An Epidemic of Snooping 163
Travoltus writes "Privacy advocates are frequently confronted with the rhetorical question, 'If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have a good reason to worry about losing your privacy, right?' This AP story uncovers a vast, distributed, decentralized epidemic of snooping into databases of personal information by workers at major utilities, the IRS, and other large organizations. In a number of cases these incidents have led to real harm. One striking example involves now ex-Mayor of Milwaukee Marvin Pratt, who had a pattern of being late paying his heating bills. This fact was leaked to the media by a utility worker and may have led to Pratt's losing a bid for re-election. As one can imagine, the harm becomes much greater when this same snooping is done by Government officials to deal with political enemies, or by corporations to uncover whistleblowers."
Q&A (Score:5, Insightful)
I do have stuff to hide. It's just not illegal stuff.
Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
- Do you have a daughter?
- Would you mind preparing a binder with photos of her, along with all her diary entries, emails and phone conversations and sending a copy to every police officer in the city?
This will shut up most people. -----------
/. Mathematics:
+1 Insightful for encouraging killing of Muslims
-1 Troll for Muslims responding to such messages
the immediate and obvious problem with spying (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh come now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bear in mind that we live in a nation that's over nine trillion dollars in debt. Whoever believes horseshit like the above has no sense of scale.
Causalitie's unfair. (Score:1, Insightful)
It can also lead to problems with getting and retaining good credit.
Re:Q&A (Score:3, Insightful)
Perfect response to "nothing to hide" people: (Score:5, Insightful)
(Dunno where I read it.)
There's a couple of reasons. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, things that are legal are not always socially acceptable. Your weekend bar escapades and porn habits are probably quite legal, but it may not be in your best interests for the outside world to know about your attraction to midget transvestites.
Secondly, and more importantly, things that are legal and/or acceptable now might not be in the future. Look at drug use, for example. There was no point in hiding it back in the 70's, because "everybody did it", and now it's coming back to haunt people (like politicians). People shouldn't be scrutinized because they have the brains to foresee that stuff they're doing today might bite them in the ass later.knowledge is power (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing to hide? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
People are stupid!
Re:Q&A (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it does. The original logical fallacy is that if you have nothing to hide, you should not worry about snooping. The reason it is a fallacy---the reasons we should all worry about snooping are:
The point was that it's not about whether you trust the police to do the right thing and not abuse the information. It's about whether you trust the police to have the most private information about yourself---information that could be extremely embarrassing or even dangerous if leaked more broadly. And of course, if you have a clue, the answer is no. People have to earn that sort of trust, and they have to earn it as individuals. Granting that level of trust blindly to any group of people, including the police, is foolish.
Re:Oh come now... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not really surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
They want their own privacy and that of their friends, and by extension for those they admire, but not for anyone else. The entire concept of rule of law, that we need to find rules that can apply to everyone yet still maintain law and order, is alien to them.
The case for privacy and anonymity (Score:2, Insightful)
If a person is an upstanding member of the community that has done nothing wrong in any way, is law abiding, upright, honest and noncontroversial in their actions why should (s)he worry about revealing everything there is to know about (her)himself? Why should this person's privacy be protected? some may assert that the government should be allowed to distribute personal records about people so that they can do their jobs better and make crime more difficult. Right? WRONG! Privacy and its onus on the individual is misplaced and misguided. Privacy and anonymity is to ensure that people are protected from those with malicious intent, privacy and anonymity is never intended to help a person break the law. This is the case people use against privacy.
Privacy and anonymity is not to protect people so they can commit crimes, it is to protect the individual from the many criminal and malicious elements, whether they be political, criminal, mundane or otherwise.
Privacy protects against embarresment and shame of personal secrets, these may be medical ailments (such as that real severe case of haemorroids you got several years ago) and be through no fault of your own, or perhaps the stigma of a family member(goddamn you Uncle Joe! why did he have to do that to the poor horse, again, and again, and again!) with a criminal history or to protect against discrimination (ie. you're too old, fat, black, white, asian, feminine, masculine, ugly, beautiful... whoops maybe not that last one).
Anonymity protects free speech and future reprisals connected with said free speech being employed.
Anonymity protects whistle blowers that see others commiting a crime and allows the person to do the right thing and report the crime safely without jeopardising their job security or become victimised as a result of their actions. (wikileaks yeah!)
Privacy and anonymity protects against Identity theft, the act of stealing another persons identiy can devastate a persons credit history, with resolutions being either difficult or even impossible.
Privacy and anonymity can insulate an individual against premeditated crimes like stalking, premeditated rape or assault or other such crimes, can all be prevented it the person wishing to commit a crime against a person they have met either casually or online are not able to look up the persons personal details in the future and track them down.
Privacy protects against harassment either from other individuals or from companies that make irritating phone calls or send personalised junk mail. If privacy and anonymity were respected we WOULDN'T NEED "do not call lists" or white/black lists! To clarify, cold canvassing is a different story but usually a purchasers identity is bought for a business and they use that to profile and selectively call those most likely to be interested in a product. This happens ALOT.
Privacy and anonymity protects an individual from persons in high office in government that may target a particular individual or group for political reasons.
It doesn't matter who it is, privacy and anonymity should be respected by all individuals, groups, agents, organisations, companies and governments, only you can be trusted fully with your personal details and all the above mentioned should should respect the privacy of others and only release personal information about a person with their consent. In a world that hardly respects privacy to begin with, we have everything to hide. For a law abiding citizen that just wants to live their life their own way ALL the above resonings for privacy and anonymity apply!
Re:Q&A (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone didn't get the joke.
Do you really think I'd be so stupid as to post real information?
I thought people would get the hint that it was a joke by saying "I'm sure no one would rob me -- look at all the stuff I have!"....
In my opinion, people who violate their own privacy deserve what they get (or lose, as it may be).
--jeffk++
Re:Q&A (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing out security flaws is never a good idea - especially by way of demonstration. Just look at that kid with the boarding pass generator [slashdot.org]
The unfortunate truth about vulnerabilities is that those who report them are rarely rewarded, often interrogated, and occasionally imprisoned.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Easily.
They were relying on "Security Through Apathy" as their primary defense. And you, you nasty, naughty person, blew through it as if it wasn't there at all.
That they're relying on bad people to just look the other way is, in their minds, not a problem at all. Which obviously is a problem, but not to them. From here, it's turtles all the way down.
Okay, I doubt I cleared up anything, but at least for a moment, it was fun mocking them.
Lead by example..? (Score:2, Insightful)
People are the worst... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way but since alot of companies have been outsourcing their systems to India data theft has increased (google for 'inda data theft'). for example - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/05/india_exposed/ [theregister.co.uk]
Heh, I saw someone on the Oracle forums post a question, "how do I take an export of Production to import to my home PC" and judging by the name... and he even mentioned he's allowed?!
http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=2289794� [oracle.com]
Nobody likes a Nerd, or to be proved wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Q&A (Score:4, Insightful)
So the whole thing about privacy is not what you want to keep secret, but about those people who want to keep secret from you but simultaneously want to know everything about you and your family. Why do all those freak privacy people pry into everybody lives, is it really so effective to tailor marketing campaigns, so they are my psychologically targeted at specific individuals, and thus drone like they a forced to mindlessly buy products, or perhaps where you can not effective manipulate the parents directly perhaps more effective psychological manipulation can be targeted via their children.
Isn't the typical view of a arse hole slime ball portrayed as someone who tells you all the private information about yourself whilst you know nothing about them and how they can manipulate that information, as it has been viewed for thousands of years, yet suddenly with the advent of the googlites et al. your private email is a postcard, your web searching is something to be used to target you even your medical records will be under the auctioneers hammer, your privacy for sale to the highest bidder.
So the real question is not about what right we have to privacy, but what god damned right those arse holes have to invade it, collate it, digitally anal-yse it and to manipulate it and thus seek control over your, what, shopping habits, and maybe voting habits. To gauge over the long term how the right assemblage of messages can most effectively manipulate your behaviour and choices, and thus in affect eliminate any real free conscious choice.
A Word on Privacy and Human Dignity... (Score:5, Insightful)
One case in point that I often beat to death (among those who know me, of course!) is the case in California, where "Megan's Law" resulted in quite a few gays being put on the list because they were considered "sexual offenders" by an earlier set of laws, and their names remained in files sitting around in the office of the bureaucrats for years.
Do we all have stuff to hide? Yes! But what is wrong with that? Just because we have stuff to hide doesn't mean that it's "illegal" -- just that we don't want the entire world knowing about it as all. People tend to judge you on the basis of their own morality, and their own expectations. If you happen to simply not "fit in", you could be harassed by the very private information on yourself were it to be exposed.
So the whole sneaky argument of "do you have anything to hide" becomes a semantic one, one in which we all
privately answer "yes" to, but because of the implication we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Even the very question is in and of itself an invasion into our privacy. That very question turns privacy upside down and invites further inquiry. Instead, the question should be answered with a question -- the same question -- thrown back at the person asking it. And if said person says "no", then start asking that person really private questions and see how they respond. Questions like, "do you do cunninglingus with your wife" or similar. That act, by the way, is still considered illegal in some states!
So, the truth is, if you are human at all, you have something to hide. That is nothing to be ashamed of. There is nothing wrong with that. Privacy, by its very definition, is all about "hiding" details of your life you don't wish the world to know -- and of course, is nobody's business, anyway.
So, really, the question is really saying "Do you have anything to be private about", and nearly everyone of course will answer "yes" to that. If you have something you wish to keep private, then you have something you wish to keep hidden. Period.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though the information itself might have not been anything they had any real need to hide, your act of snooping is invasive in itself. They trusted you to behave responsibly and you failed, it's as simple as that.
You personally seem to think that such an invasion of privacy is something bad. This means that you would (by your own standards) hurt someone just to prove a point. I'd say this is not a quality i generally admire in people (And I might very well tell that to someone doing so)
Remember that it is never the victims fault, it is the perpetrator who performs the act. Their failure to defend against privacy intrusions does not justify your behavior anymore than my failure to take self-defense classes justifies someone assaulting me. Just because he follows up the beating by handing me a leaflet to the local gym doesn't really make it ok.
Re:Q&A (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nobody likes a Nerd, or to be proved wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of bothered some of them, but instead of learning crypto basics, they yelled at me. I do not understand this behaviour...
Nobody likes a Nerd, or to be proved wrong. You put them in the position of being proved wrong by a nerd. Surprised they aren't happy?
It's the difference between the few souls in this world who think rationally (like the nerd) and most of humanity which tends to let emotion rule the day (like those students).
I am in the former category. And I do not mind being proven wrong. In fact, I welcome it. I want to understand life, the universe and everything a little better each day, and the clearer and better informed my thinking, the more useful and accurate my knowledge becomes.
Many people, however, seem to have a huge emotional stake in being "right." They cannot possibly begin to admit the thought that they might be wrong -- I dunno, maybe it's a basic self-esteem thing. That's why almost a decade into the 21st Century, we still have people who believe such things as the universe being created in 6 days, or that the moon landings were faked, or that Barry Bonds just worked out a lot.
My experience has been that most discussions of this sort go something like this:
Other guy (we'll call him "Joe") states a misinformed opinion.
I show Joe the error of his argument and point out his factual errors.
Joe pauses, then merely repeats the same line of "reasoning." (The last two steps may loop several times in succession with Joe becoming more and more flustered.)
Joe at some point abandons any pretense of rational argument and, having quickly exhausted his arsenal, starts to use phrases like "you just don't understand" or "that's just the way it is" or the like. (Optional phrases include "But God says it, so I believe it" or "Well, that's what my mother taught me -- are you calling my mother a liar?")
Final phase has Joe (a)attacking my character and the circumstances of my birth, usually accompanied by various words and phrases on the FCC's no-no list.
This is why it does not pay to argue about anything with anyone. When warning signs of the early phases of the above conversation begin to appear, quickly change the subject. When someone prefers to wallow in ignorance, there is little you can do. Pressing the issue will just make you an asshole in their eyes, and in extreme cases may result in the proverbial and venerable knuckle-sandwich being applied to your nose.
Re:Q&A (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true only in a utopian world of total equality. But it has two major problems. First the world doesn't work like that, its got a hierarchy. Secondly, a lot of people in power would consider this kind of open, flat, everyone equal, utopian world, as their idea of a dystopia, not a utopia. They want power. They don't want it flat and open. They want to be higher up than others. They want to be the centre of attention. They want more money than others. They want more power than others.
So that kind of totally open world is a scifi only utopian world, that cannot ever exist in a world that has some people who also seek power and that will never change. Plus these people who seek power ultimately make the rules, so they will not allow it to go that far, where everyone becomes equal.
Political ideologies are ultimately driven by the psychology of personality types, as with all human patterns of behaviour. These personality types will continue to exist, regardless of how technology evolves in the future. So the personality types will shape what technology is allowed or disallowed and how it is used.
I am sadly convinced however that Big Brother in becoming inevitable. Too many people want the power it gives over others. Its becoming a scramble for who can grab as much of that new power faster than others. The examples of Google's chess moves show this to be true. Google's "do no harm" PR smoke screen marketing theme is sounding more hollow, every new move Google makes. Their goal is to become some kind of marketing version of Big Brother, but with the total knowledge they are building up, they will also have immense political power as well. Google data mine everything they have. Each new chess move of Google reminds me of the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Google is becoming Big Brother. Yet few people seem to be able to see its slowly happening.
Given the kinds of personalities that can easily dominate in corporations, its hardly surprising.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=448546&cid=22377974 [slashdot.org]
So I think the question is becoming not if we will have a Big Brother, but what the form of that Big Brother will take. Google definitely are becoming a marketing Big Brother and others are racing to try to grab some of what Google are grabbing for themselves. Then again, its not simply just marketing products. Marketing of anything can be helped with market research. So selling ideas just as selling products is still selling. So marketing a product or marketing a political ideology using these kinds of new technologies is going to happen, regardless of what that ideology the people want to market. The more market research that can be grabbed, the more power it gives to the people with that knowledge
Knowledge mining is the new gold rush and with it brings power over others. Its the nature of the game. But that has existed in some form, for centuries. But now we have the ability to monitor and mine everything people are interested in and what their thoughts are when they for example post emails etc... Not only that, the Internet is a growing database of these ideas on blogs etc... Give it say another decade or two and imagine what kinds of data mining can be done on archived data, to work out what people think thought out their lives.
Its like the old saying, "Knowledge is power".
Re:Conform Citizen! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sir, I'm sure the 25 million people in the UK whose child benefit records were lost all agree with you, sir!
The really insidious thing about something like that is that it's almost impossible to prove that harm came from it. Anecdotal evidence might suggest that if such data did fall into criminal hands then a significant number of those people will now be victims of identity theft or some related crime. Past experience might suggest that given the high value the criminal world would place on such a rich source of data, they will have taken steps to acquire it. But can anyone prove it? Probably not.
And what that means is that while the government who screwed up can publicly wash their hands and cry "no harm, no foul", the reality is that 25,000,000 people with nothing to hide now have something to fear.
Sheeple (Score:2, Insightful)
Behave like a black hat, get the same treatment. (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of bothered some of them, but instead of learning crypto basics, they yelled at me. I do not understand this behaviour, can Slashdot explain ?
You have a well-meaning intention, but you are causing the exact harm you wished them to avoid. And they are doing to you what they would have done to anyone else who would have read their "interesting" messages to "everyone who was interested". You're not helping them at all. If you had instead asked their permission ahead of time to do what you were planning to do, read the messages only to them, and shown them how easy it was to read the messages with Wireshark, they would probably have been a lot nicer, and would not have yelled at you since you told them ahead of time what you would be doing and they gave you permission, and you didn't "harm" them or their reputation.
Even if they still couldn't be bothered to run encryption, they would now be doing an accurate risk assessment, and might keep more incriminating details out of their messages.