David Brin on Privacy 365
David Brin is interviewed and provides some strong words on modern conceptions of privacy and why they're off-base. Brin asserts - and argues well - that a land with little privacy is a freer land.
"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight
A very basic fact... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:3, Informative)
As I have stressed to others in other threads, PLEASE do some research before deciding what rights you do or do not posses. How can you defend your rights if you don't even know what they are?
It's a Human Right (Score:3, Informative)
The old arguments (Score:3, Informative)
even if he has some "old ideas". some of these are very practical.
There's a whole shopping list we could ask for. The creation of a true office of the Inspector General of the United States. It doesn't exist. In each department, the inspectors report to the cabinet secretaries that appointed them. It's incestuous, as ridiculous as Enron hiring their accountants to be consultants. Autonomy would help. That's just one example.
The lightbulb, she goes on, y'know?
Re:Nice try (Score:3, Informative)
Also, there need not be a system of ever-increasingly powerful watchers. If that were required, then even our 50% open society would be doomed. One alternative is to have (as we have now) several equal powers which balance each other out. In this way, if one makes decisions which are too extreme, the others can collectively put pressure on the one.
Re:A very basic fact... (Score:1, Informative)
That obviously isnt a privacy amendment for two reasons. First, it only applies to law enforcement. Second, it rules on evidence. Just because a certain class of evidence can be suppressed in court doesnt mean your privacy hasnt been violated. The police can still spy on your sex life and even "accidentally" leak their information to A Current Affair.
There is absolutely no right to privacy under Consitutional or common law. That's what statutory law is for.
Why It Just Can't Work That Way (Score:3, Informative)
Privacy for it's own sake is the whole point. (Score:2, Informative)
Why is this absurd? The point is, if privacy is not valued for it's own sake, it will be taken from you when you really need it. Of course we don't need special rules to protect privacy when even Mrs. Grundy can see that it's needed.
The Anschluss was approved by an overwhelming majority of Austrian voters. Albert Goering, who did not share the political beliefs of his more famous brother, described how this vote worked to his Allied interogators after the war.
Voting took place in a large hall. In the centre there was a table, surrounded by seated officials, with ballots and ballot boxes. At the far end of the hall was a privacy booth. One approached the table and was handed a ballot with the Brinesque instruction that if voting "yes" (in favour of unification), there was no need for privacy - you could skip that long lonely walk to the booth. (Amusingly, the "Yes" alternative was printed very large on the ballot, the "No" very small. The Nazis weren't exactly subtle.)
Goering insisted on using the booth, but of course this was tantamount to an admission that he was voting "no". He could afford to do this because his powerful brother could free him from the clutches of the Gestapo (as happened on more than one occasion.) Most voters didn't have that luxury.
There was no way to argue the merits of privacy in the particular case, as Brin advocates, without arguing the case itself. If it had been possible to argue for privacy on a principled, rather than particular, basis, more people might have voted "no".
Re:Brin has no sense of perspective (Score:2, Informative)
Wasn't legal then either. Thoreau got tossed in jail for non-payment of taxes and sat there for a while with every intention of using the incident to publice his views on civil disobedience. Then someone paid his taxes for him, and they booted him out of jail. Slightly more info here [americanpoems.com].