet to be your soapbox, then deal with the repercussions. If you want to ensure absolute privacy, on the internet or anyother medium, you are living in a dreamworld. The sooner you realize this, the better off you will be.
Festering Pile of Crap... Where's My Shovel. (Score:4)
The internet is an ocean of minds and it needs to stay that way. It's one of the last bastions where human interaction and human thought can roam, explore and interact largely without restriction. Without this, many people who have access to the net would feel increasingly boxed-in and claustrophobic. The government, your employer, other governments, your friends... They have no granted right to know every thought you think or care to share, yet you do have the freedom to share them -- and without revealing yourself, if you so desire.
Privacy and anonymity should be granted to those who wish to have it. I'm in favor of leaving things as they are. You can encrypt data. You can use pseudonyms. There are many things you can do to assert your privacy and anonymity. Please, leave government (all 200 of them that would like to regulate the internet) out of it and let technology govern the ability for privacy. As long as there is demand for it, and it is not made illegal, means of acheiving relatively secure privacy will be available and usable.
Further, not everyone who wants anonymity or privacy is on a soapbox, as you seem to be. There are people who are seeking legal information, medical information, information on dealing with rape, abuse, drug addiction, dealing with sexual harassment, unfair treatment at work, career advice, information on relationships, raising children, self-defense, constitutional rights, police mis-conduct, misconduct by government officials, alchoholism and a million other things which would be stifled if people could, without any effort, find out that you are Jane Jones of 1414 S Someplace and that you were concerned with the fact that your employer is threatening you with termination if you don't follow through with unethical and perhaps illegal conduct and that your husband is an alchoholic and you're not sure how to leave him and get assistance for yourself and your child without being put in danger and that you were raped when you were in high school and that you think you might have felt a lump in your left breast and are scared to death that it might be cancer.
These are the reasons that both privacy and anonymity is important. What is valuable on the internet is information and the free flow of it -- not the names attached to it. It has nothing to do with responsibility of the individual and everything to do with the very fundamental expectation of freedom from punishment, persecution and unjust attack by the unneeded granting of your personal information, unless deemed available by yourself.
I would really encourage people who just shrug their shoulders and say "bah! It's the new millenium. It's technology! Get off your soap box and live with it!" to reconsider their position. The internet is larger than Slashdot and people being accountable for their statements on the specs of the latest rumored graphics card -- and there are far greater risks and losses certain to come from not protecting privacy and anonymity than there are from protecting it. I, for one, would rather not fuck with it, lest we make the biggest mistake of our generation and wager the rights of future on-line generations.
Now I will jump off of my soapbox.
---
seumas.com
Re:Technology making privacy outdated (Score:4)
You don't understand what privacy is. It is not hiding any and all information about yourself. Privacy is control over personal information. It means *I* get to choose who knows what about me.
In order to personalise such medicines drug companies are going to require your DNA profile. Are you willing to give up on advances like this for the sake of some nebulous concept like privacy?
If I get to choose whether to submit my DNA profile (understanding I'll get a worse/none medicine if I don't), then I have no objection. If everybody is required to submit their DNA "for the public good" whether they want it or not, privacy has been violated.
More personal information is the key to any number of services and advances that will benefit you as an individual rather than being for the use of a generic person
Again, it's all fine as long as I get to choose whether I want to play these games. I have no objection to any "opt-in" schemes: some people don't need privacy at all (Jennycam, etc.)
threats to your personal safety and freedom are moving from the physical world to the internet.
Threats to my personal safety are moving to the internet? Huh? Let's say my machine gets owned and my hard drive published for all and sundry to see. What does it have to do with personal safety?
Thanks to the banner of privacy, criminals can hack your details with a much greater chance of getting away with it than if the internet is logged, verified and secured.
You are arguing for a police state. You seem to like the idea of living in a police state. That's a value choice and cannot really be argued.
Kaa
A real Review (Score:4)
Did John plan to write a review? It is hard to tell if he is summarizing the content of the book or propviding his own political commentary.
For another review of the book check out this link [gwu.edu].
The prologue [nytimes.com] to the book and another review are available on the New York times site (free registration required...).
An interview Mr. Rosen gave to NPR's All things Considered can be heard here [npr.org]. Note: For some reason I cannot listen to this on my computer...
He manages to leave out many of Mr. Rosen's arguments for why private speech should be protected, and why these protections should be extended to our electronic utterances.
Mr. Rosen points out that much of our private speech only makes sense in context, and that that context includes our relationship with the person we are communicating with and their knowledge about us. Thus my letters to my wife or my best friend may make no sense when read by a perfect stranger (such as a police officer, judge or jury member).
He also touches on how allowing stranger access to our private thoughts and communication infringes our freedom. The title of the book even comes from a tenet of Jewish law that protects others from being watched without thier permission (thus the 'unwanted gaze').
IMHO It is much more important to publicize and emphasize the real reasons privacy is a basic freedom, rather than just repeating privacy like a mantra and grumbling about how stupid and thoughtless Americans are to let these freedoms be eroded by the "Corporate Republic".
Re:Jon Katz: Please die. (Score:5)
I will. I promise..
Re:David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:5)
You are a bit confused. Your original statement was "losing personal privacy is OK if everybody else, specifically government, loses it too". My response was "no, it's not OK, and you can and should get government accountability without sacrificing personal privacy". Now you are saying "See, we are going to lose personal privacy anyway, so if we get government accountability into the bargain, this is not bad".
First of all, my point is that it is bad anyway. I am not a big fan of the "if you are going to be raped anyway, just relax and enjoy it" thinking. I do NOT think that making government transparent will in any shape or form compensate me for the loss of my privacy. Accountability of people in power is one thing, loss of personal privacy is another thing and I still don't see why you think they net each other out.
Second, I don't think that the loss of privacy is inevitable. Yes, technology is coming and one cannot stop it. But one can perfectly well stop its use by the government and law enforcement. Think about wiretaps. For a long time there has been technical capability to wiretap thousands and tens of thousands of people. Yet court-sanctioned wiretaps in the US number in hundreds per year. This is a straightforward example of privacy-invading technology being held in check by the legal system. I am not saying the same thing will happen to all the new technologies, but I don't see total surveillance as inevitable.
outlawing it creates the police state we want to avoid.
How come? If you outlaw, say, automatic face recognition and cross-referencing of personal information databases except by court order, how does this create the police state?
The answer is, turn the cameras back on the cameramen.
That's exactly my point: this is NOT the answer. To repeat myself, your loss of privacy does not compensate me for my loss of privacy.
Kaa
David Brin's Transparent Society (Score:5)
---- ----