Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy News

Data Retention Proven to Change Citizen Behavior 261

G'Quann writes "A new survey shows that data retention laws indeed do influence the behavior of citizens (at least in Germany). 11% had already abstained from using phone, cell phone or e-mail in certain occasions and 52% would not use phone or e-mail for confidential contacts. This is the perfect argument against the standard 'I have nothing to hide' argumentation. Surveillance is not only bad because someone might discover some embarrassment. It changes people. 11% at least."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Data Retention Proven to Change Citizen Behavior

Comments Filter:
  • Hawthorne (Score:5, Informative)

    by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:38PM (#23663047) Journal
    Behavior changes when people are observed? Psychologists have known this for years. It's called the Hawthorne effect [wikipedia.org], and it's something you always have to watch for when studying behavior.
  • by setagllib ( 753300 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:57PM (#23663199)
    That's a useless argument. Having the source and having a community built around the source is already infinitely better than having neither. The very tangible result of this is that Windows Vista is covered in DRM and privacy leaks from the ground up, while you can get a wide range of modern Linux and BSD distros with neither of those problems.
  • by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:57PM (#23663203) Homepage Journal

    This is the perfect argument against the standard 'I have nothing to hide' argumentation.

    No, it is not... 89% did not change their behavior — arguably, because they had nothing to hide.

    BTW, is your glass 11% empty, or 89% full?

  • by Odder ( 1288958 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @11:04PM (#23663273)

    the vast majority of people have no way to verify that their software is secure, even if it's open source. And even the people who do have the ability aren't going to. Are you really going to read through every line of code in the Linux kernel looking for backdoors?

    Freedom means that you can do all of that and teams of people do for both cooperative and competitive reasons. All of the usual guards for non free software apply. People are watching their computers and will report suspicious communication. Then come all of the free software checks. The code gets checked upstream by the team that creates it and then downstream by many distributions that use it before finally being checked by the much larger number of users. The free software community is able to verify code from creation to desktop use and it's a fairly competitive place. For every kind of check you have in the non free world, you have more and better in the free world as well as greater competition and willingness to report wrongdoing. This makes it unlikely you will be caught by malicious code.

  • by Maljin Jolt ( 746064 ) * on Thursday June 05, 2008 @12:32AM (#23663835) Journal
    I don't see how paying for software, or getting it for free, has anything to do with one's ability to preserve privacy and political security.

    Free software is not about money, as is free in "free beer". It is about freedom as is in "free speech".

    With commercial software you have no legal possibility nor adequate technical tools to deeply verify if software you use has backdoors or anything else you do not want to be there inside your computer, phone, videorecorder, anything. And actually it does not matter if such malvare serves to government mafians or criminal ruffians. Whoever they are, THEY have control of all your information interactions. You have no privacy at all.

    With Free Software, if you care to train your relevant skills, you at least have a chance to affect what kind of software you use and how and this means indirectly YOU have control of your information interactions. That's privacy.

    Implications of both situations to political security are obvious.
  • by Firehed ( 942385 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @12:45AM (#23663915) Homepage

    First off remember that all closed shops utterly depend on the government to grant and enforce the monopoly they depend upon for their revenue.

    I currently work for a non-Free software company (not as a developer though), and want to point out that as not entirely true. It depends very highly on the industry and the customer. Being an employee I could get a copy of our software at no cost or close enough that it wouldn't matter (or so I assume; worse-case scenario, I re-generate myself a temporary key once a month). However I still choose to write my own applications where I could use our pre-built tool. Cost is not the issue: it's a combination of (my general lack of) experience with the .net platform, a dislike of said platform, the software generally being overkill for what I'd be doing, and my obsession with specialized tools that do one thing really well than general tools that do a lot of stuff reasonably well.

    Back on topic though, we could still sell our software even if copyright law didn't exist or if it was open source. Why? We have a support department. Not a forum, but a department. When you're selling to companies, there's tremendous value to them to be able to pick up a phone and call someone when something's not working. Consider the paid versions of MySQL, for example. I'm not at all knocking FOSS for this approach to support, but rather pointing out that if your target audience consists primarily of large businesses, the ability to get in direct contact with someone who's paid to troubleshoot or walk across the building to find the developer who wrote the problematic code is a BIG selling point.

    For software that costs under a couple hundred bucks, this isn't so much of an issue. However when companies are going to be making an investment in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on software, you can bet your ass that the support and maintenance of that software is very important. Don't get me wrong - we've lost deals to Drupal and Joomla probably as often as we've lost deals to our "real" competition, but more often than not those were very unqualified leads anyways.

    I work in sales, so take it with a grain of salt if you will. But I'm not saying that commercial/closed-source software is better than free or open-source software (it goes both ways all the time and often is a matter of opinion), just that it's more than the existence of IP laws that keep us in business.
  • by jthill ( 303417 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @02:50AM (#23664577)

    You asked ~are you going to read every line?~, as if he'd argued "if, and only if, you read every line, you can enforce your privacy and security."

    Which he hadn't.

    You refuted a flawed argument that he didn't make.

  • Re:Nothing new here (Score:2, Informative)

    by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @01:42PM (#23670927)
    Do you think people were asked if they want this?

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...