The 'Right to Privacy'

[CycloWizard]

Text

Generally when I start a thread, it's with only my own input and not a link to someone else's thoughts on a subject. However, a friend of mine pointed me in the direction of this essay and it seems particularly relevant given some of the recent discussions in this forum. The author is a law professor at George Washington University who has written extensively on what exactly constitutes privacy. Privacy is eventually summarized as:

Privacy is a set of protections against a related set of problems. These problems are not all related in the same way, but they resemble each other. There is a social value
in protecting against each problem, and that value differs depending upon the nature of each problem.

This framework appears as a summary on page 18, so check the link above for the development of these ideas.

After this is posited, the author goes on to dismantle the often-cited argument that government programs potentially violating our privacy are fine because "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." I see this argument posted here any time privacy is discussed and have always thought it was so ridiculous that it didn't even deserve much consideration. However, a similar argument forged using utilitarian principles (as shown by the author) is much more interesting. It states that an individual's privacy concerns are negligible when compared to the security of society as a whole.

The author goes on to say that the flaw is that this argument assumes that privacy is about hiding a wrong rather than protecting an individual. Perhaps the most poignant part of the essay for me was the following:

Surveillance can create chilling effects on people?s conduct by chilling free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy. Even surveillance of legal activities can inhibit people from engaging in them. It might be that particular people may not be chilled by surveillance ? indeed, probably most people will not be except those engaging in particularly unpopular speech or associating with disfavored groups. The value of protecting against such chilling is not measured simply in terms of the value to those particular individuals. Chilling effects harm society because, among other things, they reduce the range of viewpoints being expressed and the degree of freedom with which to engage in political activity.

In other words, even if I have nothing illegal to hide, I might be made reticent if I know that I am being surveilled. For example, I might not attend a dissenting protest not because I know that surveillance will be going on, but because I know that the collected information could be used against me to harass, blackmail, threaten, or embarass me despite the fact that the activity is legal. Further,

[D]ata mining aims to be predictive of behavior. In other words, it purports to prognosticate about our future actions. People who match certain profiles are deemed likely to engage in a similar pattern of behavior. It is quite difficult to refute actions that one has not yet done. Having nothing to hide will not always dispel predictions of future activity.

I have always completely opposed warrantless wiretapping, torture and imprisonment of 'terror suspects' without filing charges or trial, and in general the government's absolute power to collect and analyze data about me without any knowledge on my part or even any reason for doing so on its part. However, since the 1970s (and probably earlier), courts, legislature, and executive branch members have been trending to allow more and more of these privacy violations to occur.

Anyway, the essay is a bit long, but it's certainly worth reading.

 

[CycloWizard]

32 views and no replies? Everyone seemed so intent on championing this idea four days ago in a related thread, now no one wants to touch it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Those who would trade freedom for security are cowards filled with an unconscious fear. Fear is the source of irrationality in man. Words do not reach people at the level of their fear and thus reason and reasoned arguments can't avail. People who are afraid are like an animal force. They are prisoners of their fear shut away from the light. The more you corner a rat the more insane it becomes.

One can be very clear oneself and see much, but there are limits to what you can do with clarity.

Once beaten, twice shy as they say.

 

[theeedude]

As Scott McNealy once said, "You have zero privacy anyways, get over it."

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Those who would trade freedom for security are cowards filled with an unconscious fear. Fear is the source of irrationality in man. Words do not reach people at the level of their fear and thus reason and reasoned arguments can't avail. People who are afraid are like an animal force. They are prisoners of their fear shut away from the light. The more you corner a rat the more insane it becomes.

WoW I really like that Moonbeam. It seems to be exactly what I feel. This fear of terror is a complete BS reason to take away freedoms given to us by founding fathers.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: senseamp
As Scott McNealy once said, "You have zero privacy anyways, get over it."

As I've said time and again, "You have zero security, get over it." Only an ignorant fool would think that security is actually increased by things like "airport security" taking away 4 ounce containers of toothpaste but letting you carry on five 3 ounce containers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What people want is magic. They want only the "bad guys" to be watched, or they really don't think about it at all. They want to be both free and secure, not realizing or caring that they are mutually exclusive to some degree. Total freedom means anarchy, and what real freedom is that? Likewise Big Brother is glad to make you secure, but how safe are you from them? Americans have usually erred on the side of freedom, however as "security" becomes less obtrusive (you don't need a policeman standing in your home), we'll gradually slip away from the former, because until it's gone freedom is seldom noticed.

 

[BoberFett]

I read that PDF after it was linked and discussed over on Slashdot. I guess it was a decent article, but it was overly wordy and didn't really say anything that hasn't been said before.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: senseamp
As Scott McNealy once said, "You have zero privacy anyways, get over it."

As I've said time and again, "You have zero security, get over it." Only an ignorant fool would think that security is actually increased by things like "airport security" taking away 4 ounce containers of toothpaste but letting you carry on five 3 ounce containers.

So we can do away with airport security and let anyone bring anything onboard?

 

[Jaskalas]

OP, I fully support the notion you present, and I always have and always will be against the patriot act and other authoritarian measures. Yet when both political parties are authoritarian and hell-bent on increasing government presence and power over us, there?s nothing anyone is going to do to stop these things. No one is going to vote libertarian. (honestly, we can do better than Ron Paul)

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: senseamp
As Scott McNealy once said, "You have zero privacy anyways, get over it."

As I've said time and again, "You have zero security, get over it." Only an ignorant fool would think that security is actually increased by things like "airport security" taking away 4 ounce containers of toothpaste but letting you carry on five 3 ounce containers.

So we can do away with airport security and let anyone bring anything onboard?

Um, he said the security is weak, not that it shouldn't exist...

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
OP, I fully support the notion you present, and I always have and always will be against the patriot act and other authoritarian measures. Yet when both political parties are authoritarian and hell-bent on increasing government presence and power over us, there?s nothing anyone is going to do to stop these things. No one is going to vote libertarian. (honestly, we can do better than Ron Paul)

The first step is to stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, IMO. I'm tired of hearing people slam one candidate only to say he/she will vote for another that is just as bad because, let's be honest, they belong to the "other" party. Do I think voting for other parties will help immediately? No, but if we continue to give in and vote for lousy candidates only because they suck a little less than another, we continue to drive this country towards an authoritarian path.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: senseamp
As Scott McNealy once said, "You have zero privacy anyways, get over it."

As I've said time and again, "You have zero security, get over it." Only an ignorant fool would think that security is actually increased by things like "airport security" taking away 4 ounce containers of toothpaste but letting you carry on five 3 ounce containers.

So we can do away with airport security and let anyone bring anything onboard?

Forgive me if I misrepresent you here, but haven't you advocated for legalizing guns because if everyone had a gun, who would try to commit a crime? Extending that logic, if everyone on a plane has a gun, what terrorist is going to hijack the thing?

That's devil's advocate logic, incendentally, as I don't believe that allowing everyone to carry everything on a plane will really help... but then again, if there actually are terrorists who are committed to the task of hijacking a plane and using it as a weapon, they're going to find a way no matter how much toothpaste we confiscate from them. Why should innocent civilians be targeted and have their freedoms removed in the name of preventing a crime that may never happen?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I have always completely opposed warrantless wiretapping, torture and imprisonment of 'terror suspects' without filing charges or trial, and in general the government's absolute power to collect and analyze data about me without any knowledge on my part or even any reason for doing so on its part.

However, since the 1970s (and probably earlier), courts, legislature, and executive branch members have been trending to allow more and more of these privacy violations to occur.

My ignore list:
dmcowen, dahunan, Tab, Bowfinger, Todd33, DVK916, Darkhawk28, Steeplerot, BBond, NanoStuff

While I applaud you bringing the subject up I am very skeptical on your statement of dissaproval simply because of your ignore list.

You only ignore those that are against your Republican party agenda which is quite ironic because they are the biggest offender of warrantless wiretapping and everything else you claim to oppose.

At least your hypocracy is in plain site and for that I say thanks :thumbsup:

 

[alchemize]

The founding fathers couldn't foresee the technologies available, so they didn't do so hot on the whole privacy issue. Back in the day, spying was limited to peeping through windows, or intercepting mail.

The best solution would be a constitutional amendment. But that would require politicians to not pander to their base and actually discuss an important issue, so don't hold your breath.

 

[Jeff7]

I think the fact that someone in Homeland Security was arrested under charges of child pornography/seeking sex with a minor should be argument enough.


Yes, yes, they're only watching you to see if you're a terrorist. Definitely not ever watching to see when the parents might be leaving a child at home. They wouldn't dream of recording conversations for purposes of blackmailing someone for money later. No one would ever keep an eye on a wealthy family to see when they're going on vacation, leaving the house completely empty. Criminals never get hired to important public offices.
The only way in which you truly have nothing to hide is if you have nothing to lose.

We were once willing to go to war to win freedom. Now many seem willing to give it up without a fight.

Originally posted by: alchemize
The founding fathers couldn't foresee the technologies available, so they didn't do so hot on the whole privacy issue. Back in the day, spying was limited to peeping through windows, or intercepting mail.

The best solution would be a constitutional amendment. But that would require politicians to not pander to their base and actually discuss an important issue, so don't hold your breath.

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Secure in their papers and effects. In those days, yeah, messages were sent on paper. Now we have other means of transferring information, but it's still the same basic idea: people should be able to have private conversations with others, regardless of the form it takes. The fact that we may use electrons rather than wood pulp to transfer information is irrelevant.
I also think that the reason they choose to spy on people electronically is the same reason why people illegally download music and movies: it's easy, and can (ironically) often be done privately - without anyone else knowing about it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
The founding fathers couldn't foresee the technologies available, so they didn't do so hot on the whole privacy issue. Back in the day, spying was limited to peeping through windows, or intercepting mail.

The best solution would be a constitutional amendment. But that would require politicians to not pander to their base and actually discuss an important issue, so don't hold your breath.

Actually the problem will correct itself.

As many more Americans go off the grid because they can no longer afford phone service or internet or even electricity the Feds will have to rely on the old fashioned way.

I suspect that will work about as well as a lead balloon.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Actually the problem will correct itself.

As many more Americans go off the grid because they can no longer afford phone service or internet or even electricity the Feds will have to rely on the old fashioned way.

I suspect that will work about as well as a lead balloon.

I hope you're not serious. People working crap jobs at Walmart or fast food places still somehow find money for cigarettes and cellphones.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Actually the problem will correct itself.

As many more Americans go off the grid because they can no longer afford phone service or internet or even electricity the Feds will have to rely on the old fashioned way.

I suspect that will work about as well as a lead balloon.

I hope you're not serious. People working crap jobs at Walmart or fast food places still somehow find money for cigarettes and cellphones.

What are you talking about? The end is near, the apocalypse is upon us!! :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Actually the problem will correct itself.

As many more Americans go off the grid because they can no longer afford phone service or internet or even electricity the Feds will have to rely on the old fashioned way.

I suspect that will work about as well as a lead balloon.

I hope you're not serious. People working crap jobs at Walmart or fast food places still somehow find money for cigarettes and cellphones.

McOwen is one of the rich elite in his own mind because he has phone, electrical, and internet services.

:roll:

 

[Vic]

The problems IMO with the "security over liberty" and the "if you have hide you have nothing to fear" arguments are that (1) they assume we will be more secure when when have delegated that responsibility, and hence our freedoms, over to those with authority, (2) they assume that authority is incapable of mistake related to abuse of power or accidental prosecution of an innocent individual, and (3) they are inherently discriminatory and dehumanizing in their philosophy of "good guys" and "bad guys."

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: senseamp
As Scott McNealy once said, "You have zero privacy anyways, get over it."

As I've said time and again, "You have zero security, get over it." Only an ignorant fool would think that security is actually increased by things like "airport security" taking away 4 ounce containers of toothpaste but letting you carry on five 3 ounce containers.

So we can do away with airport security and let anyone bring anything onboard?

Forgive me if I misrepresent you here, but haven't you advocated for legalizing guns because if everyone had a gun, who would try to commit a crime? Extending that logic, if everyone on a plane has a gun, what terrorist is going to hijack the thing?

I'm somewhat conflicted on gun control, last time it was mentioned was the VA tech shooting. It is a shame no one but the murderous criminal was armed, because he could have been taken down much earlier in his killing spree.

I would say the situation is nothing similar, when is the last time you snuck a gun on campus? Anyone can do it anytime. On a plane, past TSA security? Bit more of a controlled environment.

Also, are you advocating putting holes in the airplane? That's intelligent, I'm sure.

That's devil's advocate logic, incendentally, as I don't believe that allowing everyone to carry everything on a plane will really help... but then again, if there actually are terrorists who are committed to the task of hijacking a plane and using it as a weapon, they're going to find a way no matter how much toothpaste we confiscate from them. Why should innocent civilians be targeted and have their freedoms removed in the name of preventing a crime that may never happen?

First of all, innocent Americans are harassed because we do not profile and condemn our enemy. If we did, the rest of us would be free to go about our lives without being treated equally as the guy with the shoe bomb. I?ll give everyone a tip, the ideology to profile is 1,400 years old and various segments of it declared war on us.

?It?ll happen anyway, they?ll find a way? argument:

Do you move to downtown LA and unlock your door, open your windows, because it?s a hassle to unlock your door and the criminal will get in anyway? Actually, in LA you?d have metal bars on the door/window, and they?ll probably still get in, why bother at all right?

Don?t make it easier for the act of war, or crime to take place.


I find the argument of airport security so far removed from real invasion of privacy and removal of rights, like the Patriot Act.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: senseamp
As Scott McNealy once said, "You have zero privacy anyways, get over it."

As I've said time and again, "You have zero security, get over it." Only an ignorant fool would think that security is actually increased by things like "airport security" taking away 4 ounce containers of toothpaste but letting you carry on five 3 ounce containers.

So we can do away with airport security and let anyone bring anything onboard?

Um, he said the security is weak, not that it shouldn't exist...

Screw that, let everyone have guns.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Actually the problem will correct itself.

As many more Americans go off the grid because they can no longer afford phone service or internet or even electricity the Feds will have to rely on the old fashioned way.

I suspect that will work about as well as a lead balloon.

I hope you're not serious. People working crap jobs at Walmart or fast food places still somehow find money for cigarettes and cellphones.

McOwen is one of the rich elite in his own mind because he has phone, electrical, and internet services.

:roll:

Actually to many, yes.

I am surrounded by people that have had their electrical meters pulled just this year and obviously have no phone (landline or cell) and certainly no internet.

They come over to do an occasional internet seach and I've purchased a couple of computers sice they have no use for them.

It's sad.

I am going to an Electrical Co-op meeting tonight to ask questions like are they going to increase the meter rate even more.

They charge $50 a month just for the meter before one revolution of the meter with electric and they are talking about raising that to $100. This on top of a 3% rate increase they got. Of course when Google goes online we will paying for electric because they landed the company by promising free electricity for them.

Of course it's not free, people like me will be paying for it for as long as I can hold out or move.

 

[piasabird]

Privacy is not in the bill of rights.

However, property rights of Americans could be said to have some elements that have an implied right to privacy. Private ownership of a home and the requirement for a search warrant all seem to point to the establishment of an implied right to some forms of privacy.

The right to own property is a tenant of freedom.