Dan Geer published a relevant column last week in The Christian Science Monitor: "Opinion: The reasonable expectation fallacy".[0]
The lede: "The ability to delete yourself from the Web doesn't really matter. What really matters in the age of advanced surveillance is the right to not be correlated. Technology is always watching and capturing you, but the correlation is where the danger lies. Laws can change that, but only if enacted soon."
That's an interesting perspective from the "chief information security officer for In-Q-Tel". [0] But yes, it does seem inevitable: pervasive surveillance of everyone by
everyone. Like a global village aka small town.
However, I'm not convinced that laws would be enough. Criminals (large and small) don't care so much about laws. So arguably we're each responsible for our own privacy.
The ubiquity of requisite knowledge and technology, facilitated by leaks, may allow the sufficiently motivated to claw back some privacy. But sadly enough, perhaps the most highly motivated are the criminals. Not good.
I agree that laws protecting privacy would be good, criminals notwithstanding. I'm much less afraid of identity theft from a criminal, than I am that the police will come to my door someday and take me to prison because I match an algorithm.
I was being dense. Reading a recent post to cpunks, I get that Dan is calling for laws to restrict surveillance and correlation by private institutions and individuals.[0]
Now his position makes sense. He wants governments (presumably those who fund his firm) to have a monopoly on surveillance and correlation. While I agree on dangers from other criminals, restricting private institutions and individuals is authoritarian, unless there's an exception for whistle-blowing.
I, for one, would gladly paraphrase John Perry Barlow's declaration of independence of cyberspace and say that the "weary giants of flesh and steel" should leave me alone but only if the "technology [that] is being imposed on a global scale without restraint" will do likewise. A pox on both; may they fight to a standstill somewhere other than my front room or my backyard.
Comments
Dan Geer published a relevant column last week in The Christian Science Monitor: "Opinion: The reasonable expectation fallacy".[0]
The lede: "The ability to delete yourself from the Web doesn't really matter. What really matters in the age of advanced surveillance is the right to not be correlated. Technology is always watching and capturing you, but the correlation is where the danger lies. Laws can change that, but only if enacted soon."
That's an interesting perspective from the "chief information security officer for In-Q-Tel". [0] But yes, it does seem inevitable: pervasive surveillance of everyone by everyone. Like a global village aka small town.
However, I'm not convinced that laws would be enough. Criminals (large and small) don't care so much about laws. So arguably we're each responsible for our own privacy.
The ubiquity of requisite knowledge and technology, facilitated by leaks, may allow the sufficiently motivated to claw back some privacy. But sadly enough, perhaps the most highly motivated are the criminals. Not good.
[0] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2015...
I agree that laws protecting privacy would be good, criminals notwithstanding. I'm much less afraid of identity theft from a criminal, than I am that the police will come to my door someday and take me to prison because I match an algorithm.
I was being dense. Reading a recent post to cpunks, I get that Dan is calling for laws to restrict surveillance and correlation by private institutions and individuals.[0]
Now his position makes sense. He wants governments (presumably those who fund his firm) to have a monopoly on surveillance and correlation. While I agree on dangers from other criminals, restricting private institutions and individuals is authoritarian, unless there's an exception for whistle-blowing.
[0] https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2015-June/008069.ht...
OK, so that's not Dan's position.[0]
[0] https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2015-June/008081.ht...
Just to be clear, by saying "his position makes sense", I don't mean that I agree with it.