Privacy in the 21st century

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Yes, that is exactly who I was referring to.

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.

You mean judges ?

The ones worried about the government grabbing power in the face of security threats are not the crazy people here.

Yes, you missed the conversation between bleeding heart and me. The people who are against government surveillance do not represent the tinfoil brigade.

[Michael Hardner]

By selling ad revenue, I guess?

Yes, Youtube shows me ads based on things that I have emailed people about.

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.

Does facebook really have to show a pop-up indicating that they will comply with US law ? I don't think that they sell your private data either, as they don't really have any of that. Rather, they will signal companies to advertise to you when you display behaviors that are typical of their target market. Do you feel more free that way ?

[dre]

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.

I disagree with this completely. Governments know that people dont want any of this crap. 70-80% of people polled rejected their last attempt to read personal emails. The reality is that no matter who is in government they would love to have these kind of powers. And that is the entire reason why we have framework legistation and why its really hard to change it.

At the end of the day theres absolutly no difference between the government installing a device that intercepts you mail, phonecalls, and emails, with them installing a microphone/camera in your living room or bedroom, and all the arguments you have provided for this kind of activity could be used to justify pretty much anything else.

And its not about a simple moral choice. You cant have democracy in a surveillance state. You cant have freedom when people cannot assemble and communicate as they please. Thats why privacy and personal liberty matters.

[dre]

Does facebook really have to show a pop-up indicating that they will comply with US law ?

Yes they should make it crystal clear if they are going to give your personal information to third parties. Users should not have to wait for a whistle blower to tell them that all their information is being given to the NSA.

When you sign up these things should be prominent.

Welcome to facebook. If you choose to sign up, we will give all your information to the NSA, and we might also sell it to third parties.

Just tell people the truth. Right now we only get to know the truth if someone inside the system gets so upset that they are willing to give up their life for it.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree with this completely. Governments know that people dont want any of this crap. 70-80% of people polled rejected their last attempt to read personal emails.

I was surprised by your statement so I googled 'polls government reads emails' and got this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/28/canadians_split_on_letting_governments_read_email_poll.html

About 49 per cent of respondents said it was “completely unacceptable,” about 47 per cent of those surveyed said it was “acceptable in some circumstances,” and about 4 per cent said it was “completely acceptable.”

At the end of the day theres absolutly no difference between the government installing a device that intercepts you mail, phonecalls, and emails, with them installing a microphone/camera in your living room or bedroom, and all the arguments you have provided for this kind of activity could be used to justify pretty much anything else.

Well, there are a lot of practical differences between what's happening and your extreme example but the point is really that you don't like it, and you don't think it's morally right.

And its not about a simple moral choice. You cant have democracy in a surveillance state.

That is clearly wrong. We have it, and have had it for all of our lifetimes.

You're just not convincing me here, and that seems to also be true for about half of Canadians, so this is going to continue.

[Michael Hardner]

Users should not have to wait for a whistle blower to tell them that all their information is being given to the NSA.

I'm pretty sure the government would have put a gag order on releasing information about these practices. That's why they care that Snowden spoke about it.

[dre]

And Im wondering Mike... With your contempory view of things like privacy and your obvious authoritarian tendencies.... do you think that the public should be able to read the emails of government officials? Or do you just think they should be able to read ours?

[dre]

Well, there are a lot of practical differences between what's happening and your extreme example but the point is really that you don't like it, and you don't think it's morally right.

No there isnt. A private converastion is a private converation. Does matter if its in your bedroom, living room, or on the phone, or over the internet. If you think that the government should be able to monitor conversations then the medium is not relevant. Its conceptual either OUR information or its THEIRS.

Theres no difference conceptional different between monitoring emails, and any other kind of private conservations.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not the government that does tho as much as it is the security establishment. I would think government employees and members are just as likely to be surveilled.

[Michael Hardner]

Theres no difference conceptional different between monitoring emails, and any other kind of private conservations.

I said 'practical'.

[Moonlight Graham]

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 ?

There should be much stricter privacy laws. If virtually all company's do similar tracking, how much choice does the consumer have?

[Moonlight Graham]

Does facebook really have to show a pop-up indicating that they will comply with US law ? I don't think that they sell your private data either, as they don't really have any of that.

For the many who give it to them, Facebook has access to info like your: name, location, birthday, phone numbers, occupation/place of work, school(s), religious/political affiliations, relationship status & name of your spouse/partner, your hobbies/interests, personal photos, and of course all your friends/acquaintances & all their info. They even have pictures of your kids if you upload them, as most do. What other organization has this kind of info on a billion+ people?

[Bonam]

For the many who give it to them, Facebook has access to info like your: name, location, birthday, phone numbers, occupation/place of work, school(s), religious/political affiliations, relationship status & name of your spouse/partner, your hobbies/interests, personal photos, and of course all your friends/acquaintances & all their info. They even have pictures of your kids if you upload them, as most do. What other organization has this kind of info on a billion+ people?

The NSA.

[Moonlight Graham]

The NSA.

Haha k you got me.

[GostHacked]

The NSA.

VIA Facebook.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/us/nsa-social-networks/

New York (CNN) -- In addition to phone records and email logs, the National Security Agency uses Facebook and other social media profiles to create maps of social connections -- including those of American citizens.

Just metadata right?

It allows NSA analysts to use social media, geo-location information, insurance and tax records, plus other public and private sources to enhance their analysis of phone and email records, The Times reported Sunday.

[Michael Hardner]

That CNN story doesn't assert that anything illegal was done. If it's public information, then we may have less reason to be aghast at the idea that it's known to everyone.

[Moonlight Graham]

That CNN story doesn't assert that anything illegal was done. If it's public information, then we may have less reason to be aghast at the idea that it's known to everyone.

FISA and the PATRIOT Act makes most of the NSA;s activities legal in the USA. That's the part that's really screwed up. What the NSA grabs isn't public information if they need these companies to provide them with secret backdoors into their programming infrastructure.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, what the NSA does is not "screwed up". It is exactly what was demanded in the wake of 9/11, when government was criticized for not "connecting the dots". In order to connect dots, you have to collect dots...lots of 'em.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think you need the secret backdoors in a lot of cases, though. They give the information freely to marketing companies through their apps and web services for example.

[Bonam]

No, what the NSA does is not "screwed up". It is exactly what was demanded in the wake of 9/11, when government was criticized for not "connecting the dots".

Yes, understandably, people responded emotionally rather than rationally, and we got a massive overreaction and government overreach. It's 12 years later, and it's time for people to re-evaluate the situation in a more level-headed manner. Many, including myself, believe that living in a police state is more dangerous than the threat of an occasional terrorist attack. Sensible security measures should be taken, but these should not include abolishing privacy and free speech. The threat is not commensurate to the extreme measures that are being taken.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think you need the secret backdoors in a lot of cases, though. They give the information freely to marketing companies through their apps and web services for example.

Agreed...the information is a product to be aggregated and sold. Government also sells such information gleaned from property tax rolls, drivers' licenses, vehicle registrations, and business licenses to the same marketing services.

[GostHacked]

FISA and the PATRIOT Act makes most of the NSA;s activities legal in the USA. That's the part that's really screwed up. What the NSA grabs isn't public information if they need these companies to provide them with secret backdoors into their programming infrastructure.

Before 9/11 that would have been illegal. Those two documents negate important articles in the constitution and the bill of rights. The importance of this is lost on many people.

I don't think you need the secret backdoors in a lot of cases, though. They give the information freely to marketing companies through their apps and web services for example.

You have no idea what company sells what info to whom. Many of the services you pay for, those companies sell their data about you to another entity. I'd demand a cut at least, but not even going to get that. Good luck finding a company that does not sell your data to others.

[Moonlight Graham]

You cant have democracy in a surveillance state. You cant have freedom when people cannot assemble and communicate as they please. Thats why privacy and personal liberty matters.

Most human rights (including due process legal rights, like habeus corpus) were originally designed to protect ordinary citizens from the tyranny of the state. From the Magna Carta to the US Bill of Rights to Canada's Charter.

No matter where you land on the political spectrum, in any democratic society every law passed is done so (or ideally is, since there's always some political corruption) under the assumption that the benefits to society and to individual citizens any given law provides outweighs the negatives that come from the legislated government intervention/control into our lives.

In terms of something like FISA/PATRIOT Act or similar laws that take away our privacy for non-warrant searches etc., I would rather take slightly higher crime rates and the the extremely low risk of death/harm from a terrorist attack than to give up essential privacy rights. So for me, the negatives outweigh the positives in these anti-privacy laws.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Many, including myself, believe that living in a police state is more dangerous than the threat of an occasional terrorist attack. Sensible security measures should be taken, but these should not include abolishing privacy and free speech. The threat is not commensurate to the extreme measures that are being taken.

I would believe this was more sincere if such people would actually modify their own behaviours and data disclosure practices in the wake of such obvious privacy violations. But they don't, and won't, because they want it both ways. Government will always overreact when faced with threats to the status quo. That is actually quite normal and to be expected.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't think you need the secret backdoors in a lot of cases, though. They give the information freely to marketing companies through their apps and web services for example.

If you want the kind of unfettered access the NSA wants, you need a direct line into the network so you can look at anything you wish.