Privacy is my day job, and the best I can tell you concisely is that privacy is different things to different people. :) What they have in common is that they all involve information being used for something, or winding up somewhere, that surprises or harms people. What people might be harmed by is often unexpected to others, so it’s really important to take a broad interpretation.
Thanks, I meant that it seems like they’re being very political in these broadcasts and positioning themselves as educators in the guise of comedians - unless I missed it (I did skip a couple of times), he didn’t frame the conversation in a general definition of why privacy is important is an important right, regardless of whatever you happen to think about the Apple vs FBI case. I’m making the assumption here that there is a simple definition of privacy which is something like: the right to choose what I share about my non-public life. Is that a good definition? I’m always trying to refine my response to people who think that privacy is exchangeable for national security.
Your definition is a little narrow, for my taste. Choosing to share (and who to share with) is not the same thing as your expectations about what it will be used for, who it will be further shared with, etc.
Your bank knows everything you buy with your debit card, and you chose to share that with them, although it wasn’t entirely a free choice since there’s no other way to get financial services. You would probably be upset if the bank sold that information to your employer, who ordered you to stop eating so many potato chips.
Because I don’t want to talk in public about real examples, this is an intentionally silly-feeling one, which isn’t really that far from things that could happen if nobody ever said “no, that would be a privacy invasion”.
As far as the relevance of this to national security, this isn’t the kind of example I’d bring up. There was an excellent video from the Mozilla Foundation a month or so, which gives day-to-day examples of things that people who “have nothing to hide” still would rather not broadcast to the world. I think they are good examples.
Also, as something personally relevant, people can have things they need to hide without having done anything wrong - unexpected disclosure of a pregnancy or a medical condition could get people fired (illegally, but it still happens); unexpected disclosure of gender or sexuality could get people fired, kicked out of their apartments, and a lot worse (legally, in many cases, although the law is more favorable than it was a few years ago). It is not a stretch to say that this stuff is none of the intelligence community’s business and to not automatically trust that the information they collect will be used solely for law-enforcement purposes.
I’d love to see John Oliver discuss what privacy is and why it matters in detail; he’s very persuasive, as well as fun to watch. Even the experts are struggling to formulate arguments like this, but maybe in future, you know?
Ah, well.
https://www.facebook.com/LastWeekTonight/videos/vb.479042895558058/858905877571756/?type=2&theater
I was waiting for the bit when he would explain what privacy is.
Privacy is my day job, and the best I can tell you concisely is that privacy is different things to different people. :) What they have in common is that they all involve information being used for something, or winding up somewhere, that surprises or harms people. What people might be harmed by is often unexpected to others, so it’s really important to take a broad interpretation.
Thanks, I meant that it seems like they’re being very political in these broadcasts and positioning themselves as educators in the guise of comedians - unless I missed it (I did skip a couple of times), he didn’t frame the conversation in a general definition of why privacy is important is an important right, regardless of whatever you happen to think about the Apple vs FBI case. I’m making the assumption here that there is a simple definition of privacy which is something like: the right to choose what I share about my non-public life. Is that a good definition? I’m always trying to refine my response to people who think that privacy is exchangeable for national security.
Your definition is a little narrow, for my taste. Choosing to share (and who to share with) is not the same thing as your expectations about what it will be used for, who it will be further shared with, etc.
Your bank knows everything you buy with your debit card, and you chose to share that with them, although it wasn’t entirely a free choice since there’s no other way to get financial services. You would probably be upset if the bank sold that information to your employer, who ordered you to stop eating so many potato chips.
Because I don’t want to talk in public about real examples, this is an intentionally silly-feeling one, which isn’t really that far from things that could happen if nobody ever said “no, that would be a privacy invasion”.
As far as the relevance of this to national security, this isn’t the kind of example I’d bring up. There was an excellent video from the Mozilla Foundation a month or so, which gives day-to-day examples of things that people who “have nothing to hide” still would rather not broadcast to the world. I think they are good examples.
Also, as something personally relevant, people can have things they need to hide without having done anything wrong - unexpected disclosure of a pregnancy or a medical condition could get people fired (illegally, but it still happens); unexpected disclosure of gender or sexuality could get people fired, kicked out of their apartments, and a lot worse (legally, in many cases, although the law is more favorable than it was a few years ago). It is not a stretch to say that this stuff is none of the intelligence community’s business and to not automatically trust that the information they collect will be used solely for law-enforcement purposes.
I’d love to see John Oliver discuss what privacy is and why it matters in detail; he’s very persuasive, as well as fun to watch. Even the experts are struggling to formulate arguments like this, but maybe in future, you know?
Awareness != Action. Action == Action.
[Comment removed by author]
The fact that Lindsey Graham switched his view at the end (14:30 into the video) is a point in favor of awareness.