Do Privacy Fears Allow Terrorism? 1078
carbon3C writes "Privacy advocates are luddites, says Heather MacDonald, a lawyer at the Manhattan Institute. She says we should shut up and let the government do what it wants. Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology. How do we send a clear message that non-luddites (conservative and liberal) are concerned about privacy precisely because we do know so much about technology?" Leaving your front door wide open is a great idea, until someone you don't know walks through it.
well... (Score:5, Insightful)
So no, we're not luddites, we'd just like to be able to live our lives without having to worry about people ripping us off....
Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)
In what way does giving up privacy to the government foster individual responsibility?
Re:well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why governments and data handling don't mix (Score:5, Interesting)
My identity wasn't used for illegal purposes, but I had a rather strange tax status for several months last year after someone at a tax office mistyped by NI number (similar to a US SSN).
After noticing that my pay cheque for January was smaller than usual for no apparent reason, and tracking this down to a change in my tax code, we did some more investigation and concluded that I had moved house to the far side of the country and started a new, full-time job there... and all without noticing! I must be smarter than I thought. :-)
The greatest part, though, was when I rang up the tax office to sort things out. Sensibly enough, they first wanted to confirm my identity, so they asked me for my name, current address and employer. I provided these details, and got back, "I'm sorry, those details don't match what's on my computer. I need to hear what it says here before I can help you. Are you sure those details are current?"
I recited every previous address and employer I'd ever had since working and paying tax, and none of them showed up. It took saying the right thing at the right time* to get them to listen to me at all, and then three further months of hassle to sort things out, luckily just in time for the end of the financial year. Still, even though everything is (I hope) OK now, I was out of pocket by hundreds of pounds for several months. To many people, that would have been crippling. And all it took was someone mistyping a digit on a computer in a government office.
But it's OK. I've got nothing to hide, so I should trust the government to collect lots of data on me, and take it as read that no problems will result, right?
*If you ever have the same problem in the UK, where you surprisingly start a non-existent second job and change to a new address at the same time, one of your jobs will get a tax code change to BR (basic rate only, no allowances). Tell your tax office this while explaining what's happened, and they may at least start to believe that their records of your address may be incorrect as well. You will probably still have to write to them and formally state that you are who you say you are, unless you're lucky enough that they can spot the problem fairly quickly and your "official" situation is obviously implausible, but at least you'll be able to get things sorted out.
Re:Why governments and data handling don't mix (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the hell is paying her, indeed.
Who the hell is paying her? ... (Score:5, Informative)
A quick look over some other articles of hers pull out choice quotes such as:
Apparently she's a contributing editor at the [manhattan-institute.org]
Manhattan Institute's City Journal [city-journal.org]. And the M.I. is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization, so maybe a donor list is available.
Some more choice info on the M.I.:
Nice.
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well... (Score:4, Insightful)
The parallels to business life are easily drawn, it is recognisable to almost all people.
People always seem to assume the `it won't happen to me' attitude for some reason. Given the fact how stupid the majority of the people of this world have shown themselves to be, I'd err on the safe side of things and rather assume the fact that it _will_ happen.
Let's assume the human error is not even present, there's nothing which could prevent a simple data corruption from changing your social security number by one digit and not having people notice it for many, many months or years down the road of life. And the results of something like that, well, we can only guess...
In all fairness, I doubt there's anyone on this planet who knows what's best for me aside from myself.
In that contrast you can draw parallels to even more fundamental rights such as suicide and euthanasia. Yes, _rights_. It is my life and I get to chose what I want to do with it. It may be offensive to the image of the average Christian, Muslim, and possibly other religions, but who are they to think they can draw rules up for those of us who do not believe in a god or even gods. The audacity of one human being thinking he can govern another one without his or her consent comes close to playing or wanting to play (a) god.
There just isn't any amount of lawmaking you could start which could cater for all of mankind. And even if you would, the number of rules, plus the amount of legal precedents is too much for most normal people with no interest in law to comprehend. Let alone the people who are not blessed with an IQ above average.
(Farscape had a wonderful episode about law and laywers: there was this planet full of lawyers and everything was governed by an incredible amount of rules making life very unpleasant to live.)
Re:well... (Score:3)
No :)
But people pretending to be you to carry out things you wouldn't want carried out is not fun when the boys in blue come knocking (esp. whe you're out of the country not knowing of you're doors have been booted in while you're away....)
Rediculous!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with technology and luddism, this has to do with how this technology is used.
I have only this to say about invasions of privacy. If the government wants to eliminate all privacy, then I demand that it be BOTH WAYS. But when you have a government that is getting increasingly secretive while our lives become less so, then you have a gaping hole for abuse. As David Brin so eloquently shows, only societies that are transparent in every area have a chance of remaining democratic and free. What Heather is suggesting is pure Orwellian Tyranny - nothing more.
Planet P Blog [planetp.cc]
Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Teach her to call us Luddites!
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Something similar happened to the Minister in charge of this kind of stuff in the UK. It's a good eye-opener for them, although I would hold back on posting it on a public web site. The Mr Mature option is to send it to them personally and tell them to imagine what it would be like if it got posted publicly...
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:3, Informative)
David Blunket is blind.
Same thing in Pittsburgh (Score:4, Interesting)
Well what did they do about it? You guessed it. Passed new regulation that members of the zoning board can't be included in the database.
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
In her wonderful world of fantasy, the goverment probably fills some kind of fatherly figure, good, powerful and caring. In fact, there is no such thing called THE GOVERMENT, it's only people, with their own agendas, that usually overlap enough to do something useful, hopefully.
THE GOVERMENT isn't going to access that info. Different persons are going to access it. They will probably, if history is a guide, retain the ability of accessing it well after they have quit their jobs at the goverment (working for the goverment it's just a job, rarely a religion), and keep using in their own interests.
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a government of for and by the people right?
That was the ideal.
In practice it's a little more complicated and you'll notice that the people in government are really not the same as the people that walk in and out of Walmart (i.e., the voters).
There's the nature of the republic, too, where intermittent elections mean there's a time lag where it's possible that the representatives we elected aren't doing what we wanted them to do. That's OK, control theory tells me that PI controller is more stable than a P controller:)
And that potential difference between what the people want and what the government does is really the crux of the entire issue about how much information "the government" is permitted to collect.
Since governments are made of fallible people (boy are they ever sometimes), it's possible for elected officials to misuse their power; the intense information gathering concentrates their grip on power and increase the severity of the consequences if they decide to suspend elections and impose martial law "to help combat terrorism and be patriotic".
People generally don't like having to trust other people with more and more power over their lives. Every single bit of power that I give to the government better have a damn good reason: if the government thinks that a particular power of surveillence will make their job more "convenient", then that alone is insufficient justification for me.
What do the people want...?
Digressing somewhat on the issues of the day I notice how disparate are the sets of beliefs on the American street, the Arab street and the European street. Despite living in the same world we have vastly different views of it; some of "our" views and some of "their" views must be incorrect or incomplete.
- media, culture and education (indoctrination) influences and determines popular opinion much more than the facts of a situation;
- popular opinion is swayed more by emotion than it is by critical, rational analysis.
And leave with this disturbing thought:So even if you trust your government now with great powers, be absolutely certain that you'd trust anyone that the "people" elected with those powers.
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
This is simply not true. [korpios.org]
However, if you review the history of what happened with Hitler, it actually supports your points about the necessity to limit Government power.
Hitler used terror and backroom deals to gain power, after losing two elections. After he had the power, he could use the institutions of German Government to take absolute power over every aspect of German life.
So, even if you trust the Government and the elected leaders, remember that these institutions can fall into the hands of evil people, which is why the Governmental powers must be limited.
The American Founders did see the dangers of mobocracy. The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the US Government and it is difficult to change. Regional interests are supported through the Senate and the Electoral College is supposed to provide a check against widespread electoral abuse.
Unfortunately, much of what the Government does these days is not covered by Constitutional powers, with 'the people' clamoring for more and more power to be invested in the Government all the time.
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that this is just a signature, but I seriously must say that this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There will always be people who break the law, if only for the sake of being able to break it. What do we do then? We certainly can't let them run wild. I tend to agree with most security measures. After all, without security, things like 9/11 and Oklahoma City happen. School shootings, while having many other simpler solutions, could be prevented by having more security measures. Someday we'll all have chips embedded in our wrists or something, then it won't be such a problem anymore. That's my opinion.
Have to reply to this, too. Yes, there will always be people who break the law, but the question comes down to whether they're a majority or minority.
How many people, as a percentage, do things like the Oklahoma City bombing? Hardly any - 3 out of 250 million in this country. School shootings are a bit higher, since you can filter the population by school age - say 50 million - but you're still at less than 100 out of 50 million.
On the other hand, look at some crimes that are committed by a larger portion of the populace - speeding, for instance, by 5-10 mph (who really drives 55 or 65? No, all the traffic, in general, is moving about 75 on the highways).
Grandparent's point about laws being wrong if they have to be enforced like a police state refers to those laws that are broken by the majority. If the government decides that the speed limits are so important that they start putting cameras on every mile of highway that measure your speed and record your license plate and send you a ticket, then it becomes a police state, and there's good reason to suspect that law is wrong.
Basically, a police state acts from the assumption that every citizen is a lawbreaker, or would be if the police were not monitoring them at all times. If this is so, then the laws are obviously too overreaching - the vast majority of people are not murderers, rapists, or thieves; the laws that we'd be breaking everyday include little things like jaywalking, littering, minor speeding, running yellow lights, not coming to a full stop at stop signs, vehicular manslaughter, etc. If these are to be enforced religiously, then we would need those chips embedded in our wrists... which would be a police state, with the assumption that we're all lawbreakers.
I agree with some of the anti-terrorist security measures - Jersey barriers at Federal buildings to prevent parking too close, metal detectors at government buildings/airports, etc. Those are non-intrusive security measures. The ones that say that the government can monitor my emails and phone conversations at will, on the other hand, ARE intrusive... particularly when I can then be jailed and prosecuted without lawyer consultation, public knowledge, etc.
Don't look at this from a "I have nothing to hide, so therefore feel free to monitor my actions all the time" point of view. Look at it from a "I have nothing to hide, and have done nothing wrong, so therefore there's no need to monitor my actions all the time and it's intrusive to do so" view.
-T
Just write a letter (Score:5, Insightful)
Heather MacDonald and TIA
Heather MacDonald was quoted and represented strangely by Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58332,0 0.html
How can any conservative group support TIA? How can anyone who believes in small unobtrusive government support an effor that will make the post office look small? What person in their right mind wants government clerks pouring over the details of corporate management and personal lives? These are the views of a statist.
One thing September 11th proved conclusively was the inability of the Federal Government to use the information it already had. Most of the terrorists were wanted for immigration and other violations, yet they used their own names. TIA will not help. It will not force government agencies to share what they know with each other, if such a thing is technically possible.
The fourth amendment is technology independent. It raises the bar of government intrusion to sworn testimony in an open court that proves reasonable concern of actual criminal activity and a warrent is only granted for a specific time and place. TIA violates that and until computers can take the place of judges Luddites like me will oppose it.
Re:Use technology to invade her privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
The price is little high for the country for such a lesson to be worth it.
Thats just what Big Bro wants you to believe ! (Score:3, Insightful)
excuse for invading the privacy of citizens.
Re:Thats just what Big Bro wants you to believe ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Several thousand citizens were killed on 9/11. I have little doubt that their families would be more than willing to give up their privacy to have the victims back again. No doubt the vicitms as well, if given incontrovertible proof prior to 9/11 that being deprived of privacy would save their lives, would do so in an instant.
Of course, you can't deprive just a small segment of the population of privacy, because you don't know who to target until after you've removed everyone's privacy. A much better argument would be "depriving a quarter of a billion American citizens of privacy for the sake of perhaps catching a few terrorists in the future is unaccepetable, especially without proof that giving up privacy will have the desired effect."
Something that many slashdotters seem to forget in this debate is that terrorists kill people. Terrorists kill a lot of people, and leave others without families, without friends, or without jobs. If there is a solution that will truly make people safe from this threat, THEY WILL TAKE IT, and they are right to do so. Most of us are not willing to be martyrs. If there is a better way to stop terrorism, please share it with the rest of us, because we have no fucking clue. Bush didn't start "bullying the world" until AFTER the destructive terrorist attacks. Aside from returning to our pre-WWII isolationism, what would you suggest we do to prevent future terrorist attacks?
Re:Thats just what Big Bro wants you to believe ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to deal with terrorism properly is to deal with it's ROOT CAUSES (both real and percieved - from the point of the terrorist) i.e. poverty, oppression, discrimination... It is far better to treat the cause rather than the symptoms, isn't it better to give kids sex education so that they don't contract HIV rather than have to live on medication for the rest of their lives, isn't it better to discourage a person from smoking than to treat their lung cancer?
Fianlly, sure terrorists kill a lot of people, but so do car drivers - more lives are lost every year due to car accidents than to terrorism. Out of sight out of mind - that's the problem. People saw 9/11 on CNN, but they don't see all the car accidents etc.
Hard statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
So... we have a generalized threat warning that someone, somewhere may do something to hurt somebody? And this is supposed to inpact my life how?
Seriously, living in Boston I'm far more likely to be shot by a Hong Kong gang, disappeared by the Moffia, mugged by the homeless, run over by the crazy drivers, accidently blown up by a kid from MIT, get clubbed by falling ice, poisoned by the atrocious water supply, or get carbon monoxide poisioning from these 1890's era heaters in this aesbostos-laden apartment than I am to get killed by an Iranian for being an American. The total Us population in 2000 was two hundred eighty one million, four hundred twenty one thousand, nine hundred six people. If a terrorist attack an order of magnitude worse than the original estimates for the world-trade center massacre were to occur, there is still only two hundredths of a percent chance that I would be effected. One thousand deaths happen every single day due to smoking in the US. In my age group the death rate by congestive heart failure is 90.3 in 100,000. Motor vehicle accidents cause 29.3 deaths per 100,000. Suicides will cause 4,300 deaths this year (extrapolated) in the 18 to 24 year old age group alone, which is significantly higher than the amount of 18 to 24 year olds killed in terrorist attacks in 2001. Hypertensive heart disorder killed twenty-five thousand, three hundred twenty-seven people last year. two hundred fifty thousand people die every year from accidental medical mistreatment. Lung cancer killed one hundred fifty-four thousand people last year in the US. Blood poisioning caused thirty-thousand, six hundred seventy deaths last year. Eighty-nine die every year in the US by lightning strikes.
Even if one could acquire antibodies for Smallpox, Ricin, Botulism, VX, Sarin, Cyanide, Anthrax, and Radiological Emergencies, the series of injections is far more likely to kill you than the chances of a terrorist attack utilizing one of the above. Get some perspective, and get some sun. Actually, better avoid the sun: skin cancer killed 9,600 Americans last year.
Re:Thats just what Big Bro wants you to believe ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't deposing Saddam helping to free a number of Arabs from oppression, and help the Kurds with discrimination? The US supports the World Bank, which does as much as it can to help reduce poverty. I'm not sure what the USA can be expected to do beyond that.
That is so sad that there are people out there, supporting the current government and believing that they are doing everything in their power for the well being of other countries. News Flash: Operation Iraqi Freedom has nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people. When Bush went to gain support from other UN countries, not once did he mention freedom for the oppressed Iraqis. He mentioned nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. The reason countries like Canada decided not to support this war (which should have been your first clue, considering their participation in Operation Apollo) was because every reason Bush was presenting to the UN had no proof. It was all lies. (I'm not saying they don't have those weapons, I'm saying the Bush and Powell claimed they could prove it without actually presenting any proof). Two weeks before the war started there was zero support outside of GB and US and they all changed gears. Now this is about liberation. Well, sorry to break it to everyone, but the Iraqis haven't forgotten about the last 20 years. I suggest you go out and watch an excellent documentary called "A Generation of Hate". You'll soon realize that those Iraqis that cheer for the American troops are only putting on a face. They are not about to pledge allegiance. They don't like Saddam, but they hate America more.
What should America be doing? Stop the protection of state funded terrorism from Israel. Stop the support of other dictators in third world countries. Stop the support on the oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Cut some funding for the military and place that excess money into education, healthcare and welfare. Claim responsibility for its past mistakes and look at real ways to finding solutions.
Privacy invasion should never be an issue. It is mearly a weak excuse by a government in order to retain control without actually doing any work.
Think about this: The top 5 countries in the world to live (according to the UN rating) is Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden and Belgium. None of these countries have a huge military. They don't have terrorist threats (although Australia's recent decision to help USA in this war might change that). Their economy is faring better than USA's right now. They have better healthcare and education systems. Canada is the most multicultural country in the world. Norway and Sweden have very little poverty.
To all of America, wake up. You don't live in the greatest country in the world. Instead of trying to change every other country to suit your own, start at home first. Privacy, freedom, true democracy: These are the key ingredients to a prosperous and content homeland.
Re:Thats just what Big Bro wants you to believe ! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure if you live in the US or not, but if so, why not move to Norway, Sweden, etc? Live there all your life, then tell us that those are the "best" places in the world to live. Until then, you have no basis for comparison. (either do I, for that matter)
I currently live in Canada, my roots are Flemish (Belgium and English). I have lived in USA and have stayed in Norway for extended periods of time. I feel that even if you haven't been t
Re:Thats just what Big Bro wants you to believe ! (Score:3, Insightful)
The catalyst for discussion was anti-american terrorism
Couple of points (Score:5, Insightful)
That is an assumption on your part.
My father is very much a man of principle. He once taught me that the only rights you truly have are those for which you are prepared to die. It's a great sound bite, but with more than a little truth in it: anything else can be taken away from you, and if it can be taken away, is it really a right at all? Someone with that attitude might disagree with you.
I'm not sure I could make the hard choice, say if someone were holding guns to my family's heads, but maybe that's immaturity or lack of responsibility on my part. Put it another way, but with a more commonly accepted answer: do you believe in negotiating with terrorists? Does a little short term benefit justify the long term harm? If this is not black and white and there is a balance to be struck, then where do you draw the line?
That, my friend, is the key point that makes so many people from any side of the privacy argument critical here. You are giving up a hell of a lot for something that you don't even know will work (in fact, something that history strongly suggests will not work).
The answer to your first sentence lies in your second. The US has been throwing its weight around for a very long time, as the history books will tell you if you choose to read them. Gratuitous provocative comment for discussion: Has the US has committed more terrorist acts and war crimes in the past hundred years than any other nation on earth? (Before you flame, do read the history books for yourself.)
Your current president had established an international reputation as a belligerent man with little care for the rest of the world long before 911. This is why people will give their lives to hurt you, and this is why the international community are reluctant to stand with you on issues like Iraq. So yes, there are several things you could do to significantly reduce your risk of a terrorist attack, but most of them don't involve guns or spies.
Re:Couple of points (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding the second point, yes, we are in agreement. I'm not advocating abrogations of privacy, mer
I would have modded this (Score:5, Funny)
"Compare America's "economic imperialism" to the military imperialism practiced by western Europe in the 19th century. " Yes I can do that. US supported a lot of dictature in the 20th century , and sometimes rebelle when the dictature wasN#t to their liking. And in some case they projected killing governement head. Plus one can argue that in the case of vietnam , grenada, panama this was bordering invasion into local politics. As for the rest ogf the comparison, please compare country at the SAME DATE. Do not compare 20th century US with 19th century europe for logic's sake.
Most people do not see a benevolent US but a "real politik" US which do things only if it profits its intern and extern politics (economic or pure politic).
Re:Thats just what Big Bro wants you to believe ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:4, Insightful)
-- Benjamin Franklin
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Interesting)
Giving up privacy provides IMHO a false sense of security. Even worse, I think that giving up privacy leaves the door open to a type of government that I'm even more scared of.
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but you miss the point. That point is
BOO! TERRORISTS! Ahhhh, booga booga booga! The terrorist are coming and they'll eat your babies! Ahhhh! Terrorists! Won't sombody think of the children!
I think you'll find it is an effective argument!
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
But terrorism FUD or other "we're under attack" FUD is an old strategy to make the people do what the leaders want, nicely sketched out in an interview [snopes.com] by Hermann Goering in 1946.
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:4, Interesting)
From Indymedia.org [indymedia.org].
--Dan
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:3, Insightful)
But the United States didn't target the literate for execution. The United States didn't put classes of people into concentration camps.
"In 1975 the movement, led by Pol Pot , overthrew the Cambodian government, establishing ?Democratic Kampuchea.? The new government carried out a radical program of evacuating cities, closing schools and factories, and herding the populatio
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to enjoy those essential liberties when you're dead.
Terrorism is a threat in the same way that crime is a threat. Obviously our government could take actions that would reduce crime (like detaining people for unlimited periods of time without evidence -- oh wait we do that now) but the question is at what cost? I'd rather have some crime and some terrorism than live in a police state.
Also we could consider changing some of our policies that make terrorists want to target us in the first place but I guess that wouldn't help cause we all know they're evil and we're good and they just hate us becuase we're so free and prosperous. Please.
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Interesting)
Know your enemies in order to defeat them. A few corrections:
Speculation: if Prime Minister Rabin had not been assassinated, and his peace plans had continued, the WTC would probably be standing today.
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter what we do we can't make everyone safe all the time. It isn't possible. The only way to avoid being hurt is to be dead.
While privacy is not a constitutional right it probably would have been had our founding fathers lived in a time, such as ours, where everything can literally be snooped on. Privacy is vital to democracy. Without it our other rights are slowly suffocated. Privacy rights are implied by other rights we do have which limit the power of the government to come into your home and search through your stuff.
These rights that we're giving up to our government will not be easily won back. Fear and greed are the twin evils that can destroy us.
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
All rights are constitutional. The constitution is not some kind of listing of rights. The people have all rights. The point of the 9th Ammendment is to make this crystal clear:
The real question boils down to whether privacy is actually a right or some kind of privilege. I would argue that it is a right and that the 4th ammendment supports this notion, even if it doesn't explicitly enumerate it.
Thus:
* Privacy is a right as implied by the 4th ammendment (secure in persons and papers from government interference).
* Just because it isn't enumerated explicitly we still have that right and the government should have no power to deny that right by the 9th ammendment.
The frightening trend these days is the federal government seems to want to declare everything a privilege that isn't explicitly listed in the constitution. Something many of the Founding Fathers were afraid of. The tactic here is to shift the burden of proof of a right off of the government and on to the people. Thus, the government assumes something is a privilege until it is proven a right. This makes the 9th Ammendment a sort of tautology in their eyes. The people have the ability to retain all other rights but too bad the government doesn't recognize anything as a right until it's rammed down SCOTUS's throat a few times and they start tentatively viewing it as a right.
sigh. At least thats the way it seems using the knowlege given to my by my high school US government class. :)
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Thomas Jefferson
Make the freedom connection! (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a great quote.
I think that a lot of people have trouble understanding the essential connection between privacy and freedom. After all, if you can do whatever you want (freedom), what difference does it make whether somebody else knows about it (privacy). In other words, in a very strict definition:
That is, in the eyes of the naive and innocent masses.But we should know today that knowledge, information, is power. To a certain extent, personal information that some gov't body has on you is power over you. But this is hard to explain, and the debate ends up being clouded by issues of trusting or not the gov't.
Maybe insisting on the connection between information and power, or information and control would help people understand the deep issues here.
Re: Ben Franklin was wrong about that (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy for security is indeed a very unwise trade. However, that doesn't mean the unwise are undeserving of liberty. Even our worst criminals should have liberty -- from behind bars, of course. I don't think you're confusing liberty and freedom, but a lot of people do that.
The argument in the constitution is that liberty is endowed by the Creator, and men are not justified to take it away, and the purpose of government is to secure that right. If you start picking and choosing who is undeserving then its easy for you to be deemed undeserving by whomever gets to do the choosing.
Re: Ben Franklin was wrong about that (Score:5, Insightful)
All he says is that trying to live in safety by removing liberty from society (ie creating a police-state) is a) not worth it and b) does not work. I'm not sure it doesn't work, but i certainly think it's not worth it.
There was certainly less violence, drugs, terrorism in eastern Germany compared to the west, but at what cost?
I think you could create a state where terrorism would be very near impossible, have everyone tagged and tracked, dna-finger-printed, all phones tapped etc. 1984 probably would not have many terrorists in reality. Still, I wouldn't want to live there.
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:3, Insightful)
-- Benjamin Franklin
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:3, Insightful)
That's scary!
Re:Lack of liberties (e.g. Privacy) != Security (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Oscars were an improper forum for that kind of speech."
and
"The Oscars were an improper forum for that kind of speech, and the speech should be edited from the broadcast."
Yeah, Down with Civil Liberties! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, actually.... They are lawyers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, actually.... They are lawyers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at all the lobbying from Tax lawyers against the 'Flat Tax' for example. Do they really think that flat taxation is somehow immoral or unfair? No! They want a baroque tax system that's so damn complicated that you need to pay a Tax Lawyer to figure it out for you.
The lack of appropriate caps on medical malpractice lawsuits is killing emergency/trauma centers and delivery rooms around the country - but since lawyers are allowed to work on a percentage basis, it's not in their interests for there to be limits on the settlement amounts. (Notice that malpractice cases are much less of a problem in UK where it's illegal for lawyers to work for a percentage of the award.)
Sure, it's a good idea to have lawyers as civil servants to advise our politicians on how a good law should be formulated - without loopholes, without criminalising things by accident and without violating the constitution - but the people who get the final say in what laws get passed do NOT need to be so highly skewed towards the legal profession. Any sufficiently unbiased person with sufficient moral fibre and breadth of understanding of the world can decide whether a technically well formulated law is a good one to have on the books or not.
To paraphrase Pink Floyd... (Score:3, Insightful)
In an ideal world you could; but fact of the matter is that this information can and might be used against you. I think of the 'black list' of people opposing the Iraq war.
I don't think anyone has the right to trace my whereabouts the way planned in the Patriot Act.
Scary, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental values in human life. Does everybody really want to be shed and protected from everything by the government? Safety, but no privacy is like living in the zoo: you are spoon fed, safe from dangers, but cannot go beyond your cage.
Sad, but it seems that this is most people want. The question is, what we can do about it?
Re:Scary, at least (Score:4, Insightful)
I am always amazed at how Bush and his administration manage to get so much support from the Americans. Are the schools there teaching children not to question anything, stop thinking and take what's being said on TV as some holy thoughts?
It is shocking how easily people are being manipulated into thinking this is all being done for their own good. The basis of all this at the moment seems to be the creation of a black and white world: with us/against us - patriotic/unpatriotic etc. making more and more difficult to express disagreement and encouraging censorship.
I suggest we start a large charity organisation and distribute a copy of 1984 to every American citizen. It might hopefully open the minds of the millions of Americans who admire Dubya Bush most.
Re:Scary, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, children are taught to respect elders, obey police, teachers and pretty much everyone else... and only beware of strangers which aren't any of the above.
By the time one is encouraged to think for yourself, you're in college (and you still often get better marks for thinking the same as professors.
Are we surprised that questioning authority is generally considered a bad thing when we've been training our youth not to do just that throughout most of their earliest and most suseptable years?
Re:Scary, at least (Score:4, Insightful)
People believe in err either because they want to believe, or because they are too lazy to question. For the former, take as an example all those that fell for the Nigerian 419 scam. For the latter, all those that forwards hoax virus warnings. I don't think it's anything new or to do with todays crop of politicians, I think it's been in human nature for a long time. I won't comment on you cloaking your reasonable point in a political statement I disagree with, as it's a bit off-topic. Also, people are lazier these days and used to being spoon-fed information, hence the success of marketting slogans and media sound-bites.
It is shocking how easily people are being manipulated into thinking this is all being done for their own good. The basis of all this at the moment seems to be the creation of a black and white world: with us/against us - patriotic/unpatriotic etc. making more and more difficult to express disagreement and encouraging censorship.
What can I say? People love causes that are black and white. If they don't have one then they will invent one. It might manifest as a religion, a Cold War, a football rivalry, or an anti-war movement. The simpler it is, the less thinking is involved.
The best way to avoid 1984 is to ensure there are always counter-weights for everything. For every war, an anti-war movement. For every Orwellian piece of legislation, an active privacy coalition. For every DRM proposal, a consumer rights group. Give the debates raging. Keep the issues in the spotlight. When you tire of the fight, make sure there is fresh blood to replace you. Freedom isn't a war you win, it's an eternal struggle albeit one worth fighting for.
Anyway, sorry for rambling.
Phillip.
Re:Scary, at least (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlikely, since I believe the USA has burned 70,000 copies of this, several publishers (five?) have started and stopped its printing, and the author, J.W. Hatfield a credible author and father, has committed suicide as a result. Very interesting text, though; I would be far less inclined to believe it reflected some truth if so much effort had not gone into preventing its dissemination.
Hollywood scripting for US foreign policy (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently, he is. A few months ago, it was Osama Bin Ladin. A few years ago, it was Muammar el Gaddafi. Before him, it was Saddam once before. And before him, it was... you get the idea.
This is what worries me most about US politics: The Hollywoodization of its foreign policy. In recent years, the US government and media always picked one "supervillain" and kept him as a target for the public to
Protect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy is Dead, there is only one thing to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, if the ID theives don't have privacy either, we could find out who they are.
Re:Privacy is Dead, there is only one thing to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, total exposure is not a successful option. At least, not yet.
You can find many instances of this in small towns, where everyone knows everything about everyone else. The problem is that it often disallows people to make mistakes.
One of the things that people complain so often about regarding the internet (and, to a lesser degree, regarding newspapers) is that once something is said, it's there forever and ever and ever. And you can search for it, and find it.
This wouldn't be such a problem except
If I used to be a libertarian, and I became a communist because I realized that my views were wrong, then that would be my decision. But later on, let's say that there comes a "blue scare" - the libbys are coming to steal your children and rape your horses! Let's get a list of these preverts, and exterminate them!
And, gosh...there you are in the newspaper oh-so-long-ago talking about the joys of libertarianism. Never mind that you're a good, decent commie now. You're gonna fry.
Now imagine that with all your information. Ever looked at your credit history and wonder who the hell was doing those transactions, as it sure wasn't you? Imagine that on a grand scale.
Also, what if you fucked up royally? These days bankruptcy is wiped off your record after a while. A long while, but it does get done. Imagine if that was never wiped. Remember that story about employers requesting credit histories? Well, now they wouldn't have to request them. They'd already have them. And it would be forever, and ever and ever.
This wouldn't be helped by the fact that everyone would have access to everyone else's record. There's an interesting rule in psychology, it's called externalism (I think it's called that): everything you do is motivated by external factors. Everything others do is motivated by internal factors. Want an example of this? Remember that time when you were at work, and your boss had this really bad look on his face? What's the first thing you think? "Uh oh. Someone did something. Hope it wasn't me."
Externalism is supported by experience, but...it has some dire consequences. People tend to think that your negative actions were intentional, and their own negative actions were unavoidable.
If that's not enough for you, there is a cheaper argument: there are people in this country who can't stand certain things about certain people. I'll take the simple one of being gay as an example. Some people hate or fear gays (I admit, I am terribly frightened of the fashion gap. I just know that some day I'm going to NEED to be able to identify an Armani jacket, and I'm not going to be able to do it, and that freaking queer is going to get the girl. Errr...yeah, that's it). Non-flaming gays are protected by the fact that they're a bit difficult to casually pick out unless you've got better gaydar than most breeders have.
What do you think would happen if those people who can't stand gays could easily find out who was gay?
Oh, sure. Many would discover that they were surrounded by them, and would think "gosh, there's so many. Maybe it IS natural." There'd be some tension for a while, and then things would blow over as people just learned to accept it.
On the other hand, there are those in whom this would instill a "bunker" mentality. Defense against the gays. Maybe...an active defense? Deny them jobs. Deny them social memberships. Deny them your vote. Deny them their life?
And not all towns have a bunch of gays. Some small towns will undoubtedly have only women in uncomfortable shoes, and only manly lumberjacks with heavy loafers and boots.
An insular population, in other words. Us against them can easily breed there, and this lack of any privacy would give them easy, local targets to vent their rage upon.
Remember, many people go around doing what they do without moral regret: because they don't think it's wrong.
Your lack of privacy bit only works if people think that what they're doing is wrong. That is not the case, most of the time.
If we have privacy... (Score:3, Funny)
Steps to eliminate terrorism (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Steps to eliminate terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
I was going to reply to the grandparent's post, but you provided a great example for me.
Dude, listen carefully: no one, no one straps a bomb to themselves and runs into an army checkpoint because they are jealous.
This argument,
I will let the government watch me... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are to have a world where the powerful can put us under the microscope, let it be a world where we can put them under the microscope too - I suspect they have more to hide than I do.
Technology is an enabler. Both ways. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as technology can make your life a living hell, privacy-wise, it can also make things a lot easier.
For instance, one of the (legitimate) reasons we have photo ids these days is because businesses need to establish that you be you. This is a primitive form of identification technology, fulfilling one part of "something you have, something you know."
Additional technology, however, can further secure the transaction, while removing pesky privacy problems such as centralized databases of photos. Consider the public-key smartcard. If you put a photo on it, then the person with the card and the photo is the person attached to that key. This prevents low-tech forgery (the picture has to work, AND the card has to be real). But while you're at it, why not take away the picture?
If you had a smart card with a public/private key implementation, and an embedded, ecrypted private key, and some means of putting in the decryption key for the card, you can ensure that it is, at the least, difficult to steal your private key. Thus, if you have the card, and you can use it (know the key), then you are that person. No need for photographs, thumbprints, or anything.
There would be several ways to do this: a built in number pad for a pin-number, all the way up to biometrics. Whatever you want to do. You could even (if you did not care at all) have it not be encrypted. The point is that it is up to you, how to do it. Security companies could easily make these little buggers.
You know another nice thing about these cards? They're not scannable. You can't pick them out in a crowd passively. If they aren't activated, they give no signal as to what key they have. Privacy is further enhanced. At the same time, business security is enhanced, because only the features you specify work to decrypt your key, which means that there is no unified attack against the card (except for weaknesses in the implementation). With a drivers license, you just have to know what a drivers license looks like.
There are further uses for these things: digital cash, digital receipts. Whatever. Anything that needs to establish that you-be-you, this can do.
Also, what is one of the problems with anonymity? Lack of provability. That's one of the reasons for reciepts. They can't prove who you are, so they don't bother: they give you a token. If you use your credit card, or somehow else give up some privacy, some places will drop the need for a receipt.
Well, what if these cards could be programmed to come up with short, random keypairs for transactions? You could have one key for CompUSA, another for BestBuy, so on and so forth. Receiptlessness is a possibility, and you don't have to give up privacy. You can prove who you are in relation to the purchase.
If you really wanted to, you could have it generate random keypairs for each transaction. That time you bought pr0n from BestBuy, and the next day you bought Barney's Collected Adventures? As far as the company is concerned, those were done with different people.
Just something to think about: technology can enable business, security, AND privacy. There are good solutions.
PS: I know that some of these capabilities are prohibitively expensive right now, and some of them will require some serious infrastructure work. The basic idea, however, does not. You could even implement it over VISA/MC/AmEx's network, with a smart enough card. A moderately dumb card could be made today (Octopus, anyone?). As demand rose, things would become more attainable.
PPS: I know that not everyone would be interested in all those features. That's fine. The important thing is the infrastructure: it allows for the features, but does not require them. Choice is a good thing.
Leaving your front door open (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually I meet a lot of interesting people that way. They're called customers.
The problem isn't open data, it's that we believe the data can be abused and have terrible real-world consequences.
Here are real examples from the Top 10 Police Database Abuses [techtv.com]
Cheers, Joel
Yesh (Score:5, Insightful)
9/11, in the grand scale of things, should have already been forgotten. More than a year ago, 3005 people died as a direct result of 9/11. Today, 40,000 children the world over died as a direct result of starvation. Tomorrow, another 40,000 children will die of hunger. Another 40,000 the next day, and another 40,000 the day after that. Now, I understand the cultural and emotional significance of the event outweighs the mere logical aspect of it. But mobilizing a nation of 300 million people on a course of action based solely on an emotional reaction is just foolish. Destructive and foolish.
Now, I understand that past events can drive people to fear. This is why I have a hard time understanding why people trust the US government. The US government is not nice. No governments are. We live in a world where the President's duty to serve and protect his constituents and their interests often means that he has to screw over a whole lot of people. Just look up the history of US foreign policy. You don't have to make a judgement call here about whether these actions are justifiable. You just have to accept the idea that the US often does what it thinks it has to do to protect it's own interests.
Now here is the kicker. If the US government is going to act to protect it's own intersts, than individuals must act to protect their own. Far from being "luddites" (dictionary.com -- those resistant to technological change) pro-privacy people are simply doing what they must: look out for themselves.
Lead the way, Heather! (Score:5, Funny)
* Make available all her credit card numbers, PINs, bank account numbers, and all personal financial information, including bank statements and both personal and professional tax information.
* Make available to the public all financial statements, receipts and information concerning purchases she has made.
* Make available for public viewing all personal correspondences via all mediums (i.e., email, written, phone, etc.)
* Make available all passwords to her Internet accounts and online services.
* Make available all professional exchanges between herself and her clients as well as those of others in her field and those with whom she does other business.
* Make available for public viewing all personal journals and/or diaries as well as any personal records pertaining to herself or her family members (i.e., birth certificates, medical records, etc.)
* Install 24-hour Web cams in her home, business or place or work and in any other places she spends significant time; of course, we expect that since privacy is not a conern, all personal moments in the bedroom and bathrooms will be freely abailable in an uncensored form.
* Leave the locks on the doors of her home, car, business and elsewhere (including safes and other contained personal belongings) unlocked and available to the general public.
I'm sure there are other items and areas I have forgotten, but since Ms. MacDonald seems to willing to give up privacy in favor of protection from a world full of terrorists, I bet she will happily accommodate any further requests in the future.
So, Ms. MacDonald... lead the way. Lead by example. Show us poor, befuddled, unwashed Luddites the way out of our backward thinking about privacy and basic human rights, We'll be right behind you too because it's painfully obvious to us that an attorney with links to a conservative think-tank who feels the need to swipe aside the our basic rights could have nothing but the best of intentions for us.
Join the Brotherhood... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bloody hell, not often you hear someone quoting the "Party" from 1984 as if its a good thing.
Lets compare what the Party needed to control its people with what this person wants
1) A war against something, with a changing enemy as required. The "War on Terror" appears perfect for this
2) An ability to always track people (the TV screens in 1984), so zero privacy and the goverment able to track it.
3) The ability to "reinvent" history - Donald Rumsfield as defender of liberty... not the person who sold chemicals to Sadam. UK and USA as "Liberators" rather than the twice colonial power and the most ardent supporters of Sadam in the 80s.
4) Making people spy on each other and report to Big Brother - Already being urged in the US
5) Big Brother to be an unaccountable figurehead. When was the last time you saw someone ask a tough question to George ?
Ladies and Gentleman I call the Brotherhood to order. These are sad days for democracy, George Orwell has defined already the republican ideal of America.
Govts bring more terror than Terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
When the government decides to start purging it's own people you are going to really wish that they hadn't been spying on you.
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Ultimately one must mention the Third Reich.
Ever wondered how 10 million people were identified and transported with such efficiency in a time before computers?
They didn't just turn up at the synagogues and cart people away. They used the census data. Who were the largest collators of census data in Europe in the 1930s?
I B M
As the SS arrived in the newly conquered countries of Europe IBM was there to meet them with the census data ready to sort. They took the documents from churches & town halls and fed it into the Hollerith machines. Some unfortunates got the knock and the train ride and even they didn't know they were of Jewish decent.
read the book [edwinblack.com]
Not just to see what capital will do but to see where dismissing privacy as a liberal whim could take you.
You never know who will be in power next time round or in ten years time.
Here's what you can do... (Score:5, Interesting)
I struggle with the pro-drug perception (I should say anti-drug-regulation views) of the Libertarian Party [lp.org]. But it's hard to argue with a platform that wants MORE freedom - and no other party is promising this. Unfortunately, I still feel obligated to cast my votes for the most freedom-oriented Republicans (or Democrats), until the Libertarian Party has a chance of winning, but how can you knock the party that advocates more FREEDOM?
I liked their Quiz [lp.org] to see where your beliefs lie.
Unfortunately, this post will probably be added to my FBI file. :(
Re:Here's what you can do... (Score:3, Informative)
Say that again: anti-prohibition (not pro-drug). It's important to understand.
Why are the Libertarians against prohibition? It's really quite simple: Drug prohibition causes violent crime (from the resulting black market), corruption in law enforcement, wastes ridiculous amounts of tax money, and above all, removes the element of personal liberty -- and hence personal responsibility -- from the indi
Stasi police (Score:4, Insightful)
Another example (Score:5, Informative)
In one attempt to undermine the weapons inspection process, it was revealed that Harvey McGeorge of UNMOVIC had "a leadership role in sadomasochistic sex clubs."
Like, so what. Some people do that. It's his private life, it has nothing at all whatsoever to do with his ability to do his job as a weapons inspector. And yet, the only possible reason for publishing that information was to diminish him in the eyes of the public, to try to reduce the credibility of the inspection process as a whole.
Does anybody think their own or anybody else's private lives won't be vulnerable to such abuses?
(More details on this can be found here [antiwar.com].)
Your government just wants to protect you... (Score:3, Informative)
Wake up (Score:4, Insightful)
Wonder what motivates these "terrorists" to attack your country. An irrational fear/hatred of freedom and capitalism? Strange, I live in Europe and have nothing whatsoever to fear from "freedom hating terrorists". I feel much more "free" than I would in the US. I have a public healthcare system. Social welfare benefits if and when I need them. My kids don't get shot at in school.
I come from an island state in the EU with a very well known and long lived terrorist organisation...when will ye come and destroy my country? probably never...I've never heard the issue mentioned by the US administration since Bush took over..maybe it's because we don't have any oil...or maybe because US citizens have provided much of the funding for the group in the past...anyway how convenient, a terrorist is only a terrorist if...what??
Since all those poor, unfortunate people died in the twin towers, your government has been free to do *whatever* it pleases. *Very* convenient for them, all in all. Think of the profit. And all it cost is the lives of a few thousand innocents (so far).
Anyway my point is supposed to be, treat the cause, not the symptoms, figure out who the *real* terrorists are before your country goes down the train and drags the entire world with it in its wake.
The terrorists have won! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the goal of the terrorists was to wage war on our way of life, to destroy the very fabric of our political and social structure, they have won.
If we want to fight the terrorists, if we want to win the "war on terrorism", we must cling closely to the umbrellas of freedom, privacy, due process, and democracy.
For, if we don't, terrorism has won.
It's not the Govt. that worries me. (Score:4, Interesting)
* Big business (I don't think Microsoft should be able to find out what software I run on my PC for example).
* Other people (Identity theft is a HUGE problem).
* Other governments (I don't think we'd want Iraqi government officials finding out too much about our citizens).
* Small businesses (I don't want to be Spammed, Cold-called or Junk Faxed anymore - and I CERTAINLY don't want those people to be able to find out a lot about me and thus target me more precisely).
Now, if the price of being private from all those people is to also be more private than is convenient for my government - then I'm sorry that has to be the case. Dunno about you but I'm much more worried (in a cold, hard statistical sense) about having my life wrecked by identity theft than by a terrorist.
definition of Luddite (Score:3, Interesting)
We aren't opposed to technological progress. I am opposed to the US Government using this new technology to enforce unconstitutional laws. Laws that our religiously influenced leaders consider immoral. Heather MacDonald needs to go back to her 'conservative think tank' and respect the privacy she has while it lasts.
tagged by the feds,
-metric
Turning your country into a police state (Score:3, Interesting)
Like most 60s kids I was raised to believe that the Soviet Union and particularly E. Germany were evil because the state monitored the phone calls of and spied on anyone who dared to say anything out of line with the government view. Now I find I'm part of an active demonstration of how it can be done better with technology. I 'spose you don't tend to get dragged off without being charged and tortured/interrogated without a lawyer but...... Oh yeah, they can do that now as well.
Sorry to all those who died in WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc. it was all for nothing. Shame that innit?
Orwellian vs. "Open Society" (Score:3, Interesting)
I was worried about the European cyber crime convention in 2001 but there was nothing one could do about it. I was worried about echelon, the TIA, the department of homeland security, etc. But all I could really do was watching the freedom being taken away from the people.
My conclusion is, that our society will inevitably turn into the Orwellian nightmare. More or less this view of mine is shared by David Brin. In his book "The Transparent Society" he tries to answer the question if technology will force us to choose between privacy and freedom.
From an interview with amazon.com:
Amazon.com: Could you explain what you mean by a "transparent society"?
Brin: Our world, our cities, even the countryside is about to be filled with cameras. There is not a single thing any of us can do to prevent it. Every year, the size of video pickups gets smaller by 30 to 40 percent. The U.S. Army is developing little flying drones that are already smaller than your hand, and in laboratories they're working on fingertip-size flying cameras. We will live in a society in which the average person is under view, at least out-of-doors. The only choice we have is who will control the cameras. If we ban them, if we outlaw them, if we try to protect our privacy through secrecy, all we'll manage to do is restrict their use to a secret elite. Perhaps an elite of government or of the rich, or corporations, or criminals, or a technological elite. We won't get rid of them. On the other hand, if we decide to make a virtue out of this inconvenience--if we all use the cameras--then no one will ever be able to conspire against us again. Knowledge is the only way that we can maintain our freedom. And if that means letting your enemies have some knowledge too, well, then so be it. I am not a fanatic on this issue. We will need some corners of modern life that can be secret. Battered wives will need to be able to go to secret locations for their shelters. Whistle blowers telling of disastrous schemes by governments or corporations will need to be anonymous. We all need a reserve of privacy in our homes allowing us to choose when and where to be intimate. All of these will be better protected in a society that is 95 percent open. For instance, in a restaurant you can have a private conversation because you can catch eavesdroppers and peeping Toms. The openness of a restaurant is better for defense than it is for offense. If instead a restaurant tried to shelter every booth with paper screens, who would this benefit? It would not increase privacy; it would enable peeping Toms. In fact, an open society is not only going to be more free, it's more likely to protect that special reserve of privacy that we all need.
What do you, dear /. reader, think about it?
Is the "Open Society" at the price of loosing most of our privacy our only way to escape the Orwellian nightmare?"
Read the interview with Brin here [amazon.com].
... followed by Some Thoughts on Privacy, Security and Surveillance in the Information Age
A Parable about Openness... [davidbrin.com]
The David Brin Site [davidbrin.com]
Go away, grammar nazis! My native language is not English.
Who watches the watchmen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Malevolence versus Negligence (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps this is similar to your definition of trust. Do you trust strangers? You shouldn't and here's why. Trust is a state earned by those who demonstrate a consistency of action and intent that is in the best interest of what you consider good. That may be you at the top of the chain (with most people it is) or it may be the organization you are in or just other people in general around you. If you refer to someone as a "good person" with the justification of "he/she is nice to me" when it is plainly obvious that said person is an ass to everyone else... that says a lot about your ethos and trust. This mentality plays out in views of government as well, sadly.
Would you trust a child with a grenade? Then why trust the government with your private life and liberties? The child is not evil, just incompetent. I work with many government employees and I can tell you that it is not the ethical and hard working ones that are decision makers. Perhaps by being burned out or just because their "any casualty is acceptable in my climb up the ladder" mentality set them as a kindred spirit to those that hire and promote... who knows? The result is an environment that promotes sloth and blind bureacracy over real quality of results. This is how you get screwed.
"You can trust them, they are from the government." Based on what criteria do they filter out the self serving? What makes me say, "Yes, this is an organization that requires and encourages ethical and professional behavior"? Just because their paycheck comes directly from the department of Treasury does not make them trustworthy. No thanks, I will reserve my trust to those I have seen demonstate that they have earned it.
She needs to shut up herself (Score:3, Insightful)
Try living in a country that DOESNT have rights for a few months.. Then make that totally insane comment.
If she truely belives the individual should not have freedom then she can get the hell out of my country.
Freedom is what this country is founded on. As soon as you give that up, we have destroyed what we are and lost the battle.
People like this just piss me off to no end.
Words of Wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
- Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them." - Philip K. Dick (found on www.brokensaints.com)
This is worse than terrorism... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no need for Al Quaeda to do any more serious bombings or to kill a single person, because there are now people in the US who are doing its work. But instead of killing people, they do a worse thing: they are destroying the very foundations of the civilization.
What these people do not realize, is that although life should be held as important, people can be replaced, and are. But a philosophy of life, a civilization, that cannot be rebuilt as fast. I may seem callous, but think of how people will look back on this in 25 years.
What's worse, is that these measures that reduce personal privacy and liberties probably won't help stop further terrorism attempts. Not that they need to do any more, with such people working for them.
Ashcroft should be arrested for attempting to destroy the foundations of the US. That's a worst act of terrorism in my mind than anything Bin Laden has done so far.
Too funny! (Score:3, Interesting)
Bwaaaaahahahaha! Even if you're one of those who believes Bush would never allow any misuse, who's to say following administrations wouldn't misuse information? You know, like using census information to round up Japanese for concentration camps.
Cowardice. Pure and simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
To not feel fear concerning terrorism would be stupid. I mean, they really are out there, and they really can hurt us. That is a fact. But to allow ourselves to be paralyzed by that fear -that is, to be afraid- has no point or meaning, because quite frankly, they cannot be stopped 100% of the time, and it is pointless to even try, because the only way to even approach 100% is by using means which make our lives not worth defending anyway.
People seem to forget that the various government agencies get some ten to twenty terror threats a day. They don't have the resources to treat every one of them as a real threat, but fortunately, most of them are not. So they have to sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff first, and then deal with the genuine threats. This is a monumental task indeed. And yet, from 1997 - 2002 (as close as we can currently get to a five-year period surrounding 9/11). only one attack got through. That's well over a 99.99% success rate. And this was with several security procedures which were in place before 9/11 not even being followed. Even the government can't ask for better than that and honestly expect any improvement.
We are, in fact, no more secure than we were before 9/11. That's because it's basically impossible to get more secure. And that's a sobering thought, that for all the efforts at trying to "prevent" terrorism, it cannot be done perfectly, not without compromising everything that makes life in the US worth living. But that's something that's simply going to have to be dealt with. Too many people, it seems, have been raised to believe that the world is like some Disney movie where "common decency" is universal, everyone is capable of being reasoned with given enough time, and governments never abuse the power they are given. That would be great if it were -or could be- true, but there's this thing called reality that gets in the way. Maybe when more people realize this, the populace as a whole will start getting a little braver.
Freedom vs. Privacy vs. Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, someone can look that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, but the problem is that sometimes we hide things because we don't want people to see them, and not because they are something "wrong." Take for example personal emails. I email my girlfriend something personal, and suppose I say something in it like "You're the bomb." Regardless of what else I say, there is a push that the hunt to find terrorists alone would be enough to search my message for meanings, and search any other messages.
Terrorists did not just suddenly appear in America, no matter what they want us to believe. Restricting what people can say in private for fear of observation and prosicution is worse than violating someone's rights to Freedom of Speech in public (where the constitution truly applies). At that point, their is no private sayings, their is no right to think what you want.
There is a fine line between security and privacy, and is somewhere around that line. The paranoia looking for terrorists has the potential to turn into another Red Scare. Sure, for every person you find pushing terrorist activities, you probably harass and punish 30 who didn't. Beyond that, we've already seen the push for this movement against people who have nothing to do with fighting terror. How long before the privacy crackdown starts busting people just for music because Peer-to-Peer networks can facilitate terrorism?
Oh my god... (Score:4, Informative)
Even the most complacent, oblivious, and trusting of Americans in this day and age, should be resigned to the fact that a conspiracy of good intentions can often lead to abuse of government power.
Patriotism is not giving the gov all access (Score:5, Insightful)
``Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither.''
The 2nd Amendment guarantees us security. The government needn't do anything else. When they do seek additional measures in the name of security, question their motives. These are usually the groundwork for more sinister plans.
If you think the U.S. government is not susceptible to committing atrocities, you've had your eyes closed. Ask any American Indian if they trust the government. Or any Japanese-American who spent years of his life in an internment camp. Or an African-American who unwittingly found himself enrolled in a state-sponsored syphillis program. How about the people whose lives were ruined because they were denounced as COMMUNISTS?
We're no different today. We simply changed some keywords. COMMUNISTS now means either DEMOCRATS or TERRORISTS. Instead of the USSR it's the Middle East. Instead of the SS driving jews into ghettos, it's the IDF driving Palestinians into ghettos. Beat Vietnam protestors -> Beat Iraqi war protestors. S&L? Now Enron, WorldCom, etc. Joseph McCarthy? John Ashcroft! The same scandals, the same atrocities, the same lies, the same tyrants, just new names and a new days.
Less than 1% of 1% of the CIA's documents have been declassified, and just those few alone have shown thousands of cases of US sponsored terrorism, assassinations, support of military dicatorships, sending weapons and supplies to genocidal maniacs, destabilization campaigns, drug smuggling, ad naseum. And these people are still in our government today.
Trusting in the sanity of the United States Government is not an option. Their actions must be closely monitored and recorded. There are to be no secrets, their access limited and their power tightly curtailed. We have a responsibility to do this not only for ourselves, but for the entire world.
The reason we believe in Freedom and Privacy is because we think there's hope in changing our government for the better, peacefully. Once we lose sight of this, the only option left is to exercise the 2nd Amendment.
The real problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ms. McDonald says you can trust the government, but the issue isn't just trust. Even if you accept the idea that the government will not deliberately misuse this information, you have to recognize that PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!
It doesn't matter to the poor S.O.B. whose SSN was incorrectly associated with a child molester with a similar name that it was an honest mistake; he still has his life screwed up.
Considering the truly _massive_ numbers of plain old painful screw-ups made each year by public utilities, driver's license bureaus, tax offices, public assistance offices, child welfare offices, school systems, credit bureaus, etc. etc., it is an act of truly _monumental stupidity_ to believe that if the government builds the largest collection of information ever, they will miraculously stop making the same kind of ordinary human mistakes that have defined all public databases since the beginning of written records.
Even without the legitimate concerns about deliberate misuse, this alone is enough to make any _reasonably_ sane and intelligent human being demand more accountability from the government on this issue.
Who is holding back depends on your point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
A Shield For Incompetence & Cowardice (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:We created the terorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We created the terorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, if only we didn't let women go to school, forced men to grow their beards a certain length to show respect to "the prophet", stoned people to death for "blasphemy" or sex outside of marriage, etc, etc just like the damn Taliban, the terrorists would leave us alo
She's a platitudinarian... (Score:3, Insightful)