Slashdot Log In
Understanding Privacy
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 17, 2008 06:40 PM
from the information-available-but-not-to-you dept.
from the information-available-but-not-to-you dept.
privacyprof writes "Slashdot readers familiar with Professor Daniel J. Solove's essay, 'I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy,' might be interested in his new book, Understanding Privacy, which develops many of the ideas in that essay. As rapidly changing technology makes information increasingly available, there has been a great struggle to define privacy, with many conceding that the task is virtually impossible. The book argues there are multiple forms of privacy, related to one another by 'family resemblances.' It explains the framework for understanding privacy which was briefly discussed in the 'Nothing to Hide' essay. The book covers the framework in greater depth and explores how it applies to a wide array of privacy issues, such as data mining, surveillance, data security, and consumer privacy. Chapter 1 is available for free download."
Related Stories
[+]
Privacy and the "Nothing To Hide" Argument 728 comments
privacyprof writes "One of the most common responses of those unconcerned about government surveillance or privacy invasions is 'I've got nothing to hide.' According to the 'nothing to hide' argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent. Is there a way to respond to this argument that would really register with people in the general public? In a short essay, 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Professor Daniel Solove takes on the 'nothing to hide' argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings." At the base of the fallacy, as Bruce Schneier has noted, is the "faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think the idea that privacy is difficult to comprehend is overblown. Privacy is not at all difficult to define, understand, or to properly address in either the social or political sense.
Privacy is defined by the set of social boundaries dealing with information in any one society that we are expected not to cross. How well you respect privacy is essentially whether you elect to cross those boundaries against those expectations.
Here is my essay on privacy [wordpress.com]; see if reading it doesn't nail the issue for you in very short order.
There is literally no need to invoke "multiple kinds" or "family resemblances", to mistake the hardening of a boundary (increasing difficulty of access) or the softening of it (as in data becoming easier to get to) for the idea that there actually is one, or to imagine that digital data is somehow qualitatively different than a letter. That's just making a ridiculous mess out of things that weren't all that complicated to begin with.
Further, it isn't that there has been a "great struggle" to define privacy in a practical sense; any reasonably intelligent citizen knows perfectly well what it is, and they know when it has been violated, too. The problem is that the government (in the USA, at least) has found it to its great advantage to ignore privacy at every level it can; and that we are nearly powerless to do anything about it. That's what is causing all the fuss, and deservedly so.
Re: (Score:2)
Darn it, because I was thinking of information issues, I typoed my own definition. What I meant to say was:
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think I have nothing to hide. That's why I use my real name on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're talking about is scope and grant of access. They're still social boundaries; it isn't a matter of law by nature. That is simply hardening boundaries — not creating them. I encourage you to read the essay I linked; I talk about issues of large scope and small scope there, as well as grant of access and the (ir)relevance of hardening boundaries, directly addressing your points.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a concept known as the "slippery slope" that basically mirrors the saying, "Give X and inch, and they'll take a mile." If we let "THEM" listen in on phone conversations so that "THEY" can prevent terrorism, it'll be a matter of time until we're asked to endure the wiretapping because there are 'harmful dissidents' in the country, trying to harm the nation. Actually, for a real-world tangible example where you can see the effects of allowing your government to invade your privacy, look at China. Yeah, you can call semi-Godwin's Law on me for citing Communists, but tell me that I'm wrong. They claim that the censorship, the firewall, and all that is to help keep the country safe and sane, but who really believes that?
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you missed the sarcasm tag there. WHOOSH.
The point is that most people on
There are a few people who use real names, and for that I commend them.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes I think that simple GUI computer interfaces like KDE or Windows did to the PC what the automatic transmission did to the automobile. The bar of entry was lowered so low that now the complete idiots of the world can operate the technology and get themselves killed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you seriously believe that drivers who are used to automatic transmission are involved in more accidents? I've never heard of any such statistic, and it seems rather implausible to me. The main difficulty in driving safely is to (a) understand the rules of traffic (b) interpret what you see fast enough to be able react in time and drive safely (c) maintain awareness.
Being able to handle a manual transmission is mainly an automatic motor-skill, something that doesn't require thought; and if you can lea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if only they'd put those little retaining screws on power cords like they do on the monitor cable... I've accidentally kicked the power cord out at work a couple times. The smart thing would be to rear
Sorta.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Disagree on the US government. Frankly, the type of data the US Government works with is mostly public knowledge anyway. I do not see the major infringement on privacy from the US Government. I see other terrible failures wrt individual rights (i.e. Bush's disregard for Habeus Corpus), but privacy seems a minor one.
Re:Sorta.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes? What you say on the phone? The amounts, times and participants in your banking transactions? Your medical records? Your email? Your borrowings from the library? Your purchases from Amazon? Your credit card records? These comprise "public knowledge"?
I'm sorry, but I have to call your position the definitive "head in the sand" position. I cannot agree, even slightly.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy = I decide who knows what about me.
This, to me, does away with the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy, because that attitude surrenders power. It's not about what they find, it's about who decides when and where they can look in the first place.
To put it another way, if you argue that the authorities can do whatever they like because you haven't done anything wrong, you surrender any right to make a case that they might be doing something wrong.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good working model. It doesn't account for someone who comes into your house and sprays graffiti on your walls, though.
Consider defining your equality this way:
Privacy = I decide who has access to me, those people I am responsible for, and those things that are mine.
Then go look at the fourth amendment. Carefully. Think about the role of persons, houses, papers, and effects as stated there, as well as how those things generalize into today's realities, and then take a moment to marvel and just how right those people got the issue.
Then take another to be absolutely horrified at how wrong today's government has gotten them.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Knowledge is not a synonym for physical or human-free (computer) non-storing access; yet access -- to knowledge certainly, but also to property, your person, your effects, your home -- directly addresses the issue at hand.
Personally -- and I seriously mean that, this is not about you -- I find that boiling things down to be concise is a task that, while eminently worthwhile, is fraught with the risk of error. One of the signals that I've gone too far is when I find myself trying to make what I said into an abstraction of an abstraction. That's why I would not adopt your formulation.
In this case, I find the fourth amendment instructive. Those were incredibly insightful people. When they said the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, that really covers the bases very well, without having to get all hand-wavy.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a good rule, a persons respect for boundaries says a lot about their inner sense of self and personal security. Normal, mentally healthy people don't need to be taught these boundaries, they are implicit social contracts. We respect other peoples privacy because we expect the same freedom. Freedom? Well, "The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." (Justice William O. Douglas).
There are two causes for this to go wrong. One is exhibitionism, and the complementary feeling that others too share a desire to be understood, scrutinised, exposed. It is an exposure of the false self, a persona masque, these people who say "I have nothing to hide" would be mortified to think anyone would know the real self they haven't meticulously cultured and presented to the world. But this schizoidal thing is rare.
The other, much more common and easily provoked is self loathing. The lack of self respect and autonomy that makes an adult willing to accept pseudo-parental oversight is a cry for help. They're hoping that Nanny state and corporate Big Brother are really going to save them from themselves. They dispense with any real personal responsibility because they are made to feel the world is out of their control.
Decent societies are founded on the freedom of priviacy. Even commerce and matters of state cannot survive without it. Privacy, the desire to have it and the desire to bestow it is a mark of sanity. It demonstrates a lack of fear, mature boundaries, self assurance, trust and dignity. To give up on this freedom is no different than giving up on the right to vote, to raise a family, to practice religion or freedom of movement and association.
It beggars belief that something so fundamental and obvious is even debated.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Funny)
[says nothing, waves hands in general direction of congress, the executive, and the judiciary]
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is one of convenience. The average citizen is uneducated as to the nuances of liberty and freedom. (Not, I should say, uneducated in general). Given then the ignorance of liberty and freedom, they are easily swayed into giving up their constitutional power under the guise of necessity. For it is much more inconvenient to object and much more convenient to acquiesce.
Take a look at every legislation that resulted in the encroachment, or out right infringement of the 4th amendment. Every single incident was precipitated by some perceived "danger" to society as a whole in which that specific piece of legislation was to address.
Ironically, this is nothing new. And again, the masses are ignorant. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Give the masses their bread, give them their entertainment, and they will become complacent. Make it too inconvenient for them to question and they will not until the very end.
Parent
Actually, here's what makes it difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that can be used jujutsu style against us. Enter: groupthink. And there are those who figured out how to do that. It's not new, it's at least ten thousand years old, very probably even more.
Groupthink is a funny thing. Take for example a bunch of farmers, like in the infamous Goering quote, who each independently would rather work their farm than go risk death and crippling in a war where they have nothing to gain. Independently, each would rather _not_ go to war. Put them in a situation where each thinks "OMG, I'd lose face if the others think I'm a coward and unpatriotic" and watch them thump their chests and screaming pro-war slogans. Watch them cheer for the very things they despise secretly. Or conversely shaking a fist and yelling against the very things they desire.
And after a short while, cognitive dissonance kicks in, and they even lie to themselves that they really want those things they hate, and they really hate those things they want.
It's the emperor's new clothes story. Get a bunch of people who think everyone else sees those non-existent clothes, and that their standing would fall dramatically if they don't. Watch them all swear that they can see them clothes. In fact, watch cognitive dissonance kick in, and see them convince even themselves that they _do_ kinda see the clothes.
Where the Grimm Brothers got it wrong, is that that phenomenon is _very_ hard to unravel. In the story, all it takes is one kid shouting "the emperor is naked", for the whole charade to come apart. In reality, that wouldn't do jack squat.
In reality, for you to be brave, someone else must be a coward. To provide the comparison. For you to be smart, someone else must be stupid. For you to be a superior audiophile who hears the difference in downloaded MP3s with an audiophile Ethernet cable, someone else must be inferior enough to not hear it. Etc. The child shouting "the emperor is naked" just provides that other term of the comparison. It makes everyone else in the crowd pat their backs and congratulate each other that they're not like that simpleton kid who can't see the clothes.
It's a funny thing too, in that it's not even the emperor's guards that make it happen. They're at best a catalyst to get it started. Two hundred years later the emperor could be dead and his heirs guillotined long ago, the country could be a democracy, and the "clothes" could be in a museum showing the craftsmanship in the old days. Or maybe as proof of the excesses of nobility in the old days. And people would still come and squint and convince themselves that they _can_ see some fabulous clothes behind the glass. Just because everyone else does.
So what does this have to do with privacy? Well, that's why you have to explain to people exactly what privacy is and that it's not some shameful failing to need your personal space. Because there are plenty of those trying to make it sound like you're some horrible monster and your peers would surely shun you if you want privacy. The ball is already rolling towards turning it into a group-think situation, and there are interested parties pushing the ball in that direction too. You need more than just, well, "privacy is privacy, duh, and of course you need it" to defuse that.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't pin everything on the government. However, they are indeed the primary source of privacy problems in the USA right now. We have, historically speaking, had good legal backup for the concept of privacy as embodied in the 4th amendment. The government is doing a great deal to erode those protections on many fronts at once, and this is, I maintain, the key area we need to focus on this issue. While I am not happy if John Q Moron personally invades my email stash, I am a lot more concerned if the government decides that's OK in the face of its own constituting authority. I'll deal with John Q later.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if John Q owns some kind of corporation, chances are that you're in the wrong if you kick him out.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Informative)
I think it needs fixing. That is just my opinion though.
I'm kind of old and kind of have some odd memories. For instance, I used a party line on the telephone as a kid. I guess, to ask a retarded (slowed) question... Does anyone REALLY expect privacy when they talk on a phone or use the internet or the likes? I mean, really? Do you expect it? I *wish* it but I don't expect it. I don't think I have a reasonable expectation of it because, well, it would be unreasonable for me to expect it in this environment? I still WANT it but I don't expect it.
Parent
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Interesting)
It basically means the government can commit any crime. Should they be caught red handed, they just legalize it retroactively. If they don't get caught, no reason to talk about it altogether.
That doesn't really increase the faith and trust in the government and its agencies either. It's a sad time indeed when you're more afraid of your own country and its organisations rather than some kind of enemy.
Feels a bit like Soviet Russia, if you ask me...
Parent
"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Insightful)
Being under surveillance is a stressful situation. Unfortunately I lost the link to the survey, but I think everyone can relate to it. Remember the time when you were at school and were asked something, maybe something trivial, yet everyone in class looked at you. Think of an interview in the street, maybe a camera team asking for your opinion. Think of a police car driving behind you on the road, even if they don't want anything from you, where you aren't even under any kind of surveillance but you feel like you are.
Being monitored creates stress. Now imagine putting people permanently under stress. I could see a few flipping before long.
Parent
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and more. Privacy lets you behave morally (as judged by your own moral code) in a world of people who would wrongly criticize you. For example, right now I need privacy in order to spank my children in a world that is presently running a perilous anti-spanking experiment.
As social creatures, disapproval and disenfranchisement cause us physical pain. Privacy shields our proper actions from that.
Parent
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Those old white dudes had it right (Score:5, Informative)
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Property Privacy Rights, part two:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Just something to think about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I have nothing to hide..." (Score:2)
Re:"I have nothing to hide..." (Score:4, Insightful)
With the changes in laws and the creation of more and more patronizing laws, can you be sure that what you do will not violate the law soon? Worse, is what you are doing today maybe illegal tomorrow, or seen as an indicator for illegal behaviour, and you'll be labeled a criminal because you happen to have similar habits to someone who actually commits a crime?
We have a lot of pseudoscientific "evidence" thrown at us, showing correlation where there is none, used to create laws and, worse, put labels on people who have nothing to do with it. The alleged correspondence between computer games and violence has been discussed a lot lately, can you be sure that you won't be seen as a possible loose cannon because you play certain games?
Oh, you don't play games? Well, maybe you enjoy watching swimsuit contests? Who says they won't create some correlation between people who enjoy watching model shows with people who rape women? Still not worried that your cable company wants to know what you watch, and that government wants, too?
Maybe you're a smoker? Well, are you sure it's still going to be legal tomorrow? And we all know how hard it is to stop smoking, it's almost sure you will try to get your tobacco somewhere, and most likely from that guy you can also get other stuff. Mind if we did a search of your home, just to make sure you don't?
You've been talking on your phone quite a lot lately. And you know, the people you called happened to live next to some guy we arrested yesterday for terrorism (or something else, pick any kind of random crime). Mabye you'd like to explain to us who you called abroad?
That convenience store you shopped at? That funny talking guy running it was arrested because we think he has contacts with some terrorists. Maybe you did more than just shop there, too?
You buy an aweful lot of trans fat grease junkfood, your health insurance decided to up your premium due to your risky behaviour.
Do I have to go on?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you demolish the silly argument of "I've got nothing to hide," you immediately win the battle. Now that person has to acknowledge privacy as necessary. At this point, we're only talking about the degree -- which has nothing to do with this particular thread.
Of course, you might get someone who wants to see if yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You won the argument, ok. He has something to hide. But now he thinks you're some professional tinfoil-hat wearing paranoiac who blows stuff way out of proportion. The government/corporations/whoever don't want to put a cam into his toilet.
He doesn't even understand the connection. You argue from a rather eso
The Problem is Not Misunderstanding of Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
A short story about privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
You may or may not agree with trade unions just bear with me.
Most of us are lucky enough to live in democracies where we can make these choices and think nothing of it, we have nothing to hide after all. A few weeks after she started work, on the night of 23rd February 1981, fascist elements of the Spanish military attempted a coup and took control of the parliament. She spent the night along with her relative and other union officials burning and burying all the union membership details and correspondence because all of a sudden they did have something to hide, the mass graves of student radicals and trade unionists are still turning up from Franco's time [bbc.co.uk].
Luckily the coup failed and democracy was quickly restored. The point being we can't burn or bury our electronic records, emails, phone logs, forum posts, blogs, journeys logged by electronic numberplate recognition and cellphone records because we don't have control of them. Privacy matters more than ever, the record of what you do now could last forever and you don't know who will use that information and for what purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Privacy: The First Reason (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other reasons I guess, but that's the most important one when relating the concept of personal privacy to institutions such as government agencies, corporations, etc. It has nothing to do with shame or morality, it's all about power and control.
Re:grr. (Score:4, Insightful)
Me. Unfortunately, I was not offered the choice.
Forcing security upon someone who does not ask for it is nothing but paternalism.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)