------=_Part_7003_28488462.1148264825361
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
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 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"
>
------=_Part_7003_28488462.1148264825361
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
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 Æ 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"
------=_Part_7003_28488462.1148264825361--
|
