4 ms·

Today lots of posts on privacy... To those saying that if you have nothing to hide you should not have a problem with this, you are missing some points, and si

by speeder 13y ago

Today lots of posts on privacy... To those saying that if you have nothing to hide you should not have a problem with this, you are missing some points, and situations... For example, sometimes you do things that are controversial, but not necessarily wrong, or "sketchy", and you don't want the negative attention. For example, regarding the Verizon call list: What if people discover you have made lots of calls to KKK? They will quickly jump to conclusion that you are probably a neo-nazi, but maybe you was like that black guy that made a KKK documentary (I forgot the name, I saw in school many years ago, a teacher showed us) and interacted a lot with them. Or snapchat, what if you are exchanging photos with people with some other people dislike? You never had friends that hate each other? Or your mom that hate your girlfriend? Or your wife that hate your uncle? There are lots of situations where privacy is important, and beyond commiting crimes or being a anti-government rebel...

jseliger 13y ago
To those saying that if you have nothing to hide you should not have a problem with this, you are missing some points, and situations... In addition, the idea that privacy is necessary to a full life and full persona has been addressed by an array of scholars and privacy experts; consider Decew's In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology as one good place to start.
rschmitty 13y ago
Your counter argument to verizon call list is: what if a black guy is calling the KKK? Not that I'm pro verizon, just that is a very poor example.
- samstave 13y ago
  I think he was trying to grab an example that would be easy to jump to conclusions about (calls to the KKK)
  - pseut 13y ago
    It's a poor example. If I were black, I'd be pretty unconcerned about the possibility of my friends and family thinking I'm a Klansman, no matter what my phone records say.
    - anonymfus 13y ago
      Probably you misunderstand example. > They will quickly jump to conclusion that you are probably a neo-nazi, but maybe you was like that black guy that made a KKK documentary (I forgot the name, I saw in school many years ago, a teacher showed us) and interacted a lot with them. It does not means that you would be black, it means only that you would be making KKK documentary like that black guy.
rhizome 13y ago
What if people discover you have made lots of calls to KKK? They will quickly jump to conclusion that you are probably a neo-nazi, but maybe you was like that black guy that made a KKK documentary The thing is, Verizon isn't handing over identities. This isn't to absolve Verizon here at all, but to illustrate that the US Government can't find terrorists this way.
- mikegioia 13y ago
  Interesting argument, but don't you think the NSA/FBI are just just going to say "we're not collecting/analyzing enough data"?
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Sure, but politicians are saying that it's necessary to find terrorists, but this warrant doesn't help that happen. Unless, of course, they correlate it with other data they have, which was perhaps collected warrantlessly and therefore possibly inadmissable in court. After all, Bush engaged in illegal wiretapping for 5 years before the 7 years since Section 215 took effect. I doubt they've thrown that data away.
- jrwoodruff 13y ago
  ... that we know of. Just because the confidential subpoena that was leaked didn't specify the release of identifying information doesn't indicate the government doesn't already have that data to cross-reference. Also, at least in the U.S., I believe landline numbers are public record, so if you're calling your wife on the ol' landline...

by speeder 13y ago

jseliger 13y ago

To those saying that if you have nothing to hide you should not have a problem with this, you are missing some points, and situations... In addition, the idea that privacy is necessary to a full life and full persona has been addressed by an array of scholars and privacy experts; consider Decew's In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology as one good place to start.

rschmitty 13y ago

Your counter argument to verizon call list is: what if a black guy is calling the KKK? Not that I'm pro verizon, just that is a very poor example.

samstave 13y ago
I think he was trying to grab an example that would be easy to jump to conclusions about (calls to the KKK)
- pseut 13y ago
  It's a poor example. If I were black, I'd be pretty unconcerned about the possibility of my friends and family thinking I'm a Klansman, no matter what my phone records say.
  - anonymfus 13y ago
    Probably you misunderstand example. > They will quickly jump to conclusion that you are probably a neo-nazi, but maybe you was like that black guy that made a KKK documentary (I forgot the name, I saw in school many years ago, a teacher showed us) and interacted a lot with them. It does not means that you would be black, it means only that you would be making KKK documentary like that black guy.

rhizome 13y ago

What if people discover you have made lots of calls to KKK? They will quickly jump to conclusion that you are probably a neo-nazi, but maybe you was like that black guy that made a KKK documentary The thing is, Verizon isn't handing over identities. This isn't to absolve Verizon here at all, but to illustrate that the US Government can't find terrorists this way.

mikegioia 13y ago
Interesting argument, but don't you think the NSA/FBI are just just going to say "we're not collecting/analyzing enough data"?
- rhizome 13y ago
  Sure, but politicians are saying that it's necessary to find terrorists, but this warrant doesn't help that happen. Unless, of course, they correlate it with other data they have, which was perhaps collected warrantlessly and therefore possibly inadmissable in court. After all, Bush engaged in illegal wiretapping for 5 years before the 7 years since Section 215 took effect. I doubt they've thrown that data away.
jrwoodruff 13y ago
... that we know of. Just because the confidential subpoena that was leaked didn't specify the release of identifying information doesn't indicate the government doesn't already have that data to cross-reference. Also, at least in the U.S., I believe landline numbers are public record, so if you're calling your wife on the ol' landline...