Who Cares If Privacy Is Slipping Away? 393
IAmTheDave writes, "This morning MSNBC's home page is topped by the opening story in a series, Privacy Under Attack, But Does Anybody Care? Privacy rights have been debated to death here on Slashdot, but this article attempts to understand people's ambivalence towards the decline of privacy. The article discusses how over 60 percent of Americans — while somewhat unable to quantify what exactly privacy is and what's being lost — feel a pessimism about privacy rights and their erosion. However, a meager 6-7% polled have actually taken any steps to help preserve their privacy. The article's call to action: '...everyone has secrets they don't want everyone else to know, and it's never too late to begin a discussion about how Americans' right to privacy can be protected.'"
Moo (Score:4, Funny)
It's not like i am bold enough to print secret messages.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
+1 funny (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's just something about this part of the message that seems like it's trying to tell me something. I just don't really know what.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I am happy to hear that you have nothing to hide. I think that people worry to much about privacy.
I for one understand very well why we need to give up a little privacy for the greater good.
Again I'd just like to say that privacy is not as important as saftey and security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moo (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank you for your support, citizen, for obeying the Law and stopping kid-following a-rabs everywhere. Remember to report anyone who does not where the new, guvmint-approved TinFil Hat with improved security features. And tell your kids to keep an eye on those evildoers at school as well. The schools are there to be protect your tykes from rifle-wielding Arab terrorist pedophile teenaged blackcoat killers, so every kid turned in is another IED brick removed from the wall of Fortress America. Godspeed the chosen people, the American race...
"Real life" (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy issues won't arise for the general public untill it's them directly affected. They see no reason to care untill they see what happens when they don't care.
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh Americans are directly affected right now. They are under constant video surveillance, their government is "legally" spying on them and their friends, and their bank records are closely watched for "terrorism". We aren't allowed to protest publically if the President is affected, we aren't allowed to voice our opinions silently "in there" without a hassle and threats of police action, and we aren't allowed to protest publically w/o the threat of being added to a FBI watchlist for "Homeland Terrorism".
So, while Americans are conditioned to believe that they are not having their privacy and freedoms infringed on, it is.
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes the things in motion do effect the citizens of the US (and others as well) but not yet to the point where it pops their little bubble of a happy world. Basically unless these violations of privacy come up and slap these people across the face HARD and knock them out of their daily grind onto their ass they're going to continue to be apathetic about it and ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Total unwarranted domestic surveillance justified as "Foreign Terrorist Surveillance", so yea, the Feds consider us all Foreign Terrorists...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for proving that Americans are conditioned to believe that they aren't being directly affected and that as long as the government is creepily looking "from a distance" that it doesn't matter.
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Interesting)
Try being a photographer in Fortress America these days - particularly one with an interest in transportation and industrial settings. Trust me, it sucks. Most of us are pretty much resigned to the inevitable visit from a three-letter agency.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OMG! You got a visit! Everybody PANIC!
Really, the one I'm most afraid of is the IRS and they've been pushing people around for nearly a century now... this didn't start yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
That as intelligence-gathering techniques became cheaper and easier and more accessible to the general public, that the government would pay less attention to intel-gathering activities?
Are you one of those people who believes that nobody who photographs a bridge may be planning to blow it up? Or are you one of those people who believes that the occasional blown-up bridge is worth it, so long as your desire to take pictures of bridges is not scrutinized?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But as it stands, beliving that a bridge might somehow be protected from "terrorism" because a photographer would be prevented from (or terrorized for) taking pictures of something that is completely open to the public and which hundreds, if not thousands or *millions* of people are free to observe on a daily basis is downright absurd.
Or are
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what I would expect. Intel-gathering, as you call it, is no longer an identifying characteristic of a threatening person. Innocent people are likely to be openly engaged in photographing public places, while the real terrorists are able to gather their photos using completely hidden
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You left out "one of those people who believes in the presumption of innocence"?
In isolation, taking pictures of bridges, dams, national monuments, even government buildings (which frequently have some of the neatest architecture) shou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly...yes...I am one of those people.
I really do not fear the terrorists as much as I do the govt. invading sacred US citizen privacy and taking away our rights.
While I am all for them trying to prevent terrorist attacks....I don
Re: (Score:2)
And then it would be too late, wouldn't it. Even if you just make it known to your congressperson that you care about it, that's a start.
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Insightful)
* Sigh * (Score:2)
He was elected, twice, to the highest office in the land. As such he is nearly free to do whatever he wants, period. Constitutionally the only legal body that can affect the Pre
Re:"Real life" (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been two a protest or two, and I've never had an FBI guy knocking on my door. I've been vocal about different issues. I have a website that will poke fun at elected officials during the election cycles. Yet, I still haven't even had a hit from the FBI's office on my website.
I must be doing something wrong.
Oh yeah... I'd like everyone to know that "garcia" is now on the FBI watch list after his comments.
Look Side A uses fear so that they can gain more control then we might normally feel comfortable with. But we seem to forget that Side B uses unrealistic fear about the erosion of personal freedoms. I feel that Bush falls in Side A and people like "garcia" fall into Side B.
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy issues won't arise for the general public untill it's them directly affected. They see no reason to care untill they see what happens when they don't care.
And as people in Germany found, sometimes when it's a matter of pain, you can't do anything anyway, because the gestapo will haul your ass off somewhere for the SS Totenkopfverband to kick the shit out of you and then hang you up in public as an example of what happens to traitors. Then your country will be bombed or whatever until there's only half the population left. Well, is that all it takes to get rid of a despot? Let me know when the revolution starts, I'll be busy with figuring out how to play mp3's in my car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, this is America. You don't "figure it out", you go out and buy a new car stereo -- or more preferrably a new car -- that has an iPod dock built in. You then go out and buy a Genuine Apple iPod(tm) to plug in. Oh, and while we're at it, they aren't "mp3s" they are "tunez", also soon to be a TM of Apple. Make sure to spend several hundred $$ on Apple's iTunes (TM) for over-processed, teeny bopper, psue
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been working for close to 25 years and have never accepted a position that requires more than 40hrs/week. Any company requiring you to work more, is badly managed and should be avoided at all cost.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Certainly we should bend over backwards for people that actually want to vote, but if someone believes that their opinions are not valuable enough to contribute secretly to a running tally, I'm inclined to agree with them. In fact, maybe such
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Real life" (Score:5, Insightful)
People tend not to take on things much bigger than them. When the leading front runner for a president to replace the one we have now, is the wife of the previous president, people should smell something is rotten in Denmark. But even if they did realize that it's fishy only two or four families have a shot at governing the country of 300,000,000 people, what's one person going to do about it if they have to work 9 hours a day just to live and eat where they are?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget, as a prominent example of why Total Surveillance is WRONG, that ex-Marine and Iraq weapons Inspector Scott Ritter was speaking out about Bush's full out lying prior to the Iraqi invasion... and was raided for kiddy porn due to an FBI investigation of his internet habits.
Big fuss. Ritte
If I may put it in context. (Score:5, Insightful)
First they came for the communist terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist terrorist;
Then they came for the socialist terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist terrorist;
Then they came for the trade unionist terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist terrorist;
Then they came for the Jew terrorists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew terrorist;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
You lose your Rights piece by piece. And each loss is "justified" because, after all, you don't want to support the "enemy", do you? You don't want to be a "traitor", do you?
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
Modern Version Re: Surveillance (Score:3, Insightful)
1) We're installing cameras in selected areas for limited purposes, eg. at street intersections to catch speeders. Don't be paranoid; we'd never link 'em up into an all-purpose surveillance system.
2) We're expanding the camera network to pedestrian areas to fight crime and, if you're in the UK, "anti-social behavio(u)r" (shudder). Don't be paranoid; it's not like we're trying to track you ever
Hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My own blog has a chilling example of serious damage from a grocery store loyalty card [berylliumsphere.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Interestingly, many people just give privacy away (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interestingly, many people just give privacy aw (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad data is worse than no data (Score:3, Interesting)
I never refuse an opportunity to provide bad data. Bad data is worse than no data. If you hate cheezy maketing, why pass up a request (opportunity) to poison a marketing database?
A few hints:
Your birthday should be February 29th of a non-leap year.
Your phone number should start with "1" (phone numbers in the US never start with "0" or "1")
If you're a Blues Brothers fan, like I am, your address should be "1060 West Addison."
City, State and Zip should never match (e.g Dallas, AZ, 90210)
You get the idea?
Ha
Re:Interestingly, many people just give privacy aw (Score:5, Insightful)
Awareness of loss of privacy is the problem, or rather lack of it. Many people naively expect people to be trustworthy, especially when it comes to things they are not aware of, or informed about. Sadly, I think it will be a hard fight to make people aware of the precarious position that their private data is in.
I think this entire trend is a problem, partly because of a trend towards less and less personal responsibility and partly out of a feeling of defeat in improving our government. People give out info because they assume the government protects them from abuse of this data (as they do in many other countries). Others, feel their information is already "out there" and while they know the government does not protect them, these are the same somewhat pessimistic people who have no faith in our government or in the ability to change it. I've heard comments like, "do they even count our votes anymore?" spoken in all seriousness. And honestly, I'm not sure that they do.
The lack of concern or privacy does not surprise me because those who trust the government, assume they are protected or don't know about the privacy problems. Those that don't trust the government are the same ones who don't trust companies with their data, and they've given up on the government.
What's good for the goose (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as I get to know everything but everything about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condy Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Pat Robertson. Specifically, I'd like to know their exact whereabouts at all times, what their bank account and social security #'s are. I'd also really like to know where their kids go to school and what their medical histories are.
Oh, wait. You're not ready to share that information with the rest of us? Then you can butt the hell out of my information. Anything less will be settled with guns.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They already know where your guns are.
No so ironically, many of the same independent-minded correct-thinking Slashbots who claim to be in favor of privacy are all for selling out law-abiding gun owners.
Because when it was their guy in power, they don't care.
Re:What's good for the goose (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not ready to share that information with the rest of us? Then you can butt the hell out of my information.
You're on the right track, but the tit-for-tat principle won't solve anything. I don't care if the president wears a web-cam-helmet 24/7 -- that still doesn't grant government the slightest moral right to spy on me. (Spying is a form of harrassment as it goes against the victim's will, i.e. an initiation of force. Does your neighbor have the right to spy on your private affairs? Why not? How is government different?)
Anything less will be settled with guns.
It already has been: everything government does and could possibly do is backed by the threat of force (yes, Virginia, that means guns). Force is the essence of government. (Government is defined as the organization holding the unique "right" to initiate force or threat thereof -- i.e. employ coercion -- as its means within a given territory; anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only objective, unambiguous definition of government that applies to all governments past, present, and future.)
I'm just as pissed off as you are, my friend, but it was inevitable that government would eventually reach the size (measured in both revenue and power over the people) where spying on peaceful citizens is par for the course. The Bush administration certainly wasn't the first to try to spy on peaceful citizens, but they are the latest, and being the latest means holding the reigns to the most powerful government (and world empire) that has ever existed. How could it possibly have turned out any different, given the sheer size of this government? They've got to keep spending your money in order to get even more, and this is one great way to do it.
Help Youself (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you that do care, an easy and practical guide can be found at this website [howtobeinvisible.com]. The book is also available thru Amazon, and isn't very expensive. Used ones are usually in the $5 range. VERY useful and has been updated for post-9/11.
Charles
Re:Help Youself (Score:4, Insightful)
The author also sells them directly, and you can pay with cash. His reputation is worth more than your $20, so don't fear paying in cash.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly, can you envision in the next 20 years, everyone who has a garage sale, rummage sale or lists something for sale in the paper to not accept cash?
Besides, if you're that paranoid, then you REAL
Millions of Dead Soldiers (Score:4, Insightful)
World War II saw the deaths of millions of Americans to protect our rights and privacy from the Third Reich.
I think there have been millions of people who have died with the intent of their final efforts providing us a future were we are ensured a right to privacy.
I think the descendants, relatives & comrades of those people do, in fact, care about our ebbing privacy. But perhaps I just haven't been properly upgraded with the most recent version of our brainwashing firmware. "All power to the centralized government!" just ain't my thing.
Re: (Score:2)
On the upside, the Third Amendment has yet to fall. On the downside, we're rapidly running out of amendments. The Third is arguably the only one still intact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The WW-2 was because Japs attached Pearl Harbor, and NOT because we liked to go gung-ho against Hitler. Hitler was very conscious NOT to attack USA.
Privacy and Freedom had nothing to do with WW-2 or the present Iraq War.
just like urine-drug testing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you really are... although I share the idea of your message, which is a taste of their own medicine may be quite vile indeed.
Pfft (Score:2)
Additionally (and not trying to be flamebait), we are talking about Americans and the American media here. I'd like to see how privacy concerns stack up in other countries, the UK being a very good dexample.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't they all subjects of The Queen, as opposed to Free People?
two angles on this question (Score:4, Interesting)
2) What's lost can have almost infinite value, one's loss of privacy could end with becoming a victim of identity theft and until it's established one's a victim, one could be accused of pretty nasty things. But that doesn't happen right away, is hard to prove, and doesn't happen to everyone.
That means that the protection seems large, unwieldy, like expensive insurance, and at some point, risky, like suing a large corporation over a five dollar item. People don't see the value of what they lose, only the value of what they lose by trying to protect some abstract value.
Until some court cases start making noise over protection of private data, I don't see that changing.
Everybody has Secrets? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a society that codified and archives data and facts online, protection of information can only be assured via unassailable proofs, cryptographic methods and legislation to support this right. I think this is where the media has done all of us a disservice. We should / could all benefit from this issue being presented as a serious concern, otherwise we will soon find ourselves not only without any privacy, but without any means to defend it.
Hint: define "secret" (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no point to secrecy/privacy laws -- the only way to protect yourself would be to sue, and how would you afford to sue? Maybe you can get together with a few thousand people who were hurt by the same party, and class-action sue? How again does that help you?
I don't have secrets -- there's no point. I was talking to a friend about how MySpace is reducing the amount of cheating that goes on in the lives of sexually-active young adults. He didn't believe me, until he realized that its nearly impossible to burn the candles at both ends secretly -- people will find out now that information travels faster than a Sidekick 3 text message.
What do you want to keep secret? Your SSN? Too late. Your debt to income ratio? Everyone knows you don't own the house and car, friends. Privacy is not the concern -- the thing people fear is others stealing their identities. Privacy laws won't help, all it takes is on $8/hour employee seeing your information and counting the future dollar signs. If you want protection, protect yourself by not RELYING on your secrets. There are numerous ways to do this -- forget about credit, own what you want, and if you can't own it from the start, save until you can. Diversify your income by taking on new talents and trades. Focus on building REAL relationships with people around you -- don't do the rock-to-rock skipping around that is so commonplace in life (think: relationships, jobs, etc).
I don't need privacy, in fact, the more people know about me, the easier it is to sell myself to future prospective clients AND future friends. What do I have to hide?
Re: (Score:2)
*Everybody* has something to hide.
Not because what they have to hide is wrong or questionable, but simply because it is private.
For example, who else but you and your partner should be aware of exactly where and how often you have sex?
Re: (Score:2)
Hiding something means not divulging it.
Not because what they have to hide is wrong or questionable, but simply because it is private.
But if you need to share it, it isn't private.
For example, who else but you and your partner should be aware of exactly where and how often you have sex?
My doctor, for one (prostate history in my family). I divulge it to him, and I know he probably writes it down. Therefore, I don't make the assumption that it is truly private -- while he k
Re: (Score:2)
Or to appeal to your government's privacy commission. At a security conference in Canada I heard a phone company executive say that they are careful to respond to the privacy commissioner and take the office seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends. I remember a time [wired.com] when our federal government actually sometimes did the right thing. When a company swore up and down they wouldn't disclose your personal information, they would sue them if they tried to. Now, they just retroactively change the law so that information can be disclosed without penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with government enforcement of contracts rather than having private contract bonds. When I sign a bid and turn it into a job, my customer REQUIRES a bond to cover the chance that I might skip out on the contract. I've never had to use my bond insurance -- hence I pay VERY VERY little for it (and I have a policy 10 times my yearly contract size). This gives
People do care about losing privacy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's why I put "Department of Privacy" in quotes. It was the suggestion of a gereral idea, not a call to create another Department of Homeland Security. But a standard tool of larger organizations is to appoint an omnibudsman with substantial
It's more convenient without privacy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I like my privacy as much as the next guy but (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, that alone is enough to let the world know about my private quirks for me!
Re:Well I like my privacy as much as the next guy (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of a Dr. Phil episode I saw a months back. The couple were having problems, and the wife felt that the husband was addicted to porn. Dr. Phil is trying to get the guy to consider his wife's feelings, and asks him whether he would spend time looking at his porn if his wife was sitting next to him while he was doing it. The husband thought for a second and mum
Re:Well I like my privacy as much as the next guy (Score:4, Interesting)
However, have you *ever* used a valid credit card with your affinity card?
If so... your false information can be tied to your real identity.
The Kroger affinity card that gives the best discounts (15 cents per gallon on gass) is a real credit card.
The point of my humorous post was this...
We will fight to the death for our privacy, yet sell it away to get gas for 1.98 a gallon instead of 2.00 a gallon or milk at 3.00 a gallon instead of 5.29 a gallon. So basically, our privacy is worth between 2% and 10% of our annual expenditures.
A quote that has been rattling around in my head.. (Score:2, Insightful)
- Benjamin Franklin
Re:A quote that has been rattling around in my hea (Score:3, Informative)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The words "essential" and "temporary" are critical to what he was trying to say.
My Wife (Score:5, Insightful)
She's always afraid to ask me about this stuff because I tell her the truth.
1. You have no privacy. As a result, the average individual is one step away from character assasination whether they know it or not. It's been this way for decades now.
2. Whatever privileges you had before are being taken away. When I explained to her that a Tivo doesn't allow her to "keep" stuff like a VHS tape among a host of other limitations and intrusions. (It's hers to enjoy in her home right? Today. Probably. But tomorrow?) Not to mention the more frequent, "TIVO's great but I wish I could give you a copy to watch. It was great." we get from TIVO owners.
These days, "new" things are cheaper not because they are innovative, but because they are taking features and privileges away from you. It's okay though, because it's the "Free Market" in action. It's the Will Of The People.
My question back is how is that innovative? Is the politicians promise of lower cost and greater service/features being kept? Am I any safer? Is my kid any safer?
The point is... (Score:3, Informative)
Its about the ongoing erosion of personal identity and freedom, of which privacy is just one cornerstone.
The US Government and (even worse) large US corporations are being allowed to using the 'might is right' approach combined with a large amount of paranoid fear-mongering to arbitrarily remove rights that have until recently had been considered a basic requirement for any civilised country, and as such were included in the constitution.
America, defend your own constitutional rights.
Part of the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
But good citizens don't have secrets! As long as the discussion keeps getting entangled with this whole issue of "keeping secrets", our right to privacy will continue to be eroded.
Personally, I'm sick of hearing people say "It doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide"... and believe me I've heard it a lot since you-know-when. That's not the point!
Privacy isn't about keeping secrets - it's about being safe from intrusion and unwarranted observation. There's nothing secret about the places I go or the things I do, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with having my activities showing up in a database or on a video monitor somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
One day in the past in Korea, Japanese decided that merely being a Korean meant you were no longer a "good citizen."
I'm not worried about privacy because I feel that the current holders of information are bad people, I'm worried about privacy because what happens if the current holders of information get shot by bad people before the information holders can set fire to their records.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but that doesn't mean I'm OK with having my activities showing up in a database or on a video monitor somewhere.
10:46 am: Posts message to Slashdot.
MSNBC has a conservative (rape/pillage) agenda (Score:4, Interesting)
And as all of the minimum wage serfs sneer at you when they as you for your phone number when you in for a hair trim, it becomes increasingly impossible to remain anonymous, private in one's own affairs, and free from the scrutiny of the self-righteous. Somehow, I must live their concept of the path to Heaven, and deviation is, well, deviant.
So: kick the cameras when you find them. Put a little hood on them and beat them with a hammer. Cut coax. Re-address IP cams to porn feeds. Put chewing gum in appropriate places. Part of freedom is freedom from scrutiny. Burn the man; hack the system . One this is clear: live free or die isn't just for New Hampshire license plates-- you have to live it or surrender it.
Re: (Score:2)
Real Life Examples (Score:5, Insightful)
I once asked my accountant about what he was going to do with the hard-drives contained in the old computers he was about to throw away. It hadn't occured to him that somebody could be digging up valuable info from what he considered scrap. It didn't take him long to realise what the risks were.
People will in time develop sensitivity and common-sense about privacy, but they first need to be thaught about the value of information. Most
How much? (Score:2)
Bitch Bitch Bitch But where are the answers. (Score:2)
It's OK to invade my privacy to sell me stuff. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Most Americans... including ordinary consumers... feel that invasion of privacy is pretty much OK as long as it is done for the purpose of selling stuff. And the more closely the merchandise matches the consumer's tastes, the more it is tolerated. At one extreme, sure, people object to receiving spam for products that are claimed to enlarge body parts that they do not possess. At the other extreme, well, gosh, I don't really mind when Netflix shows me the titles of several other movies featuring the same director or actors as the movie I just selected.
2) Most Americans believe very deeply that "it can't happen here." That is, we don't really feel in our guts that there's any chance that "our" government would really use the data collected by merchandisers, health care providers, or government warrantless wiretaps, to go after people who really aren't bad guys, but just happen to be political opponents.
And, darn it, I fall in category 2 myself. Despite everything. I gripe about invasion of privacy, but despite the fact that my intellect tells me the problem is real, my gut tells me that I'm overdramatizing.
(And, yes, I can imagine myself... in a different time and place saying, "Let's not overreact, after all it is just broken glass.")
They are up to speed where I live (Score:2)
Someone Explain, Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
``Second, the vast majority of people do something that some part of our society disapproves of. "So what?" you might ask. Well the thing is, if everything about your life is transparent, but everything about the lives of the wealthy is not necessarily transparent, how can someone who is not born wealthy ever successfully run for a major, political office? So where does that get us? In the same situation we have now except with even less chance o
It works both ways you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the government understands that a glass house is transparent in both directions, perhaps they will enact laws to at least protect themselves. Eventually that will lead to a greater expansion of privacy after the inevitable revolution that will follow.
And if you're concerned about being arrested/sued for posting information about government officials, then incorporate first. Hey, other businesses can sell information about you, then as a business, you should be able to sell information about THEM.
Show them what it's like to live in their own mousetrap.
TTYL
Brian C.
Are Americans Really Private? (Score:2, Interesting)
Best Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have nothing to hide, please take off your clothes right now."
Guns? (Score:3, Insightful)
If your government is run by tyrants, why don't your precious militia's do something about it?
Not just in computing (Score:2, Insightful)
Orwell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every morning we wake up and the painting on the barn has changed and nobody can remember what it used to say.
When I read that book I was so frustrated by how stupid the animals were. How could they fall for such obvious exaggerations?
Now I'm just frustrated at the people around me. How can they fall for such obvious exaggerations?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Its probably a better time to start a debate about how we here in Europe can stop the Americans from erroding our existing privacy laws to suit themselves.
The discussion has already been going on for a while. Consider, for example, the recent airline information leak issue [bbc.co.uk]. The very basic improvement of going from a "pull" model to a "push" model [europa.eu] was a step in the right direction.
To note, I e-mailed my EU parliament rep about this issue while the talks were ongoing. She responded back the next day wit
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.truecrypt.org/ [truecrypt.org]