Beta
×

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!

Gauging the Dangers of Surveillance

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the who's-to-blame dept.

Privacy 111

An anonymous reader writes "We have a sense that surveillance is bad, but we often have a hard time saying exactly why. In an interesting and readable new article in the Harvard Law Review, law professor Neil Richards argues that surveillance is bad for two reasons — because it menaces our intellectual privacy (our right to read and think freely and secretly) and because it gives the watcher power over the watched, creating the risk of blackmail, persuasion, or discrimination. The article is available for free download, and is featured on the Bruce Schneier security blog."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah, but (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43326905)

As a practical matter, a lot of this comes under the "genie is out of the bottle" territory. The genie emerged in 1995 and hasn't looked back. It's improved our lives in many ways; in others, I often have a fondness for life as it was before the WWW, Google, and Facebook. At least I wouldn't feel like dozens of private companies are tracking, archiving, and big-data analyzing every move I make in both the physical and online worlds (in the context of what "people whose preferences are similar to yours also looked at..."), while hackers around the world are trying to figure out how to crack my bank accounts.

Re:Yeah, but (1)

mad flyer (589291) | about a year ago | (#43327043)

What exactly are you talking aboot ?

Re:Yeah, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327205)

We know you’re not Canadian. Canadians say "aboat" (as in "a boat") not "a boot".

Re:Yeah, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327395)

Re:Yeah, but (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328855)

Direct link to pdf: richards.pdf [harvardlawreview.org] .

Re:Yeah, but (4, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43327291)

WONDERFUL Comment in the Schneier blog:

name.witheld.for.obvious.reasons â March 29, 2013 1:07 PM

"Surveillance, more specifically acts carried out by officials on persons without proper legal standing, is an illegal act. I, as a private citizen, cannot endlessly trail behind someone day and night, I'd be guilty of stalking. There is no inherent right of the government to stalk citizens (and quite possible persons) just because the government has the capability. There is another issue regarding prima facia, evidence or data collected by "authorities" must be testable, and not just by a judge, but by a jury as well. If the government is the accuser and the prosecuted then the balance and subjective nature of the evidence comes into question. The United States government has lost the rationale basis for prosecution, not just by tepid reasoning but by the false assumption that it is the government that must protect itself from the I consenting governed. It is by virtue of the people, the suspect, that the government is given any weight in respecting the person/individual. It's asking the rape victim to consent to being guilty of inducing the act and denying the production of evidence at trail. "Just trust us, you're guilty of involuntarily F'ing yourself."

Re:Yeah, but (0, Redundant)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328499)

WONDERFUL Comment in the Schneier blog:

name.witheld.for.obvious.reasons à March 29, 2013 1:07 PM

"Surveillance, more specifically acts carried out by officials on persons without proper legal standing, is an illegal act. I, as a private citizen, cannot endlessly trail behind someone day and night, I'd be guilty of stalking. There is no inherent right of the government to stalk citizens (and quite possible persons) just because the government has the capability. There is another issue regarding prima facia, evidence or data collected by "authorities" must be testable, and not just by a judge, but by a jury as well. If the government is the accuser and the prosecuted then the balance and subjective nature of the evidence comes into question. The United States government has lost the rationale basis for prosecution, not just by tepid reasoning but by the false assumption that it is the government that must protect itself from the I consenting governed. It is by virtue of the people, the suspect, that the government is given any weight in respecting the person/individual. It's asking the rape victim to consent to being guilty of inducing the act and denying the production of evidence at trail. "Just trust us, you're guilty of involuntarily F'ing yourself."

The problem with stuff like Google Glass is NOT government surveillance, but just ordinary users spying on everyone else (and Google making it easily searchable by person and location - between facial recognition and geotagging, every image of you will be tagged).

Sure, the government is hamstrung by evidence laws, and such, but NOT the court of public opinion. You might be tried for something, but all it takes is some busybody (or a government leak) showing you walking out of less-than-church-moral places and turning your publicity against you.

Just ask anyone what happens when they're accused of sexual harassment - they may be completely vindicated in front of a judge, but the public starts to whisper all sorts of mistruths that a lifetime will never clear up. And you'll never be able to convince anyone otherwise.

Google Glass and the like aren't for the government, they're for busybodies who have nothing better to do with their lives than to ensure everyone upholds their kind of moral upstanding.

Re:Yeah, but (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328693)

Apparently, you didn't read the PDF, or you failed to understand what you read.

Google Glass is just one of many surveillance methods. It's marketed to the masses as "something cool", and they buy it. By doing so they "consent" to being monitored by Google. Which may or may not be alright. There are, however, not one, but TWO other considerations.

1: The people with Google Glass are going to be survelling other people who have NOT consented in any way to being tracked.

2: Google and virtually all other corporations are either selling or giving information to the government.

We have seen legislators attempt to legalize the growing practice of corporations and government freely exchanging data. The goal is to have all corporations and the government accessing each others data bases, freely. There may be monetary exchanges involved or not, but the free access is what counts.

Gun rights is a hot button issue right now. How many of us thinks that government should be able to access the data bases of all gun and ammunition retailers in the nation, to compile an inventory for each and every citizen in the nation?

OK, depending on your personal views on gun rights, you may come up with a different answer than I have. Let's try another example - your reading habits.

Do you really want Uncle prying into your reading history? Let us suppose that your professional reading is all taken from sources A through F. And, let us suppose that your entertainment, hobby, and self improvement reading are taken from an entirely different set of sources - G through M.

Your reading habits in some vague way resembles the reading habits of some known criminals, and in some other vague way resembles those of known terrorists. Extremely vague resemblances that your professional reading doesn't reflect, nor does your other reading - but when taken together, they set off an alarm.

Suddenly, you're the subject of full time government surveillance, because the companies from which you purchase your reading material has submitted their data bases to the NSA or whoever correlates all that data.

No big deal, right? UNTIL you decide that you'll take the children to visit their grandparents on the other coast of the United States, or in Bangladesh, or wherever. You approach the gate to board your plane, with children in tow, and a TSA agent takes you to a back room for an interrogation, and you find that you're on a "No-Fly" list.

All in secret, all behind your back, you've been monitored and judged, and found unworthy of your civil liberties. No judge, no jury, no counsel available, no chance to deny any allegations - you've been judged, based on your reading habits.

It's all hypothetical, right? Purely conjecture, right? Can't happen in America, right?

Go study the laws being authored and submitted to the legislatures for consideration.

Re:Yeah, but (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329761)

The people with Google Glass are going to be survelling other people who have NOT consented in any way to being tracked.

If Google Glass ever becomes popular, I would not be too surprised if sales of cell phone jammers start to proliferate. In my location they would be redundant. I pay Telstra to fuck up the signal for me. :-(

Re:Yeah, but (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329917)

I don't give a fuck whether I uphold your moral standards. The main reason why I don't frequent casinos and strip clubs is that I studied statistics and hence don't enjoy gambling and that I think paying for sex cheapens the experience. Aside of that, they might be fun places to go. And if you're a politician, you'd rather get my vote when you spend your leisure time in casinos and strip clubs than when you use churches to meet with your buddies from some corporations to be their ho.

Re:Yeah, but (2)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a year and a half ago | (#43330215)

What gets me is that the same people involved with increasing surveillance legislation (and, and imagine, secret programs that are impervious to oversight) are themselves American citizens and subject to the same surveillance.

They are in effect saying "I can't be trusted, and need to be monitored more closely."

Re:Yeah, but (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327391)

Anyone that is seriously bothered by the idea of being monitored should read Surveillance Countermeasures [amazon.com] . It's an older book that deals more so with real-world surveillance but over all it's a good read and might just save your life.

It's always been this way. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43326913)

Doesn't take a digital generation to recognize a fundamental truth. The Panopticon is not a good thing.

Re: It's always been this way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327491)

Seems like the digital generation has hindered that recognition.

Re:It's always been this way. (2)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328015)

Thomas Jefferson got it right: "Whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching." They are.

GG is CG. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43326947)

This is why Google Glasses will never take off.

Welcome to 2013 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43326981)

These things have been obvious since Orwell or even before, which is well over sixty years ago. What has this site come to?

Re:Welcome to 2013 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327583)

What has this site come to?

A circle jerk in our moms' basements.

Re:Welcome to 2013 (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327821)

These things have been obvious since Orwell or even before, which is well over sixty years ago. What has this site come to?

Yes but despite that I feel it is almost unstoppable force of technology, just like copyright is doomed through incredibly accurate and ubiquitous data duplication equipment aka computers it seems surveillance is an unstoppable force of smaller, smarter and more networked electronics and optics. This isn't East Germany where you had to recruit almost every citizen, what you need is the cooperation of a handful of people in payment processing (electronic cash), telecom (communication, GPS positioning) and social media (networks, on site surveillance). Imagine for example you had access to GPS coordinates and could access any Facebook upload within 100 meters, regardless of geo-tagging and privacy settings. It's a silent army of spies who might snap a photo with you in the background. Include Google Glass on top and any traditional sense of privacy is gone.

I will admit it, in the battle of privacy versus convenience the convenience wins hands down particularly since many places have made it inconvenient to use cash since they fear robberies, being available 24x7 (but not to my boss) is worth carrying a cell phone over and there's only so much you can do with friends and family blogging their lives which happens to intersect with mine and so on. The Internet won't ever forget and the more of our lives go online, the more just isn't going to age and go away. That and camera phones, luckily of all the stupid, silly, embarrassing, crazy or illegal things we did very little if anything is documented. And you won't find them linked to my name on Google, I don't really care what an old classmate has in a dead tree photo album on a bookshelf. Today I'd probably find myself tagged on Facebook for shits and giggles...

Re:Welcome to 2013 (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328231)

Yes but despite that I feel it is almost unstoppable force of technology, just like copyright is doomed through incredibly accurate and ubiquitous data duplication equipment aka computers it seems surveillance is an unstoppable force of smaller, smarter and more networked electronics and optics.

This is about the first time I've seen someone posting on Slashdot that understood that the "Information wants to be free" mantra is a double-edged sword. We can't just pick and choose the parts to our liking - we can try, but the world will ignore us.

The globalization of IT jobs is another example of information wanting to be free. Great news, right?

Re:Welcome to 2013 (2)

locofungus (179280) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329121)

You are right that surveillance itself is probably inevitable. But what can change is whether the data can be kept.

In the past (it is changing, unfortunately) personal data in Europe could only be used for the reason it was gathered and could only be kept for as long as it was being used for that reason.

This idea, which can be abused, feels reasonable to me. I don't mind that a telecoms company might need to keep a record of the texts I've made for a few days, or an ISP to keep email records for a week or so to allow them to investigate spam complaints.

I then don't mind that the authorities, with a warrent, might be able to access that data or that they might request that for me, specifically, due to an ongoing investigation, might be able to ask for data to be kept longer.

But the ubiquitous keeping of data for a long time allows anyone with sufficient access to build a 'circumstantial case' about anyone and everyone. While it's comedy, 'My Cousin Vinny' shows just how easy it can be to build a circumstantial case and how it's easy to convince others that innocuous statements or questions are evidence of guilt.

Making it a requirement that data is deleted after a short period of time would make things better without trying to put the surveillance genie back into the bottle. Making it as easy for the common man to get that data preserved as it is for the authorities would also even the balance some. If I am mugged on the street then I'd like to have any possible surveillance tapes preserved - this should be a simple process because the warrant to preserve should be independent of the warrant to view the tapes so a judge can grant an order to preserve safe in the knowledge that objections can be made when the case to view the data is made.

Tim.

Respect (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43326993)

What makes the difference between an oppresive regime and one that is not regarding surveillance is respect. And is becoming too evident that the government don't have any for the "common" citizens.

Re:Respect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327443)

I'd argue that the percentage of citizen without respect for their fellow citizen is a constant.
But now they can do worse damage than before and nobody holds them accountable... just as in the past.

Re:Respect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43329661)

And one damn good way of demonstrating respect is to not stalk other people.

(If you didn't get it, stalking or spying on innocent people automatically voids any chance that the stalker "respects" those people.)

I think lists are an even bigger problem (5, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | about a year ago | (#43327011)

The government has shown that they are willing to use lists against people. During WW2, US citizens of Japanese and German descent were taken into internment camps using data from the Census.

Another recent debacle was when a gun owner's list got published in a major newspaper. People had their houses robbed and more firearms entered the hands of criminals.

These lists also cost money to maintain. We're pissing away billions each year on these lists which could instead go towards infrastructure maintenance which is actually vital for our nation's security.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327055)

Poison such as COINTELPRO was only discovered by people with long enough noses - and how many years ago was that?

What type of COINTELPRO is happening today?

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327073)

Another recent debacle was when a gun owner's list got published in a major newspaper. People had their houses robbed and more firearms entered the hands of criminals.

Citation please.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327119)

Yeah, firearms prevent robberies, not encourage them.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (0)

redmid17 (1217076) | about a year ago | (#43327385)

Don't be a fucking idiot.If no one is home, it's just another valuable that can be fairly easily stolen.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (3, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about a year ago | (#43327251)

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327457)

Its nice that you linked to that information. But could you have gone the extra mile to stop being an asshole while doing so ?

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327541)

Its nice that you linked to that information. But could you have gone the extra mile to stop being an asshole while doing so ?

http://bit.ly/Vn2SBH

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327603)

Direct link: http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+list+newspaper+robbed [google.com]

First result: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/coincidentally-another-home-on-the-journal-news-list-was-robbed-of-its-guns/ [dailycaller.com]

I wonder how long until the victims band together to sue Gannett? Perhaps they are simply waiting for proof that the robberies were connected to the publishing of the list by the Journal News.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328713)

So - you're apparently to unimaginative or to lazy to enter a few search terms into Google. Someone does it for you, while pointing out that you could have done the same. He's an asshole?

Maybe your parents should have waded a little deeper into the gene pool.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327103)

We're pissing away billions each year on these lists

Citation needed

He knows who's been naughty, or nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327237)

All that could be talking about...Santa!

Re:He knows who's been naughty, or nice. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329957)

An old fat guy who hides behind a bushy beard and likes to have children sitting on his lap... I knew something's not right about that dude.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (4, Informative)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327465)

Good points on priorities. See also on privacy: http://fyngyrz.com/?p=25 [fyngyrz.com]

I saw that link on slashdot recently in someone's comment, and it is an insightful essay on privacy. There is a sense that a certain degree of privacy is both a human right and a human requirement in our society, and government should have a duty to protect it (even for reasons beyond ensuring the government remains accountable to the people policitcally).

But failing that, we should at least have David Brin's "Transparent Society" where everyone can watch the watchers:
http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html [davidbrin.com]

See also my suggestion:
http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/The-need-for-FOSS-intelligence-tools-for-sensemaking-etc./76207-8319 [ideascale.com]

There are also chilling effects. My house has electric heat, so if I grew hydroponic vegetables instead of running the heaters in winter, I would still get the heat via the lights (thermodynamics) and I'd also get fresh veggies all winter. But I know if I buy a lot of hydroponic equipment, I'll most-likely end up on some government list somewhere to have my door kicked in (see another comment here by someone else about an example of that and our misguided drug laws). Or see:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/pinellas-hydroponic-garden-shop-has-attention-of-deputies-searching-for/1204506 [tampabay.com]

So, buy hydropoincs and have your dogs shot as a result of data mining?
"Why do SWAT teams kill all dogs when serving a warrant at a household?"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110721154445AAWtx8u [yahoo.com]

Or, see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse [wikipedia.org]

Although another reasons I don't do it is concerns about humidity and mold, and also finding the space, so that is not the only concern, beyond the cost of the equipment.

Thankfully, in the USA we are nowhere near the total squashing of dissent like was accomplished using the 1930s German gestapo secret police, although they apparently mostly used neighbors turning in neighbors since it was before the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo [wikipedia.org]
    "According to Canadian historian Robert Gellately's analysis of the local offices established, the Gestapo wasâ"for the most partâ"made up of bureaucrats and clerical workers who depended upon denunciations by citizens for their information.[36] Gellately argued that it was because of the widespread willingness of Germans to inform on each other to the Gestapo that Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a prime example of panopticism.[37] Indeed, the Gestapo -- at times -- was overwhelmed with denunciations and most of its time was spent sorting out the credible from the less credible denunciations.[38] Many of the local offices were understaffed and overworked, struggling with the paper load caused by so many denunciations.[39] Gellately has also suggested that the Gestapo was "a reactive organization" "...which was constructed within German society and whose functioning was structurally dependent on the continuing co-operation of German citizens".[40]
    After 1939, when many Gestapo personnel were called up for war-related work such as service with the Einsatzgruppen, the level of overwork and understaffing at the local offices increased.[39] For information about what was happening in German society, the Gestapo continued to be mostly dependent upon denunciations.[41] 80% of all Gestapo investigations were started in response to information provided by denunciations by ordinary Germans; while 10% were started in response to information provided by other branches of the German government and another 10% started in response to information that the Gestapo itself unearthed.[38]"

The thing is, once someone is denounced, then endless digital data can be used selectively to build a case against a person:
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909 [amazon.com]

Of course, for anyone who posts anything publicly, like on slashdot, there is also:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu [wikiquote.org]
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

Again though, if there is one thing to be learned from 1930s Germany, it is to get very worried when individual police units are consolidated into one national security apparatus -- which then is used to ensure ideological/political uniformity in every aspect of civilian life. Again, we don't seem to be there yet in the USA, and hopefully won't be.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328327)

First we do need to clear up the idea of what is private. Things that involve being in public spaces or involving other people in any way are less than private in nature. I know most people will hate that idea but in fact it is absolute. In order for something to be private it needs to be in your own home and kept between your ears.
                      Then there is the serious conflict in that the only way to know if I, a corporation, or a government agency, can be held to be violating your privacy is by denying them the right to private records. If I must hand over my records for inspection by a court, or by police or tax people then that information is far from being private as I am compelled to let it be seen by others.
                      The third issue is in denying the citizen the same rights as governments or corporations have. If a business can study my purchases in a store or over the net then I should have the right to see all of their records. The same holds true for government.
                        As for Germany the entrance requirements for the SS were so severe that most likely the greatest issue was finding people who met the requirements. One cavity, filling or missing tooth was enough to keep people out of the SS as well as a host of other absurd requirements.
                          I am not deluded into thinking that the US is not some strange form of dictatorship. We seem to function by a gang who is fueled by corruption which just may be very much like some huge Mafia in nature. We have even lost the ability to deal with military leaders who approved and directed torture. We even invaded the wrong nation a few years back. It really does make one wonder.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328507)

"First we do need to clear up the idea of what is private"

In the U.S., privacy should encompass what the Government or your business partners do not need to know.

The Government needs to know that for which they have probable cause or reasonable suspicion is necessary for them to know. Multiple amendments to our Constitution addrfess this.

Your business partners should similarly be limited, if for no other reason than they should not know what they need not know.

Just because they *can* does not give them permisson or the legal right to do so. This is important. Just because they *can* does not give them new or additonal rights, nor does it negate previous limits.

Here in the U.S., we are in deep trouble. We've let our government use security to justify surveillance. The TSA is a lesson in the fallacy of this, having not yet prevented any attack, and expanding their activities well beyond what we thought we were approving. Now citizens are challenged at the 'border' and denied their rights as if they are not citizens, because they are considered 'not in the U.S.', which is a fabrication. Posessions are searched without justification, computers searched largely because 'they can'.

And if you become vocal about this, challenging their authority, and come to their attention, you risk being singled out for more abuse.

How many people would start complaining about the TSA and ICE, would write to their representatives, would make public comments, but do not for fear that the next time they fly they will be taken aside and subjected to additional scrutiny, or put on the dreaded 'NO FLY' list. How many avoid making complaints because they fear risking their jobs and their ability to travel, all for exercising their FIRST amendment rights?

So the first rights to go may be the most important?

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (3, Interesting)

rickb928 (945187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328445)

"Thankfully, in the USA we are nowhere near the total squashing of dissent"

How close do we need to be for it to be wrong?

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43331249)

Why use the German Nazi movement as an example when you have the perfectly fine example of (R) Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The irony is obvious so I'll let the reader enjoy elucidating the fine points.

Re:I think lists are an even bigger problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327709)

by "lists", you mean most of Homeland Security? I'd agree that getting rid of most of that would be a good step, as well as a whole bunch of other militaristic crap being done currently by the government. We're spending so much on "preventing" hypothetical edge cases while ignoring daily carnage and regular death. The next big thing to happen on the scale of Oklahoma City or WTC will be another unforseen edge case, that will allow them to throw on even more yokes of oppression, in the name of Security.

Control of information is power (5, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#43327019)

If the government has a magical 100% of information about our daily lives then the most diligently law abiding of us are still probably open to legal difficulties. Have you read all 36,000 pages of the tax code? Have you ever stepped off the curb just a moment after it said, "Don't walk"? Even if you only broke fairly minor laws here and there a overzealous prosecutor could line up the charges and ruin your life. That is if you don't cooperate with his request to do something you didn't want to do.

At this point in our over surveilled society it is still a goodly amount of work to assemble a case against the innocent. But with more and more information being gathered and more and more information processing capability it shouldn't be too long before a few clicks of a button show all your law breaking ways.

This might seem like slightly paranoid thinking and in most sensible parts of the western world government people have better things to do. Yet in various small towns you hear of the Sheriff bringing his police to bare against any opponent. I can imagine what kind of resources might be available to hunt down whistle-blowers, investigative reporters, and the people they care about. Or the police looking to discover who uploaded the next Rodney king video. If they had license plate scanning, facial recognition, cell phone records, and internet records then they are golden.

Then you get the false positives. Recently I read about a couple who had the police kick in their door because they were suspected of running a grow-op because of recent hydroponic purchases. They were law-abiding ex-CIA and were growing tomatos and such.

Now think about the power the American people suddenly had over the government when Watergate happened. Now think about how many resources were applied by the government to find out who leaked what? Think about how many resources were applied to the Pentagon papers? Now give the government access to today's/tomorrow's records and see how long Deep Throat remains secret?

My theory is quite simple. The second amendment needs its own amendment and that should read that the people should have near unlimited access to any government records and that the government should have extremely limited access the people's information. This way power will be in the correct hands for a democracy.

Re:Control of information is power (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327063)

Nothing like using minor offences to cast doubt on your political foe, all done covertly of course.
We should be VERY sceptical of what passes as news these days.

Captcha: actuals

Re:Control of information is power (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327867)

Captcha: actuals

Nobody gives a fuck.

Re:Control of information is power (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327233)

In the USA, mass-media controls information. And the big business industry controls mass-media.
They also control the government. And they use it to do the unpopular stuff. Which creates the desired illusion, that the government would be to blame. When really, there is no such thing as an actual US government. It's just a industry union.
This saves the industry from being hated. So then in can go, and present itself as the "good guys" against "evil government", by doing meaningless popular token stuff.

And that's why you think you hate "the government", when really, you hate the industry. You very closest "friends".

Re:Control of information is power (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327655)

I remember when I had my first beer

Re:Control of information is power (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329677)

In the words of Chomsky:

What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

Re:Control of information is power (1)

pepsikid (2226416) | about a year ago | (#43327289)

"should read that the people should have near unlimited access to any government records"

So what exceptions would you gladly like to see the government routinely classify EVERYTHING under ever after?

Re:Control of information is power (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328367)

Not much, some medical records. But even have things that need to be secret still have short time limits. It makes sense that an undercover agent/CI should not have his cover blown by an information request. But even that should have a couple of year time limit. Contract negotiations should be secret until the contract is signed or dead. The milltary should get a bit of leeway for specific technologies. But none of this proprietary contract crap, or the one that ticks me off, "If we had to have our discussions in the open nobody would express their honest opinion."

Re:Control of information is power (2)

Smauler (915644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327619)

Yet in various small towns you hear of the Sheriff bringing his police to bare against any opponent.

I hope this isn't normal practice in the US....

Re:Control of information is power (2)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328343)

Re:Control of information is power (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43330051)

You break the law. Every single day in your life. It becomes more and more impossible not to do so. I'm pretty sure I did today, and I don't even know that I did. There is almost certainly some ridiculous law hidden somewhere, maybe one that rode on a paperclip attached to a sensible one, maybe one that had a completely different intention and just happens to apply as well because the wording is so broad that it fits.

The pure amount of laws you're supposed to heed goes up. New laws get passed daily, and few are ever stricken from the book. This houses an inherent danger. Not only that you are by default guilty "and we'll find out what you're guilty of if we need to". Once it becomes obvious that it is impossible to heed every law, the whole concept of laws becomes questioned. If I cannot be law abiding, why keep trying?

And this is very dangerous. Because sensible laws get lumped together with laws that make no sense whatsoever.

Re:Control of information is power (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332733)

I have a raven feather here. Good condition, dropped by a molting bird in my yard. It's a nice pretty black feather. It's also illegal to own. Possession of any native wild bird or bird parts without appropriate permits is illegal in the US.

Re:Control of information is power (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333301)

Well, technically, having it in the yard might already constitute "possession".

Of course, it would be far fetched to assume you ripped that feather off a bird against its will, but then again, by the letter of the law...

buggedplanet.info - we're all probably bugged (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327039)

http://buggedplanet.info/ [buggedplanet.info]

And see Wikileaks spy files. We're all probably rooted by government(s).

Google Glass: Corporate / Private Surveillance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327085)

We have a sense that surveillance is bad ...

Do We? The glee over Google Glass suggests otherwise. If a Google Glass app can recognize a person via facial recognition, or by their fashion sense, then there is a hell of a lot of surveillance going on. Many seem quite open to the idea of surveillance if they have a camera. Note: the facial/fashion recognition is not running locally on the glasses/camera. Its too demanding to be done locally (for the foreseeable future), users will be sending an image to be processed remotely by google or whoever else is providing the service. It may be recognizing many people but only reporting those on your personal contact list. Seems sort of like 3rd parties checking me into some location. More data for targeted advertising.

You didn't think government was the only threat to privacy did you?

Re:Google Glass: Corporate / Private Surveillance (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#43327123)

Only as the willing bag man of corporate influence.

Re:Google Glass: Corporate / Private Surveillance (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43327125)

You didn't think government was the only threat to privacy did you?

Some corporations seem to gleefully hand over information to the government upon request, and even assist the government in its spying at times. A corporation having tons of information about you probably means that the government could easily get that information as well.

Re:Google Glass: Corporate / Private Surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43329323)

Imagine well-funded organized criminal organization or an intelligence agency for a non-tiny country decides it wants information. They steal all the data from the big corporations and also collect all public information. They cross-reference it all to a report on every identity they find and use sophisticated automated techniques to correlate distinct identities that are for the same person - e.g. using logged IPs and text analysis to connect your Slashdot identity to your real identity. They also use sophisticated automated techniques to extract any and all embarrassing facts or connections that they can find. This information gets out of the control of the criminal organization or intelligence agency and someone puts it up as a torrent for the world to see. None of that is far-fetched. Unless something changes completely it's going to happen eventually.

I know some of you don't mind spying, but I do. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327139)

I know it is a bit of a cliche around here. But it really is a lot like the book 1984 if you think about it.

Seriously. Think about it.

  Cameras are almost everywhere but your house. I know for me, cameras start just a few short steps outside of my door.

Cameras on the street, in every store. Then on the internet, they track you with cookies, flash cookies that can't normally be deleted. ISPs often have deals with the government to just route all their traffic through the government.

Companies like Google and Facebook largely make their money by spying on users and selling the information.

The governments seem to introduce another bill almost every month to increase their ability to spy on the citizens even more than they already did.

Just the other day there was a story here saying the FBI is crying because their spying on gmail users wasn't "in real time".

And I think it might have been in the same story, the FBI was also complaining that they were having a hard time monitoring all the chatting in online little games like "Words with Friends". Because "criminal conversations sometimes happen there."

Well they do everywhere else, too. Including face to face. Do we need a government agent to monitor face to face conversations too? Just in-case someone says something criminal?

It's really all way too much for me.

Knowing about this stuff from slashdot and elsewhere, now using the "normal" internet, feels like I'm being watched all the time.

And I am. Even if it's "just" an automated system that archives things for later possible viewing.

I feel strongly that all of this has a huge chilling effect on free speech for a lot people. And that we should be working on getting much of this rolled back.

But anyway, in the meantime, I do have a few partial solutions:

I have started using startpage.com for my searches. It's the Google results without the spying. They claim to not even save your ip.

And I use lavabit.com for email. It was started as a response to Gmail's horrible privacy (lack of it) policies. It also claims to keep the tracking and monitoring of users to a minimum. And not archiving your mail for possibly forever after it's deleted, as Google does.

Lastly, I use a good no logging VPN for a lot of my browsing because I just prefer the freer feeling of it compared to the "bunch-of-surveillance-cameras" feel that the regular internet has for me.

Call me paranoid, or whatever, for not enjoying being spied upon non-stop. I know most of the other sheep don't care. But myself, I feel uncomfortable with it. And I opt out of it whenever I am able.

Posting from behind my no-logging VPN. :)

Re:I know some of you don't mind spying, but I do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328659)

Do you use VPN on your mobile too?

The mobile is the perfect spying device for the government, stuffed with microphones, cameras, GPS and holding your contacts, messages, phone calls and apps. We even pay for it and dutifully charge it every night.

Who said there are no cameras inside our houses? There are at least a few of these portable spying devices wherever there are humans.

Re:I know some of you don't mind spying, but I do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328971)

A commonly used snooping device is a cell phone tower simulator called a "StingRay", or "TriggerFish".

Its made by Harris corporation in Melbourne Florida.

By sending the strongest cell signal to their target, their phone thinks this device is a cell tower and connects to it.

The user of this device can now listen in on the cellphone calls it intercepts, transparently, without anyone giving permission or knowing its happening.

Here's where the fun comes in... with the new GSM modules being made in China, I am getting word that a open-source homebrew celltower simulator, small enough to fit in a napkin box, can be made. Intended purpose: catch cheating spouses.

Re:I know some of you don't mind spying, but I do. (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329319)

Intended purpose: catch cheating spouses.

Or even more likely, obsessively monitoring a mate because jealousy/control issues make everyone sexually compatible look like a romantic threat -- or stalking an ex to find out whether they're filing for a restraining order or moving somewhere else in an attempt to escape. (I've known a few people that cheated, but far more like me that dated an insecure paranoid control freak...)

The real problem is ... (2)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43327165)

... when the watcher does more than just watch.

Re:The real problem is ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327259)

I like the saying:

It's not about what you have to hide. It's about, what they want to find.

And about that, I like what Cardinal Richelieu, known from the inquisitions, supposedly said:

If you give me six lines, written by the hand of the most honest man, I will find something to hang him for.

That is the core of the problem.

It's like the religious concept of "original sin". If everybody is a "sinner", everybody must "repent". In other words: Obey.
That's what makes it totalitarian.

Re:The real problem is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327347)

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Re:The real problem is ... (0)

timholman (71886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327451)

... when the watcher does more than just watch.

So are you talking about your government ... or about your next-door neighbor?

I have little doubt that the entire concept of privacy will be moot within 20 years, at least if you are outside your own home. But it won't just be the police watching you; it will be your employer and your neighbors and your friends and your family, and they will probably do an even better job of it. Combine crowd-sourced video from multiple sources, and I can see a day when anyone can track anyone else.

And here's the problem: there won't be a thing any of us can do about it. Surveillance tech is following its own cost / performance Moore's Law curve, and history has shown that when technology gives the average guy the ability to get something desirable at little cost (e.g. file-sharing of music and movies), then widespread abuse will inevitably follow.

With all the usual anti-government rants on Slashdot, people are missing the much bigger picture. They should worry less about the local police and more about every window in every house on every street in their neighborhood.

Re:The real problem is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328891)

... when the watcher does more than just watch.

I'm confused.

Either you thought the watcher was watching because you thought he had a sick fetish, or you fail to understand the definition of the word "purpose".

What is the point in having watchers unless you're going to have policy and procedure to do more than just watch. It's a rather pointless effort otherwise. Kind of like manufacturing handcuffs and then making no laws to break...ever.

Words with Friends criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43327227)

When the government even claims they need to spy on all the chat in "Words with Friends", because there might be "criminal conversations happening there", it's really time to rethink!

Say what? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43327275)

"... we often have a hard time saying exactly why."

???

Who is this "we"? I have never had even the slightest problem articulating why ubiquitous surveillance is bad. Very bad.

Re:Say what? (2)

Livius (318358) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327397)

It's basic civics to understand why citizens are supposed to be concerned about government abuse of its power - because the result is ineffective or incompetent police/justice/whatever services, not because it's offensive in some abstract ideological sense.

Though it occurs elsewhere, it's primarily a US problem. In the US, the Constitution is often regarded as nearly sacred revelation, with the result that, like regular sacred revelation, people embrace the rule without having any understanding of it, and therefore fail to recognize when the rule has simply been bypassed.

Facebook, anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327401)

You often hear stories of people not getting a job, because a recruiter saw some incriminating posts on Facebook or Twitter or whatever. Is this a legitimate use of publicly available information, or is it a breach of person's privacy? Facebook is for some a mental dump, where they can vent their frustrations or indulge in guilty pleasures. Should a recruiter have the right to dismiss the candidate based on their posts on Facebook or Twitter?

Re:Facebook, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327673)

You often hear stories of people not getting a job, because a recruiter saw some incriminating posts on Facebook or Twitter or whatever. Is this a legitimate use of publicly available information, or is it a breach of person's privacy? Facebook is for some a mental dump, where they can vent their frustrations or indulge in guilty pleasures. Should a recruiter have the right to dismiss the candidate based on their posts on Facebook or Twitter?

Yes... Actions have consequences

Re:Facebook, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328161)

Yes... Actions have consequences

Tell that to the losers who fire someone over a facebook post then whine about how they're free to hire or fire whoever they want when people publicly complain about their actions.

Re:Facebook, anyone? (1)

Chrontius (654879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328701)

If my employer wants access to my Facebook credentials, and that's okay, can they also ask to read my diary?

If you post it publicly on the web, for all to see (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328817)

The question was about a recruiter seeing things you posted on Facebook. If you post your diary on the web for all to read, don't be suprised if someone reads it.

Re:If you post it publicly on the web, for all to (1)

Chrontius (654879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329063)

But Facebook and other blogging services have a "private" setting. Private, as in "me only". If they're getting access to that at all, it's in an inappropriate fashion, either bribing1dw buying access to the data from Facebook, or blackmailing employees or potential employees into sharing account credentials in such a fashion as to risk being banned by Facebook forevermore.

If you misunderstood that public means public, well, that's bad, but some very bad things are also happening in this arena.

That would be dumb (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328481)

Facebook is for some a mental dump, where they can vent their frustrations or indulge in guilty pleasures.

That would be REALLY dumb. Facebook is for posting things you want to share with everyone you know, and everyone they know. If you send out your "brain dumps" and "guilty pleasures" to everyone in town, well that's just stupid.

Government/Corporations vs Citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327497)

While everyone is concerned with the GOVERNMENT abusing their power in watching and collecting information on us. They forget about the CORPORATIONS they are willing handing all this information over too. Corporation are collecting and turning over the information to the highest bidder.

It's about Symmetry (or the lack thereof) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327519)

The surveillance society is another example of the asymmetry between governments (as well as the interests for which governments act as proxy) and individuals.

I could stomach the government looking over my shoulder all the time if I could have equal visibility of the government's activities.

I'm More worried about economic freedom (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327607)

You don't see billionaires caring when people read about the horrid things they do every day. Why? Because they're economically secure. I'd like to see less talk about information and privacy bugaboos and more talk about the rising cost of basic necessities (food, shelter, health care). It's all well and good to get distracted by scary men watching you, but in case nobody's noticed real wages haven't rose in 30 years, and the 6 ppl that run Walmart have more money than 40% of America COMBINED.

Re:I'm More worried about economic freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327879)

You don't see billionaires caring when people read about the horrid things they do every day. Why? Because they're economically secure. I'd like to see less talk about information and privacy bugaboos and more talk about the rising cost of basic necessities (food, shelter, health care). It's all well and good to get distracted by scary men watching you, but in case nobody's noticed real wages haven't rose in 30 years, and the 6 ppl that run Walmart have more money than 40% of America COMBINED.

Stop shopping at Walmart!

Great idea (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327983)

then the owners of Target can have more wealth than 140 million people. Sorry, but you sort of missed my point, which is that wealth inequity and the lack of economic security are much bigger issues than privacy. Put another way, do peasants in Africa care about privacy?

Re:Great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328441)

I'd rather make Target rich than the asshats at Walmart

Hopefully you do to. Debt is dumb! (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328523)

By the measure used in your Walton statistic, someone with $1 and no credit card debt or car loan is wealthier than 25% of country. There's a lesson there. A large portion of the country has negative wealth, meaning they owe more than they have. Virtually all get there the same way. To have negative net worth - buy stuff you can't pay for. The wealthy, by your definition, are simply those who spend lesss than they make, people who save. You can whine, or you can learn something from that fact.

Re:Hopefully you do to. Debt is dumb! (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329987)

By the measure used in your Walton statistic, someone with $1 and no credit card debt or car loan is wealthier than 25% of country. There's a lesson there. A large portion of the country has negative wealth, meaning they owe more than they have. Virtually all get there the same way. To have negative net worth - buy stuff you can't pay for. The wealthy, by your definition, are simply those who spend lesss than they make, people who save. You can whine, or you can learn something from that fact.

So I suppose you're never going to take out a loan to buy a house? Or I suppose you think those running the megacorps didn't take out debt to finance their startup, or that those very corporations don't issue billions in bonds total to raise capital for expansion or to cover operating costs during temporary shortfalls?

Sure, I guess you could go homeless for the first 40 years of your life, or rent and still be in the hole because 40 years later you have no equity and are still paying out the ass for basic shelter...

Visa != home ownership. Investment != spending (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333987)

Buying crap you can't afford with credit cards is not the same thing as home ownership. In fact, they have the opposite effect on wealth. If you spend $2,000 on a TV with your Visa card, ten years later you have some trash to haul to the dump. Your wealth decreased by the $2,000 you spent on the TV. If you buy a $20,000 with a loan that costs $25,000, ten years later you'll have a $2,000 junker, costing you $23,000 in wealth. That's what spending on credit does. If you invest $20,000 in a house, ten years later the $100,000 house is worth $115,000, so you've put in $20,000 and have $35,000 in equity. Your wealth has INCREASED by $15,000. That's if you buy a house you can afford, which will cost about the same as the rent you'd otherwise pay. In fact, if you would have spent $20,000 on rent, that would have decreased your wealth by $20,000, so buying is $35,000 better.

Or I suppose you think those running the megacorps didn't take out debt to finance their startup

That is correct. Megacorps primarily sell equity, not debt. The very smallest businesses sometimes take on debt, and MOST fail and are unable to pay back the debt.

or that those very corporations don't issue billions in bonds total to raise capital for expansion

They sometimes use bonds to invest in new buildings, aircraft, or other major capital. As with investing in a home, that's a zero or positive wealth exchange, not spending. They hand someone $1M and in exchange get a $1M building. Before and after, they have something worth $1M, which will continue to be worth $1M or more. (In fact, they only make the deal if they can invest $1M into a building that is expected be worth more than $1M)..

or to cover operating costs during temporary shortfalls?

Not often, those are junk bonds. A company that is borrowing to cover operating costs is a company headed into the ground, meaning they have to pay high rates due to the risk. That interest puts them into a worse position, so if they need another round the rate will be even higher. More often, if they need cash for operating expenses, they sell off business units or assets because when revenue is unable to meet expenses that's unsustainable.

(I assume we don't need to get into 24 hour liquidity transactions and such).

Re:Hopefully you do to. Debt is dumb! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43333751)

Some debt is smart.

If you could pay off your home with a mortgage rate of 5% but instead could invest that money and earn 8%, is it really smart to eliminate your debt?

Yes, when you get laid off, if you won't invest it (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333873)

Ask all the people who have been foreclosed in the last six years if they wish they had paid off their mortgage. The possible exception would be if you DID invest it in something SAFE that paid 8%, so that money was there for you when you need it. Most people who say "could invest that money and earn 8%" COULD, but don't. Instead, they buy a slightly nicer TV and eat out more often with the money. COULD invest means nothing when you actually buy overpriced restaurant steaks with the money.

Even if you did invest it, you probably know that risk is interchangeable with return. An investment that is expected to return 8% is going to be riskier than one that's expected to return 5%, for example. Paying off the mortgage is risk free. You KNOW you'll get that 5% return by not paying the interest, vs. you HOPE to make 8%.

Re:I'm More worried about economic freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328559)

the 6 ppl that run Walmart have more money than 40% of America COMBINED.

How much of America would it be if you only counted those with positive net worth? The fact is that a newborn baby has as high a net worth as most of that 40%, singly or combined. It's a dramatic statistic, but it's not a particularly meaningful one.

Oh, and it's the six families that own a big chunk of Walmart, not the six who run it. The six people who run Walmart are much poorer. Together, they don't match even one of the Walmart families.

Surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328527)

As a maximum-security ex-con, with over fifiteen (15+) years of pro se litigation experience in federal civil-rights actions and some criminal case work, I and others like me, high-security prisoners, expected surveillance even where it was illegal, such as in conversations with attorneys, or in legal correspondence with attorneys. It is amazing to me that Americans have given up their right to private communications with their attorneys, but under current terrorism laws, that is the rule, not the exception.
          However, the right was always just a fiction whenever the state had the physical means to listen in (I will not bore you with the stories). Human beings will not resist the opportunity to spy, especially as to matters affecting their interests -- its just human -- and you should expect it and behave accordingly.

Abusing powers of surveillance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328885)

....leads to them becoming unreliable. Enventually people being surveilled figure out that they basically have unlimited freedom to change the value of the information that the party watching them receives, simply by modifying their behavior into deceptive patterns. I'm surprise the genus crowd here at slashdot hasn't fucking figured this out yet.

Don't do illegal things in public, then (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328995)

Surely if you're worried about being seen doing illegal things, you keep the illegal things private or don't do them at all?

Re:Don't do illegal things in public, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43329037)

Sorry but you Sir are an idiot if you think privacy is about doing illegal things.

A third essential reason (1)

dyfet (154716) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329243)

There is a third reason not mentioned, but can be seen in places and societies that were subject to inter-generational surveillance, such as Ceausescu's Romania. People adopt by learning to be deceptive in their entire lives, for wearing false face becomes essential for anything you do that stands out might be perceived as a threat, and anyone else might get you in trouble. All personal relationships, families, friends, marriage, work, become managed through such deception as a basic survival skill. It is the very destruction of a society as a whole at ALL levels over time.

YEAY!! FINALLY!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43329701)

An article that finally gets it! If I spy on you, I can steal, muck or kill you.

It has probably already been said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43329779)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?