Privacy in the 21st century

[bleeding heart]

Michael Hardner

That said, I think the #2 definition is correct however if I had known the #1 definition I would have said 'uninterested.'

I apologize for the impression of trying to school you in grammar...not my intent. I thought you had written it in error.

And yes (undermining what I've just said), you're absolutely right that both definitions are presented in dictionaries...but why you think the first one incorrect (as you imply) is odd.

Not to overstate the matter, but I think the #1 definition far more useful, rather than using both words to mean the same thing. For example, as in the most common comparative adjective phrase in which they are used,, the distinction is always in the same denotative direction, for good reason: "disinterested observer" vs "uninterested observer."

I have a different reaction in those examples when a living caricature (for example a wildly irrational religious person) shows up here and lives the stereotype to a T. I tend to stay out of those arguments.

Which rather speaks to my point, doesn't it?

I'm sorry but look at the tone of the opposing argument in this case. It's paranoiac.

Already addressed. My very point. You didn't respond to a case of a paranoiac response; you responded to all who have evinced more concern than you do over the matter.

Again...as we know from a small handful of religious posters that have shown up here, all people of faith are murderous, creationist morons.

My point being that your remarks about those who differ from you on this are objectively untrue.

That is, how big a concern this is simply a matter upon which you and I differ; but whether or not I (and the overwhelming majority of folks concerned about the issue) am a "New World Order conspiracist"....well, I put it to you that this is NOT a matter of "opinion," in which we can agree to disagree.

(Just incidentally, you have misunderstood Paglia's response: she avers that climate change fears are entirely unwarranted, and that the reason they are believed is because liberals are so ignorant that they don't even know that polar bears can swim. Your take on the matter was not her point at all....she's an outright denier (as opposed to a "sceptic.")

[Michael Hardner]

I apologize for the impression of trying to school you in grammar...not my intent. I thought you had written it in error.

No, thank you - seriously. As I said, if I knew the first definition I wouldn't have used that term.

There's no value in using ambiguous words, or using words ambiguously. As I have said, if words don't have meaning then confident seashell pajamas amusement permits a beard crow.

Which rather speaks to my point, doesn't it?

If you mean that I should just withdraw from discussions when I feel that the other side is arguing from an unrealistic place, then rest assured I do that ... sometimes. If I feel the other poster is genuine and redeemable, and furthermore if they're a good MLW citizen, then I do engage them.

Already addressed. My very point. You didn't respond to a case of a paranoiac response; you responded to all who have evinced more concern than you do over the matter.

Ok, point taken. I will, in future, provide a general response that addresses the real point, and I will add tonal appropriateness if I remember to do it at all.

Again...as we know from a small handful of religious posters that have shown up here, all people of faith are murderous, creationist morons.

There was a poster here who used to get into those types of arguments with several opponents and I just stayed out of those discussions. I can't blame people for saying that religious people are irrational, for example, when they're arguing with a highly irrational religious person right in front of them. Can I ? Maybe I can.

My point being that your remarks about those who differ from you on this are objectively untrue.

But if you look at GH's message - he's saying things like 'THEY distract us' - emphasis mine - so am I not correct to adjust the tone of my response to the general level of his/her argument ? I think I can do this quite a bit without having it considered trolling.

Your take on the matter was not her point at all....she's an outright denier (as opposed to a "sceptic.")

My take on that topic and this one is that there are facts to be considered, not emotions to be considered. Emotions can motivate us to take action, to inform ourself, but there are facts to be considered.

I don't agree with her if she's saying there is no reason for concern, but I thought we were talking about a TV commercial featuring a sad wet bear, which I have also seen and disliked... unliked...

[GostHacked]

I sure don't.

I do. That might be the difference here Mike. It is a nice attempt on your part to marginalize this by going with the tinfoil hatter thing. This is not tinfoil hat stuff, this is really happening stuff. The government tells you, the companies that are involved are telling you, but are you listening?

Your other notion about illegally opening snail mail means that they are doing it even more with electronic mail. And they can do this at any time they want with great ease. This also blows your notion that much of what the likes of the NSA has done has been illegal.

You have been conditioned to think that this surveillance thing is benevolent. Can I put a camera in your bedroom? Would you be ok with that? When do you draw the line? And when you do, perhaps it will be to late.

Edited December 10, 2013 by GostHacked

[dre]

Unfortunately, the definition of what might be considered subversive changes over time. Even our opinions expressed on these forums here, on some subject or other, could one day be seen as subversive. Certainly if one of us ever ran for public office, someone would quickly link MLW identity to real identity, and quote some posts from here in their attack ads. And in the future some posts we made here could get us sent to re-education camps, at the rate that Western governments are cracking down on freedoms.

I agree. But my post was about what a person can do NOW, to try to mitigate the risk, regardless of the slope we are slipping down.

And the erosion of privacy wont stop until unless we grow a spine, and demand some sort of meaningful reprensentitive governence.

[bleeding heart]

Michael Hardner

No, thank you--seriously. As I said, if I knew the first definition, I wouldn't have used the word.

Well, in that spirit, thanks for pointing out that "not interested" is also, dictionary-wise, a legitimate definition. I had thought it only meant (roughly) "objectively."

Interestingly, looking at the history of the words, I discovered that until the 18th century, "uninterested" meant what "disinterested" (1st definition) now does. This is counterintuitive to me....so I guess I also must not know the history of the prefix "un-".

But if you look at GH's message - he's saying things like 'THEY distract us' - emphasis mine - so am I not correct to adjust the tone of my response to the general level of his/her argument?

Yeah, fair enough, I just have to concede this one.

I guess I just don't wish to have my views associated with what we broadly term "conspiracy theorists"; because I think that view is generally not commensurate with the way things work. My view is far more aligned with the by-now oldschool, often lefty institutional analysis of...well, institutions. Whether my opinions are right or wrong, they're based on mainstream enlightenment philosophy, at bottom....and conspiracy theories don't tend to work too well under such a paradigm. At best, such theories demand better evidence.

(There are, incidentally, genuine conspiracies that are real--say, Ford meeting with Suharto and greenlighting the invasion of East Timor...we now know this is fact thanks to the declassified records. Or the accepted 9/11 narrative, which is also a conspiracy theory...that happens to be true: the 19 hijackers, etc. But while these are,, by definition, "conspiracies," obviously the connotations of the term are about what most of us consider irrational theories.)

[dre]

Government spying is indeed of great interest - but why ? Maybe it's that word "spying". If it were called something like "Algorithmic Pattern Recognition in Meta data" it might get the usually snoozey noises from the public.

Anyway, yes, I think there's too much attention to these things.

I dont think theres anywhere near enough attention. The reasons why we have traditionally forced government to get a court order before they tap your phone, or open your mail, are as valid today as ever. We need to amend the law to extend these protections to things like email and internet traffic. Government do not understand the law or your legal rights, and they are traditionally hostile to the idea of personal liberty because it makes things harder for them in many ways.

So we have developed a very good system that takes the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and the privacy of individuals in account. All we need to do is apply it to the internet... Law enforcement can still read any email they want, they just have to show that theres a valid legal reason.

Perfect!

Edited December 10, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

I agree. But my post was about what a person can do NOW, to try to mitigate the risk, regardless of the slope we are slipping down.

There is a lot, but lately I have learned all my outs are already covered by the powers that be (whoever they are).

And the erosion of privacy wont stop until unless we grow a spine, and demand some sort of meaningful representative governance.

Agreed. It will also take an informed population to change this. The government won't be playing nice with us anytime soon. So as much as I like to agree with you, reality says that the erosion will continue.

Guys like Mike will eventually be on board with protesting against this kind of stuff. But only when it affects him or his family in a direct way. I'd like to prevent it and reverse the trend before Mike is mad as hell and he can't take it anymore. If Mike gets pissed about it, then you KNOW we are in trouble.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, but fretting so much about the obvious will always be a waste of time because government and non-government entities will continue to do it. Laws will only provide a thin veneer of perceived protection for the same naive people who were "shocked" or "saddened" by recent "spying" revelations. And these very same people will continue to engage in unsafe data privacy sex.

[GostHacked]

Sorry, but fretting so much about the obvious will always be a waste of time because government and non-government entities will continue to do it.

Gee, never pegged you for a pessimist.

Laws will only provide a thin veneer of perceived protection for the same naive people who were "shocked" or "saddened" by recent "spying" revelations. And these very same people will continue to engage in unsafe data privacy sex.

Shocked in only the scope and scale, not that they are doing this. Much of it I would argue illegal, and unconstitutional.

[Michael Hardner]

I do. That might be the difference here Mike. It is a nice attempt on your part to marginalize this by going with the tinfoil hatter thing.

? If you know of sites which offer great information by all means submit them. The last sentence of your paragraph is unrelated to the first two, which is bad english and hard to read.

This is not tinfoil hat stuff, this is really happening stuff. The government tells you, the companies that are involved are telling you, but are you listening?

I have answered this already. My concern over these things is at a low level compared to yours, and there's not much you can do to change that.

Your other notion about illegally opening snail mail means that they are doing it even more with electronic mail. And they can do this at any time they want with great ease. This also blows your notion that much of what the likes of the NSA has done has been illegal.

I didn't say they were doing it less.

Obviously, it's easier to open email than real mail.

I think that some of what they have done is illegal and some is legal.

What I mean is that opening letters as was done in the past [in Canada] was done with less legal consideration than today's email spying.

"My notion ... that much of what the NSA has done ... is illegal" is that what you meant to write ?

You have been conditioned to think that this surveillance thing is benevolent.

You need to make your argument without having to moralize, or to put ME in the argument somehow.

Can I put a camera in your bedroom? Would you be ok with that? When do you draw the line? And when you do, perhaps it will be to late.

That's just ridiculous. Why don't you ask me if I mind my emails being read since that's what we're talking about ?

[Michael Hardner]

I guess I just don't wish to have my views associated with what we broadly term "conspiracy theorists"; because I think that view is generally not commensurate with the way things work. My view is far more aligned with the by-now oldschool, often lefty institutional analysis of...well, institutions.

As a lefty, there are certainly institutions that you trust though. Ronald Reagan re-awaked the tinfoil hat army and put America back in touch with its sometimes extreme distrust of government.

I'll give this to the tinfoil brigade - at least they distrust everyone evenly. The Post Office, Welfare, FEMA... everyone is in on it. Liberals distrust the military industrial complex, but embrace the education industrial complex and the EPA. Conservatives like the police, and the highways department for some reason.

(There are, incidentally, genuine conspiracies that are real--say, Ford meeting with Suharto and greenlighting the invasion of East Timor...we now know this is fact thanks to the declassified records.

Yes, and the public outrage is not palpable... so why would there be a need to cover anything up really ? 9/11 could have been hung squarely on the Iraquis. They lied and said that Iraq had WMDs and when that turned out to be wrong ... nothing. Chomsky knows best when he eschews theories of hidden conspiracies. There's enough that goes on in plain view that people don't pay attention to.

I have an even more extreme example of someone who was accidentally shot by a company thought to be in the employ of the CIA. This was on 60 minutes and the story just died..

There's no way to tell why some things (the Beatles, Kennedy Conspiracies, Furbys) capture the public imagination.

[Michael Hardner]

I dont think theres anywhere near enough attention.

I have heard this topic brought up in mixed companies at parties many times. I think people know that Google and the NSA spies on them, as it's very personal.

Government do not understand the law or your legal rights, and they are traditionally hostile to the idea of personal liberty because it makes things harder for them in many ways.

But they seem to get injunctions quite often, which contradicts the point you're making here.

I would say that they are disregarding the law in many respects but not ignoring it or they would just work completely outside of the law.

So we have developed a very good system that takes the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and the privacy of individuals in account. All we need to do is apply it to the internet... Law enforcement can still read any email they want, they just have to show that theres a valid legal reason.

Perfect!

And I presume you will require an injunction or court order of some kind ? That seems to be what happens, for the most part. I admit, I have no notion of how much of what has come to light was done completely illegally vs. with a court order.

[bush_cheney2004]

As a lefty, there are certainly institutions that you trust though. Ronald Reagan re-awaked the tinfoil hat army and put America back in touch with its sometimes extreme distrust of government.

True enough. Here's the deal....back in the early 70's, I applied for a social security number (SIN in Canada) as I wanted to officially join the workforce as a fine upstanding citizen and law abiding taxpayer. On my new SSA card was boldly printed "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." Well you can guess how long that lasted, and in fact, SSA numbers would go on to become the single most important personal data identifier for all manner of government and non-government accounts and transactions in the United States. We are still trying to deconstruct this monumental sacrifice and compromise of data privacy to the Gods of the Common Good .

SSA cards no longer bear any such notice about identification.

There's no way to tell why some things (the Beatles, Kennedy Conspiracies, Furbys) capture the public imagination.

The shrinks tell us that some people need these concepts and myths to explain their real and perceived loss of control over their own lives. Massive conspiracies somehow absolve them of responsibility and/or rational understanding of actions and events. They basically give up as free actors in life, resigned to whatever the conspirators and overseers have planned for them and how it will impact their lives. So we get the constant drone of "sky is falling" paralysis and paranoia. Sucks to be them, I guess.

Edited December 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

The shrinks tell us that some people need these concepts and myths to explain their real and perceived loss of control over their own lives. Massive conspiracies somehow absolve them of responsibility and/or rational understanding of actions and events. They basically give up as free actors in life, resigned to whatever the conspirators and overseers have planned for them and how it will impact their lives. So we get the constant drone of "sky is falling" paralysis and paranoia. Sucks to be them, I guess.

Hmmm... I don't know, though. It sounds a little like psychobabble. I used to believe in UFOs, Chariots of the Gods, and JFK conspiracy theories when I was a child, an adolescent, and even a young adult. By my late 20s, I had become simply 'open minded' about such things but my doubts were growing.

I still consider myself open to new evidence, but I have given up on thinking any of these things could be real. Have I changed my character ? Beyond aging, and learning about how the world works - probably not.

I can only say that I was somehow intrigued and entertained by such ideas, and that entertainment was shut down for me when I read informed counterpoints that showed how the original ideas didn't make sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I can only say that I was somehow intrigued and entertained by such ideas, and that entertainment was shut down for me when I read informed counterpoints that showed how the original ideas didn't make sense.

Oh sure...I read von Däniken and others, but quickly realized how purposeful was the slight of hand and acts of omission. Armed with more experience and entropy concepts, it becomes very clear that such wild ass conspiracies are just that. Finally it just turns into a pathetic comedy act like asking us to believe that Dick Cheney conspired to plant demolition explosives in WTC towers.

Spying is fun, and those who are so inclined will do it with impunity, either for serious purposes, or nefarious entertainment.

[Moonlight Graham]

The message "is" controlled but it's getting harder ? At what point do we say the message can't be controlled ?

When you start thinking for yourself.

Yes, but even informed people read/watch the MSM news and listen to government talking heads. It just doesn't come from news, it can come from academia as well and a variety of other places. The climate change debate is an excellent example of a ferocious battle between different sides and interests, from government to news orgs to scientists/scholars and international orgs to "control the message".

[Moonlight Graham]

The message "is" controlled but it's getting harder ?

We are connected 24/7 now, so it may be much easier too in many ways because there are so many different medium avenues to control us and we are using communications media far more today than ever before.

Ever wonder why they don't have attack ads on the web, or in newspapers ? I don't think they work in those media. As such, TV is dying and without TV and its expensive ad campaigns the entire nature of politics changes.

Attacks ads are going nowhere. Traditional cable/satellite TV subscriptions may be decreasing, but you go on any TV station website to watch their TV shows or go on youtube or any news site and most any time you watch a video on the web it begins with advertisements.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

I also read a lot of complaints about facebook, Google and so on - saying they are 'spying' on us, which does seem silly sometimes.

Facebook has become a giant data-mining company. Over a billion people voluntarily posting much of their personal info - names, location, birthday, phone numbers, occupation, religious/political affiliations, all sorts hobbies/interests, personal photos, and of course all their friends/acquaintances.

As a company, Facebook uses this info for profit to target advertising and apps etc. But for the government, if it can be hacked (or worse, with Facebook's cooperation as per the NSA revelations) it's one of the greatest surveillance/spying tools of all-time. It's also priceless if Facebook chooses to sell this info to other companies.

For Facebook, at least giving that info is pretty voluntary. Facebook isn't mandatory for most people, and even if it is in some cases you can still choose what info you want to share (you can enter a fake or short-form name and fake birthday etc.). But what is more alarming are technologies that are almost essential in today's world, like using the internet or using a cellphone, and your info and behaviour being tracked by private companies or government. A lot of people in this thread are worried about gov't spying, but we should also be very concerned about companies tracking us, because what we do with our technology is none of their damn business.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

Tracking is also done at the local law enforcement level. The privacy concerns are warranted. This is going unchecked by the most part, because many do not know about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/

The National Security Agency isn't the only government entity secretly collecting data from people's cellphones. Local police are increasingly scooping it up, too.

Armed with new technologies, including mobile devices that tap into cellphone data in real time, dozens of local and state police agencies are capturing information about thousands of cellphone users at a time, whether they are targets of an investigation or not, according to public records obtained by USA TODAY and Gannett newspapers and TV stations.

This is an interesting item. Your phone may be connecting to a fake tower that is actually a data mining operation performed by your local police. You think it's just metadata?

Apologies to Mike for bad grammar on the previous posts. There was a point where I was screwing up the quoting all the time, and just end up leaving the post as is.

[dre]

And I presume you will require an injunction or court order of some kind ? That seems to be what happens, for the most part. I admit, I have no notion of how much of what has come to light was done completely illegally vs. with a court order.

Yes warrant. Thats what should be required in all cases, whether they are tapping a private phone, opening private mail or email, or bugging a private residence, or vehicle.

And that IS what traditionally happens.

What they want to do now though, is warehouse things like email so the government can look backwards and go on a fishing expedition, and they want to weaken the warrant process and eliminate it completely in some cases.

We have less privacy now than before, so it would make sense for us to strengthen it, not weaken it. There should be real teeth, and government officials found breaking the law should face serious punishment.

Edited December 11, 2013 by dre

[dre]

I'll give this to the tinfoil brigade

I actually find this whole mode of argument to be very dishonest.

The tinfoil brigade are people that think the moonlanding didnt happen, and that Elvis is still alive. People that worry about the sliding down the slope to authoritarianism, by giving up liberty for security just have rational suspicions that are backed up not only by history but current events.

The folks that think we can have real democracy in a surveillance state? Those are the tinfoil brigade. The people that support government monitoring of private conversations, based on fears of a terrorism threat that has a 1 in 20 million chance of killing you? Thats the tinfoil brigade right there.

The tin-foil helmet protects them not only from rational evidence based thought, but the history of the development of our civilization, and the reasons that individual liberty is essential in a respresentitive political system.

The ones worried about the government grabbing power in the face of security threats are not the crazy people here. The ones advocating this are the ones that are crazy based on any kind of objective read of the situation, or any understanding of the historical context under which rights to personal freedom emerged.

[Michael Hardner]

We are connected 24/7 now, so it may be much easier too in many ways because there are so many different medium avenues to control us and we are using communications media far more today than ever before.

It's a maxim of project management that more communication channels makes control more difficult and, at a certain point, impossible.

Attacks ads are going nowhere. Traditional cable/satellite TV subscriptions may be decreasing, but you go on any TV station website to watch their TV shows or go on youtube or any news site and most any time you watch a video on the web it begins with advertisements.

The entire model is dying, though, and politics today is built on it. Look ahead 20 years and what do you see ?

[Michael Hardner]

A lot of people in this thread are worried about gov't spying, but we should also be very concerned about companies tracking us, because what we do with our technology is none of their damn business.

If you sign the user agreement then you do so voluntarily and you give up the right to privacy within reasonable limits. You don't PAY for the service, so how do you expect them to make money from you exactly ?

[Michael Hardner]

What they want to do now though, is warehouse things like email so the government can look backwards and go on a fishing expedition, and they want to weaken the warrant process and eliminate it completely in some cases.

It's not clear what they're doing, however we do know that they have sought judicial approval for whatever it is.

We have less privacy now than before, so it would make sense for us to strengthen it, not weaken it.

Maybe, but the devil is in the details. And what is eventually determined to be 'acceptable' will happen because it plays, politically not because any one of us personally feel that it's the most moral choice, or allows everybody their own custom level of preferred privacy.

[dre]

If you sign the user agreement then you do so voluntarily and you give up the right to privacy within reasonable limits. You don't PAY for the service, so how do you expect them to make money from you exactly ?

By selling ad revenue, I guess?

Whatever the case is, it should at least be transparent. If facebook makes its money by selling your private data, and if it gives your private data to government snoops... Then when you sign up, it should be displayed very openly "We make our money by selling your identity to third parties", and "we will give all your data to the government if they ask for it". And these things shouldnt be nested deep in a 500 page TOU page.