So think that "because I have nothing to hide" its OK for president chuckle head and his minions at the NSA to look into your life?
An excellent article that may change your mind is linked to from Slahdot.
Very interesting, but 30 or so pages long.
Privacy? Nothing to Hide?
-
Rocketdork
- A.B. Normal
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:13 pm
- Location: The City of NOT Spokane
- Contact:
Um yeah, and what Fred said 
"The age demanded that we sing, and cut away our tongue. The age demanded that we flow, and hammered in the bung. The age demanded that we dance, and jammed us into iron pants. And in the end the age was handed the sort of shit that it demanded."
This is an interesting article. I see what he’s saying about the difficulty of conceptualizing privacy. It’s hard to determine universally, and trying to specifically do so would almost be an invasion of it. There are things that we all do that we know we would like kept private, but I think that the level of privacy is dependant on the specifics. For instance, I might walk to a private room when I’m having a phone conversation with a girl that I like, but I might feel free to let people listen as I’m blowing off a telemarketer. It’s like Thomas Emerson said, “privacy is inherently personal.” What we consider privacy, it essentially a private matter.
I already assume that there is a plethora of data out there that tells where I shop, what I buy, who I talk to, where I’ve been, my credit score, etc. I also assume that there are systems in place to look for red flags in my activities. To the extent of this information, I do feel that I have “nothing to hide,” but there is a line (for each individual) that should not be crossed. The government already has so much information about every individual, so what more do they want? Words in telephone conversation can be easily misconstrued, and can lead to unnecessary invasion of an innocent person’s privacy. Then what, “sorry we tore you’re life upside down to investigate your suspicious lifestyle that you wanted kept private, you should be more like everyone else who ‘we the government’ will not harass.” I don’t buy it.
Think of when you learn something new, or you’re looking for something in your everyday life; you will tend to notice things more if you are looking for them. Like if you’re looking for the number 6, you’ll end up seeing it everywhere. If you buy a new car, you’ll end up noticing it more when you see others driving the same kind of car. It’s not that the number 6 or my type of car is quantitatively more present in my life; it’s just that I notice them more because they are in the forefront of my mind. I think this concept could result in a great deal of false accusations, which would be an invasion of several people’s lives. Let’s not delve into people’s lives any further than we already do.
I already assume that there is a plethora of data out there that tells where I shop, what I buy, who I talk to, where I’ve been, my credit score, etc. I also assume that there are systems in place to look for red flags in my activities. To the extent of this information, I do feel that I have “nothing to hide,” but there is a line (for each individual) that should not be crossed. The government already has so much information about every individual, so what more do they want? Words in telephone conversation can be easily misconstrued, and can lead to unnecessary invasion of an innocent person’s privacy. Then what, “sorry we tore you’re life upside down to investigate your suspicious lifestyle that you wanted kept private, you should be more like everyone else who ‘we the government’ will not harass.” I don’t buy it.
Think of when you learn something new, or you’re looking for something in your everyday life; you will tend to notice things more if you are looking for them. Like if you’re looking for the number 6, you’ll end up seeing it everywhere. If you buy a new car, you’ll end up noticing it more when you see others driving the same kind of car. It’s not that the number 6 or my type of car is quantitatively more present in my life; it’s just that I notice them more because they are in the forefront of my mind. I think this concept could result in a great deal of false accusations, which would be an invasion of several people’s lives. Let’s not delve into people’s lives any further than we already do.
Peanut Butter Jelly Time! 
-
Rocketdork
- A.B. Normal
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:13 pm
- Location: The City of NOT Spokane
- Contact:
The issue that I see with all this;
The gov't won't tell you what they are collecting, how they are using it and when they will truly dispose of the data.
I don't like the idea that they can and will collect anything they see fit if its a matter of public record for the purpose of profiling my personality. There are many things that are public record about me, whether they are easy to get or not, that I don't want others to intrude on. Just because the bank knows where I spend my money, doesn't mean that I want any branch of the government to be able to search that record to find patterns of behavior. That data is private to me...
They say they won't use it for anything except to "fight terrorism". What a blanket statement. They can justify any search to say its terrorism. I have seen reports of people that were considered a risk to the US security simply because they were suspected of homosexuality. WTFO? The fundemental risk here is that they can and will use it for anything they see fit. IF the collection of data is there, it is open to abuse. If it simply doesn't exist, then it can't be abused.
The other issue to me is the data retention time. They won't say if the data will be kept for a period of time, or if it will live in perpetuity. That bothers me. Even assuming that they will use the data for a "correct" purpose, if it lives beyond that purpose, then it can be abused.
Finally, WHO makes the decision of what is germane and what is not? What behavior predicts that you'll be a problem for them and who decides this? Is the person that makes these decisions like Pat Robertson? Anne Coulter? Charlie Manson? George Bush, or BIO? I don't represent a threat to the Gov't in any way...I don't agree with many of the things they do, but I don't plan on ever doing anything about it, not that's illegal anyway. The hobby I have, the things I do around that hobby and some of the conversations that I have, when taken in isolation, could easily put me under investigation for terrorism. If some dumbshit in the FBI, NSA, or CONGRESS decides that Rocketdork is a threat, they won't hesitate to tear my life apart, in the end, they'll find something to destroy me with and even if they don't, they'll walk away from the shambles they created and leave a shell of a man behind. Naturally, if they don't have the chance to look into my life through wiretaps, bank records, etc, they aren't even able to come to the conclusion, with out an overt act, that I am a terrorist.
In the court system, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is paramount (if not really practiced). There needs to be a REASON to investigate someone. Just because data is obtainable through public means, doesn't mean that data should be subject to scrutiny by "uninterested" parties. Remember the freaks of the world ALSO can search this data as they see fit and their ability allows. If its OK for a faceless government, then its OK for that faceless stalker, credit card company, spammer and pornographer to do it too...
The gov't won't tell you what they are collecting, how they are using it and when they will truly dispose of the data.
I don't like the idea that they can and will collect anything they see fit if its a matter of public record for the purpose of profiling my personality. There are many things that are public record about me, whether they are easy to get or not, that I don't want others to intrude on. Just because the bank knows where I spend my money, doesn't mean that I want any branch of the government to be able to search that record to find patterns of behavior. That data is private to me...
They say they won't use it for anything except to "fight terrorism". What a blanket statement. They can justify any search to say its terrorism. I have seen reports of people that were considered a risk to the US security simply because they were suspected of homosexuality. WTFO? The fundemental risk here is that they can and will use it for anything they see fit. IF the collection of data is there, it is open to abuse. If it simply doesn't exist, then it can't be abused.
The other issue to me is the data retention time. They won't say if the data will be kept for a period of time, or if it will live in perpetuity. That bothers me. Even assuming that they will use the data for a "correct" purpose, if it lives beyond that purpose, then it can be abused.
Finally, WHO makes the decision of what is germane and what is not? What behavior predicts that you'll be a problem for them and who decides this? Is the person that makes these decisions like Pat Robertson? Anne Coulter? Charlie Manson? George Bush, or BIO? I don't represent a threat to the Gov't in any way...I don't agree with many of the things they do, but I don't plan on ever doing anything about it, not that's illegal anyway. The hobby I have, the things I do around that hobby and some of the conversations that I have, when taken in isolation, could easily put me under investigation for terrorism. If some dumbshit in the FBI, NSA, or CONGRESS decides that Rocketdork is a threat, they won't hesitate to tear my life apart, in the end, they'll find something to destroy me with and even if they don't, they'll walk away from the shambles they created and leave a shell of a man behind. Naturally, if they don't have the chance to look into my life through wiretaps, bank records, etc, they aren't even able to come to the conclusion, with out an overt act, that I am a terrorist.
In the court system, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is paramount (if not really practiced). There needs to be a REASON to investigate someone. Just because data is obtainable through public means, doesn't mean that data should be subject to scrutiny by "uninterested" parties. Remember the freaks of the world ALSO can search this data as they see fit and their ability allows. If its OK for a faceless government, then its OK for that faceless stalker, credit card company, spammer and pornographer to do it too...
"A man without a woman is like a statue without pigeons"
