3 ms·

Scanned this article. I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights. What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting

Scanned this article. I remain ambivalent about ACLU's efforts to defend privacy rights. What is privacy? What would ACLU's future perfect privacy protecting world look like? How, specifically, does our world differ from that world? Is the ACLU just rearranging the deck chairs, as The Titanic sinks? This is a complicated topic. Firstly, I don't trust that the ACLU understands our current surveillance economy. One important facet is Zuboff's Surveillance Capitalism critique. How private and public, foreign and domestic interact. By analogy, it's like trying to talk about criminal cartels, focusing just on drugs, and ignoring human trafficking, arms trade, finance, and state actors. Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. Foreign and domestic. And I get that for national security, these same services cannot publicly take credit for their successes. So maybe we can infer how much benefit surveillance yielded thru some kind of meta analysis. I care about privacy a great deal. As an election integrity activist, I defended voter privacy (with some minor policy wins). As a geek, I designed and implemented electronic medical record exchanges. And yet I feel I still don't know what privacy is. Or what the trade offs are. I recently heard Jill Lepore's recap of the very first privacy debates, at the dawn of the IT revolution. Sadly, as someone who's been working in privacy, most of what she discussed was news to me. Right now I feel we simply need a do over. Start the whole debate from scratch. Get down to first principles. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism The Computer-men https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-7-the-computermen https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-1/episode-7-the-comput... "In 1966, just as the foundations of the Internet were being imagined, the federal government considered building a National Data Center."

owl_troupe 5y ago
> Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (of which privacy is one), the onus is on the government to justify this action. We cannot just assume surveillance works, the government has to prove it--show us the examples. Luckily we know just how effective these programs are and, as the authors here correctly point out, the answer is "not much." [1] From the link in the article, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded in 2014, > Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. [1] [1] https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/ec542143-1079-424a-84b3-acc354698560/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Records_Program.pdf https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/e... EDIT: As to the question of 'what's at stake with privacy rights?', there are great films [2], talks [3], and reading [4] on what's at stake with privacy. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others [3] https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matter... [4] https://bookshop.org/books/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-the-fight-for-a-human-future-at-the-new-frontier-of-power/ https://bookshop.org/books/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalis...
- specialist 5y ago
  All rights act in tension. Preferring one disadvantages others. I merely ask we have better data to make better choices.
- specialist 5y ago
  You using my talking points to argue against me is, um, well I honestly can't say. Clearly I'm not explaining myself very well. As someone who's actually done the work, tried to make privacy protecting systems, I can't help but feel that most people have very naive notions about the whole situation. Like virgins dispensing sex advice with grave authority. It's fine to flap your lips and wiggle your hips about privacy. Advocacy as performance art. I might be more convinced by implementations, systems, code, legislation. Might I suggest starting with Translucent Databases, or explaining how states might conduct intel on foreign threats without impinging rights of citizens, or sketching financial systems based on zero knowledge proofs, or show how medical research and clinical studies might be done effectively with differential privacy. Whenever I think about these potential solutions, it breaks my brain. But I'm sure the non-tech people (ACLU, Greenwald, etc) are much smarter than me and will lead the way. Or we can all demand the impossible -- because Something Must Be Done -- forfeit on practicalities, declare victory, and move on to next outrage.
darepublic 5y ago
> Start the whole debate from scratch. Get down to first principles. Been hankering for this from media and politics for a long time, an outline of the general principles or overall vision that informs individual takes on various issues, but not expecting to ever see it in my lifetime. Disillusioned with the collective ability of humanity to reason together
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. Given how many of those caught weren't so much “attempted terror attacks” as people talking big who had to be dragged into anything more by the Feds, and how Islamix terror groups have had more to gain by targeting US targets abroad since the 9/11 response started, I can easily believe therr haven't been many foiled attacks by domestic dragnet surveillance.
- specialist 5y ago
  I'm split brain on this. Our War on Terror has been a complete clown show, policy disaster, absolutely made things worse. And yet, I'm at a loss for why there haven't been more attacks. Could it be true that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and programs like the drone strikes are actually effective? Are we decapitating terrorists org before they can become effective? Was putting Saudi govt's nuts in a vice sufficient to stop them from funding follow on efforts? Are our vassal states doing all the dirty work for us, taking all the hits? Surely someone, somewhere knows these answers. So here's my point: In any of the scenarios where some kind of mass surveillance of foreign actors is necessary or useful, I cannot imagine a system or regiment where that does not bleed into domestic surveillance. Which has been the whole argument from the beginning. Turf, jurisdictions, distinction between domestic and abroad, etc. If our counter terrorism has been completely moot, then ya, scrap the whole system. But if its actually been working, then I'm not ready to pull the plug without some kind of plan.

owl_troupe 5y ago

> Secondly, I'm not convinced that mass surveillance is entirely ineffective. Wholly I agree that it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, overwrought, wicked expensive, and overreaching. But in our reform efforts, I want an account of how our intelligence services performed. I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. When the US government takes away its citizens' rights (of which privacy is one), the onus is on the government to justify this action. We cannot just assume surveillance works, the government has to prove it--show us the examples. Luckily we know just how effective these programs are and, as the authors here correctly point out, the answer is "not much." [1] From the link in the article, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded in 2014, > Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. [1] [1] https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/ec542143-1079-424a-84b3-acc354698560/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Records_Program.pdf https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/e... EDIT: As to the question of 'what's at stake with privacy rights?', there are great films [2], talks [3], and reading [4] on what's at stake with privacy. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others [3] https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matter... [4] https://bookshop.org/books/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-the-fight-for-a-human-future-at-the-new-frontier-of-power/ https://bookshop.org/books/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalis...

specialist 5y ago
All rights act in tension. Preferring one disadvantages others. I merely ask we have better data to make better choices.
specialist 5y ago
You using my talking points to argue against me is, um, well I honestly can't say. Clearly I'm not explaining myself very well. As someone who's actually done the work, tried to make privacy protecting systems, I can't help but feel that most people have very naive notions about the whole situation. Like virgins dispensing sex advice with grave authority. It's fine to flap your lips and wiggle your hips about privacy. Advocacy as performance art. I might be more convinced by implementations, systems, code, legislation. Might I suggest starting with Translucent Databases, or explaining how states might conduct intel on foreign threats without impinging rights of citizens, or sketching financial systems based on zero knowledge proofs, or show how medical research and clinical studies might be done effectively with differential privacy. Whenever I think about these potential solutions, it breaks my brain. But I'm sure the non-tech people (ACLU, Greenwald, etc) are much smarter than me and will lead the way. Or we can all demand the impossible -- because Something Must Be Done -- forfeit on practicalities, declare victory, and move on to next outrage.

darepublic 5y ago

> Start the whole debate from scratch. Get down to first principles. Been hankering for this from media and politics for a long time, an outline of the general principles or overall vision that informs individual takes on various issues, but not expecting to ever see it in my lifetime. Disillusioned with the collective ability of humanity to reason together

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I simply cannot believe that there haven't been many more attempted terrorist attacks. Given how many of those caught weren't so much “attempted terror attacks” as people talking big who had to be dragged into anything more by the Feds, and how Islamix terror groups have had more to gain by targeting US targets abroad since the 9/11 response started, I can easily believe therr haven't been many foiled attacks by domestic dragnet surveillance.

specialist 5y ago
I'm split brain on this. Our War on Terror has been a complete clown show, policy disaster, absolutely made things worse. And yet, I'm at a loss for why there haven't been more attacks. Could it be true that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and programs like the drone strikes are actually effective? Are we decapitating terrorists org before they can become effective? Was putting Saudi govt's nuts in a vice sufficient to stop them from funding follow on efforts? Are our vassal states doing all the dirty work for us, taking all the hits? Surely someone, somewhere knows these answers. So here's my point: In any of the scenarios where some kind of mass surveillance of foreign actors is necessary or useful, I cannot imagine a system or regiment where that does not bleed into domestic surveillance. Which has been the whole argument from the beginning. Turf, jurisdictions, distinction between domestic and abroad, etc. If our counter terrorism has been completely moot, then ya, scrap the whole system. But if its actually been working, then I'm not ready to pull the plug without some kind of plan.