Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You.

The expectation that every single thing you say or do online is being recorded and archived indefinitely, regardless of if it's relevant to a terrorism investigation.

edited 9th Jul '14 12:08:34 PM by speedyboris

No, no, it gets much worse than that. Think North Korea. You haven't even crossed the threshold of real surveillance.

We're back into undefined priors, though — the data you send online is, by definition, online. Once it leaves your computer you should have no expectation that it is not tracked and/or stored by somebody.* You haven't shown that there's any harm done by this, not in the same way that invisible spy cameras in your bedroom might be considered an invasion of privacy.

* There is a nascent "Do not track" movement online, but it's voluntary on the part of businesses and completely unenforceable.

edited 9th Jul '14 12:13:33 PM by Fighteer

Just to be clear here: I'm well aware that anything you post online is fair game. People that whine about the government looking at Facebook profiles are silly because that's public information that you chose to put out there. It's also why I have no expectation of privacy by publicly posting right here on TV Tropes; this info is voluntarily put out there by me.

What I'm referring to is things which have certain expectations of privacy on the basis that you're not being public about it: Browser history, IM/Skype chats, emails, purchases/bank statements, medical records, etc. I'm well aware these things are tracked by internet companies regardless (that's what server logs are for), but do we really want all of it in the hands of the government? Are you comfortable with that info being vacuumed up and readily accessible? Would you be comfortable sharing that info with anyone (me, for example), even if you haven't broken any laws?

Side note: The "spy cameras in the bedroom" thing is debatable. We already know of technology that allows the NSA to remotely turn on smartphones even when they're turned off. Guess what? You've got an impromptu camera.

edited 9th Jul '14 12:39:53 PM by speedyboris

But see, even if you take the government completely out the equation, all that information is readily accessible to anyone. Just pay the company for that info or pay someone to get that info

Frankly all the government is doing is cutting out the middle man and tracking that info themselves.

I've said before that I would prefer that all non-public information about me be contained in a secure global database to which I (or someone I legally designate) have full visibility and may assign access rights as requested on a per-use basis. Access would be handled via multi-factor authentication so it would be as difficult as possible to spoof: ideally a username, passcode, secure token, and/or biometric. But you'd only need to access one account, ever, that holds all your personal data — not a zillion on every site you visit.

This global data repository (GDR) would hand out data as authorized for individual transactions. Let's say I want to have a product shipped to my home. I'd authorize the retailer to receive payment through the GDR, but they'd never see my financial information (credit card number, bank account number, etc.) — what they'd get is a single-use token allowing them to conduct that one transaction. If they need my address for shipment, the transaction packet would also allow the retrieval of my current address, but they would only be permitted to store it for as long as necessary to complete the order.

I would be able to log into my account and observe all transactions and requests for my data that anyone has made. If Macy's wants to send me a brochure, they'd need to either request that I allow them to do so, or I would have had to have made a blanket authorization to receive mass-marketing materials, either on a general or per-retailer basis.

If a company violates the bounds of the permissions I granted, such as by retaining my address and sending me marketing materials without my authorization, they'd be subject to penalties ranging from fines to "disbarment" from the GDR, making them effectively unable to do business except via cash, in-person. That should be sufficient disincentive to cheat. Routine notifications about my transactions or my account could be handled via the GDR, using the original transaction token.

If you compare it with the concept of a cryptocurrency, anyone accessing a person's information would be interacting with a unique code generated for that specific exchange of data, like a bitcoin wallet. The code would allow the exchange of messages without ever revealing the identity of the person on the other end; that identity would be stored in the GDR and could be accessed via proper channels if there's a complaint of fraud or whatever.

Of course, law enforcement and other agencies might need to access my information for various reasons, which might need to remain secret so as not to tip me off if I'm actually doing something wrong. However, they'd be required to have a "digital warrant" that is recorded in my file and would be made available during the discovery phase of any legal proceeding. Otherwise they'd have to go through the permission step like anyone else.

Possibly, exceptions to the need to manually grant permissions could be made for things like census taking and other official, routine demographic research.

This is my ideal, of course.

Aww, why not?

edited 9th Jul '14 12:56:41 PM by Fighteer

I'd rather not give my data to something called the GDR, thanks

GDR is a name for former East Germany. And they did practice aggressive surveillance, c.f Stasi and the like.

I dunno, East Germany got all the good stuff.

Food, bands, fuzzy hats.

I don't see why not. Frankly, if someone is busily consuming data on what videos I like to watch, where I like to eat dinner, and how my last physical went, that reflects far more on them than it does on me.

I don't live in shame of my own proclivities, and I don't do anything that someone might press charges against me for, nor do I live in a country that criminalizes the things I say, so what do I have to worry about?

edited 9th Jul '14 1:14:43 PM by TobiasDrake

What I don't see is why there is an existential difference between companies having that data and government having it. Frankly, I trust the people who administer Social Security and lock up criminals more than I do the people who run unregulated fertilizer plants that blow up Texas towns, meat packing plants staffed by undocumented workers, and oil rigs that dump millions of gallons of crude into the sea. And don't even get me started on the supplement industry or the tobacco industry.

I just can't take anyone seriously who'd say that it's less dangerous for the private sector to nose around your private data than the public sector.

edited 9th Jul '14 1:35:19 PM by Fighteer

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

http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

edited 9th Jul '14 1:42:27 PM by speedyboris

I don't fully buy into the "nothing to hide" argument because I'm aware that guilt or the appearance thereof can be manufactured. That Wikipedia article is interesting mainly for its presentation as a strictly "private citizen vs. government" matter. This is one of the things that I find deceptive and disingenuous about the current debate.

As I said above, we already cede vast privacy rights to the private sector without even thinking about the implications, yet you're far more likely to experience tangible harm or loss at the hands of the private sector than at the hands of a government, whether information-related or not. Consider the rampancy of identity theft and data breaches at major businesses, for example, never mind direct malfeasance on their part.

Think about email spam and other forms of unwanted mass-marketing. Think about hacking and malware. Privacy is a vast, broad issue, and focusing it on government surveillance is a sign that your concern is rooted more in ideology than in fundamental human rights.

edited 9th Jul '14 1:46:38 PM by Fighteer

Hackers will always find a way, but the large amount of hacks might not have happened if the NSA didn't deliberately weaken security so they could snoop.

edited 9th Jul '14 1:49:25 PM by speedyboris

Er, what? You aren't even trying to make sense, now. Hacking and identity theft have been going on since long before the NSA started collecting email meta-data, and most attacks on major businesses are conducted via social engineering and/or exploiting known software flaws that businesses don't bother to fix, not using government-mandated back doors in encryption software.

I really think you need to broaden the horizons of your understanding of these issues.

"We can't stop hacking, so let's instead worry about the NSA, even though hackers do far more harm," is an illogical argument.

Edit: I've said before and I'll say it again: I support removing some of the broad access rights to information that were granted to the government by PATRIOT and related laws, and instituting safeguards to ensure that judicial and Congressional scrutiny are properly applied to all domestic data gathering programs.

I do not believe that it is practical or reasonable to demand that the government cease collecting data, period, as long as those data are used for bona fide law enforcement purposes.

edited 9th Jul '14 1:58:41 PM by Fighteer

I'll admit I worded that badly. What I meant is, the NSA didn't do the internet any favors by deliberately weakening security (or not pointing out security flaws when they saw them). This made it easier for criminals to grab sensitive data. If their goal is to protect our country from security breaches, they failed.

"deliberately weakening security" [citation needed]

Frankly, if Target can't protect its POS systems from someone sneaking snooper software onto them, the NSA's policies vis-a-vis private sector security are the least of our worries. Most security flaws are discovered by private white hat organizations anyway, not by the government or by hackers. The problem is that businesses don't like to be told that their systems are vulnerable, and will put their heads in the sand until a crisis kicks them in the balls.

edited 9th Jul '14 2:04:58 PM by Fighteer

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nsa-nist-encryption-scandal/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

edited 9th Jul '14 2:08:16 PM by speedyboris

From that second article:

Edit: On that third article, ugh. I'm monumentally disheartened by the NSA knowing about Heartbleed and failing to disclose it. That's a legitimately awful act.

edited 9th Jul '14 2:13:21 PM by Fighteer

I'm sure Intelligence Agencies have been around much longer than Fox News, even Murdoch himself.

@ Hacking: And isn't a lot of hacking these days done by Foreign Governments, such as China?

And isn't a lot of hacking these days done by Foreign Governments, such asChina?

Fixed

I'm sure many countries do some level of it but china does it at absolutely ridiculous levels. Everything from hack the US power grid to stealing designs for metal presses.

China and Russia.

Though with Russia it seems to be more black hats having fun than their government mucking things up.

Action in Britain:

• Emergency phone and internet data retention to be passed

@ speedyboris

Why not keep it a secret? Heck, make bug-shaped drones, as Callof Duty Black Ops 2 showed.

edited 11th Jul '14 6:42:30 PM by HallowHawk

Dude, people are crying foul over the current spying capabilities. How do you think people would react if something that invasive was ever implemented (on the general public, I mean)?

At any rate, you sound like you're completely for the idea of cameras in every home, and if that's the case, I hope you never run for office or get a policy-making job in the police or security industry.

edited 11th Jul '14 6:18:04 AM by speedyboris