The Eternal Value of Privacy

happygilmore is known around here for supporting government intrusion of our privacy on the basis of protecting citizens from terrorists and criminals. In fact, I've been known to refer to him as "Mr. I Have Nothing to Hide."

Here is an article (that I wish I had written) that explains the danger behind thinking that privacy is about hiding things. That idea is a dangerous concept that can easily lead to abuse of power (tyranny), the revocation of liberty (tyranny), but more disconcerting, the loss of our dignity as human beings.

The author of this short article does a great job of explaining (much better than I can) why the "I have nothing to hide" approach to privacy is something that should be avoided. (I especially like the quote from Cardinal Richelieu.)

The author's point is that, "Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect." To this, I say, "Amen."

The Eternal Value of Privacy @ wired.com

THanks Bugs

Great post, Bugs.

Being someone who appreciates my privacy and understands a real true value to it, this was a great read.

I think everyone should read this article. Glad you all liked it.

Good article, decent resume, didn't change my opinion on the subject.

sounds great in a perfect world...which we don't live in.

Thanks for the article, Bugs.

Other than by an employer? My guess is that this number is roughly equal to the number of individuals suffering from delusional paranoia, plus those engaged in terror plots.

I would point out that I do not agree that it's ok to spy on every American just because those with nothing to hide should not object. But I don't believe paranoia about it is appropriate, either.

I've wondered.... I wouldn't say out of paranoia.. more out of curiousity.

BS, Bugs. No one is intruding on citizens - according to the article, you are probably doing a lot of private stuff all the time, God knows what - just how have you been impacted by any new law that is targeting those who want to kill us?

We are not looking for people that have stuff to hide, we are looking for people that want to kill us. Wake up or lose your head.

I am still and probably always will be a firm believer in the if you arent doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. I believe that the data will be used for the right puporses.

When I was in the service, my phone was tapped from time to time, depending on the sensitivity of projects I was working on. It didn't bother me to know someone was listening, because I wasn't doing anything wrong. Sometimes when my ex calls the line is tapped, again doesn't bother me because I am not doing anything wrong.

I know there are innocent people convicted of crimes from time to time, but for the most part, our justice system works and I don't fear being arrested and convicted of something I didn't do.

_X_, it's good to hear from you and see that your brain is still alive. (You need to pull your head out of the jokes every once in a while, Doc.)

I'm not going to comment on your reply. I'll let the article speak for itself since I can't improve upon it.

If you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

That's not the point. The point is that the "watching" is an intrusion that will color *everything* you do (or don't do) -- not just the things you want to hide. Is that *really* what you want?

I'm glad you believe the data will be used for the right purposes. But we're not all sweet, honest, and trustworthy people. You can be sure that putting this type of power in the hands of some people is a mistake. And the problem is that you never know who is the wrong person to give this power. Some people are held only in check by the fact that they don't have the power. Give them the power, and they will abuse it.

It's like being followed by a cop even though you know you're not breaking any traffic laws.

Bugs - I read the testimony from the USAG that said it would not be used illegally or abused if granted. Using the BBToIT, I must belive that he is honest and forthright in this statement, and that I - and you - have nothing to fear.

(as a refresher, BBToIT is the Bugs Bunny Theory of Internet Truthfulness, whereby everything you read on the internet is to be taken as gospel truth)

Bugs, You just don't get it. No one would be watching me! I am not a terorist, I don't consort with them, never had never will. There are others that would come under scrutiny but not me. I have nothing to worry about.

Thanks, happy, you're a real smart guy, are you not?

P.S. Your twisting of my words is starting to wear a little thin and the embarrassment of watching your immaturity show through is getting a little painful to observe. It's time to grow up a little more, Doc.

You don't get it do you? They're watching everybody not just the folks on their lists.

BS

do you really believe this? your paranoia is starting to wear thin...and your double standard (calling me Mr IHNTH) but telling me I can't rehash your statements (BBToIT) is quite interesting...

Have you thought of the resources that would take bugs. Good god we didn't have theresources to stop 9/11 and you think they are watching everyone. Come on now you are smarter than that, or so I thought.

Simply label it, dismiss it, and move on. Good strategy!

Sorry I know better than you, and I was calling it like I see it.

Good point. I'll stop calling you Mr. IHNTH.

P.S. Of course I believe it. Consider the monitoring of email messages or wire transfers for a moment. How do you think they can monitor without monitoring everyone? What would be the point in monitoring the traffic if they couldn't didn't watch everyone?

Think of it like a police speed trap on a highway. In general, the cop points his radar gun at *everyone* hoping to catch someone going fast enough to make a stop worthwhile.

Get it?

Oh, sorry. I thought the term meant you were dismissing what I said. I interpreted your statement of "BS" as dismissive of my statement. My bad.

what you may not be aware, Bugs, is what KMS did prior to banking. Her knowledge of this process is far greater than yours or mine.

As far as monitoring and your comparison to funds transfer, surely you are aware that not every wire is monitored by the government, but it is the bank's responsibility for performing OFAC, BSA, and money laundering/structuring. In fact, the Fed does not perform any type of monitoring on funds, other than making sure there are funds in the bank's account when the wire is originated. SWIFt follows the same pattern.

I agree with KMS on this one, that the amount of manpower that would be needed to truly monitor this in real time is astronomical. There are programs that allow for real time monitoring, with several key components to determine if a trigger is hit before a person is actually even involved in the process. To think that every single email, phone call, etc is monitored in real time is strictly paranoia.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I know I won't change your mind, and you certainly won't change mine.

But, there aren't cops on EVERY highway, right? Just on the highways where they expect speeding to occur.

1. I am not paranoid and to label me as such simply muddies the water and (IMHO) illustrates part of why you sometimes tend to get so easily sidetracked on issues, happy. I realize that this is not being monitored in real time. I have never even suggested that this is the case.

2. I'm not trying to change *your* mind, I'm trying to give people who are still on the fence something to think about.

3. We've lost track of the original message I was trying to emphasize by starting this thread...

"Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide."

(Bugs: Over and out.)

why, I'm not sidetracked at all, still on the main line. If you belive that the government is monitoring you, and in reality they aren't, but have the ability to do so if you hit a trigger, what would you call it? Overly cautious?

You are completely sidetracked, happy.

Look again at Number 3 above. This discussion is about our future not about our present. It's about what kind of freedoms do you want for your kids and grandkids.

Yep, I'm so off track so I've re-pasted a couple of your prior comments from *gasp* this same thread...






you can make any claim about forward looking that you want, but your own words state They're watching everybody.

There aren't cops on EVERY highway ALL the time. They are on EVERY highway/road at some time. Because they expect speeding can occur on any road at any time.

They are always monitoring SOME road. You (as a driver) just don't know which one in advance.

Context, Doc, don't ignore context. Yes they're watching now, but the whistle is being blown to stop it before it gets out of control. That's why it's about the future, happy.

Exactly. So, if I'm not speeding (which I usually am anyway), I have nothing to worry about.

translation: I am paranoid!

What a profound statement. It is a wonder that you are not considered a profit of some sort.

MB Guy, remember what Cardinal Richelieu said... "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

There are many Cardinal Richelieu's in the world. Do you want to hand them the rope to hang you if they so choose?

I don't understand why everyone is so willing to give up their liberties in the name of security. Have we gone completely mad? George Mason must be turning in his grave.

What you characterize as paranoia, I characterize as being patriotic. I'm fighting for you, for me, and our progeny.

You mean "prophet" right? Yes, now you're starting to understand. This is a prophetic fight to a certain degree. I just hope the prophecy doesn't come to pass.

There's a minor difference between speeding and humans interacting in a conversation or email.

Speeding is a fact, a known quantity, and is not open to interpretation. Conversations, either spoken or written, are open to bias, interpretation, assumptions, and the like.

So the highway one is not really a very good analogy IMHO.

Bugs, thanks for posting the article; I found it very interesting.

While we're quoting, I like the Edmund Burke quote "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

Or the unattributed idiom "None is so blind as those who refuse to see."

Perhaps it's not the best, but it was the best I could come with on the spur of the moment, and I think it does have relevance.

Thanks!

Let's be fair, my boy. These quotes could just as easily be thrown in your face as mine, so what are you trying to say?

you'd propose taking the risk and not monitor anyone and hope all is okay. I'm not opposed to us monitoring if it prevents the risk.

Preventive vs. reactive - I'll take preventive every time

I think I've got your thoughts on that score down, happy. I just happen to think that approach is shortsighted, dangerous, unpatriotic, and downright selfish.

Well, Bugs, I think the same about yours. Amazing...isn't it!

One has to weigh the risk of theories vs. realities of life today.

In theory, the listening and monitoring emails and phone conversations is a very slippery slope.

But, the reality is that we live in a dangerous world where there are people plotting to kill innocent citizens and essentially destroy our country.

The US is a primarily free country that doesn't persecute people for beliefs, or prosecute for the "wrong" reasons. And, there are built in controls that are supposed to (and work 98% of the time) prevent governmental abuses.

Striking a balance between the two is the key.

And you may be surprised to learn that I don't have a problem with that at all, happy. Just because we feel the same way about our positions doesn't invalidate the way the other feels. We are both speaking up for what we think is best for the United States. That's what liberty is all about.

To a certain extent, I agree. We will probably disagree, however, on where the fulcrum should be set and how much weight goes on each side of the scale.

Guys, it's not an "all or nothing" issue. We can be preventive, monitoring appropriately and subject to rules, without monitoring every conversation in everyone's house. Being subject to rules (i.e. get a warrant or fit within the established exceptions to the warrant requirement) does not mean that we give up on prevention.

I don't want the government listening in on my private conversations because they're private. I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I want someone tapping my phone lines. If the govt. has some plausible reason to believe I might be a terrorist or that I might be talking to terrorists, or that I might have information about them, it can get a warrant. If we need more streamlined procedures to get warrants, then let's do it. But we don't need to waive our constitutional rights.

If anyone wants to watch a great movie that happens to touch on these issues, rent "The Lives of Others." It's set in Germany at the end of the cold war era - great actors, a great story line, and it just happens to deal with surveillance. (It's also in German w/subtitles, but don't let that discourage you - it's still an excellent watch.)

I'm all for following established procedures already in place for law enforcement to obtain information needed to investigate and prosecute crimes.

I have plenty to hide, but it has nothing to do with national security.

I don't believe you meet the minimum age requirement...

I don't believe you meet the minimum age requirement...

wow, I must really believe that to post it twice...HORK

They know.

He should never have ordered the trampoline, goats and charcoal brazier from the same company....

Whaddaya talkin' about, Doc. I was "born" in 1940. I'm older than your dad.

Definitely high risk activity.

only by a year, but you're much more crochety than he is

Ya really think so? If you knew me in person I don't think you'd say that. It's too bad you can't hear my posts in my voice. I never yell and I always try to say things with a little humor in my voice.

I'm very rarely disagreeable. When I feel crochety, I usually just avoid people so I don't get myself into trouble.

fwiw, I don't think I'd use the word 'crochety' to describe you, Bugs. From what I can tell by reading your posts, you seem to have a very easy-going demeanor.

Thanks, Becka. And I wasn't really born in 1940 (Bugs Bunny was). I was actually born amost 20 years later than Bugs.

goodness gracious people, it was humor...I don't think Bugs is crochety at all, just firm in his opinion (comes from eating too many carrots)

Yeah, you don't really come off as being 67 years old.

Down, boy, down. Nobody was suggesting it wasn't humor. We's just talkin' that's all. Dig, man?

Hippee!!!

Far out, man!

Well that explains a lot!!!!

I agree with all of that and I think it's important that we maintain constitutional safeguards for American citizens whether each of us has something to hide or not. But I also find it sickening that we had soldiers kidnapped (and ultimately murdered) in Iraq and were not able to listen in on conversations between terrorists in that country without getting a warrant - a process that took twelve hours - because some of the transmissions crossed equipment located in the US. That is craziness, and it is the type of craziness that gets people killed for absolutely no good reason at all.



Wm F Buckley said it was one of the best movies of all time.



I agree - that's all they should do to investigate crimes. But I think that the government needs more powers than calling an attorney when it wants to defeat individuals who are carrying out acts of war.

I never really was a real hippie. I was too young. By the time I was old enough to be one, the war was over and most hippies were on the way to becoming "productive members of society." So I became a less radical "Jesus Freak" with a "prosperity/full gospel" bent instead. It took me many years to wake up from that ridiculousness.

I do admit, however, I have a certain fondness for '60s and '70s hippie music.

What greater power could there be???

Sounds good in theory, but how do we define "war" these days? Is it a "war" on terrorism because the President or Congress calls it that, or is just rhetoric (sp)? We used to fight declared "wars" against other nations. Now the U.S. can declare "war" on an idividual. That's a real challenge, isn't it?

An FDIC regional office? Unfortunately, I don't think Usama is intimidated by CMPs.

Maybe not, but I'll bet a good cease and desist order will make him straighten up and fly right.

I think that, regardless of what the President or Congress want to call it for reasons of political correctness, it's fairly obvious that we are fighting a war with radical Islamists. Would there be a benefit to declaring that clearly? Yes. But I think there would also be a cost - I don't know which one outweighs the other.

But your point that things are more complicated today is correct - I would suggest that that argues for a little sympathy on your part when it comes to judging the actions of those who work every day to keep us safe, only to hear complaints that they go too far when they succeed, and don't go far enough when they fail.

I'm fairly convinced that the better part of the Democratic Party believes they can agree to an MOU with the Islamofascists.

I get a little caught up in the discussion, but I do appreciate what is being done to keep me safe. I just think it's time to stop right where we are and take stock of where we have been, where we are now, and where we are heading. Right or wrong, the way things look now, I think the Republicans are going to pay an expensive price this November for the adminstration forging full steam ahead without considering all of consequences.

Maybe I'm wrong, but history (and our children) will be the judge.

When I first started my old job, and I worked unidentified signals, if they were speaking english I would listen to try an discern if they were drug smugglers, or other bad guys. If I was able to tell that they were up to know good, the attorney Genral was contacted and we were or werent(depending on the situation) to start recording and transcribing the conversation.

I sat for hours one night listening to this guy and it cameoff like drug smugglers but I still wasnt sure, waited another hour, triangulated thesignal,, help with the CG turned out to be fishing boats. No name was ever taken down, there is no recordof this ever happening because he was doing nothing wrong.

After 9/11 this changed drastically, I went to working 12hour shifts 7 days a weektrying to track down AQ comms any way possible.

We just didnt start looking at every american has a target

It's not that I have nothing to hide ( well really, I don't). It is just that I don't think my activities are that interesting or big enough to be worth the time and effort.

It they want to waste time and money listening to my conversation with my SIL about a root canal, oh well.