
How to tell your mother and bosses why they should protest surveillance - casca
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/20/how_to_tell_your_mother_and_bosses_why_they_should_protest_surveillance.html
======
phaer
* It undermines the freedom of the press because journalists need to protect their sources.

* It undermines the rule of law because the government should not know what you discuss with your lawyer.

* It sabotages the health system because you should be able to talk to your doctor in privacy.

~~~
dingaling
I think those examples are begging the question. Many people would say they
don't care if a Government agency knows any of that info. Why should they
care? Personally I'm not worried if GCHQ know that I went to the doctor about
a rash.

I find a more convincing argument is that the data can be abused for purposes
beyond that for which it was gathered; for example, the disclosures about the
DEA and 'parallel construction' shocked many people with whom I work. People
respond more to the risk that their misdeeds will be discovered ( be it simple
cash-in-hand tax evasion or more nefarious activities ).

~~~
rb2e
>Personally I'm not worried if GCHQ know that I went to the doctor about a
rash.

Except it can leave you vulnerable to blackmail. Say your rash is a symptom of
a STD which was caused by a drunken one night stand with a x/y person you met
at a bar. "Now you wouldn't your partner to find out would you?" says the guy
in guy in the suit...

Other ways health records can be abused if your partner or child needs a
transplant and they are way down the waiting list...

~~~
ijk
More ways your health records can be abused:

* 70% of Americans are currently using some form of prescription drug. Would you be comfortable if this information was given to, say, the next employer you interview with?

* Many health issues can be embarrassing for people, even relatively benign ones. This isn't always obvious until you've experienced it.

* Mental health issues often carry a social stigma. Yet 11% of the American population currently take antidepressants.

* Health records, by necessity, include vast amounts of personal information that isn't directly medical. Addresses. Phone numbers. Social security numbers.

~~~
Ellipsis753
Are you sure those statistics are right? Do you have a source for them? They
just sound quite surprising to me (although I'm from the UK rather than the
USA).

~~~
ijk
"Eleven percent of Americans aged 12 years and over take antidepressant
medication."

from CDC/NCHS Data Brief: "Antidepressant Use in Persons Aged 12 and Over:
United States, 2005–2008":
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm)

"Nearly 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, and
more than half take two, Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Center researchers
say."

from Mayo Clinic, "Nearly 7 in 10 Americans Take Prescription Drugs, Mayo
Clinic, Olmsted Medical Center Find":
[http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2013-rst/7543.html](http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2013-rst/7543.html)

~~~
Ellipsis753
Thank you. It's great to have sources and they seem very good.

I would never have guessed that the number of people taking antidepressant
drugs would be so high.

------
rayiner
I think this is important, but abstract arguments aren't really going to fly
with grandma. Tell them that atheist Obama is reading her church emails.
That'll get them fired up. Or if your grandma voted for Obama, tell her that
can you imagine if Dick Cheney were reading your DNC emails?

You have to make political issues personal. Personify them. That's why
"welfare queen" was such a smashing success. Privacy advocates have to figure
out how to put a face on NSA spying.

~~~
itistoday2
What if your grandma is an atheist?

~~~
unimpressive
You can trust FDR with this, but what happens in twenty years when Nixon gets
it?

(Or something similarly hyper-political and specific. I'm sure the comments
below can come up with something witty and visceral.)

------
boi_v2
I say: Never give truth to the power.

To make people understand what I mean I tell them about Martin Luther King and
how the FBI concerned him as a threat to the public, he was kept under strict
surveillance to collect information that would be used to blackmail him. The
FBI collected information about Dr. King's plans and activities through and
extensive surveillance program, from wiretapped telephones to hidden
microphones in hotels and motel rooms.

Then aI ask: What if your kid is the next dissident, can you guarantee she/he
won't have to step up and fight some absurdities? What will happen with she/he
under the surveillance state we live today?

The problem with "normal people", those who have nothing to hide, is mainly
one: you are telling the power what is important for you. I know this seems
silly if we only think about ourselves (micro view), but it became a real
problem when we realise the whole society is doing the same at the same time
(macro view), telling the power what is important, where they should invest,
make money, find/manipulate our geniuses, blackmail, incarcerate or kill our
dissidents is just non-sense.

------
raldi
A shorter response to "I have nothing to hide" is "Why do living room windows
have curtains?" (It's not because of crimes or orgies.)

Another good response is, "Then would you mind if I inspect your wallet,
nightstand, medicine cabinet, and tax return?"

------
ijk
Everyone has information they would rather not be public, but many people
don't realize that until it happens. Remember, most people aren't the focus of
mass attention; we don't care if the information gets out because we can't
imagine other people actually caring about us en masse until it happens.

Bruce Schneier has responded to "I have nothing to hide" with "tell me your
salary." We all have things that we'd rather not have specific other people
know, but privacy is usually thought of as protection against the anonymous
crowds, and our social taboos haven't caught up to the new world.

~~~
unimpressive
>Bruce Schneier has responded to "I have nothing to hide" with "tell me your
salary."

A friend in high school showed me a web page that had the salaries for all the
instructors at our school. So many things made sense after that.

------
uptown
I believe one of the most compelling arguments for mainstream individuals is
to appeal to their sense of fairness. People don't always understand privacy -
but they tend to understand fairness.

A simple, relatable example would be exploiting insider information to use in
the stock market for huge financial gain. Access to confidential business
communications gives individuals an unfair advantage to exploit that
information for personal gain.

Now, there's no proof that this has taken place, but one has to assume that
given the scope of what's collected, it easily could - and eventually will, if
it hasn't already.

------
summerdown2
If you want to explain why surveillance is creepy, show your mother or boss
this video and ask how they'd feel:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz8PdALdQDI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz8PdALdQDI)

To give some background, it's a man who simply walks up to people and starts
taking video. It's amazing how many people get annoyed with it.

I think this runs close to performance art, and is the best demonstration
possible, because it's so easy to empathise with those under scrutiny.

------
spydum
For the longest time, I combatted my conspiracy theorist friends who were sure
the government was out to steal our freedoms by saying that such a conspiracy
would require collusion by far too any people, and that since the advent of
the internet, that kind of thing would be near impossible. The only thing that
concerned me was the possibility of controlling communications (under guise of
internet censorship). I asserted that if such censorship ever got passed, our
brilliant cryptologist and internet freedom fighters would step up with larger
efforts such as TOR to defeat such measures, and preserve our communication
freedom and privacy. Someone would start a new network, trying to resolve some
of those vulnerabilities that governments and criminals had found exploitable
in the past. I am no longer comfortable with that answer. It seems this has
all transpired, and we have been left unprepared. Perhaps the internet is too
big to fail, and people will lay down and accept the abuse we suffer, because
it is too difficult to find another way? More upsetting is, perhaps those
friends and relatives weren't so crazy after all?

------
bjoyx
Remember Minority Report? What happens when "big data" applied to the dragnet
flags you as dangerous because of a false positive. Let's start by comparing
patterns in the data of known terrorists to everyone else and put the closest
matches on a no-fly list.

------
Evolved
The nothing to hide idea is interesting because it works both ways. If I have
nothing to hide then I shouldn't worry about the NSA, according to them. On
the other hand, if I have nothing to hide then they should have no reason to
surveil me and shouldn't do so.

------
yetanotherphd
How about give the reasons why you believe something, rather than invent
reasons after the fact that are tailored to other people's values? In fact,
despite working in tech I don't think my values are very different to my
Mother's or my Bosses (well actually my boss is an engineer too...). I don't
agree with the idea of first finding the truth, and then formulating arguments
to convince others. Exactly the same arguments that cause you to believe X are
what you should be conveying to others. boi_v2 has a very good summary in this
page of the reasons why I oppose mass surveillance.

------
corysama
Wish I had a quick link to the reddit post I read from a guy who lived in an
active police state. He explained what it's like to be contacted by the
government asking for a "favor". And, "btw, we noticed some questionable items
in your uncle's file."

It's not just about you. It's about everyone you've ever cared about being
used against you. Now imagine anyone considering doing anything the govt might
not appreciate in that environment...

------
mmariani
Too much text. If anyone want to have at least some slim success conveying
these ideas the message has to be impactful and short. That's why "think of
the children" and "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" work
so well.

~~~
outside1234
I explain it in four words: "We are all guilty of something."

And then I explain that a corrupt power can use this nearly perfect
intelligence machine can use this to find something that they hold over our
heads.

From there its a pretty easy explanation to get to a Hitler like figure being
in charge.

~~~
RougeFemme
Except that many people believe they are - and will always be - "guilty" of
_nothing_. (I have nothing to hide. . .). So that argument won't fly with huge
numbers of people.

It's like the huge number of people who believe the police department/judicial
system/system of choice is infallible until they personally know someone who
was treated unfairly or see some egregious example of unfairness in the media.
And even then, they still often believe that they never would have done XX and
never would have found themselves in that situation.

~~~
spuz
If you interpret "guilty" as meaning "an action one is responsible for" then
we really are all guilty of something. You are guilty of waking up this
morning, you are guilty of making that post, you are guilty of expressing your
opinion. The point is that a government that is tyrannical enough can in the
future make anything you would normally think is totally innocent a crime and
then use that against you to put you away.

------
dllthomas
Something occurred to me that might help drive intuition:

Everyone gets nervous when there's a cop behind them on the highway.

------
dllthomas
A playful response to "I have nothing to hide" is "... are you really that
boring?"

------
nilved
Could somebody post this on pastebin for people who don't like to visit Slate?

~~~
boi_v2
[http://pastebin.com/Aw2SG4Qf](http://pastebin.com/Aw2SG4Qf)

I am curious, why not Slate?

~~~
nilved
They recently published an article suggesting people surrepticiously feed
animal products to vegans, so I don't read their site anymore. I realize that
not everybody will agree with that, but I'm not comfortable giving a site like
that page views and ad impressions.

Thanks very much for providing the link!

~~~
pavel_lishin
Do you mean that the author at Slate seemed to approve of the practice, or
just that they talked about it in general?

(I assume the former, and I assume that this is the article:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/09/chicken_stoc...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/09/chicken_stock_vegetarians_need_to_compromise_and_stop_pretending_it_counts.html))

~~~
nilved
Your assumptions are correct!

