Change your definition of 'privacy'

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

[link]

Basically, Donald Kerr (principal deputy director of national intel) is saying that you have no privacy here in the US. The solution? Change your definition of the word! Orwell is spinning in his grave fast enough to slice meat.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I never understood why they need to change the need for a court

order to for these things.

Dont they have judges who will give the aproval with out to much fussing about?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, as an outside observer, I think your courts are just a little sticky about some of the outrageous things that security people want to do, and rightly so.

We now have a commission sitting on the "lettres de cachets" that the government has been using to hold suspected refugees who are apprehended to have terrorist connections.  Our Supreme Court has lowered the boom on this and Parliament is drafting amendments.

I suppose the next order of business if opening up that oubliette at Guantanamo Bay.

[saltandsauce 0]

that is possibly the WORST way to avoid a question

[Duke87 1,070]

Don't worry honey, mommy just wants to protect you from the naughty, naughty terrorists.

[Equilibria 16]

Well, this is pretty much the first time a government official has openly endorsed a totalitarian American regime. It's nice to see the Bush administration is finally being honest about their intentions.

[Mr. Glamazon 9]

The first time I read through 1984, I was so angered and inspired (funny combination), that I started educating people my generation about idiots like this guy. Half the teenagers I know who are my age don't understand the concept of privacy or why it's vital. Now, government officials are publicly endorsing public monitoring programmes. It's no surprise this has the backing of big business, considering information trading is one of the most lucrative (and quickly growing) markets in an ever stagnating economy. And of course no-one will think twice about it, because we don't suffer for speaking our minds, do we? Or will we? The future is shaped by the things we allow ourselves to lose or have chipped away. Today it's a new concept of privacy, but tomorrow, it's a new concept of speaking, or a national I.D. that tracks where you are at any given time.

Privacy isn't your right to feeling comfortable with the fact that others know your private data- it's your natural born right to decide whether you want to share it.

[DOXXP29 5]

As tragic as the incidentsof 9/11 were, I think that the administration was experiencing orgasmic delight at the realization of things they could implement in its aftermath. The famous comment about having to give up some rights to be able to enjoy freedom was an understatement! Things were bad enough before, but since then everything has gotten out of hand. Privacy is virtually non-existant. If the current administration had its way, we would all be chipped. 

With the state of today's technology, it's easy enough for an average person to find out information about someone else. With the government's access to much higher forms of technology along with their power to get away with it, they can find out anything they need to know about anyone. Along with the ability to find out "paper" information about anyone, just look at all the cameras springing up around urban areas in Amerikan cities recently. There are also things that many aren't even aware of. For example, in D.C. (as well as many other cities) they have these devices called "ShotSpotters" located all over town. These things are audio recording devices that can triangulate the sound of a gunshot using technology similar to GPS. What else may devices such as this be recording? And how many D.C. residents are even aware that they've been here for some time? (Not many according to the people I talk to, even those who have lived here for decades!) And if authorities really wanted to track your actions, there are plenty of satellites up there that can record your comings and goings. You might cry "Foul!", but how could you prove they weren't watching you? Ask them for the tapes? (...takes time out to regain composure after rolling on the floor with laughter...) Illegal wiretapping has been going on forever and as technology advances, the same thing will keep going on in higher and more advanced forms. Over ten years ago, Arlington, Virginia police were told to stop beaming infrared sensors at people's houses in the name of trying to detect the heat from Grow-Lite lamps used to cultivate marajuana in the home. The things were sensitive enough to render heat images of bedroom activity, which is what some officers were apparently doing for laughs.

[JimO 0]

Mr. Glamazon: "ever stagnating economy?"

Economic growth in the western world for the past two hundred years has been rigorous with very few interruptions. There has been a massive explosion in world and US wealth; aside from a few years in hundreds, every other year has from a wealth and output standpoint been better than previous years. Many signs point to increasing rates of economic growth in the future as technology continues to push marginal costs down towards zero and firms use data mining to better price discriminate, eliminating dead weight losses in the economy. You either have poor knowledge of the actual performance of the US economy over time or you suffer from a severe case of pessimistic bias, either way your claim is not correct.

I also take a little issue with labeling privacy as vital. Privacy is one good that people undeniably enjoy, but it is certainly possible to live (physically at least) without it. Much of the negative reaction to decreases in privacy seems to me to stem from status quo bias. We are told privacy is good, so when it is lessened, we feel psychological pain. If we were not brought up to cherish privacy, losing privacy would not cause as much anguish. The actual effects of less or more privacy on outcome variables (like longevity, safety, quality of life, etc) may be identical in both cases, but the emotional reaction is wildly different. In a broader sense, I think privacy is a good that is often traded off against other goods, such as greater security, more wealth, greater levels of statistical knowledge concerning the world, or more opportunities. The optimal level of privacy is certainly not 100% privacy and 0% surveillance, just as the optimal level of pollution is not 0%.

I am not making a defense of the police or surveillance state (I personally have no great love for these arrangements) but I think most of the dislike of privacy reductions is an irrational emotional response and not founded on expected decreases in objective outcomes.

[Nardo69 51]

No privacy without anonymity.

No freedom without privacy.

No democracy without freeedom.

And what they call security is nothing but surveillance.

Surveillance however does NOT necessarily has an effect on security; at the moment noone ever has mathematically proven that surveillance increases security i.e. the chance that some bad things may not happen. It does however change peoples behavior, if criticism may have bad effects on you (and if it is "only" becoming "mysteriously" a member on a no-fly - list).

If they are serious on this (and unfortunately it really does look like this) they are already far outside democracy and freedom and went a long way to a fascistoid / Stalinistic dictatorship.

The NKWD / GeStaPo / StaSi would have dreamt of these possibilities. But what really frightens me is that these morons use exactly the same terms and terminology that is used by today's "saviors of democracy".

Really Scary ...

[Mr. Glamazon 9]

Goodmorning everyone!

JimO-

Since 2001 the United States has felt the very real impacts of a low 3.2% growth rate (found HERE).  The housing crisis and foreclosure rates are only only escalating, and by some predictions won't lessen until 2009.  Excuse me for being pessimistic.  Furthermore, wealth can not always be equated with the success of a nation.  Consider that luxury goods are the only thing floating the economy right now (Forbes, October).  In the United States, 12.3 per cent of the populace lived in poverty, that's 36.5 Million people (found HERE).

Please don't jade yourself into thinking that trading privacy will result in greater statistical knowledge of the world. 

30 per cent of people 18-24 could not locate the pacific ocean. (HERE)

60 per cent could not locate Iraq. (HERE)These kind of statistics are widely available.  You should read them.

Surveillance has shown that it makes NO AFFECT on crime whatsoever.  The world has seen this in the United Kingdom, which operates 3 Million closed circuit public monitoring cameras.  However, crimes will temporarily move to a different area.  A short time later, the criminals return with veiled faces and more quick actions (found HERE). 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JimO 0]

I thank you for responding and I admire your provision of data to back up your perspective, but I still stand by all of my statements.

-3.2% longterm growth is absolutely fantastic; there is conditional convergence of economic growth rates for the rich world, 3.2% is actually a little above the long term trend, so by that number we have done even better than I was thinking when I responded earlier.

-The pessimistic bias is well documented in behavioral psychology, and is probably one reason everyone seems to think the sky is falling yet in almost every measurable way the world is improving.

-The statement that luxury goods alone float the economy is vapid in my interpretation of the world as an economist. Even if it were true (which I doubt), it would be a good indication that most markets for older, non-luxury products had reached competitive equilibria and that growth was occurring in newer luxury markets were economic profits still exist due to low levels of competition. This would be a proxy for just how wealthy the country has become. We no longer see growth in necessity markets, instead luxury goods become a larger part of the economy because we can afford more of them.

-Poverty can be whatever we want it to be depending on how poverty is defined. Poverty is continually redefined upwards in the US and many other places. What is undeniable is that nearly everyone in the United States is better off today than they were 20 years ago, and is a better off by an order of magnitude compared to 50 or 100 years ago.

-Your quip about the geographical ignorance of the average person was not my point on the issue, but I apologize because I was vague. For instance, say we had laws that allowed companies to collect any piece of information on a person they could get their hands on, then we would see greater product specialization, more perfect price discrimination, and a reduction in dead weight loss in the economy.

-I think its sad some people have very limited geographic knowledge, but I don't see how anyone could even interpret what I said as a claim that a stronger surveillance state would improve the ability of people to name places on a map.

-I am familiar with the UK experiment with the surveillance society (and even the website you link to) as I have conducted research on crime deterrence. I think you make too strong of a claim that surveillance has no effect on crime. In many of the large studies this is the apparent result, but at the same time often these studies look at broad correlations across time and lack the statistical rigor to separate actual crime deterrence from cameras from larger crime fluctuations. There have been some micro level studies that show deterrence effect from various forms of surveillance (do you not believe that bank security cameras discourage bank robberies?)

-Even if you are 100% correct about the effectiveness of cameras to prevent crime at this point, this does not mean that surveillance could never have a positive impact on safety. Imagine a world where everyone has a non-removable tracking chip implanted in them, so their movements and actions could be tracked should they be accused of committing a crime. I think this level of surveillance would clearly have a large crime deterrence effect (just to clarify, I don't support this idea, I am stressing that surveillance lowers the probably of successfully committing crime, and that rational people would then commit less crime because it is less profitable to be a criminal). Other methods of lowering the probability of successful crime (Lojack for instance) have been shown to be extremely effective in reducing crime. Is Lojack not a form of surveillance?

-So I still stand by my statement that privacy and security/lawfulness are goods that are traded off against each other.

[mayormot 4]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes I never understood why they need to change the need for a court order to for these things.  Dont they have judges who will give the aproval with out to much fussing about?

quote>

*nods*.  The FISA court (that grants "national security" wiretap warrants) has been pretty much a rubber-stamp formality since its inception.  Only about 1 in 250 requests has  been rejected.  In a "ticking clock" scenario, the Government can go ahead and wiretap, and has up to 72 hours to submit a retroactive warrant request.  This is hardly a barrier to legitimate investigation. 

FISA was created explicitly to prevent secret fishing expeditions against political enemies under the guise of "National Security," as Nixon had been doing.  There can be only one reason to consider it a hardship.

[Mr. Glamazon 9]

JimO-  I can see some of your points of view, but on some, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree! 

In response to bank cameras and their affect on crime, I'd say they cause a future felon to think twice about his actions, sometimes deterring the minor offenders- but for the more obstinate, bigger fish, any risk can be justified if the end is sweet enough.  Another example we can see here at home are the public cameras on street posts.  There are nearly 1 million of these around the country, and yet people still speed, people still hit and run, and people continue to act like idiots in public.  Here in Denver, a CCTV camera caught a group of several teenagers violently beating a homeless man.  The same crime happened several times across the city.  Violent crimes, pre-meditated or not, are committed by people who are missing a little more than the average human.  No amount of surveillance will ever hinder their actions. 

Most surely LoJack is a form of privacy infringement.  Credit cards, computer cookies, etc... all of these are violations of your privacy in one way or another.   One who cannot control who has their information is a person who no longer has privacy.  Period.  Product specialisation, price fixing, etc, are in no way good trade-off's for your right to remain faceless.  Would it be the same if racial profiling were used in hotels to make sure a customer has a more comfortable stay?  Is it right to limit someone to a certain box based on the statistics that they give off into a "free economy" or are we even dealing with a free economy when every product is completely specialised to a tiny niche market?  That sounds like a new, and far more terrifying form of the command economy, in my opinion.  Consider entering public, as in the film Minority Report, and being bombarded with direct personalised advertising.  Until one arrived inside the safety of their home, there would be no personal space whatsoever.  We would all be gears in a giant machine, unable to disengage and subject a continual directed advertising attack. 

The tradeoffs you speak of seem almost idyllic.  We're not ever going to see such a valiant sacrifice as Privacy for Security, or Privacy for Lawfulness, or Privacy for Justice.  We'll see Privacy for Expedience, Privacy for Profit, and Privacy for Corruption.  The only thing smarter than a human is a human trying to beat the system.  Crime will always be inherent in mankind; no amount of surveillance will ever change that.

[hamsterTK 93]

Personally I don't really worry too much about CCTV provided it is limited to areas where you already see it now, like in shopping areas. These are truly public spaces and you shouldn't expect to be anonymous. This is a two way street, private people also have the right to use their own cameras.

Of course if they put one up on my street that watched me coming and leaving my home, then I would find that to be an invasion of my privacy. Even if it was technically in a public area, I would argue that a camera in a location like that could be showing intent of the authorities to take away my freedom of movement.

So I guess it's a hard thing to really nail down either way.

*nods*.  The FISA court (that grants "national security" wiretap warrants) has been pretty much a rubber-stamp formality since its inception.  Only about 1 in 250 requests has  been rejected.  In a "ticking clock" scenario, the Government can go ahead and wiretap, and has up to 72 hours to submit a retroactive warrant request.  This is hardly a barrier to legitimate investigation. quote>

neat. I didn't know that.