
I want privacy because I break the law - 3pt14159
http://zachaysan.tumblr.com/post/364510410/i-want-privacy-because-i-break-the-law
======
tungstenfurnace
I want privacy because

(1) I break laws I don't know about (2) I do things which might be
_misinterpreted_ as breaking the law or as being immoral (3) I do things which
are considered immoral by most people, but which are not illegal.

For these reasons, I cannot act autonomously or creatively without privacy.

~~~
jacquesm
The biggest reason why privacy matters is because there are _always_ going to
be crimes committed so there will _always_ be people that have nothing to do
with the crime caught in the dragnet around the crime scene. Coincidences do
happen and if you happen to be around the area of two murders you'll have a
very hard time to explain that away, whereas in a society with good privacy
you would never even appear on the radar.

So even if you haven't broken the law or done something that could be
misconstrued as such you are still at risk.

All this lack of privacy does is increase the size of the haystack while
keeping the number of needles constant.

But hay looks a lot like needles and plenty of 'hay' will end up being
prosecuted for stuff the needles get away with.

Less privacy means more solved crimes, but it also means many more false
positives.

The 'if you've got nothing to hide why do you want privacy' crowd seems to be
completely oblivious to this, until they end up being hauled in to the station
for something they had nothing to do with themselves. That's when reality
kicks in and suddenly they switch sides (but by then it's obviously too late).

We live in a society that is predicated on fear, fear of crime, of terror and
so on. And most of us are willing to trade their freedom for security all too
easily.

If you want absolute security, you should realize that that is only possible
in a society that has more in common with a prison than with a park.

Robert Heinlein wrote a whole bunch of books around this theme, if you like SF
and you haven't read those book yet I suggest you do so, there is some really
good stuff in there.

~~~
s_tec
I like Robert Heinlein, but I don't recall any of his books touching these
topics. Can you give some specific recommendations for my reading list?

~~~
jacquesm
Farnhams Freehold, Friday and a bunch of others that I can't quite catch the
title of right now (my books are in storage in a warehouse nearby, I'll have a
look when I get there again).

The one I'm thinking of (but not sure what the title is) features a park that
is a reclaimed stretch of highway where people are free to do as they please
in a society teeming with surveilance. The park is supervised by cops eyes,
floating cameras that double as little weapons platforms.

A tinkerer brings them down and chaos ensues.

Nice insight in the human mind in there, and how thin the veneer of
civilization is.

~~~
prodigal_erik
That last one is Niven's "Cloak of Anarchy", and he has it online at
<http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml>.

~~~
jacquesm
Ah, yes, you're absolutely right.

That's why I couldn't find the title :)

thanks!

It must be 15 years since I last read those and it was in pretty quick
succession while quite ill.

------
Confusion
The article pretty much repeats the main points Bruce Schneier, and other
privacy advocates, keep making: the fact that some individual or the
government doesn't consider your behavior offensive _now_ , doesn't mean they
don't will in the future. A message I think cannot be repeated often enough in
the current climate.

Once, stealing an apple from an orchard was kiddie mischief, punished by a
spanking from the owner. Now it's a criminal activity, which gets you taken
away from your parents if you run into the wrong police, or 'children safety'
officer. Writing about stealing an apple when you were eight won't cause
employers to blink currently (at least, I think). Who knows how moral values
will have evolved ten years from now?

~~~
tome
_"stealing an apple from an orchard [is] a criminal activity, which gets you
taken away from your parents if you run into the wrong police, or 'children
safety' officer."_

Got a reference for that? It seems unlikely on the face of it.

~~~
wtallis
Do a search on the web for "zero tolerance" policies in schools. Read a few of
the horror stories, and you will no longer doubt our ability to blow things
out of proportion.

~~~
tedunangst
I was unable to find a school zero tolerance policy that would remove a child
from the parents' home.

~~~
wtallis
Schools almost never have that power, but zero-tolerance policies typically
mean that police officers are brought in to deal with almost any situation.
Once police officers are handling what ought to be simple disciplinary action,
it's easy for a student to get charged with something like assaulting a
teacher, and then it's almost certain that social services will be involved,
and they _can_ take kids away from their parents.

This whole process could be triggered by a small child throwing a pencil, and
if none of the bureaucrats speak up on behalf of common sense, things can
quickly escalate until there are serious investigations into whether the child
needs to be removed from the home.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Once police officers are handling what ought to be simple disciplinary
> action, it's easy for a student to get charged with something like
> assaulting a teacher_

Certainly in the UK more kids assault teachers than get arrested for it; far
more than get charged.

If the kid does something that looks to the law like assault to their teacher
then what do you think is proper punishment? "Don't do that again!"?

When a kid does violently assault a teacher then this strikes me as more than
sufficient cause to investigate the child's home-life and upbringing to ensure
they're not themselves subject to similar abuse.

------
joeyh
The real power of masses of laws that are regularly broken is selective
enforcement. When you add lack of privacy to the picture, it can look
downright dystopian.

~~~
muerdeme
“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” - Lincoln

~~~
electromagnetic
Here's the alternate interpretation for the modern day: Once you nail enough
senators with outdated laws, the law will be repealed.

~~~
Sukotto
Or they will pass a law exempting themselves from those laws

~~~
Semiapies
They usually make sure to do that from the outset: most federal work-related
laws, for instance, don't apply to Congressional staffers.

------
dkersten
The book "How to be Invisible"[1] makes a few good arguments for privacy too.

For example, if you are charged with a serious felony, but later released
because you are actually innocent - lack of privacy almost ensures that your
life is ruined anyway, even though you are innocent, because the media loves
to blow everything out of proportion - but rarely seems to go back and correct
their earlier stories when you've been found innocent, or if they do, most
people have already read the sensationalized news condemning you and the
damage is already done.

So, without even breaking any laws or doing anything wrong, without privacy
you might find your life ruined anyway.

[1] How to be Invisible, by JJ Luna, [http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Invisible-
Essential-Protecting/...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Invisible-Essential-
Protecting/dp/0312319061)

~~~
chris11
He is currently giving the 2000 edition away for free in exchange for an email
address. <http://dealzon.com/deals/how-to-be-invisible-by-j-j-luna>

~~~
sokoloff
Irony, anyone?

------
Torn
'Why should I care about privacy, I have nothing to hide" is one of the most
harmful, narrow but yet common arguments put forward for this.

I _strongly_ recommend people with viewpoints on either side of the argument
to go read D. Solove's essay on the subject over at
<http://crysp.uwaterloo.ca/courses/pet/F07/cache/solove.pdf> \- it's quite
short and a great read.

His "Understanding Privacy" work is a fantastic book which develops this and
his other essays, and provides a great methodology for understanding the scope
of - and breaking down the harm inherent in - modern privacy problems. I
studied it for my Master's in Cyberlaw, and would highly recommend anyone with
an interest in IT / cyberlaw / philosophy to track down a copy and read it.
[http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Privacy-Daniel-J-
Solove/...](http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Privacy-Daniel-J-
Solove/dp/0674027728)

------
fauigerzigerk
There are many more good reasons for privacy. Laws are sometimes inconsistent,
and it turns out to be impossible not to break at least one of them in a
particular situation. Sometimes you have to break the letter of the law in
order to comply with its spirit. Making such breaches visible to everyone
would do nothing but open the floodgates to blackmail.

Also, there are moral issues. Abortion is legal in many jurisdictions, but
many people will still treat it as homicide. Am I really under any obligation
to argue about abortion with a potential employer or suffer the consequences
of not sharing the employer's opinion? I think not. Keeping professional
duties and private opinions separate is my right and it is necessary for any
company to remain functional.

------
TrevorJ
Privacy isn't about having things to hide. Privacy is about who has the right
to control the flow of information that is your identity. It is a human
_right_ and a basic human need. Any argument based around "having nothing to
hide" misses the point entirely.

------
romland
Am I the only one that find it a _tiny_ bit ironic that he uses Google
Analytics on that page?

Probably.

~~~
3pt14159
Yeah, I do a whole lot of ironic things. Including using Gmail, Google Reader,
etc. If only Google didn't make such good products.

------
scotty79
I don't think that privacy in this case is all that good.

If there is a law that you could break without knowledge and without harming
anybody then this law is against common sense and should be abolished.

Upholding privacy as a way to get around stupid laws is like suppressing
exceptions in computer programs so that errors would not manifest themselves.

Because no one is bothered there is no incentive to fix it.

When it comes to laws we don't need privacy as much as we need common sense
and latitude.

~~~
ytinas
Given the track record which is more likely to be effective? Continuing to
wish for common sense and latitude in our public officials or protecting
yourself from their normal behavior?

~~~
nostrademons
Honestly, in my experience - wishing for common sense and latitude in public
officials.

I _know_ its fun to rag on public officials on Internet forums. But _most_ of
the ones I know have been fairly decent people who are just doing their jobs.
There're a few bad apples, but there're a few bad apples in any population.
Even the TSA officials (which gets my vote for "worst government bureaucracy")
were very apologetic when they confiscated my toothpaste.

I think that you're more likely to get absurd institutional behavior - like
confiscating toothpaste - when you _deny_ latitude in employee judgment. The
TSA screeners have this massive rulebook that they have to follow, and they
risk losing their job when they deviate from it, even if they personally
believe the rules are stupid.

Same with the private sector. Companies that have the best reputations tend to
be those that empower their employees to solve the customer's problem, like
Virgin or Nordstroms. Companies with the worst reputations tend to be those
where the employees can't do anything but follow the playbook, like most
telecoms.

~~~
scotty79
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Silly laws exist because they may not
be obeyed. Citizens get around them, enforcers get around them and the message
never bites the policy makers in the ass - the people that are responsible for
this mess are often not even aware that they made a mistake.

So I am claiming that loss of privacy that I perceive inevitable in face of
modern and upcoming technology is not necessary bad thing because it may
create the demand for fixing some stupid rules that may cause some of us harm.

~~~
nostrademons
I used to think the same way, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea now.

Problem is that it's much easier to ignore bad rules than it is to fix them.
You're assuming that if everyone had to abide by the bad rules, they'd get
fixed. I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when
you force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly.

When I was younger, I used to find it very frustrating that the rules said one
thing but the way everyone acted was something else. We even have a word for
that: "hypocrisy". But as I've gotten older and occasionally even been
responsible for creating some of those rules, I've started realizing that the
rules are an abstraction. They're there to set expectations. They aren't
followed exactly because they _can't_ be followed exactly, and if you try you
end up with absurdities like confiscated toothpaste. I'm not so certain that
fixing the laws will work, both because it's difficult and because it's quite
possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they can't take every
situation into account, not because their authors were stupid.

~~~
scotty79
> I'm not sure that's the case - the examples I gave indicate that when you
> force employees to abide by bad rules, they just start acting badly.

If there is a strong asymmetry between law makers and people who must respect
the law (such as in case of employers and employees) people will obey because
they have no choice. But even then they will vote with their legs leaving
environment that is governed by stupid laws. In case of state and citizens in
democracy there is no such strong asymmetry because government must maintain
appearance that it works for the people.

> it's quite possible that the reason the laws are broken is because they
> can't take every situation into account, not because their authors were
> stupid.

Same thing with computer programs or any complex system but it should not stop
us from striving for improvement and inventing tools that may make such
improvement possible.

I think that surveillance is one such tool that allows to monitor how much
harm enforcing given law can cause and may lead to fixing the law.

~~~
ytinas
I think you really underestimate the desire of people to not have to be
bothered with this kind of stuff. No matter how insane things get people tend
to say "well, it could be worse. We've still got beer and football".

I would, for example, never consider moving to the UK with their surveillance,
etc., but they obviously have a large populace that disagrees.

Trying to force people into doing something they just don't want to do never
works.

------
teeja
I want privacy because it's a self-explanatory, daily part of the human
condition that every human understands from the time they're small. I don't
have to explain it, I refuse to justify my need for it, and I will do whatever
I have to do to protect it. Including breaking your __$#)($ & laws.

Consequently, I will never take a job for which a piss-check is a condition of
employment. For one thing, that is self-incrimination, from which I'm
protected by the 5th amendment. And I'm not signing away my constitutional
rights to work for some totalitarian employer.

~~~
kelnos
I don't disagree with your premise: I'd never work for a company that did drug
checking.

But: private companies are not bound by the 5th amendment. The Constitution
and Bill of Rights covers only what the government may or may not do.

~~~
teeja
I understand that; I'm saying: for an _American_ company, I won't give up my
rights at the door. They can insist, and I'll walk away. Forced self-
incrimination is not consonant with reasonable liberty. Should that stop at
the door of a business?

Consider who got the piss test started: Ed Meese, Attorney General of the U.S.
at the time. Purely contradicts the Fifth.

------
dpatru
Relying on privacy to avoid liability for inadvertently breaking laws does not
seem to me to be a good solution to the real problem: that laws can be so
numerous and obscure that one can inadvertently become a criminal. Privacy
does have a role in helping to avoid prosecution: if the government doesn't
know about my lawbreaking, it can't prosecute me for it. But privacy should
also limit government's power to legislate and prosecute: Government should
not make criminal what is not its business. A citizen ordinarily should not
have to live in fear that he could be prosecuted if only the government knew
what he was doing.

In this sense, privacy can harm freedom because it allows government to expand
its claims without public resistance. Privacy has enabled the government to
make most American teenagers potential felons because they share music. If
there were less privacy, if the government knew and prosecuted all the file
sharers to the full extent of the law, the resulting public backlash would
cause the law to be repealed. The best way to change an unjust law is to
enforce it.

------
easyfrag
There's an interesting book that I've read about, but haven't picked up yet,
called "Three Felonies A Day". It discusses the selective enforcement of vague
statutes and the incredible number of said statutes.
[http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/1594032556)

------
ErrantX
While he makes a valid point I am worried about a few things he says:

 _Say there is only a 0.1% chance that in the next year Google’s servers have
a search history leak_

Sounds like meaningless speculation; and what does "leak" entail. Even if 0.1%
_of the data_ is leaked there is a pretty low chance that his data will be
included - or if it is, obvious.

 _between all their sharing of data back and forth with the US government_

Im not sure what this refers to; all data given under a subpoena should be a
matter of public record at some point (at least it is here) and I was not
aware Google handed out any other data to the government - if he has evidence
of that it would be good to see it.

 _A Google search you made tipped off your local American authorities that you
are breaking 16 USC 3370. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200. Instead go to
prison for 1 to 5 years after laying out up to $250k on a fine, unless you get
an understanding judge._

Is this a scenario that exists? Answer is no. Of course I support the argument
that this set up should never exist in the future - but I've not seen a
suggestion Google would roll over to this lightly anyway.

Unfortunately this guy takes a good point to a somewhat surreal extreme -
while that is often useful for pointing out flaws in things, his fruit example
points out flaws in the law (which you could fall foul of in any number of
ways beyond google searching) rather than making any specific point about
privacy.

EDIT: any specific rebuttals? Did I get any facts wrong?

~~~
sailormoon
_all data given under a subpoena should be a matter of public record at some
point (at least it is here) and I was not aware Google handed out any other
data to the government - if he has evidence of that it would be good to see
it._

Are you kidding? It would, of course, be covered by a National Security Letter
(or whatever they're calling them these days), and illegal to even talk about.
I have zero doubt whatsoever that the FBI, CIA, NSA and anyone else who wants
it has full access to everything Google stores.

~~~
ErrantX
_It would, of course, be covered by a National Security Letter, and illegal to
even talk about._

I can only speak for here; but a subphoena through the normal courts probably
wouldnt - I cant see it being any different over there.

As to the CIA/NSA etc. having _allowed_ access lets see your evidence -
otherwise your just propagating paranoia...

 _and anyone else who wants it has full access to everything Google stores._

Whom else are you referring to? Dont you think such a massive conspiracy would
be fairly quick to come to light if it was _that_ accessible ;) conspiracy
theories are usually the root of their own downfall - case in point.

~~~
by
Most of the information people give to Google is not encrypted when it passes
across the internet so this would be relevant to revealing people's Google
searches :

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy)

~~~
ErrantX
Agreed; but that was not the assertion made.

------
bbg
I recently watched _The Judge and the General_ , a documentary about the
bloody rise of the Pinochet regime in Chile (link below), and the recent legal
action against it. I recall a particularly chilling moment when Pinochet
declared (paraphrased): if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to
fear. Of course, thousands and thousands of people had everything to fear, and
thousands lost their lives for the dubious crime of being left wing supporters
of the ousted Allende regime. Some things only become 'crimes' in retrospect.

<http://www.pbs.org/pov/judgeandthegeneral/>

------
heresy
Agree totally.

I'd be so screwed if everything I've done came out.

Today, I'm a pretty law abiding citizen (if I break it, it is in ways that
hurts no-one).

I was a rather confused and angry teenager growing up though, and did a lot of
things I shouldn't have.

I really take offense to the notion that that should have fucked me over for
the rest of my life.

There is such a thing as wanting to start with a clean slate.

Make exception for pedos, etc, if you want, but don't use them as a
justification to screw everyone out of privacy.

For fucks, sake.

------
rwmj
Juries are (hopefully) your defense here. If the govt really did start
prosecuting lemon buyers, one would hope that juries would not convict.

~~~
daten
Hopefully you get some jurors who are familiar with Jury Nullification.
Otherwise the instructions from the judge and persuasion by the prosecutor
might convince them they have no choice but to follow the letter of the law.

------
orblivion
Perhaps the unspoken point is, we want to be able to _deliberately_ break the
law, should such a need arise. Yes, the citizens are potentially at odds with
the government. Privacy from government isn't just finding the most effective
and just policy for both parties, it's also a give and take negotiation.

------
run4yourlives
I want privacy for the same reason I wear clothes - I don't want you to see
certain things. That has been my right since these nations (both Canada and
the US) were founded.

You'd probably find, if you removed my clothes, nothing remarkable really.
That doesn't mean that because of that, I should walk around in the buff.

------
rapind
Not too mention loads of arcane laws that haven't been cleared (probably
because of the cost).

I.e. "In Toronto, it is illegal to drag a dead horse down Yonge Street on a
Sunday."

more: <http://www.mundayweb.com/weirdlaws.php>

------
hhjj
We need privacy because we may have to break the law...

------
heyitsnick
Just want to add what a fantastic thread of comments there is on this page.
Thanks for such well thought-out debate and discussion guys.

------
btilly
Either this is a work of fiction or else the author doesn't actually want his
privacy very much.

~~~
philk
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the stories are real or
not. They're just there to illustrate his point that all of us commit minor
infractions of the law from time to time and avoid the repercussions thanks to
the level of privacy we're afforded by society. If our privacy is stripped
away we get in a situation where we could be prosecuted for giving our mothers
a couple of pain killers after her back surgery.

Also, he's disclaimed up the top that

 _To the police and future employers:

    
    
       1. I don’t really do illegal things. I’m actually a pretty top notch guy.
    
       2. Some of the stories in the article may be embellished/fabricated. I do have to say that, right?*

~~~
nostrademons
Is it really because of privacy though, or is it because of reciprocity? Do
people not get prosecuted for trivial law-breaking because the relevant
authorities don't know about it, or is it because they're afraid that if they
set the precedent that these laws will be enforced, they wouldn't want to live
in the world that results?

It's always been fairly easy to dig up dirt - even felonies - in peoples'
pasts. All you need to do is find one of their childhood friends, act all
buddy-buddy, and buy him a few beers. Then as in now, these usually only get
prosecuted if somebody has a vendetta against you.

Think of the times that people commit crimes right in front of a police
officer and walk away. Haven't you ever driven a few mph over the speed limit
when a cop pulls up behind you, think "Oh shit, there goes my insurance
premium" as you pull over - and then watch him speed past you, because he's
got something more important to do than write you a ticket? When I was in
college, the campus police would regularly turn a blind eye to underage
drinking right in front of them, as long as no property was being destroyed
and nobody had alcohol poisoning. When teachers show a movie to their class,
does anybody actually believe that they've acquired public-performance rights
to the movie?

In polygraph tests, questions on these sorts of crimes are asked as a control,
on the assumption that _everybody_ lies about them. The theory is that a
normal person will be more nervous about the little crimes that they're sure
they must've committed at some point in the past (even if they can't remember
exactly when), but will _know_ they didn't commit the particular crime they're
being accused of. A real criminal will be more nervous about the big crime
they just committed, and all the petty misdemeanors pale in comparison to
that. Makes me wonder if polygraphs give false results for those saints who
don't actually do anything wrong.

It's not lack of information that stops most people from being prosecuted for
giving our mothers a couple of pain killers, it's that most of the people
doing the prosecution figure that they would do the same thing.

~~~
philk
The problem is that with the internet evidence of your minor crimes is
available to a far wider audience than usual.

To expand on your underage drinking analogy, it's the difference between being
seen by a member of campus police and being seen by all members of campus
police, including the really uptight one and a range of other people
(potential employers, etc.), continuing for years after the actual night of
drinking.

~~~
nostrademons
Possibly. One would hope though that there're checks on that one really
uptight cop so that he can't single-handedly ruin your life. After all, the
situation beforehand was arguably _worse_ , where it was just random chance
whether or not it was the asshole cop who happened to see you when you were
drinking.

The employer issue is already like that, at least for software engineers. I
don't care if a potential employer wants to turn me down for something they
saw in a FaceBook photo, because there're plenty of other employers who don't
give a damn.

