Five myths about privacy

[xchrom]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-privacy/2013/06/13/098a5b5c-d370-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html

***SNIP

1. The collection of phone numbers and other “metadata” isn’t much of a threat to privacy.
***SNIP

But “metadata” about phone calls can be quite revealing. Whom someone is talking to may be just as sensitive as what’s being said. Calls to doctors or health-care providers can suggest certain medical conditions. Calls to businesses say something about a person’s interests and lifestyle. Calls to friends reveal associations, potentially pointing to someone’s political, religious or philosophical beliefs.

***SNIP

2. Surveillance must be secret to protect us
***SNIP


But secrecy at the level of an individual suspect is different from keeping the very existence of massive surveillance programs secret. The public must know about the general outlines of surveillance activities in order to evaluate whether the government is achieving the appropriate balance between privacy and security. What kind of information is gathered? How is it used? How securely is it kept? What kind of oversight is there? Are these activities even legal? These questions can’t be answered, and the government can’t be held accountable, if surveillance programs are completely classified.


3. Only people with something to hide should be concerned about their privacy
***SNIP

When privacy is compromised, though, the problems can go far beyond the exposure of illegal activity or embarrassing information. It can provide the government with a tremendous amount of power over its people. It can undermine trust and chill free speech and association. It can make people vulnerable to abuse of their information and further intrusions into their lives.


4. National security requires major sacrifices in privacy.

Obama invoked this myth this month when he said, “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.” The implication is that those upset about surveillance fail to recognize that we must trade some privacy for security.

[alc]

1. I have nothing to hide

But I'd be willing to bet that enough congressmen have something to hide that this data in the wrong hands can change the direction of our country. Just imagine the 2014 primaries and elections if Rove finds a way to the data. Send p.i.s to tail every democrat who's texted an 18 year old, called someone (an old friend) who happens to deal drugs, have a wife who's cell phone is at restaurants with the pool boy's phone, etc. Dirt is bad enough in campaigns when they do it the old fashioned way. D's won't be able to do anything but rebut attacks if Rove gets this data.

And businesses have LOTs to hide. LOTs of LEGAL stuff. Like where their next factory is going up. Change in marketing agency. New products or ad campaigns. Competitors can learn this stuff from patterns. CIA has been accused of helping US companies over foreign competitors. CEOs of global companies have a reason to avoid US offices. Merging global companies have a reason to pick the non-US offices as the HQ.

This program isn't about snooping on ME, or my neighbors, or terrorists. It's snooping on EVERYONE. And it will find way more non-security secrets (most legal) than terrorist secrets. And we can't be guaranteed that they can contain these secrets any more than they can contain the secret that the program exists. The question we will always have to consider is "who have the secrets leaked to?" When it goes the the press, we know. When it goes to Rove, or a Chinese company, or anyone else who wants to keep them secret we'll only see the results and not know why. We may often suspect "why" when a candidate drops out or a congressional vote goes unexpectedly one way or a court decision makes no sense. And that undermines our entire system.

[kentuck]

3. Everybody has something to hide.

Whether they were late with their mortgage payment, whether they have huge credit card debt, whether they called their doctor about their high blood pressure, whether they have a drinking problem, or whether they have relatives in trouble with the law, whether or not they visit internet sites like DU, and on and on....

[alc]

5. missed my point

My point is that some people have a lot that they "need to hide" or it will have a dramatic affect on their life. And many of those people are in a position that it can also have a dramatic affect on all of our lives. So, "_I_ have nothing to hide" is an irrelevant argument for allowing wide-scale snooping. It's only an argument for allowing the government to snoop on you.

Edit: removed my response to kentuck's point. misunderstanding because I chose a bad title for my comment.
Edit 2: putting edit description in message text so everyone can see.

[kentuck]

6. Sorry.

I made an assumption from your headline without reading your comments. I do agree with you.

[geek tragedy]

2. the real--and most essential myth--is that privacy exists in electronic communications. nt

[kentuck]

4. I wonder how many DUer's post from jail or a mental institution?

Or their psychiatrist has put them on powerful psychotropic drugs?

Is that too much private information to ask for? Or is that really none of anybody's business?