Great OP, even though I disagree with the conclusion. Totally worth the wait.
I guess I just disagree with Sotomayer on the idea that people have a greater expectation of privacy on the Internet than elsewhere. I think people are pretty clearly on notice that the googles and facebooks of the world are collecting tons of data on them all the time, as evidenced by context sensitive ads, DRM take down notices, the apple iphone tracking thing, etc. Even if some people are not aware of this, they should be, and I think it is reasonable to assume for purposes of the law that everyone is or should be reasonably aware of the fact that third parties use your data transmitted online. I would argue that your full data, and not just your metadata, is more clearly and obviously disclosed to third parties who you should expect to review it then a pen register, by several orders of magnitude.
I don't believe that people are on notice about this, not by any stretch of the imagination. Most people don't even know how to turn off geotagging on photos, much less realize that their flickr portfolio can be used to pinpoint their address and the places and times when their kids go to school. And that's mundane compared to the realization that it's perfectly legal for the State to develop a map of every place you've been, and when, and what you did there, on a broad scale and without a warrant of any type.
I don't think people believe they have a greater degree of privacy on the internet - they believe they do, or ought to, have the same degree of privacy. We believe we're not being tracked and our locations logged all day long, and we believe the government can't collect this information unless they need it for an investigation. Neither of these things are true, but they definitely should be. Pervasive surveillance of the citizenry is detrimental to the functioning of a free society, and a violation of the freedom of association clause.
My question to you SKFM is: even if you believe things are today properly as they should be, why do you believe this? If you don't care whether you're being monitored or not, why not opt by default for the more restrictive governmental power? If it's all the same to you, why not support the people who feel they're less free because of it simply in the interests of supporting liberty?
Limited powers by default. Why is this not your stance?
I'm gonna restate my argument from the other thread, since this one seems to be a little more sane.
Even if I lose my expectation of privacy when I use google or hotmail, or my cell phone on the metadata of that one device; the combination of the metadata from all of these devices reveals information which I never consented to sharing, and for which I do have the expectation of privacy. This is further expanded when combining that data with the data of other people.
There is information that is not part of the data, and cannot be obtained from any one database. Combining these databases it what causes the intrusion of privacy. This has a lot to do with the difference between data and information and with the increasing power of more complete data.
As an example, my phone GPS tracks where I am. For the sake of argument, let's pretend I lose the expectation of privacy with regards to where I am. Now assuming I use a Verizon plan, and I meet with a person using an AT&T phone. If you combine the databases of both Verizon and AT&T now you know who I was with. This is information I did not share with Verizon, and my companion did not share with AT&T. Since I did not share this information with anyone, I don't see how I could have lost my expectation of privacy.
If the exact example of GPS and location VS. association doesn't sit with you, be aware that it is trivial to produce a similar example for other kinds of "metadata"*.
*This use of the term metadata is not typical of what metadata is usually defined as. Metadata is usually defined as data on where data is or how data is stored.
This definition of privacy would exclude all detective work in general.
I.e., a Detective lawfully collects clues to discover that a suspect is guilty of murder, even though the suspect wanted to keep that information secret.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
So what freedom did you have before that you do not have under PRISM?
The freedom to have my private personal information remain so?
How is that a freedom, though?
At best, that's a privacy concern. But privacy isn't freedom. And even the privacy debate is iffy, because the idea of privacy is tied in with the idea of private property. And the cell phone network doesn't belong to you.
Schrodinger, I am very very very very uncomfortable with the idea that just because any of us send something over a network that means we have given up any expectation of privacy to it, especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult to lead a normal life without sending vast quantities of information over it, be they content data or metadata.
And while privacy is not in and of itself freedom, it is an integral component to having freedom. I'd also, generally, disagree with the notion that privacy is 1:1 tied together with private property. There's a variety of situations in which people expect privacy when on the grounds of property that they have no ownership over, but the violation of that privacy without just cause tends to incur significant negative social and/or legal repercussions.
I have one word in response to this: Google
We all know that google searches all of our actual data, including our gmail and uses it directly every day. How can anyone who uses google at all claim an expectation of privacy for their actual data, let alone their metadata?
We are literally forbidden from using google products for work purposes at my firm (I am a lawyer) because their use of the data arguably breaks the attorney-client privledge, which is the strongest expectation of privacy in our country.
With Google, I'd say a large part hinges on what at google is searching all of our data. A "dumb" computer doing all of this poses significantly less of a risk than a person doing so [depending on what the computer is supposed to be doing with that information].
The risks still involved however would, I'd say, require us to take a look at enshrining stronger legal protections for the privacy of data in the care of third parties [Anonymization, restricting the any of the parties' rights to sale of non-anonymized data, etc.]
I disagree. No matter how the data is reviewed, there are no limits now. I think it is dishonest to call anything on google's services even remotely private. And yet people use them and accept incredibly intrusive targetted ads in their email. I think this shows that people are ok with their data not being entirely private, personally.
I'd love to see better privacy rules apply to companies like Google, but then you'd turn the Internet into a pay service to make up for the lost ad revenue.
I'd have to disagree. Even if I'm storing something on Google, there is still an expectation of privacy there. Culturally, the act of sharing something with another person, or even a select group, does not mean that we have sacrificed the privacy of that information. You yourself are, as you said, a lawyer. Your clients, I would assume, disseminate private information to your firm all the time, yet they and yourself still assume a significant degree of privacy regarding that information and restriction on it's dissemination.
Out of curiousity, do your firms computer systems ever search through the information stored in any private communications between it's lawyers and clients? Or any other digitally stored private information?
Why is there an expectation of privacy tho? Google has explicitly told you as part of their TOS that they will use "your" data as they see fit. So how is that private?
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
I'm saying privacy is a default inherent need of humans, and that when you take that away bad things (chilling effects on behavior; i.e., undue limiting of individual freedom of expression) tend to happen.
As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
The same goes for third parties and individuals to whom we have not consented to being party to the dissemination of our speech or actions.
Hmmmmmm.
I think (and this is opinion, not based on any facts) that privacy is a relatively recent social construct (when compared to humanity as a species). It is said we are social species. And I assume in the older hunter/gatherer days privacy was non-existent. In fact, I wonder if there are any studies of privacy as a cultural construct that references western society with aboriginal tribal societies that are closer to humanities roots.
[edit] the typos are strong in this one today
jmcdonald on
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
I'm saying privacy is a default inherent need of humans, and that when you take that away bad things (chilling effects on behavior; i.e., undue limiting of individual freedom of expression) tend to happen.
As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
The same goes for third parties and individuals to whom we have not consented to being party to the dissemination of our speech or actions.
The right to privacy is never directly mentioned in the constitution, which is where the debate over Roe vs. Wade comes from. It's generally implied by the 14th amendment, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Ergo, while the right to privacy exists, you have to explain how life, liberty, or property is being explicitly denied. Not based on a "chilling effect," but based on the actual policy. i.e., abortion laws deprive liberty, not because they discourage people from having abortions, but because they prevent abortion from happening legally.
Why aren't chilling effects enough, in your opinion? If a policy will alter the populace in such a way, why do we have to prove explicit examples of harm instead of the understanding as to why these politics will damage society and infringe on our rights?
I think the crux of this is that every policy is intended to "alter the populace in some way"
So, with that basic assumption, chilling effect loses some of it's chilling effect
So what freedom did you have before that you do not have under PRISM?
The freedom to have my private personal information remain so?
How is that a freedom, though?
At best, that's a privacy concern. But privacy isn't freedom. And even the privacy debate is iffy, because the idea of privacy is tied in with the idea of private property. And the cell phone network doesn't belong to you.
Schrodinger, I am very very very very uncomfortable with the idea that just because any of us send something over a network that means we have given up any expectation of privacy to it, especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult to lead a normal life without sending vast quantities of information over it, be they content data or metadata.
And while privacy is not in and of itself freedom, it is an integral component to having freedom. I'd also, generally, disagree with the notion that privacy is 1:1 tied together with private property. There's a variety of situations in which people expect privacy when on the grounds of property that they have no ownership over, but the violation of that privacy without just cause tends to incur significant negative social and/or legal repercussions.
I have one word in response to this: Google
We all know that google searches all of our actual data, including our gmail and uses it directly every day. How can anyone who uses google at all claim an expectation of privacy for their actual data, let alone their metadata?
We are literally forbidden from using google products for work purposes at my firm (I am a lawyer) because their use of the data arguably breaks the attorney-client privledge, which is the strongest expectation of privacy in our country.
With Google, I'd say a large part hinges on what at google is searching all of our data. A "dumb" computer doing all of this poses significantly less of a risk than a person doing so [depending on what the computer is supposed to be doing with that information].
The risks still involved however would, I'd say, require us to take a look at enshrining stronger legal protections for the privacy of data in the care of third parties [Anonymization, restricting the any of the parties' rights to sale of non-anonymized data, etc.]
I disagree. No matter how the data is reviewed, there are no limits now. I think it is dishonest to call anything on google's services even remotely private. And yet people use them and accept incredibly intrusive targetted ads in their email. I think this shows that people are ok with their data not being entirely private, personally.
I'd love to see better privacy rules apply to companies like Google, but then you'd turn the Internet into a pay service to make up for the lost ad revenue.
I'd have to disagree. Even if I'm storing something on Google, there is still an expectation of privacy there. Culturally, the act of sharing something with another person, or even a select group, does not mean that we have sacrificed the privacy of that information. You yourself are, as you said, a lawyer. Your clients, I would assume, disseminate private information to your firm all the time, yet they and yourself still assume a significant degree of privacy regarding that information and restriction on it's dissemination.
Out of curiousity, do your firms computer systems ever search through the information stored in any private communications between it's lawyers and clients? Or any other digitally stored private information?
Why is there an expectation of privacy tho? Google has explicitly told you as part of their TOS that they will use "your" data as they see fit. So how is that private?
Nothing, literally nothing, about a TOS, is explicit. Also, Google tells me (I'm gmail for business admin) that my data is mine and they won't give it up without a warrant.
I have no idea now if that's actually true.
Moreover, even if it is true that I've given up my expectation of not being constantly tracked constantly by the government and several different companies by putting a cell phone in my pocket...
... isn't that a bad thing?
spool32 on
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
So what freedom did you have before that you do not have under PRISM?
The freedom to have my private personal information remain so?
How is that a freedom, though?
At best, that's a privacy concern. But privacy isn't freedom. And even the privacy debate is iffy, because the idea of privacy is tied in with the idea of private property. And the cell phone network doesn't belong to you.
Schrodinger, I am very very very very uncomfortable with the idea that just because any of us send something over a network that means we have given up any expectation of privacy to it, especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult to lead a normal life without sending vast quantities of information over it, be they content data or metadata.
And while privacy is not in and of itself freedom, it is an integral component to having freedom. I'd also, generally, disagree with the notion that privacy is 1:1 tied together with private property. There's a variety of situations in which people expect privacy when on the grounds of property that they have no ownership over, but the violation of that privacy without just cause tends to incur significant negative social and/or legal repercussions.
I have one word in response to this: Google
We all know that google searches all of our actual data, including our gmail and uses it directly every day. How can anyone who uses google at all claim an expectation of privacy for their actual data, let alone their metadata?
We are literally forbidden from using google products for work purposes at my firm (I am a lawyer) because their use of the data arguably breaks the attorney-client privledge, which is the strongest expectation of privacy in our country.
With Google, I'd say a large part hinges on what at google is searching all of our data. A "dumb" computer doing all of this poses significantly less of a risk than a person doing so [depending on what the computer is supposed to be doing with that information].
The risks still involved however would, I'd say, require us to take a look at enshrining stronger legal protections for the privacy of data in the care of third parties [Anonymization, restricting the any of the parties' rights to sale of non-anonymized data, etc.]
I disagree. No matter how the data is reviewed, there are no limits now. I think it is dishonest to call anything on google's services even remotely private. And yet people use them and accept incredibly intrusive targetted ads in their email. I think this shows that people are ok with their data not being entirely private, personally.
I'd love to see better privacy rules apply to companies like Google, but then you'd turn the Internet into a pay service to make up for the lost ad revenue.
I'd have to disagree. Even if I'm storing something on Google, there is still an expectation of privacy there. Culturally, the act of sharing something with another person, or even a select group, does not mean that we have sacrificed the privacy of that information. You yourself are, as you said, a lawyer. Your clients, I would assume, disseminate private information to your firm all the time, yet they and yourself still assume a significant degree of privacy regarding that information and restriction on it's dissemination.
Out of curiousity, do your firms computer systems ever search through the information stored in any private communications between it's lawyers and clients? Or any other digitally stored private information?
Why is there an expectation of privacy tho? Google has explicitly told you as part of their TOS that they will use "your" data as they see fit. So how is that private?
Nothing, literally nothing, about a TOS, is explicit. Also, Google tells me (I'm gmail for business admin) that my data is mine and they won't give it up without a warrant.
I have no idea now if that's actually true.
HAHAHAHA
Point taken with the TOS. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
And your data is yours, in that you can freely access it at any time. However your data is not private, as Google will absolutely use your data as they see fit. That is their payment for the service they have provided you. They also (to all our knowledge) will not release "your" data to the government without a warrant.
I'm saying privacy is a default inherent need of humans, and that when you take that away bad things (chilling effects on behavior; i.e., undue limiting of individual freedom of expression) tend to happen.
As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
The same goes for third parties and individuals to whom we have not consented to being party to the dissemination of our speech or actions.
Hmmmmmm.
I think (and this is opinion, not based on any facts) that privacy is a relatively recent social construct (when compared to humanity as a species). It is said we are social species. And I assume in the older hunter/gatherer days privacy was non-existent. In fact, I wonder if there are any studies of privacy as a cultural construct that references western society with aboriginal tribal societies that are closer to humanities roots.
[edit] the typos are strong in this one today
Why would you say that privacy was nonexistent in the hunter-gatherer days?
That seems like a pretty wild thing to say. When you went out into the bush after your cave-chick boned a different guy, and screamed out your misery to the stars, did anybody know where you went?
I'm saying privacy is a default inherent need of humans, and that when you take that away bad things (chilling effects on behavior; i.e., undue limiting of individual freedom of expression) tend to happen.
As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
The same goes for third parties and individuals to whom we have not consented to being party to the dissemination of our speech or actions.
The right to privacy is never directly mentioned in the constitution, which is where the debate over Roe vs. Wade comes from. It's generally implied by the 14th amendment, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Ergo, while the right to privacy exists, you have to explain how life, liberty, or property is being explicitly denied. Not based on a "chilling effect," but based on the actual policy. i.e., abortion laws deprive liberty, not because they discourage people from having abortions, but because they prevent abortion from happening legally.
Why aren't chilling effects enough, in your opinion? If a policy will alter the populace in such a way, why do we have to prove explicit examples of harm instead of the understanding as to why these politics will damage society and infringe on our rights?
I think the crux of this is that every policy is intended to "alter the populace in some way"
So, with that basic assumption, chilling effect loses some of it's chilling effect
[edit] the typos are strong in this one today
Serial replies!
No it doesn't lose anything. Sometimes we want a chilling effect on things like theft. When we are chilling the People's ability to freely associate, that is bad.
So what freedom did you have before that you do not have under PRISM?
The freedom to have my private personal information remain so?
How is that a freedom, though?
At best, that's a privacy concern. But privacy isn't freedom. And even the privacy debate is iffy, because the idea of privacy is tied in with the idea of private property. And the cell phone network doesn't belong to you.
Schrodinger, I am very very very very uncomfortable with the idea that just because any of us send something over a network that means we have given up any expectation of privacy to it, especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult to lead a normal life without sending vast quantities of information over it, be they content data or metadata.
And while privacy is not in and of itself freedom, it is an integral component to having freedom. I'd also, generally, disagree with the notion that privacy is 1:1 tied together with private property. There's a variety of situations in which people expect privacy when on the grounds of property that they have no ownership over, but the violation of that privacy without just cause tends to incur significant negative social and/or legal repercussions.
I have one word in response to this: Google
We all know that google searches all of our actual data, including our gmail and uses it directly every day. How can anyone who uses google at all claim an expectation of privacy for their actual data, let alone their metadata?
We are literally forbidden from using google products for work purposes at my firm (I am a lawyer) because their use of the data arguably breaks the attorney-client privledge, which is the strongest expectation of privacy in our country.
With Google, I'd say a large part hinges on what at google is searching all of our data. A "dumb" computer doing all of this poses significantly less of a risk than a person doing so [depending on what the computer is supposed to be doing with that information].
The risks still involved however would, I'd say, require us to take a look at enshrining stronger legal protections for the privacy of data in the care of third parties [Anonymization, restricting the any of the parties' rights to sale of non-anonymized data, etc.]
I disagree. No matter how the data is reviewed, there are no limits now. I think it is dishonest to call anything on google's services even remotely private. And yet people use them and accept incredibly intrusive targetted ads in their email. I think this shows that people are ok with their data not being entirely private, personally.
I'd love to see better privacy rules apply to companies like Google, but then you'd turn the Internet into a pay service to make up for the lost ad revenue.
I'd have to disagree. Even if I'm storing something on Google, there is still an expectation of privacy there. Culturally, the act of sharing something with another person, or even a select group, does not mean that we have sacrificed the privacy of that information. You yourself are, as you said, a lawyer. Your clients, I would assume, disseminate private information to your firm all the time, yet they and yourself still assume a significant degree of privacy regarding that information and restriction on it's dissemination.
Out of curiousity, do your firms computer systems ever search through the information stored in any private communications between it's lawyers and clients? Or any other digitally stored private information?
Why is there an expectation of privacy tho? Google has explicitly told you as part of their TOS that they will use "your" data as they see fit. So how is that private?
Nothing, literally nothing, about a TOS, is explicit. Also, Google tells me (I'm gmail for business admin) that my data is mine and they won't give it up without a warrant.
I have no idea now if that's actually true.
HAHAHAHA
Point taken with the TOS. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
And your data is yours, in that you can freely access it at any time. However your data is not private, as Google will absolutely use your data as they see fit. That is their payment for the service they have provided you. They also (to all our knowledge) will not release "your" data to the government without a warrant.
But I'm paying them $50/user/year for the service.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
I'm saying privacy is a default inherent need of humans, and that when you take that away bad things (chilling effects on behavior; i.e., undue limiting of individual freedom of expression) tend to happen.
As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
The same goes for third parties and individuals to whom we have not consented to being party to the dissemination of our speech or actions.
The right to privacy is never directly mentioned in the constitution, which is where the debate over Roe vs. Wade comes from. It's generally implied by the 14th amendment, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Ergo, while the right to privacy exists, you have to explain how life, liberty, or property is being explicitly denied. Not based on a "chilling effect," but based on the actual policy. i.e., abortion laws deprive liberty, not because they discourage people from having abortions, but because they prevent abortion from happening legally.
Why aren't chilling effects enough, in your opinion? If a policy will alter the populace in such a way, why do we have to prove explicit examples of harm instead of the understanding as to why these politics will damage society and infringe on our rights?
I think the crux of this is that every policy is intended to "alter the populace in some way"
So, with that basic assumption, chilling effect loses some of it's chilling effect
[edit] the typos are strong in this one today
Serial replies!
No it doesn't lose anything. Sometimes we want a chilling effect on things like theft. When we are chilling the People's ability to freely associate, that is bad.
I guess my question is how are we chilling the ability of people to freely associate? Metadata, in and of itself, does not do this (IMHO). If it did I think we would successfully eliminate every non-state sponsored act of "terror" (or whatever you want to call it).
The reason I don't think it does this is because prior to "the 'leak'" I don't see anyone arguing this point. So, how does the knowledge of the aggregation change the impact of the aggregation (for the general populace). I would postulate that if Metadata aggregation was being used in a way that would lead to this "chilling effect" we would have seen said effect in action.
Now, this doesn't mean that I think "WOOOOHOOOO" go go gadget big government. But I really don't see any effect at this time.
So what freedom did you have before that you do not have under PRISM?
The freedom to have my private personal information remain so?
How is that a freedom, though?
At best, that's a privacy concern. But privacy isn't freedom. And even the privacy debate is iffy, because the idea of privacy is tied in with the idea of private property. And the cell phone network doesn't belong to you.
Schrodinger, I am very very very very uncomfortable with the idea that just because any of us send something over a network that means we have given up any expectation of privacy to it, especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult to lead a normal life without sending vast quantities of information over it, be they content data or metadata.
And while privacy is not in and of itself freedom, it is an integral component to having freedom. I'd also, generally, disagree with the notion that privacy is 1:1 tied together with private property. There's a variety of situations in which people expect privacy when on the grounds of property that they have no ownership over, but the violation of that privacy without just cause tends to incur significant negative social and/or legal repercussions.
I have one word in response to this: Google
We all know that google searches all of our actual data, including our gmail and uses it directly every day. How can anyone who uses google at all claim an expectation of privacy for their actual data, let alone their metadata?
We are literally forbidden from using google products for work purposes at my firm (I am a lawyer) because their use of the data arguably breaks the attorney-client privledge, which is the strongest expectation of privacy in our country.
With Google, I'd say a large part hinges on what at google is searching all of our data. A "dumb" computer doing all of this poses significantly less of a risk than a person doing so [depending on what the computer is supposed to be doing with that information].
The risks still involved however would, I'd say, require us to take a look at enshrining stronger legal protections for the privacy of data in the care of third parties [Anonymization, restricting the any of the parties' rights to sale of non-anonymized data, etc.]
I disagree. No matter how the data is reviewed, there are no limits now. I think it is dishonest to call anything on google's services even remotely private. And yet people use them and accept incredibly intrusive targetted ads in their email. I think this shows that people are ok with their data not being entirely private, personally.
I'd love to see better privacy rules apply to companies like Google, but then you'd turn the Internet into a pay service to make up for the lost ad revenue.
I'd have to disagree. Even if I'm storing something on Google, there is still an expectation of privacy there. Culturally, the act of sharing something with another person, or even a select group, does not mean that we have sacrificed the privacy of that information. You yourself are, as you said, a lawyer. Your clients, I would assume, disseminate private information to your firm all the time, yet they and yourself still assume a significant degree of privacy regarding that information and restriction on it's dissemination.
Out of curiousity, do your firms computer systems ever search through the information stored in any private communications between it's lawyers and clients? Or any other digitally stored private information?
Why is there an expectation of privacy tho? Google has explicitly told you as part of their TOS that they will use "your" data as they see fit. So how is that private?
Nothing, literally nothing, about a TOS, is explicit. Also, Google tells me (I'm gmail for business admin) that my data is mine and they won't give it up without a warrant.
I have no idea now if that's actually true.
HAHAHAHA
Point taken with the TOS. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
And your data is yours, in that you can freely access it at any time. However your data is not private, as Google will absolutely use your data as they see fit. That is their payment for the service they have provided you. They also (to all our knowledge) will not release "your" data to the government without a warrant.
But I'm paying them $50/user/year for the service.
SUUUUUCKS. But I bet they still bone you in the TOS!
I'm saying privacy is a default inherent need of humans, and that when you take that away bad things (chilling effects on behavior; i.e., undue limiting of individual freedom of expression) tend to happen.
As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
The same goes for third parties and individuals to whom we have not consented to being party to the dissemination of our speech or actions.
Hmmmmmm.
I think (and this is opinion, not based on any facts) that privacy is a relatively recent social construct (when compared to humanity as a species). It is said we are social species. And I assume in the older hunter/gatherer days privacy was non-existent. In fact, I wonder if there are any studies of privacy as a cultural construct that references western society with aboriginal tribal societies that are closer to humanities roots.
[edit] the typos are strong in this one today
Why would you say that privacy was nonexistent in the hunter-gatherer days?
That seems like a pretty wild thing to say. When you went out into the bush after your cave-chick boned a different guy, and screamed out your misery to the stars, did anybody know where you went?
This is true. I guess I am thinking of an "overarching" sense of privacy. There will always be examples of limited personal privacy.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I'm gonna restate my argument from the other thread, since this one seems to be a little more sane.
Even if I lose my expectation of privacy when I use google or hotmail, or my cell phone on the metadata of that one device; the combination of the metadata from all of these devices reveals information which I never consented to sharing, and for which I do have the expectation of privacy. This is further expanded when combining that data with the data of other people.
There is information that is not part of the data, and cannot be obtained from any one database. Combining these databases it what causes the intrusion of privacy. This has a lot to do with the difference between data and information and with the increasing power of more complete data.
As an example, my phone GPS tracks where I am. For the sake of argument, let's pretend I lose the expectation of privacy with regards to where I am. Now assuming I use a Verizon plan, and I meet with a person using an AT&T phone. If you combine the databases of both Verizon and AT&T now you know who I was with. This is information I did not share with Verizon, and my companion did not share with AT&T. Since I did not share this information with anyone, I don't see how I could have lost my expectation of privacy.
If the exact example of GPS and location VS. association doesn't sit with you, be aware that it is trivial to produce a similar example for other kinds of "metadata"*.
*This use of the term metadata is not typical of what metadata is usually defined as. Metadata is usually defined as data on where data is or how data is stored.
This definition of privacy would exclude all detective work in general.
I.e., a Detective lawfully collects clues to discover that a suspect is guilty of murder, even though the suspect wanted to keep that information secret.
The detective is not a state actor; and if a private actor turns over such information to the police it's admissible.
I've heard commentators literally describe it as the "silver platter doctrine."
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
So what freedom did you have before that you do not have under PRISM?
The freedom to have my private personal information remain so?
How is that a freedom, though?
At best, that's a privacy concern. But privacy isn't freedom. And even the privacy debate is iffy, because the idea of privacy is tied in with the idea of private property. And the cell phone network doesn't belong to you.
Schrodinger, I am very very very very uncomfortable with the idea that just because any of us send something over a network that means we have given up any expectation of privacy to it, especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult to lead a normal life without sending vast quantities of information over it, be they content data or metadata.
And while privacy is not in and of itself freedom, it is an integral component to having freedom. I'd also, generally, disagree with the notion that privacy is 1:1 tied together with private property. There's a variety of situations in which people expect privacy when on the grounds of property that they have no ownership over, but the violation of that privacy without just cause tends to incur significant negative social and/or legal repercussions.
I have one word in response to this: Google
We all know that google searches all of our actual data, including our gmail and uses it directly every day. How can anyone who uses google at all claim an expectation of privacy for their actual data, let alone their metadata?
We are literally forbidden from using google products for work purposes at my firm (I am a lawyer) because their use of the data arguably breaks the attorney-client privledge, which is the strongest expectation of privacy in our country.
With Google, I'd say a large part hinges on what at google is searching all of our data. A "dumb" computer doing all of this poses significantly less of a risk than a person doing so [depending on what the computer is supposed to be doing with that information].
The risks still involved however would, I'd say, require us to take a look at enshrining stronger legal protections for the privacy of data in the care of third parties [Anonymization, restricting the any of the parties' rights to sale of non-anonymized data, etc.]
I disagree. No matter how the data is reviewed, there are no limits now. I think it is dishonest to call anything on google's services even remotely private. And yet people use them and accept incredibly intrusive targetted ads in their email. I think this shows that people are ok with their data not being entirely private, personally.
I'd love to see better privacy rules apply to companies like Google, but then you'd turn the Internet into a pay service to make up for the lost ad revenue.
I'd have to disagree. Even if I'm storing something on Google, there is still an expectation of privacy there. Culturally, the act of sharing something with another person, or even a select group, does not mean that we have sacrificed the privacy of that information. You yourself are, as you said, a lawyer. Your clients, I would assume, disseminate private information to your firm all the time, yet they and yourself still assume a significant degree of privacy regarding that information and restriction on it's dissemination.
Out of curiousity, do your firms computer systems ever search through the information stored in any private communications between it's lawyers and clients? Or any other digitally stored private information?
Why is there an expectation of privacy tho? Google has explicitly told you as part of their TOS that they will use "your" data as they see fit. So how is that private?
Nothing, literally nothing, about a TOS, is explicit. Also, Google tells me (I'm gmail for business admin) that my data is mine and they won't give it up without a warrant.
I have no idea now if that's actually true.
•For legal reasons
We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:
◦meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
◦enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations.
◦detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues.
◦protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users or the public as required or permitted by law.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
If you're concerned about privacy, read the privacy policy. In the 90s, spam was a huge problem. People got into the habit of reading the privacy policy about spam every time they gave their email. If law enforcement is an issue for you, read the policy.
Googles policies are common knowledge and clearly written. You don't get to simply ignore that and pretend you had no way of knowing.
That overarching sense of privacy was so fundamental that it's been assumed, rather than nonexistent, for most of human history. It's only in the last 30 years that we've been able to locate people this easily and only in the last 10 that we've been able to casually build a time+location map of most of the citizens.
Also, I've been seeing and feeling the chilling effect since information about Echelon back in the 90s. At least back then you had to actively send some information to be tracked. Now, all you have to do is own a cellphone and breathe!
Most importantly though, shouldn't we be talking about limited powers here? If it's not illegal, it should be. We should expect to be able to leave our homes carrying a ubiquitous modern communication device without having our every movement accessible by the State without a warrant.
would you care to explain how the concept of anonymity exists in hunter gatherer societies?
The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret.
The idea that we now have the ability to GPS locate people is fairly irrelevant when people rarely left the tribe in the first place.
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
would you care to explain how the concept of anonymity exists in hunter gatherer societies?
The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret.
The idea that we now have the ability to GPS locate people is fairly irrelevant when people rarely left the tribe in the first place.
This is the concept I was so ham-fistedly attempting to express. Thank you.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
edited June 2013
And I think this brings up a good point. How does anonymity tie into privacy?
I'm gonna restate my argument from the other thread, since this one seems to be a little more sane.
Even if I lose my expectation of privacy when I use google or hotmail, or my cell phone on the metadata of that one device; the combination of the metadata from all of these devices reveals information which I never consented to sharing, and for which I do have the expectation of privacy. This is further expanded when combining that data with the data of other people.
There is information that is not part of the data, and cannot be obtained from any one database. Combining these databases it what causes the intrusion of privacy. This has a lot to do with the difference between data and information and with the increasing power of more complete data.
As an example, my phone GPS tracks where I am. For the sake of argument, let's pretend I lose the expectation of privacy with regards to where I am. Now assuming I use a Verizon plan, and I meet with a person using an AT&T phone. If you combine the databases of both Verizon and AT&T now you know who I was with. This is information I did not share with Verizon, and my companion did not share with AT&T. Since I did not share this information with anyone, I don't see how I could have lost my expectation of privacy.
If the exact example of GPS and location VS. association doesn't sit with you, be aware that it is trivial to produce a similar example for other kinds of "metadata"*.
*This use of the term metadata is not typical of what metadata is usually defined as. Metadata is usually defined as data on where data is or how data is stored.
This definition of privacy would exclude all detective work in general.
I.e., a Detective lawfully collects clues to discover that a suspect is guilty of murder, even though the suspect wanted to keep that information secret.
The detective is not a state actor; and if a private actor turns over such information to the police it's admissible.
I've heard commentators literally describe it as the "silver platter doctrine."
Silver platter doctrine only applies to evidence collected illegally, which is not relevant to the discussion.
If Columbo pieces evidence from multiple legal sources and arrives to a conclusion that the murderer wanted to keep secret, is that an invasion of privacy?
There's a difference between privacy and secrecy. Going to the bathroom is private, but the fact you're going to the bathroom isn't exactly a secret. Talking on the phone is private, but who you're talking to is logged on the meta data.
Communication between individuals is still private. Communication using a third party as an intermediary much less so. I don't think there's any equivalent to that in hunter gatherer societies.
would you care to explain how the concept of anonymity exists in hunter gatherer societies?
The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret.
The idea that we now have the ability to GPS locate people is fairly irrelevant when people rarely left the tribe in the first place.
We don't even know whether people "left the tribe" in hunter-gatherer societies, there aren't any great records of this sort of thing. But it's obvious that people had personal possessions, and they certainly had secrets, and the desire for time to oneself is universal, and people did travel and trade (see the spread of Clovis technology).
In the past, if you went somewhere and returned, the only people who know about what you saw were the people you told. Now, the government can know where you went, how long you were there, what you did while you were there, all the people you met, and how much time you spent near them.
The idea that we have the same amount of privacy today that people did before the advent of pervasive surveillance technology is laughable.
would you care to explain how the concept of anonymity exists in hunter gatherer societies?
The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret.
The idea that we now have the ability to GPS locate people is fairly irrelevant when people rarely left the tribe in the first place.
We don't even know whether people "left the tribe" in hunter-gatherer societies, there aren't any great records of this sort of thing. But it's obvious that people had personal possessions, and they certainly had secrets, and the desire for time to oneself is universal, and people did travel and trade (see the spread of Clovis technology).
Because cell phones in the stone age worked very differently, and people could make calls without being logged.
Again, you're not talking about privacy anymore. Your talking about secrecy via a third party who specifically told you that they would turn over your info. If you don't want your calls to be logged, then either buy a burner, or dont make any calls. Heck, get a pager. Problem solved. Right now, you're basically saying, "I won't share my secrets to the school principal, but I will share them with the school tattletell." The moment you do that, its no longer secret.
You haven't actually explained how you've lost anything. If you want to go off grid and stay hidden, then go off grid and stay hidden. But you can't take your a cell phone with you and expect to stay off the grid.
In the past, if you went somewhere and returned, the only people who know about what you saw were the people you told.
That's not necessarily true.
If his kid says to his mom, "I'm going to my room to be alone for a while," then what he does in his room is intended to be private.
That does not mean that his parents have absolutely no idea where he is.
would you care to explain how the concept of anonymity exists in hunter gatherer societies?
The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret.
The idea that we now have the ability to GPS locate people is fairly irrelevant when people rarely left the tribe in the first place.
We don't even know whether people "left the tribe" in hunter-gatherer societies, there aren't any great records of this sort of thing. But it's obvious that people had personal possessions, and they certainly had secrets, and the desire for time to oneself is universal, and people did travel and trade (see the spread of Clovis technology).
Because cell phones in the stone age worked very differently, and people could make calls without being logged.
Again, you're not talking about privacy anymore. Your talking about secrecy via a third party who specifically told you that they would turn over your info. If you don't want your calls to be logged, then either buy a burner, or dont make any calls. Heck, get a pager. Problem solved. Right now, you're basically saying, "I won't share my secrets to the school principal, but I will share them with the school tattletell." The moment you do that, its no longer secret.
You haven't actually explained how you've lost anything. If you want to go off grid and stay hidden, then go off grid and stay hidden. But you can't take your a cell phone with you and expect to stay off the grid.
Well no, we haven't solved the problem because what you're demanding is that the choice is to either segregate oneself from the modern world, or submit to a reduction in privacy.
Why does that need to be the choice? This is a thread for discussing whether we should change the way things are, and you're very carefully (and with disregard to the broader question I've asked twice now) arguing that the status quo is the status quo.
OK! Today we're forced to trade away privacy in order to participate in modern life because of EULAs and ToS agreements that we can't negotiate, under a regime where a law written in 1979 governs the use of technology that wouldn't appear even in science fiction novels for another 7-10 years.
Is it really controversial, regardless of the state of play, that I should have a reasonable expectation that even when I "share" (unwillingly, without recompense apart from abandoning modern technology altogether and living in a cave) data with a telecom or a search provider, I am not also sharing it with my government?
Well no, we haven't solved the problem because what you're demanding is that the choice is to either segregate oneself from the modern world, or submit to a reduction in privacy.
You want access to a third party service without being subject to the rules of that third party. You want to communicate on a global telecommunications grid without leaving any trace of yourself on that grid.
It's like visiting a brothel and complaining you didn't feel loved, or visiting Denny's and complaining about the food. Yes, it's bad. OTOH, no one is forcing you to go there.
Why does that need to be the choice? This is a thread for discussing whether we should change the way things are
That's not the argument we're discussing at the moment.
You are trying to argue that the right to secrecy and anonymity has always been assumed to be the case since the dawn of humankind, which is very different from arguing that this is a brand new thing we should work towards in the future.
OK! Today we're forced to trade away privacy in order to participate in modern life because of EULAs and ToS agreements that we can't negotiate, under a regime where a law written in 1979 governs the use of technology that wouldn't appear even in science fiction novels for another 7-10 years.
Why is that acceptable to you?
Because you have the freedom to reject the EULAs and TOS. Or, you're free to pursue an anonymous means of communication (burner phone, pager, online chat, etc).
Is it really controversial, regardless of the state of play, that I should have a reasonable expectation that even when I "share" (unwillingly, without recompense apart from abandoning modern technology altogether and living in a cave) data with a telecom or a search provider, I am not also sharing it with my government?
Anything you share with anyone can possibly be shared with the government.
You tell a secret to your wife? Yeah, she can run and blab to the government after.
This has been the case since governments first existed.
Yeah, some of this shit may be legal now, but why should it continue to remain legal? Laws regulating society need to be something that can be changed to cope with changes within society, be they the result of technology innovation or the realization that certain "old ways" are truly fucking awful.
I'm pretty sure part of the idea behind this thread was to talk about whether the laws need to be changes and if so, where and how far should those changes go.
I should also point out that enough people on SCOTUS currently seem to be fine with contracts that do eat away at people's rights (a business can make contracts where one is denied the option to file class action suits if the business fucks over all it's customers). I don't know if they are willing to extend that to TOS agreements, but I'd think it should be clear to any sane person that now would be a good time pass some bills that bring the law up to speed. I'd argue that right now the court has shown a precedent that too many of them are willing to side with businesses and right now current business models don't seem aimed at respecting the right to privacy in many cases.
Then of course, there is also how the federal government, and state and local governments can get more more information than ever before and some of those cases don't involve warrants. I'm no tin hat person, but I do like to have the comfort that there is some oversight in this area on the federal end, so that someone asshole in the system is less likely to abuse it (I'm not really worried about the US going totalitarian, but I do get some people will abuse their positions). On the other hand, I want better laws that make some of this stuff currently legal illegal, so that when some dippy state or local government official does some of this shit, it's possible to pursue legal recourse against them.
Because cell phones in the stone age worked very differently, and people could make calls without being logged.
To put words in our mouths to make it appear as though we think of cell-phones as scrying pools or magic typewriters that move in sympathy with each other from across the country is an insult. You are arguing in bad faith.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Because cell phones in the stone age worked very differently, and people could make calls without being logged.
To put words in our mouths to make it appear as though we think of cell-phones as scrying pools or magic typewriters that move in sympathy with each other from across the country is an insult. You are arguing in bad faith.
Here was my original statement: "The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret. "
Spool responded by bringing up cell phones. Did people in the stone age have access to private cell phone conversations? No. So what does cell phones have to do with anything I said?
And how is Spool arguing in good faith when I specifically discuss privacy rights in the context of the stone age, and he responds with talking about cell phones?
More to the point, Spool has consistently argued that anyone who doesn't mind the NSA program is blindly supporting the government for purely partisan reasons, or implying that they refuse to question the government on anything. Again, how is that not arguing in bad faith?
OK let's take a step back here and see if we can find some boundaries.
Schrod, is there any government surveillance that you would agree is unacceptable purely from a 1st / 4th Amendment point of view?
Plenty.
Generally, the bigger the impact on the lives of actual people, especially innocent people, the more likely I'll be outraged.
Conversely, the smaller the impact, the less likely I'll be outraged.
Does this impact have to be consciously noticed by the searchee?
I.e., if the search can be conducted completely without them ever realizing someone was there, but it still happened, what do you make of that?
I think this is another aspect worth discussing, especially in the context of the prior chilling effect context.
If the premise is that this aggregation of metadata creates a chilling effect, one would think that in order to do so the target would have to be consciously aware of the "search."
OK let's take a step back here and see if we can find some boundaries.
Schrod, is there any government surveillance that you would agree is unacceptable purely from a 1st / 4th Amendment point of view?
Plenty.
Generally, the bigger the impact on the lives of actual people, especially innocent people, the more likely I'll be outraged.
Conversely, the smaller the impact, the less likely I'll be outraged.
Does this impact have to be consciously noticed by the searchee?
I.e., if the search can be conducted completely without them ever realizing someone was there, but it still happened, what do you make of that?
I think this is another aspect worth discussing, especially in the context of the prior chilling effect context.
If the premise is that this aggregation of metadata creates a chilling effect, one would think that in order to do so the target would have to be consciously aware of the "search."
I'd posit the knowledge of the lower threshold governing it's acquisition by the state would be enough to create a chilling effect. As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
OK let's take a step back here and see if we can find some boundaries.
Schrod, is there any government surveillance that you would agree is unacceptable purely from a 1st / 4th Amendment point of view?
Plenty.
Generally, the bigger the impact on the lives of actual people, especially innocent people, the more likely I'll be outraged.
Conversely, the smaller the impact, the less likely I'll be outraged.
Does this impact have to be consciously noticed by the searchee?
I.e., if the search can be conducted completely without them ever realizing someone was there, but it still happened, what do you make of that?
The same thing applies to regular people who break into your house, don't take anything, and leave without leaving a trace. What do you make of that?
I mean, it's scary, but is it really worth worrying about?
...yes!
So what precautions have you taken to prevent that?
To ensure that people don't break into my house without my knowing about it?
Locking the accessible doors and windows.
Generally speaking, society has done a great deal for me already in seeking recompense for such things in laws that allow me to bring charges against people breaking into my home. And, I would argue, the 4th Amendment prescribes similar course for recompense should law enforcement do so without appropriate warrant.
The problem is, in this case, the law hasn't caught up to the possibilities of law enforcement to abuse the options, granted to them through new technology, available to them.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
OK let's take a step back here and see if we can find some boundaries.
Schrod, is there any government surveillance that you would agree is unacceptable purely from a 1st / 4th Amendment point of view?
Plenty.
Generally, the bigger the impact on the lives of actual people, especially innocent people, the more likely I'll be outraged.
Conversely, the smaller the impact, the less likely I'll be outraged.
Does this impact have to be consciously noticed by the searchee?
I.e., if the search can be conducted completely without them ever realizing someone was there, but it still happened, what do you make of that?
I think this is another aspect worth discussing, especially in the context of the prior chilling effect context.
If the premise is that this aggregation of metadata creates a chilling effect, one would think that in order to do so the target would have to be consciously aware of the "search."
I'd posit the knowledge of the lower threshold governing it's acquisition by the state would be enough to create a chilling effect. As Sotomayor says:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
See, here is where I disagree. Justice Sotomayor is referring specifically to GPS data, not metadata as a whole. I put my feelings re: this in my first post (the edit).
I believe that there comes a point where we recognize as a society that we exchange privacy for services. I think this has always been the case. At this time we have "greater" services that we exchange "greater" privacies for. As has been stated, one does not have to use the "greater" services, they are optional, if not convenient.
I do not believe that personally unidentifiable metadata constitutes a search in such a way to create a chilling effect. Especially when the vast majority are unaware that it occurs. How can one be "chilled" if one is unaware of an intrusion?
[edit]
to take this a step further. I postulate that the leaking of these "surveillance" activities has created a far greater "chilling effect" in the general populace than the actual (non-personally-identifiable) data aggregation has.
Posts
I don't believe that people are on notice about this, not by any stretch of the imagination. Most people don't even know how to turn off geotagging on photos, much less realize that their flickr portfolio can be used to pinpoint their address and the places and times when their kids go to school. And that's mundane compared to the realization that it's perfectly legal for the State to develop a map of every place you've been, and when, and what you did there, on a broad scale and without a warrant of any type.
I don't think people believe they have a greater degree of privacy on the internet - they believe they do, or ought to, have the same degree of privacy. We believe we're not being tracked and our locations logged all day long, and we believe the government can't collect this information unless they need it for an investigation. Neither of these things are true, but they definitely should be. Pervasive surveillance of the citizenry is detrimental to the functioning of a free society, and a violation of the freedom of association clause.
My question to you SKFM is: even if you believe things are today properly as they should be, why do you believe this? If you don't care whether you're being monitored or not, why not opt by default for the more restrictive governmental power? If it's all the same to you, why not support the people who feel they're less free because of it simply in the interests of supporting liberty?
Limited powers by default. Why is this not your stance?
This definition of privacy would exclude all detective work in general.
I.e., a Detective lawfully collects clues to discover that a suspect is guilty of murder, even though the suspect wanted to keep that information secret.
Why is there an expectation of privacy tho? Google has explicitly told you as part of their TOS that they will use "your" data as they see fit. So how is that private?
Hmmmmmm.
I think (and this is opinion, not based on any facts) that privacy is a relatively recent social construct (when compared to humanity as a species). It is said we are social species. And I assume in the older hunter/gatherer days privacy was non-existent. In fact, I wonder if there are any studies of privacy as a cultural construct that references western society with aboriginal tribal societies that are closer to humanities roots.
[edit] the typos are strong in this one today
I think the crux of this is that every policy is intended to "alter the populace in some way"
So, with that basic assumption, chilling effect loses some of it's chilling effect
[edit] the typos are strong in this one today
Nothing, literally nothing, about a TOS, is explicit. Also, Google tells me (I'm gmail for business admin) that my data is mine and they won't give it up without a warrant.
I have no idea now if that's actually true.
Moreover, even if it is true that I've given up my expectation of not being constantly tracked constantly by the government and several different companies by putting a cell phone in my pocket...
... isn't that a bad thing?
HAHAHAHA
Point taken with the TOS. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
And your data is yours, in that you can freely access it at any time. However your data is not private, as Google will absolutely use your data as they see fit. That is their payment for the service they have provided you. They also (to all our knowledge) will not release "your" data to the government without a warrant.
Why would you say that privacy was nonexistent in the hunter-gatherer days?
That seems like a pretty wild thing to say. When you went out into the bush after your cave-chick boned a different guy, and screamed out your misery to the stars, did anybody know where you went?
Serial replies!
No it doesn't lose anything. Sometimes we want a chilling effect on things like theft. When we are chilling the People's ability to freely associate, that is bad.
But I'm paying them $50/user/year for the service.
I guess my question is how are we chilling the ability of people to freely associate? Metadata, in and of itself, does not do this (IMHO). If it did I think we would successfully eliminate every non-state sponsored act of "terror" (or whatever you want to call it).
The reason I don't think it does this is because prior to "the 'leak'" I don't see anyone arguing this point. So, how does the knowledge of the aggregation change the impact of the aggregation (for the general populace). I would postulate that if Metadata aggregation was being used in a way that would lead to this "chilling effect" we would have seen said effect in action.
Now, this doesn't mean that I think "WOOOOHOOOO" go go gadget big government. But I really don't see any effect at this time.
SUUUUUCKS. But I bet they still bone you in the TOS!
This is true. I guess I am thinking of an "overarching" sense of privacy. There will always be examples of limited personal privacy.
The detective is not a state actor; and if a private actor turns over such information to the police it's admissible.
I've heard commentators literally describe it as the "silver platter doctrine."
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
If you're concerned about privacy, read the privacy policy. In the 90s, spam was a huge problem. People got into the habit of reading the privacy policy about spam every time they gave their email. If law enforcement is an issue for you, read the policy.
Googles policies are common knowledge and clearly written. You don't get to simply ignore that and pretend you had no way of knowing.
Also, I've been seeing and feeling the chilling effect since information about Echelon back in the 90s. At least back then you had to actively send some information to be tracked. Now, all you have to do is own a cellphone and breathe!
Most importantly though, shouldn't we be talking about limited powers here? If it's not illegal, it should be. We should expect to be able to leave our homes carrying a ubiquitous modern communication device without having our every movement accessible by the State without a warrant.
The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret.
The idea that we now have the ability to GPS locate people is fairly irrelevant when people rarely left the tribe in the first place.
This is the concept I was so ham-fistedly attempting to express. Thank you.
[edit] apparently @Geth agrees...creepy
Silver platter doctrine only applies to evidence collected illegally, which is not relevant to the discussion.
If Columbo pieces evidence from multiple legal sources and arrives to a conclusion that the murderer wanted to keep secret, is that an invasion of privacy?
Communication between individuals is still private. Communication using a third party as an intermediary much less so. I don't think there's any equivalent to that in hunter gatherer societies.
We don't even know whether people "left the tribe" in hunter-gatherer societies, there aren't any great records of this sort of thing. But it's obvious that people had personal possessions, and they certainly had secrets, and the desire for time to oneself is universal, and people did travel and trade (see the spread of Clovis technology).
In the past, if you went somewhere and returned, the only people who know about what you saw were the people you told. Now, the government can know where you went, how long you were there, what you did while you were there, all the people you met, and how much time you spent near them.
The idea that we have the same amount of privacy today that people did before the advent of pervasive surveillance technology is laughable.
Because cell phones in the stone age worked very differently, and people could make calls without being logged.
Again, you're not talking about privacy anymore. Your talking about secrecy via a third party who specifically told you that they would turn over your info. If you don't want your calls to be logged, then either buy a burner, or dont make any calls. Heck, get a pager. Problem solved. Right now, you're basically saying, "I won't share my secrets to the school principal, but I will share them with the school tattletell." The moment you do that, its no longer secret.
You haven't actually explained how you've lost anything. If you want to go off grid and stay hidden, then go off grid and stay hidden. But you can't take your a cell phone with you and expect to stay off the grid.
That's not necessarily true.
If his kid says to his mom, "I'm going to my room to be alone for a while," then what he does in his room is intended to be private.
That does not mean that his parents have absolutely no idea where he is.
Well no, we haven't solved the problem because what you're demanding is that the choice is to either segregate oneself from the modern world, or submit to a reduction in privacy.
Why does that need to be the choice? This is a thread for discussing whether we should change the way things are, and you're very carefully (and with disregard to the broader question I've asked twice now) arguing that the status quo is the status quo.
OK! Today we're forced to trade away privacy in order to participate in modern life because of EULAs and ToS agreements that we can't negotiate, under a regime where a law written in 1979 governs the use of technology that wouldn't appear even in science fiction novels for another 7-10 years.
Why is that acceptable to you?
You want access to a third party service without being subject to the rules of that third party. You want to communicate on a global telecommunications grid without leaving any trace of yourself on that grid.
It's like visiting a brothel and complaining you didn't feel loved, or visiting Denny's and complaining about the food. Yes, it's bad. OTOH, no one is forcing you to go there.
That's not the argument we're discussing at the moment.
You are trying to argue that the right to secrecy and anonymity has always been assumed to be the case since the dawn of humankind, which is very different from arguing that this is a brand new thing we should work towards in the future.
Because you have the freedom to reject the EULAs and TOS. Or, you're free to pursue an anonymous means of communication (burner phone, pager, online chat, etc).
Anything you share with anyone can possibly be shared with the government.
You tell a secret to your wife? Yeah, she can run and blab to the government after.
This has been the case since governments first existed.
Schrod, is there any government surveillance that you would agree is unacceptable purely from a 1st / 4th Amendment point of view?
I'm pretty sure part of the idea behind this thread was to talk about whether the laws need to be changes and if so, where and how far should those changes go.
I should also point out that enough people on SCOTUS currently seem to be fine with contracts that do eat away at people's rights (a business can make contracts where one is denied the option to file class action suits if the business fucks over all it's customers). I don't know if they are willing to extend that to TOS agreements, but I'd think it should be clear to any sane person that now would be a good time pass some bills that bring the law up to speed. I'd argue that right now the court has shown a precedent that too many of them are willing to side with businesses and right now current business models don't seem aimed at respecting the right to privacy in many cases.
Then of course, there is also how the federal government, and state and local governments can get more more information than ever before and some of those cases don't involve warrants. I'm no tin hat person, but I do like to have the comfort that there is some oversight in this area on the federal end, so that someone asshole in the system is less likely to abuse it (I'm not really worried about the US going totalitarian, but I do get some people will abuse their positions). On the other hand, I want better laws that make some of this stuff currently legal illegal, so that when some dippy state or local government official does some of this shit, it's possible to pursue legal recourse against them.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
To put words in our mouths to make it appear as though we think of cell-phones as scrying pools or magic typewriters that move in sympathy with each other from across the country is an insult. You are arguing in bad faith.
He's probably going to mention putting a gps on someone's car.
Plenty.
Generally, the bigger the impact on the lives of actual people, especially innocent people, the more likely I'll be outraged.
Conversely, the smaller the impact, the less likely I'll be outraged.
Without a warrant - yes.
Here was my original statement: "The only privacy that existed back then is the same privacy you have right now. I.e., finding a secluded area to go to the bathroom, or finding a place to cry in secret. "
Spool responded by bringing up cell phones. Did people in the stone age have access to private cell phone conversations? No. So what does cell phones have to do with anything I said?
And how is Spool arguing in good faith when I specifically discuss privacy rights in the context of the stone age, and he responds with talking about cell phones?
More to the point, Spool has consistently argued that anyone who doesn't mind the NSA program is blindly supporting the government for purely partisan reasons, or implying that they refuse to question the government on anything. Again, how is that not arguing in bad faith?
Does this impact have to be consciously noticed by the searchee?
I.e., if the search can be conducted completely without them ever realizing someone was there, but it still happened, what do you make of that?
The same thing applies to regular people who break into your house, don't take anything, and leave without leaving a trace. What do you make of that?
I mean, it's scary, but is it really worth worrying about?
...yes!
I think this is another aspect worth discussing, especially in the context of the prior chilling effect context.
If the premise is that this aggregation of metadata creates a chilling effect, one would think that in order to do so the target would have to be consciously aware of the "search."
I'd posit the knowledge of the lower threshold governing it's acquisition by the state would be enough to create a chilling effect. As Sotomayor says:
So what precautions have you taken to prevent that?
To ensure that people don't break into my house without my knowing about it?
Locking the accessible doors and windows.
Generally speaking, society has done a great deal for me already in seeking recompense for such things in laws that allow me to bring charges against people breaking into my home. And, I would argue, the 4th Amendment prescribes similar course for recompense should law enforcement do so without appropriate warrant.
The problem is, in this case, the law hasn't caught up to the possibilities of law enforcement to abuse the options, granted to them through new technology, available to them.
See, here is where I disagree. Justice Sotomayor is referring specifically to GPS data, not metadata as a whole. I put my feelings re: this in my first post (the edit).
I believe that there comes a point where we recognize as a society that we exchange privacy for services. I think this has always been the case. At this time we have "greater" services that we exchange "greater" privacies for. As has been stated, one does not have to use the "greater" services, they are optional, if not convenient.
I do not believe that personally unidentifiable metadata constitutes a search in such a way to create a chilling effect. Especially when the vast majority are unaware that it occurs. How can one be "chilled" if one is unaware of an intrusion?
[edit]
to take this a step further. I postulate that the leaking of these "surveillance" activities has created a far greater "chilling effect" in the general populace than the actual (non-personally-identifiable) data aggregation has.