Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;         s=beta; d=gmail.com;         h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         b=MpcT5mo3PfeUEYS8bqOReTSAh1ZsMPSONVHhfKX8OV9ujLQwRmGu1zyyo5UjDcW7fYcccsXC9ljHqQkLe/k2Nm2AybYyQ9wdSOrir5l88o3bZDvuvFc19EDjk++ZSTKnQMxH4Zo421kazA9V7TFGR7bF8OQEIagaTI/IjHcSKcA=
Message-ID: <2ff07e720605220630g1e4fc478v6a828c982d0d971c &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d3580670605211927j419319ftf8aba1a104bcfc45 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605211446510.8934 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <8d3580670605211927j419319ftf8aba1a104bcfc45 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:30:38 -0400
To: "Lisa Hsu" <hsul &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "Clare Dibble" <clare.dibble &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: privacy
Status: O

I read this email on gmail and there were several adds for
surveillance equipment in the right hand column that anyone can
purchase.  Do we have the right to privacy from our neighbors as well
as the government?  If we have the right to privacy from both, who
inforces that right if the government can't monitor who is monitoring
people?

If we do not have the right to privacy from our neighbors, but do not
allow the government legal access to simiar information, we are only
one step from a peer informant system like those used by nazis and
communists.  To me, that is way creepier than letting the government
record how long I was on the phone with which phone numbers.

I do think the founding fathers may be horrified at the domestic
spying of the current day, but that would only be after someone spent
a day and a half catching them up on current technology.  Each new
technology has its own "security" risks, and the user holds some
responsibilty for figuring out what those are.

On the other hand, I agree that things have certainly gotten out of
hand in the current state of affairs.  I'd be interested to see a
proposal for what people think is reasonable in terms of both what the
government and individuals are responsible for or allowed to do in
terms of "privacy".   In this age of increasingly accessable
information, what new responsibilites come with such ease of access of
everything from housing prices to blind dates' criminal records?  We
are just begining to understand the evil side effects of organizing
the world's information.

Clare

On 5/21/06, Lisa Hsu <hsul &AElig eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
> agreed.
>
>  i find it very alarming that when i read about public opinion on such
> matters, people are unafraid of the occurrence of a police state.  i saw an
> abc news article about how some reporters were told by a government source
> that their cell phone numbers were being tracked because the government was
> trying to figure out who their anonymous sources were.
>
>  i was shocked.
>
>  but then, at the bottom of the article there are comments from regular
> readers.  and about 50% said, "GOOD!! i hope they find those communist
> bastards who are leaking national security information and put them in jail!
>  our boys are dying out there because of them!  they should jail all the
> government people leaking the info and all the media people reporting it!
> they're all traitors!"  or some such gist.
>
>  i was then doubly shocked.
>
>  and it calls to mind another famous quote "those who cannot learn from
> history are doomed to repeat it".
>
>  i don't know if i'm more sensitive about these sorts of things because 1) i
> love history and read a lot of books as a kid, and the one thing i remember
> clearly about all human chaos is that it usually didn't start that way.
> most people that i read about started with totally normal lives, and watched
> in disbelief as society degenerated into craziness, and by then it was too
> late because they didn't think such things were possible and didn't make
> their escapes while they could.  i remember that kind of stuff strongly.
> and 2) my family history involves escaping communist china, where i feel
> with strong identification the sorts of awful things that can happen when a
> government goes awry with power, surveillance, and rallying people behind
> questionable practices in the name of some greater abstract concept (for
> them, nationalism.  for us, security).
>
>  i feel certain the founding fathers would be horrified at the state of
> domestic spying in america.
>
>  lisa
>
>
> On 5/21/06, Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu> wrote:
> > In Wired Magazine: The Eternal Value of Privacy, by Bruce Schneier
> >   2006 May 18
> >
> > The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of
> > ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale
> > surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything
> > wrong, what do you have to hide?"
> >
> > Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no
> > cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong,
> > and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something
> > wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right
> > as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about
> > hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a
> > requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
> >
> > Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the
> > watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
> >
> > Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously
> > 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." Watch
> > someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just
> > blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance
> > information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on
> > political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.
> >
> > Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing
> > nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.
> >
> > We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not
> > deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for
> > reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy
> > of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them.
> > Privacy is a basic human need.
> >
> > A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the
> > framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out
> > privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of
> > their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was
> > unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be
> > inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted
> > criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to
> > the concept of liberty.
> >
> > For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of
> > correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We
> > become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that --
> > either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be
> > brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused
> > upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality,
> > because everything we do is observable and recordable.
> >
> > How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half
> > years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a
> > phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message
> > exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was
> > terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid
> > that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our
> > paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly
> > altered.
> >
> > This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us.
> > This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And
> > it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal,
> > private lives.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -
> search://"Daniel Reeves"
> >
>
>