×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Privacy Illusion

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the you-have-your-very-own-database-entry dept.

Privacy 198

LoLobey writes "Scott Adams has an entertaining entry on his Dilbert Blog about the perception of privacy. He writes, 'It has come to my attention that many of my readers in the United States believe they have the right to privacy because of something in the Constitution. That is an unsupportable view. A more accurate view is that the government divides the details of your life into two categories: 1. Stuff they don't care about. 2. Stuff they can find out if they have a reason.' His post is written in response to some reader comments on another entry about privacy guardians and how swell life would be if we voluntarily gave up certain personal info."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

198 comments

Fr1st P0ST.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41904909)

The govt also knows who does every fr1st P0st!!!

What people really want (4, Insightful)

mrbluze (1034940) | about a year and a half ago | (#41904915)

is freedom and to be let alone, to live without fear. That is what is scary about a government that knows (or can if it wants to) every detail down to what color rash you had when you were in college. But Scott Adams is right, nobody has such a right, but it's something that is worth fighting for nonetheless.

Re:What people really want (4)

zoloto (586738) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905201)

That whole part about items not enumerated were left to the people or states also includes privacy. I wish the government would mind it's own fucking business.

Re:What people really want (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905265)

No.
What people really want is shelter, food and safety. Freedom and to be let alone are priorities only for a handful of us-ian traditionalist.

Re:What people really want (2)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905431)

What people really want is shelter, food and safety.

No.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Re:What people really want (3, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906029)

Sorry , but yes.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Its a nice often quoted soundbite from Franklin, but it doesn't make him right. And as has been said, we already gave up liberty in certain forms long ago. In fact any social animal does - there has never been any such thing as complete do-as-you-please liberty anywhere anytime except in the minds of deluded anarchists.

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906609)

The key words which you seems to have ignored are "essential" and "temporary"

'Tis more of a guideline than a rule (0)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#41907025)

I think the GP was spot on. The key is there are very few absolutes in the real world that can be written down as rules. Safety and liberty is an evolutionary trade-off that all social animals must face, the rule that applies in this case is "survival of the fittest". From my personal experience, the US freedom train passengers don't want liberty they want freedom from the consequences of their actions. You are literally as free as a bird and a hell of a lot more powerful, fly as high as you like but don't bitch if someone blasts you out of the sky with a shotgun and has you for breakfast because everyone deserves freedom, right?

Or is it just the "innocent" who should be free to piss others off to the point where they attack them with exploding rocks?

Re:What people really want (3, Insightful)

sourcerror (1718066) | about a year and a half ago | (#41907093)

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Said the slave owner.

Re:What people really want (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905585)

No.
What people really want is shelter, food and safety. Freedom and to be let alone are priorities only for a handful of us-ian traditionalist.

The problem with that is that the population hasn't figured out that the people who would take away your shelter, food and safety don't use email or credit cards or Facebook.

The real problem here is that nobody feels they can fight the government on a personal level. Most of government is opaque and they get one vote every four years in a general election. What they really need is the ability to vote on individual issues.

The technology exists to give them that vote but I'm not holding my breath. I'm starting to wonder if the incompetence of Diebold is deliberate - to undermine confidence that individual voting could ever work. No company could be that incompetent, surely...

Re:What people really want (1, Insightful)

wdef (1050680) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905663)

What they really need is the ability to vote on individual issues.

That could create more problems than it solves. Unfortunately, your average citizen just doesn't have the skills to evaluate the pros and cons of every single issue. That is the sad failing of democracy. Joe Citizen seems to use a limited set of retarded tools to make voting decisions, such as what the media or institutions (eg churches) tell him. You only have to look at quagmired, emotive but sensible issues like banning the death penalty, drug decriminalization, gun control, and criminal justice/penal system reform. The right way to go on those issues has been validated by countless studies - even proven in implementation in other countries - but rational thought is simply ignored in the popularity contest and the old "against" arguments marketed as truth.

Re:What people really want (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906907)

Joe Citizen seems to use a limited set of retarded tools to make voting decisions, such as what the media or institutions (eg churches) tell him.

How is that different from senators and other house representatives?

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41907151)

I think it was Churchill who said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried"

I agree with this, but I would add that the model followed for modern Democracy is based on a system of government that was created for City-states of a much much smaller scale than (most/some) governments of today and which dealt with simpler issues that the average citizen allowed to vote could understand. Too many things have changed since those times ( as vague a reference as this may be).

I do maintain that this new form of government must represent the Will of the People, but I don't believe that a vote every four years or constantly voting on every issue is the way to go. The main problem, I think, lies in the view that those whom we vote for at these elections are there to tell us what to do, rather than to represent us; there's a big difference there, one which we seem to have lost along the way...probably sometime after Truman and before Nixon.

Re:What people really want (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905273)

is freedom and to be let alone, to live without fear

I'm sorry, but you're only half right.

half this country wants to dictate to the other half how to live.

no, you are wrong; 'people' mostly want to control each other. its only the rare person that has a live-and-let-live attitude.

I wish you were right, though.

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905939)

I'm sorry, but you're only half right.

'people' mostly want to either control or be controlled by each other. its only the rare person that's capable of performing both functions internally and able to support themselves independantly.

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906351)

I'm sorry, but you're only half right.

'people' mostly want to either control or be controlled by each other. its only the rare person that's capable of performing both functions internally and able to support themselves independantly.

I'm sorry, but you are only 1/16th right (is that what it is by now? I dunno, I failed math). The only thing I want is my PS3/XBOX360.

Re:What people really want (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906521)

Being 1/16 right will not get you a license to operate a casino.

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906419)

its only the rare person that has a live-and-let-live attitude.

Slashdot has most of the outliers. Now, get off my lawn!

Re:What people really want (3, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906673)

Now we're into the right realm...

I don't try to dictate how others live, and I with for the same from them - that they don't dictate how I live.

OTOH, some regulation is necessary, because we all live on this planet together. Your right to pollute air and water indiscriminately stops at my nose, mouth, and generally the rest of my body. Kind of like your right to swing your fist stops at my face.

I also believe that society has a general responsibility to protect children - the future of that society. But what you want to do with another consenting adult is none of my business. I don't particularly like the idea of gay marriage - so I'm not going to do it. But I also believe that that's your business.

As for "voluntarily give up certain personal info," the key word in that phrase is "voluntarily." As long as *I* get to choose to give up - or retain - that information, I'm find with that. If giving up some information improves my life, I may choose to do so. I'm a bit of a privacy bug, but I also recognize that I'm one of those "boring people," and if anything, my "privacy hobby" raises my profile some.

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41907161)

half this country wants to dictate to the other half how to live.

It's more than half. The so-called liberals want to dictate how to live financially. The so-called conservatives want to dictate how to live socially. Unfortunately, any election comes down to choosing which freedoms are less important.

Re:What people really want (3, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905279)

Frankly, at least government can be held accountable in democracy.

Good luck with the corporations though. And unlike governments, corporations don't have to take care of people either.

Re:What people really want (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905553)

Please try to pay more attention ... the corporations are the government.

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906607)

And it's worth noting...the US is not a democracy (see electoral colleges, etc), it's a constitutional republic...with plenty of history to show that at it's inception such behaviour on the part of the government or the private sector would have likely been considered to have the potential for tyranny.

Re:What people really want (0)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905301)

is freedom and to be let alone, to live without fear. That is what is scary about a government that knows (or can if it wants to) every detail down to what color rash you had when you were in college. But Scott Adams is right, nobody has such a right, but it's something that is worth fighting for nonetheless.

These days, the government does HAVE to collect that data, because there are companies like Google and Facebook that collect it from users (often willingly) and who are willing to sell that data to anyone and everyone, including the government.

At least if the government had it, the worst that happens is you get "disappeared". Now it's everyone else who can get at your information and influence your current and future life - including future job prospects, future significant other prospects, even the ability to just live.

All it would take is some company to buy the data from Google and Facebook, run some proprietary patented algorithms to determine how "something"ism you are and for other companies to make use of that information. Perhaps your profile matches that of a terrorist, no more filling up at gas stations anymore, no more buying books on science, etc. Or that you've got a chance to drink to excess now and again, so now your beer consumption is strictly monitored by bars just in case, etc.

Best of all, none of this requires the government, just free market dealings. Bars often participate in such programs to verify patrons (to great effect - it brings in a "better" crowd and all that), which works, until you're deemed undesirable.

Re:What people really want (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905579)

to be let alone

And that is pretty much what privacy is.

Respecting privacy means ignoring information about people they'd rather not have you gossip about or use otherwise. And it's up to the people about whom the information is to decide what they consider private and what not. Organisations (governments, ad companies) that use everything they can get hold of do not respect privacy at all.

On the practical side people should be aware that what they put on the internet is far more public than what they say when talking to people. But in my view that doesn't entitle others to do with information they collected whatever they see fit. I've had a neighbour in the past who was a terrible gossip, she felt entitled to know everything about everyone so that she could talk about it to her friend who lived around the corner. She has even been known to protest when people continued a conversation behind closed doors when they noticed she was listening. Everybody except her friend hated her guts. In my perception the attitude of ad companies and others who feel entitled to know everything about everyone is not much different from hers.

It's about respect. Should there be legal limits to what you can do with information? Collecting information isn't theft. But analogous to theft, people who respect each other don't take each other's property without permission. We have laws against theft because some people don't have that kind of respect for each other. If the problem is percieved to be big enough a society can decide to put limits on how you can use information you got hold of. Stalking includes following and watching people, on the internet or in the physical world, and using the information thus gathered in ways the victims don't like. There are laws against stalking because the victims feel threatened by it. A world with big brother scale surveillance infrastructure in place and in active use feels threatening to many, so there is good reason to treat it as a form of institutionalized stalking. Some only mind if the government does that and see no harm if corporations do, others are less concerned about government and don't trust corporations much. The first attitude seems to be strong in the US, the second in the EU, so not surprisingly the EU has stricter privacy laws than the US.

Re:What people really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906019)

no.

What people want is to stop being told what they want.

Re:What people really want (2)

Simply Curious (1002051) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906199)

I would argue that there is a right to privacy, and that it exists regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. As a justification, I point to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A right does not need to be in the Constitution to be had. No rights are granted. Rather, the Constitution states that rights already existing may not be infringed.

Re:What people really want (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906799)

But Scott Adams is right, nobody has such a right, but it's something that is worth fighting for nonetheless.

And thus you've basically affirmed the issues that the Federalists had over the Bill of Rights that at some point in the future idiots like you would claim that if it's not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights that the right doesn't exist. You, Scott Adams and the Supreme Court are all wrong on this issue.

is freedom and to be let alone (1)

Tim Ward (514198) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906971)

You don't get that many places. Conservative governemnts want to tell you to live your life the conservative way (things like, who you can sleep with, drinking laws etc), socialists want you to live your life the socialist way (things like, what you're allowed to do with your own money, the state will only engage with groups not individuals, one size fits all, etc).

Very few places have liberal governments who want you to be left alone to live your life *your* way, whatever that might be.

They're right, sort of. (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41904933)

At the heart of the Constitution is the notion that the powers are government are derived from the people. That is to say, the government can only do what the people consent to allowing it to do. The document makes various references to this principle, some direct, others inferred. The Declaration of Independence was quite a bit more blunt on the topic. That said, the truth is... we're not all equal. Some people have more influence than others. Others have more money. And while we are afforded the right to vote, it's almost always voting who will represent us. We have no significant control over our government; Which was deliberate. The same people who said powers not expressly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the people also wrote in the so-called elasticity clause and created the electoral college.

So when people say there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, they're right and they're wrong... as is the other camp. The truth is, human rights are not derived from any legal instrument. They have always flowed from the same source -- a willingness to fight against their removal.

Re:They're right, sort of. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905005)

And now Baquack Obamailure is going to take away all of our freedoms!

He has the mark of the beast! 666! GPS Chips! Born in Kenya, Land of the Damned!

Re:They're right, sort of. (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905191)

At the heart of the Constitution is the notion that

What the fuck does that means? Have you read the constitution? Where does is say anything closely related to what you're saying?

Re:They're right, sort of. (4, Insightful)

profplump (309017) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905241)

The electoral college was created primarily because there's no requirement that states allow their citizens to vote for president. And in fact that was the common case in the early union -- electoral college delegates were often chosen by state legislatures. It wasn't an attempt to redirect power away from the electorate, it was an attempt to redirect power away from the federal government, insofar as states were all free to make their own choices about how to select a president.

Re:They're right, sort of. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905307)

You (like so many) misunderstand the concept "all men are created equal".

It does not mean everybody is identical, it does not mean everybody has the same economic position, or will have the same opportunities throughout their lives.

It means that everybody is entitled to the same rights. Subject to the same laws, treated equally by the courts, etc.

Sadly, even that seemingly simple and obvious ideal is a long way from today's America.

Re:They're right, sort of. (4, Insightful)

neyla (2455118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905497)

It's not that simple in practice. Wealthy and poor people tend to break -different- laws, and it's thus hard to say if the law proscribes the same punishment for equally serious transgressions.

What's worse, stealing a car, or manipulating financial records to benefit your own wallet while befrauding investors to the tune of $1 million ? Who's more likely to do actual jail-time ?

Re:They're right, sort of. (2)

guspasho (941623) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906287)

A mere million? They'll do time. Now steal a *billion*, ans no one will touch you, but instead you'll be celebrated as an entrepreneurial genius.

Re:They're right, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906375)

It's not that simple in practice. Wealthy and poor people tend to break -different- laws, and it's thus hard to say if the law proscribes the same punishment for equally serious transgressions.

What's worse, stealing a car, or manipulating financial records to benefit your own wallet while befrauding investors to the tune of $1 million ? Who's more likely to do actual jail-time ?

Who is "likely" to do more jail time? In the wake of the financial meltdown where we have all those cocksuckers running around not only still free, but employed, you really need to ask who is "likely" to do more jail time?

It's not that simple in practice for one reason and one reason only; corruption.

I don't give a shit who you are or which law you break, if you break it, you should be punished. The real problem is those committing the worst crimes (i.e. white-collar financial execs) now know they are beyond the law, which means there's fuck-all to stop them from doing it again.

Re:They're right, sort of. (5, Insightful)

rumith (983060) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906065)

Human rights are not derived from any legal instrument. They have always flowed from the same source -- a willingness to fight against their removal.

A most precise and excellently worded observation. My hat off to you.

Re:They're right, sort of. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906569)

we need another declaration of independence, but this time we need to declare our independence from our own country.

Screw the submission (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905003)

I'm just glad the submitter reminded me to give The Einstein Intersection another read.

the constitution (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905007)

The first block of ammendments to the US constitution called the Bill of Rights is just an enumeration of the more abused natural human rights in the time of the US Revolutionary War until it's passage.
The Bill of Rights was mostly opposed at the time by those who feared that unenumerated natural rights would later be denied.
Privacy is a natural human right that must be defended by the courts and populace even if it didn't end up in the rights sampler called the Bill of Rights.
The US constitution only enumerates and codifies protections against the federal and sometimes lower levels of government, natural human rights also include protections against other people and corporations, hence for example laws against murder and stealing but even in their absence the ability to make common law accusation if breached.

Nothing to hide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905009)

Scott says "It isn't a real risk to law-abiding citizens;"
In other words, the old defense of privacy invader.
"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about."
That doesn't wash with me.
What if I want to hide the fact that I have nothing to hide?

Re:Nothing to hide (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906265)

I really do think he was just playing Devil's Advocate with this -- the obvious real solution is to evolve humanity to a point where the idea of committing an abhorrent crime is, well, abhorrent.

Sadly I think that we're going to lose any semblance of real privacy before we get even close to that ideal world though.

May as well get used to living a public life now...

Re:Nothing to hide (2)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906577)

The other take I've seen on this is by howstuffworks.com 's Marshall Brain ; his ""Manna" [marshallbrain.com] short story portrays two visions of the future.

* One is a future what automation has taken over so many jobs that there is a large underclass of impoverished unemployed who are rounded up into social security camps, chemically sterilised, and guarded by robots.
* One is a future where automation has taken over so many jobs that everyone can have a basic income that ensure they can live "comfortably" doing whatever the hell they like - and the increasing efficiency of the technology means the level of comfort increases every year.

The privacy angle is that in the utopian version of all this, people voluntarily have implants that record and process all their sensory input, and AI agents watch to see if they are about to commit a violent action, and switch their motor neurones off to prevent them from doing it. I'm in two minds about this - on the one hand, I really don't like the idea of a machine watching me all the time, let alone able to paralyse me on demand. On the other hand, I would probably appreciate the sense of safety, and in a society where there are no unmet material needs, I'm guessing the pressure to commit violent crime would be virtually nil anyway. It relies on the proviso that the AI is both neutral and carefully monitored. If you concentrated this level of power in the hands of a dictator, you'd be screwed.

The natural trend with increasing technology in corporate hands is ubiquitous surveillance and enforcement of rules anyway - so you may as well pre-empt it and develop a system that serves us, instead of ruling us. If we just stick our fingers in our ears and ignore the problem, or stamp our feet and shout really hard that we don't like it, the technology is not going to go away.

Re:Nothing to hide (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41907155)

* One is a future what automation has taken over so many jobs that there is a large underclass of impoverished unemployed who are rounded up into social security camps, chemically sterilised, and guarded by robots.
* One is a future where automation has taken over so many jobs that everyone can have a basic income that ensure they can live "comfortably" doing whatever the hell they like - and the increasing efficiency of the technology means the level of comfort increases every year.

The privacy angle is that in the utopian version of all this, people voluntarily have implants that record and process all their sensory input, and AI agents watch to see if they are about to commit a violent action, and switch their motor neurones off to prevent them from doing it.

So both societies are prisons guarded by robots? The AIs will never abuse the power to shut down people's brains by interpreting more and more things (like cheating in a computer game) to be violent actions (or ignoring that rule altogether)?

Ha ha, gotcha! (0)

psholty2 (2696677) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905067)

> Your government doesn't know who you are having sex with I know who slashdotters have sex with. Yeah, it's sad, I know ;_;

Re:Ha ha, gotcha! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905157)

Now that you brought it up, how's your mom doing?

Re:Ha ha, gotcha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905373)

Dad, is that you?

He's got a point, but. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905073)

He's got a point not to believe in privacy anymore, but that doesn't mean we should willingly give up the last shreds of what's left it.
In fact, it's going to be quite a struggle to get back some of that privacy.
 
Be hard to track.
 
Face recognition isn't as good (yet) as they want you to believe, so avoiding the car whenever possible is a good start. Empty out your account as soon as salary is in, pay everything in cash. Be debt-free. Grow your own food. And a few more of such old-fashioned values which simply work for living a free life. Quit on that mobile phone. Go offline.

Okay, so I'm living in a fantasy. Problem is that just because it's so easy to track people now, the government thinks it's OK to do so. It's not.

Re:He's got a point, but. (1)

DZign (200479) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905895)

I follow his blog for a long time now.. his idea of an ideal society is a bit similar to what's been pictured in the Demolition Man movie.
A pieceful world without crime, partly because everyone is being tracked (without this being used against someone).

You don't want people to be tracked. His opinion is the total opposite: track everyone everywhere (but don't misuse that information).
If a crime happened, someone (police, government, a computer, ..) knows who was around and who did it. So people wouldn't do crimes anymore as they could not do them undetected.

And yes this is only one of his ideas, it would only work in an ideal work where there would be no way at all to circumvent this tracking.

Re:He's got a point, but. (2)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906615)

The technology will get cheaper and easier - it's inevitable that ubiquitous surveillance will be in economic reach of large corporate players soon. Since it's inevitable that such a system will exist, you may as well have it serve us, rather than rule us. The hard part is knowing where that line is and ensuring that people do not cross it.

Re:He's got a point, but. (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906807)

Of course this only works if you assume that the law itself is always just and that everyone knows and understands every applicable law in every situation. Given the realities of corporate-sponsored laws, changing societal values and a vast jungle of obscure laws I doubt that his ideal world would operate like that. Instead I'd expect things like "he sang 31 seconds from a copyrighted song in the presence of five other people. That constitutes criminal copyright infringement. Let's hit him with a fine" or "according to workplace safety regulations that worker's protective headgear is out of spec for that storage depot she spent ten minutes in lingering by the door while she talked to a coworker inside. Let's issue a warning and a fine to her".

It's really your fault for not knowing that non-parody recitals of more than thirty seconds of a copyrighted song to more than three people constitutes copyright infringement. Or that when inside a storage area containing volatile compounds the protective headgear must conform to the ISO 983452-11 headgear types A, B, C and E while the headgear issued to assembly line workers in that company only conforms to types A and C.

I somehow doubt that our laws would become simple enough that a single person can be reasonably expected to know and understand all of them. Or that they would be enforced with leniency and an eye towards educating the public. I rather expect them to be enforced whenever whoever's in charge decides they don't like someone.

Re:He's got a point, but. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906035)

I guess I'm living your fantasy. The Government knows all my anonymous online stuff, and Safeway knows that Linnaeus Roach drinks expensive beer, but that's about it; until they decide to use the Hubble to follow me around.

Misses the point.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905075)

What Scott says is largely true.. But look what happens when your opinions and ideas are different to the government's. A lack of privacy and not being able to get off the grid inhibits free speech.

You already see that in the UK free speech has been dead for a long time. By knowing the government can read everything you discuss 'privately' you are coerced and controlled subtly through fear.

Privacy and free speech are important and technology is easily applied against them..

Re:Misses the point.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905155)

I love how we are anon on this stuff.. speaking of which how does occupy and anon and the ability to communicate and know in seconds what is going on around the world do to the privacy of said government? I would say the Governement has even greater privacy to loose. They are people after all. They do bad things and we know of them swiftly, we have banks of data on the web of what they do, what they vote on in congress, and who they hang with. how they pay or not pay their taxes. These things are not in a bubble. We can use the same tech against them. So privacy may be dead for us, but also for them. They can no longer be cloak and dagger. The camera is pointed at them, and the microphone is listening. They can't escape the spider webs, just like we can't. So now we expect them to screw up and try to make us less free. The next step is to decide what our actions are to their bad doings. Occupy has shown they are force for good and help in the hurrican Sandy, what happens when the police try to throw them out of wallstreet or main street again? What are the people of NY going to say when they see the people who helped them when they were stuck in the water, hungry or homeless and scared?

Medical privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905097)

I order my own blood tests and my own (unscheduled) medication from abroad. For Privacy of course.

Why the government? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905129)

While somewhat off-topic it puzzles me why these questions about privacy deal mainly with the government abuse of power (in the US at least). Living in a "socialist" country in the Northern Europe I can honestly say that I feel the government is protecting my privacy against companies and other private entities that might try to abuse this information about me rather than it being the big threat. While certainly not perfect or run by perfect people at least in theory the government represents the people for the people and is regulated by the people themselves while the private entities serve only the interests of a few and are in fact required to try to "maximize the profits for their owners" and thus to abuse their power to the full extent they can within the law (or slightly outside, which they can try to influence).

I am aware of the differences in the history, the fact that government used to be about the only entity with enough resources (but would claim this is not even close to being the case now) nor am I saying the government should be given free hands to do whatever.

But there seems to be such a difference in the standard mindset I would be interested in hearing some explanation for this.

Re:Why the government? (3, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905321)

Spiegel had a very good series of articles on different forms of governance, their strengths and weaknesses. Here is a link to part 4 (China) and you can find links to introduction as well as parts 1-3 (Brazil, US, Denmark) in the preamble of the article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/putting-the-plan-into-action-how-china-s-leaders-steer-a-massive-nation-a-843593.html [spiegel.de]

Re:Why the government? (5, Interesting)

neyla (2455118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905521)

This is indeed a blind spot in USA. Many, perhaps even most, see government as fundamentally opposed to their interests, while giving corporations a free pass - despite the fact that government atleast in principle represents the interests of the people while corporations represents the interests of the owners. (which are a tiny fraction of the people)

Google and Facebook knows more about our private lives than the government does, yet this seems to bother nobody. It's true that you can opt out of those - but it's also true that network-effects make social media a natural monopoly.

Re:Why the government? (3, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905817)

I think often there is very good reason to be more afraid of a powerful government than a powerful corporation. The government is the one with the power to put you in jail, kill you, take away everything you own, etc. Also government is often driven not by predictable profit-seeking motives, but more "irrational" fanaticism. True, in some cases corporations can also take things from you, but usually they have the power to do so through, or because of, the government (the cops are the ones who force you out of your foreclosed house, not bankers). Of course there's a flipside also -- too weak a government can't protect you from private entities directly fucking with you.

Re:Why the government? (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906749)

Europe is indeed very active when it comes to protect your privacy against 3rd parties. But they are still (part of) the big threat: they'd like to know anyhing and everything about you if they can get their hands on it, and it has been shown repeatedly that government cannot be trusted with our private info, both because they misuse the info, and because they are very poor custodians of the data they gather.

By the way, Scott Adams repeatedly mentions what data government could procure "upon presenting a warrant". To be clear: I am fine with the government procuring my private data if there is a proper warrant:
- issued by a judge;
- issued against named persons;
- issued in the context of a particular investigation or court case;

What I don't want is what we have in the Netherlands, where the District Attorney (Officier van Justitie) can issue a search warrant, and where even a city mayor can issue a so called "warrant to entry" which amounts to more or less the same thing. I think a judge still needs to approve wiretaps (they'd get rid of that requirement if they could get away with it), but even so, the Netherlands sometimes performs more wiretaps in a day than the USA performs in a year. And misuse of data? Our minister of justice suggested that it would be a fine idea to use DNA collected (past and future) for medical research in criminal investigations as well. Coupled with the unbelievable ineptitude of the state when it comes to safeguarding private data on government systems, I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling about my privacy in this small European country.

Re:Why the government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41907075)

You let slip your anti-corporate prejudice when you claim that companies are supposed to break the law. If you ask a corporate lawyer they would explain that companies may not do this. The law of the land is primary, property rights depend on it so the concept of maximizing profit for owners is clearly secondary. Some companies and individuals do break the law, but this is in no way condoned.

I can't really see your argument. While individuals and governments frequently execute people, corporations rarely intentionally kill people. I can't actually think of any cases of corporate murder. Individuals are obviously murderous. Look at the 20th century for examples of Northern European governments committing genocide. Of course, if a government does it, it is considered legal.

I don't maintain that all governments are still trying to kill people, or that corporations are acting in our best interests, I just maintain that governments have behaved exceptionally badly in comparison to companies. I personally think they are reformed - the most dangerous entities in our society are non-commercial individuals and small groups.

Scott Adams has no idea about privacy ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905149)

... because he watches me at work and puts everything in his cartoons !

And he gets rich doing it as well - no justice and no privacy

Re:Scott Adams has no idea about privacy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905975)

Your dog is an asshole.

Loss of privacy is not ancient history (2, Insightful)

TwineLogic (1679802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905159)

Scott Adams compares our loss of privacy to the domestication of dogs. That is unsupportable nonsense.

According to Wikipedia, the current lineage of domesticated dogs diverged approximately 15,000 years ago. Our current American situation of lost privacy depends greatly on the electronic digital computer, which is around 75 years old. Therefore, Scott Adams was exaggerating by a factor of 200, and - more relevant - a difference of 14,925 years.

The pervasive surveillance society, including facial recognition and the networking of ubiquitous video cameras, is being implemented at present. Today is much more recent than 15,000 years ago -- 15,000 years more recent, in fact.

By suggesting that a national debate on our right to privacy is somehow not timely, and implying that we should instead accept that we have never had privacy, Scott Adams has deeply disappointed me. I really thought he was more intelligent than this, because his cartoon routinely makes fun of certain types of people for their stupidity. I figured that meant he was smart.

The appropriate time to have a national conversation about our rights to privacy and to be "secure in our persons" is now. Today.

Re:Loss of privacy is not ancient history (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905331)

Get dictionary; find "hyperbole"; read entry; wipe froth from corners of mouth and computer monitor.

Constitution comedy if they don't follow it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905167)

The government has just officially confirmed what we've long suspected: there are secret Justice Department opinions about the Patriot Act's Section 215, which allows the government to get secret orders from a special surveillance court (the FISA Court) requiring Internet service providers and other companies to turn over "any tangible things." Just exactly what the government thinks that phrase means remains to be seen, but there are indications that their take on it is very broad.

Late last night we received the first batch of documents from the government in response to our Freedom of Information Act request for any files on its legal interpretation of Section 215. The release coincided with the latest in a string of strong warnings from two senators about how the government has secretly interpreted the law. According to them both, the interpretation would shock not just ordinary Americans, but even their fellow lawmakers not on the intelligence committees.

Although we're still reviewing the documents, we're not holding our breath for any meaningful explanation from the government about its secret take on the Patriot Act. We do know now that there are two memos from the Office of Legal Counsel (the same Justice Department group that issued the torture memos) relating to Section 215. But as has become a routine practice for the Justice Department, the OLC is keeping those memos entirely secret.

This secrecy is overbroad and unnecessary. Americans have a right to know how their government is interpreting public laws, especially when those laws give the government sweeping authority to collect more and more of our personal and private information.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-confirms-it-has-secret-interpretation-patriot-act-spy-powers

What about the Ninth Amendment (5, Insightful)

AvderTheTerrible (1960234) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905173)

What I hate about these articles that say there is no right to privacy in the Constitution is that they completely forget about the existence of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What that amendment means is that "just because we did not list that right here, does not mean it does not exist as a right. There are many rights we did not list here, and this amendment is intended to protect them as well as those we did list already". And yes, it is very broad. It is supposed to be broad because it is supposed to be a check on government power and a protection of the publics general rights. The Tenth Amendment is written along a similar line. Both are intended to say "any power or right we did not explicitly give to the federal government, we give to the people and the states". They are supposed to be very very broad because they are supposed to have a very broad interpretation in order to protect personal freedom and the autonomy of the states. And I think a right to privacy easily passes the test for inclusion under the Ninth Amendment.

I disagree with anyone who says that the Constitution contains no right to privacy. It contains one, by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, by not explicitly denying it.

Hitler analogy (1)

enabran (1451761) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905181)

"I would counter by noting that any argument that uses a Hitler analogy is self-refuting."

This is stated as though it is a truism when it is not, his argument at this point can be summed up as "once we ignore some of the best reasons to be in favor of privacy, there's no real reason to want privacy".

The basic premise of his post is "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - a pretty weak argument.

Re:Hitler analogy (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905403)

The basic premise of his post is "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - a pretty weak argument.

I thought the basic premise of his post was you already lost your privacy?

Scott Adams is a troll. (2, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905195)

Scott Adams is trolling. Not for the first time.

Something he doesn't seem to worry about is that government (or large organizations) have a lot more power than ever to process information "they don't care about", to get information that they do. And use it.

For instance, by itself, it's very uninteresting for government to know that I read Dilbert. But if it knows of my Dilbert reading habits, it can correlate that information with other things about me. Maybe they can even draw causal inferences, like that people tend to change their political attitudes ever so slightly after reading Dilbert for years. With enough data and processing power, that's feasible.

The government can then decide to do something about Scott Adams. Not murder him, that's overkill. But maybe give him some personal problems, so that he becomes less influential. Or manipulating his attitudes, so that his role as an opinion-shaper becomes more to their liking. Again, with enough data and processing power, they can probably figure out an effective, non-violent way of changing Adams' behavior.

This wouldn't be cost-effective, you may say. I say it might well be. Influencing a lot of people ever so slightly is really a very powerful thing to be able to. Most governments though history would have leaped at the opportunity to have this level of control, in a non-intrusive manner - compared to the clumsy heavyhandedness of harassment and ruling through fear, it's both less risky and potentially more profitable (given enough data and processing power).

I think it's not feasible to keep processing power and data out of the government/big organizations' hands. Data is just too flightly - if it doesn't actually want to be free, at least it's very hard to contain. But we can get this flightly quality of information to work for us, rather than against us, by demanding radical transparency, and taking it if we don't get it (see Wikileaks).

Unsupportable, my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905217)

The bill of rights is not an enumeration of your rights, it's a list of rights the government is forbidden to take away. It doesn't matter if a right to privacy is explicitly defined, your default state as a US citizen is free.

Re: Shooting for irrelevance it seems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905225)

For a highly influential comic artist, you would think he would lay low for fear of ruining his credibility with expressed opinions.

His argument as far as I can tell is the war for privacy is already lost because the government knows your hair color, so you might as well let them install a CCTV camera over your bed and film you fucking.

Or something. His point is moderately unintelligible, but it sounds like the musings of someone who is completely mystified by the motivations of those who fight for individual liberty.

Shame, I'm a fan of the comic.

One Small Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905249)

The problem with Mr. Adams' thoughts is they don't account for all the information the government is learning about you without a warrant, and how much that is on the increase...

Oh, it's a right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905311)

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12

Re:Oh, it's a right. (1)

wdef (1050680) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905739)

The UDHR is not legally binding and there are no signatories. The US routinely ignores such international toothless efforts.

Holographic you (0)

flyerbri (1519371) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905345)

The 'inside joke' at Rapiscan Systems, the company I used to work for, was..

"We scan you so we can rape you," (hence the name Rape-e-Scan)

The scanners are ACTUALLY holographic Three-dimensional full body scanners.

The premise sold to the US government was simple: This will reduce magnitude of the human trafficking problem, which is a HUGE issue around the world. That, and the amount of deaths occurring due to the issue. Just select your favorite movie star, your next door neighbor, that girl from your childhood dreams, and boom, the rich get a full contact reprogrammed you who's going to do exactly as demanded. Politicians needless to say jumped on this one like flies on turd.

This isn't Total Recall fiction. This is reality...

So when you think you have privacy. Just ask yourself. Why is it I had to have my arms above my legs to get a full body scan for 'bomb' material?

Just to make sure they got a good scan of your boobs, ladies, the flesh is harder to obtain a good sample through bone...

They make em. So you can rape em...

Re:Holographic you (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905687)

Just select your favorite movie star, your next door neighbor, that girl from your childhood dreams, and boom, the rich get a full contact reprogrammed you who's going to do exactly as demanded.

What the hell are you talking about?

DUDE SHOULD STICK TO CARTOON DRAWING !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905351)

And leave the rest to those who have more than a casual understanding, whatever the topic.

As a foreigner... (5, Insightful)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905473)

...who has never read the US Constitution (something I have in common with probably 99% of US citizens), and whose primary knowledge of the Consitutional amendments extends only to the 18th and 21st Amendments, and the 5th amendment because I used to watch so many US lawyer shows (Perry Mason, LA Law, Ally I cannot comment on what, if any, privacy protections are given to the public in those documents - I suspect nothing explicit is included (, and further I suspect that any implied protections are based on individual interpretation of the wording.

From my perspective, the biggest issue is not that Law Enforcement agencies can conduct surveillance and gather information on citizens, but that that the checks and balances to allow investigation while preventing authoritarian abuses (i.e. the need to apply for a Judicial warrant before engaging in said surveillance beyond certain well-defined boundaries) have been eroded to the point where there seems to be no judicial oversight and no ability for the public to scrutinise the process after the fact.

Re:As a foreigner... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906637)

Depending on who you ask, courts have effectively bypassed either half or all of the articles of the bill of rights. Judicial oversight only works when they intend to act in that capacity.

Trust Nuns? Is he completely mad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905507)

Nuns are not incapable of evil...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_scandal_in_the_Sisters_of_Mercy

He's a cartoonist, after all (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905581)

I really like Scott Adams - but you should always take in account that he is a cartoonist. Even if he's trying to be objective, he's still using a lot of hybris and he'll always describe things in an awkward way. That's what makes him great at his job. I don't say he isn't basically right, he's just a bit drastic in his analogies.

What Men's Rights Activist Scott Adams (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41905637)

has to say is not worth listening to. It's great that he turned "Garfield in an office" into a paycheck, but that doesn't make his opinions valuable.

Constitutionally guaranteed privacy? NOPE! (3, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905749)

there is no express Right to Privacy in the US Constitution. Period.

HOWEVER...

Ninth Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Government is strictly limited to doing those activities which are specifically authorized to it by the Constitution.

Everything else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the People.“

Constitutionally, the specific right to privacy does not exist. It is a privilege granted by local Statute. Data Protection Act, wiretapping restrictions, US Postal Service regulations and limitations, the Copyright Act and the Federal Reserve Act are but a few examples of Statutes that bestow privilege on certain types and methods of information, but for that information only - nothing in there even about personal privacy.

All that said, there is an ancient Anglo-Saxon saying from the time of King Alfred (9th c.), which goes "A man's home is his castle". This is in fact part of the Code of Alfred and about the closest you'll get to an actual Constitutional statement about the absolute right to privacy. Back then, if you even turned up outside the walls of a fort uninvited or unannounced and flying the pennant of an alien House, you stood to be run through, and deservedly so. In England these days we have as closest analogue, section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 which provides for intentional alarm, harassment or distress but still no specific *right* to privacy. People have tried to apply section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in civil Law but this Act only applies against Public Authorities, which are immunised from prosecution (civil or criminal) under HRA by section 71 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which provides complete immunity if said corporate body turns evidence in *any other proceeding*.

An illusion indeed (2)

Owlyn (1390895) | about a year and a half ago | (#41905825)

I hope those who comment on Scott Adam’s article take note of his caveat, “written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view”. It’s a thinking-out-loud piece, which coming from Scott Adams, I enjoy.

I think he is wrong on two important points. One, I believe the Constitution does protect privacy, and I do not think Hitler analogies are self-refuting arguments. Hitler analogies are overused and too easy to make, which makes them fall on deaf ears, but not inherently self-refuting.

However, I do think Adams makes one good point. For those of you who are waging the war against the loss of privacy – news flash – you lost that war decades ago. Apparently you didn’t get the memo. It may be worth fighting to get privacy back, but it isn’t something we are in danger of losing. You cannot lose what you already lost. In this respect, I believe Adams makes a compelling case. Whatever privacy you think you enjoy is an illusion. It is a part of your life the government doesn’t care about at the present moment.

automatic cars solve drink driving (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906103)

If we had automatic cars, then the whole drink/drug-driving problem would be solved as you wouldn't be driving the car.

Privacy (2)

mschaffer (97223) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906267)

Privacy starts with protection from illegal search.
It's a shame that it wasn't extended further in the Constitution.

Re:Privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906435)

Privacy starts with protection from illegal search.
It's a shame that it wasn't extended further in the Constitution.

True privacy will start once those who violate privacy laws are actually punished.

If you never slap the hand, don't expect the cookie jar to be full. Unfortunately, even this analogy cannot describe the arrogance of law enforcement these days, who instead of "mother may I?" polite stance, opt more for the post 9/11 approved approach of "where's my fucking cookie, Bitch?!?"

They have everything. Can use anything, whenever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906305)

For whatver reason. No need for explaining. They already have everything on rvrtyone. Everything they need is in place and orking, I mean, working.
If a disgruntled neighbor or acquaintance rats on you, true or false, sincerely or maliciously, your color-coded filecard comes up in the IBM tabulator in some nondescript brown house belonging to some discreet covert institution directly or indirectly tied to formal government. You will be tagged, followed, eventually hounded and, maybe, will even get arrested or just suffer an accident or disappear. Just like in Heydrich's heydays.
Anything could be the cause. A rival, a silly grudge, a clerical error, a fly on the typewr... er, tablet screen. Anything.
Which is also why dictatorships become such silent places. And gloomy, and desponden. Did I mention, gloomy?

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you (3, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906387)

"Tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. The robber baron’s cruelty (and) cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- CS Lewis

Re:I'm from the government and I'm here to help yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906857)

And that's why parents make the worst tyrants.

On that subject:
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I believe, the exception is a person capable of doing everything themselves. Bad, ignorant leaders are potentially worse if they have more influence. A single, super-intelligent person doesn't need other people, so by virtue they have no interest in petty things and can be better leaders.

Scott Adams is an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906795)

He is jaded about society that he believes nothing can ever be in black and white. Check out his arguements against evolution (he practically based an entire episode of his tv show on making science look bad), why romney should be elected, or any of his arguements where he takes the side he wants, and calls everyone idiots.

Law Abiding Citizens (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year and a half ago | (#41906827)

Because law enforcement has always used its powers on "bad guys" and criminals. Long before Anonymous, the FBI was running RUIN life on people for their own agenda.

The author insinuates, like most other police states, that everyone suspected by law enforcement is really a criminal, and power is rarely abused.

for the record the name man trusts catholic nuns to guard his data
"I would trust nuns to guard my personal information in the cloud. I would also trust nuns to keep the government from getting my information and using it for evil. But I would limit the job to nuns who have been in the habit, so to speak, for at least twenty years"
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/guardians_of_privacy/
Because the church does not evil. I mean they are a church. You must be a communist to think the church is evil.

Anyone who thinks that living in a police suvailence state, could you please link to another country on earth where it has worked, well, and the police do not abuse their powers? Link to biased outside media if you could.

But if you want to know what a police force, conducting secrect survaillence on US citizens looks like, you can google "Church Comittee"
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Church_Committee_Created.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

Then there is "COINTELPRO"
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&tok=gukAibuebXq64nmwN-zOUw&pq=church%20committee&cp=6&gs_id=h4&xhr=t&q=COINTELpro&pf=p&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=COINTE&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=5339a8ff113dcf96&bpcl=37643589&biw=1108&bih=647
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro

What we will have is that federal law enforcement will use their powers to undermine our democratic values by eliminating dissent/otherwise giving an unfair advantage to political canidates they agree with.

Anyone who comes accross damning evidences or otherwise criticizes the system, if not arrested, the FBI would have enough dirt that it could leak and destroy people's reputation. It could send neighbors against people, get people fired. Harrass spouses, friends, girlfriends.

You see the "things the FBI doesn't care about", changes when they want to single you out and make an extra-judicial example out of you. As Mario Savio, of the Berkley Free Speech movement.

And if you think that "congresstional oversight" is a magic bullet, when it just gives potentially unscrupulous members of congress something else to keep them in office.

Then we get to this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all

How long has the FBI been doing things like this before they got caught? This is a mainstream paper that in more modern times doesn't generally like to dig further than they need to. Good investigators like the FBI don't routinely get caught by half assed ametures link pro-journalists.

According to Do Not Track Plus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41906933)

Dedicated Networks, Google Analytics, Doubleclick, and Comscore Beacon tracks you when you visit /. Just sayin'.

this FP 7or GNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41907153)

support *GNAAY,
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...