
With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/18/with-snowden-in-the-background-privacy-takes-a-back-seat-to-security/
======
Htsthbjig
It is a false dilemma.

By losing your privacy you don't get more security. This is the frame the
Government(Washington), and the media that depends on Government(like the WP)
use so they can benefit from terrorism.

In fact , when you lose your privacy , you lose your security. What happens
when the people in power have all the power and no oversight?

Look at Alberto Nisman in Argentina. Look at the Soviet Union for rapist and
murderers controlling the police. Nazism in Germany or even the killing of
JFK.

Are you safer when you are transparent to them but they are opaque to you?

How a democracy could work where Government operates in absolute secrecy for
the people, but people could not hold secrets against the Government?.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
> How a democracy could work where Government operates in absolute secrecy for
> the people

Democracy depends on informed consent of the governed.

> What happens when the people in power have all the power and no oversight?

The phrase "power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely" was inspired
by human history.

> By losing your privacy you don't get more security.

> Are you safer when you are transparent to them but they are opaque to you?

Eroding privacy protections aren't necessary. Many recent terrorism attacks
could have been nipped in the bud, if more help was accepted from the public.
For instance, the underwear bomber's parent warned the CIA [1] of his child.
Russian intelligence warned us of the Tsarnaev's [2]. A flight school
instructor warned the FBI of suspicious students who didn't seem interested in
landing [3].

[1] [https://hbr.org/2010/01/why-they-didnt-connect-the-
dot](https://hbr.org/2010/01/why-they-didnt-connect-the-dot)

[2] [http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/04/11/fbi-
admit...](http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/04/11/fbi-admits-
missed-opportunities-stop-tamerlan-tsarnaev/)

[3] [http://www.newsweek.com/terrible-missed-
chance-67401](http://www.newsweek.com/terrible-missed-chance-67401)

\- - -

Keeping citizens informed & in the loop would help national security more than
anything.

------
cryptoz
I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have
nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so _convenient_
, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting.

There continues to be very little discussion about the large-scale, societal
effects from a total surveillance society: Writers and artists self-censoring
themselves; power structures able to spy on, and control, entire populations;
etc. The discussion should really be framed on the tragedy of the commons
perspective: even if you _don 't care_, that decision affects everyone. You
should care, if not for your own privacy's sake, for our society's protection
for its own decision-making ability.

Edit: From the article, discussing post-Snowden public opinion, showing that
even when we care the most, a minority of people care about this:

> In that poll, a record-high 39 percent said government should not intrude on
> privacy, even if it limits the ability to investigate possible threats."

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I
have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so
convenient, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting."

I've been pretty angry about the revelations over the last year. I'm a private
person and don't want the government violating that. However - even though I
don't say the things your friends are saying I still use Dropbox because
getting my clients to switch would be a pain. I still use Google because
DuckDuckGo just isn't good enough for me. I don't want to give up my privacy
to anyone but it's just so easy to do without thinking the consequences
through.

~~~
cryptoz
Right - that's fair, in my opinion. For work, I use closed-source software
including Dropbox too. I should specify that I agree this is difficult or
impossible to avoid, and that using these tools enables us to build things
faster, which potentially is worth using them. I do it, too.

But I do want everyone to _care_. If you're using the tool because it's
convenient, and you know that it could be spying on you, you should care about
that. Apathy is what I'm fighting here, not Dropbox exactly.

I would love to move my work away from Gmail, Dropbox, etc, someday, but today
isn't that day. (Uh-oh, am I like the rest of them?)

~~~
dasil003
I would go even further that moving away from cloud services is nothing more
than an individual mitigation that comes at a huge inconvenience and will have
no meaningful effect on the real problem.

The fact that strong crypto is _possible_ becomes this red herring that
computer geeks think can save us from abusive government. But this ignores the
fact that true security from government actors like the NSA is impossible
without a level of inconvenience that no one will be willing to go through.
Cloud services are just too convenient, and there is no way to establish
meaningful assurances of privacy with any cloud provider in the current legal
climate. We have to fight the ugly political fight to wrestle the power back
and put the government in its place. This is unappealing to technologists
because it is orders of magnitude harder to accomplish than implementing
strong crypto _for someone who knows what they 're doing_, but in turn it is
orders of magnitude easier than training up the mass populace on those
techniques.

~~~
nitrogen
I bet we could design an adequately consumer-friendly self-hosted cloud-like
system, if the existing attempts are inadequate (PogpPlug, AeroFS, Tarsnap,
etc.)

------
quanticle
The Washington Post is drawing a false dichotomy between privacy and security.
In reality, the NSA is neither improving privacy nor security. They're
hoarding zero-days (which makes us less secure than responsible disclosure)
and they're using those zero-days to hack us (reducing our privacy).

The headline should be re-written: "With Snowden in the background, privacy
and security take a back seat to _power_ ". That's what it's really about.

------
shawabawa3
> The Post-ABC poll was conducted Jan. 12-15 among a random national sample of
> 1,003 adults reached on both conventional and cellular phones.

It seems to me people who are able to be cold called (haven't opted out/been
careful with their phone number/screen their calls) will be much less privacy
conscious than a true random sample

~~~
john_b
I was about to post the same thing. The research methodology is very careless
here. It reminds me of how so much psychological research has been reexamined
after psychologists stopped using college students as their exclusive sample
group.

The Onion should really do a parody of studies like this. "100% of Americans
Answer the Phone When Strangers Call" or something like that. As it is,
dubious research like this just generates misleading headlines that then
misinforms public debate about important issues.

Having said that, based on personal experience I don't doubt the basic results
in terms of being for/against privacy, but the numbers and methodology are
probably garbage.

I'd be very interested in any study that used different communication mediums
to ask equal numbers of randomly chosen people the same questions. Phone,
email, Facebook, etc. I think it would raise a lot more questions than
answers.

------
tptacek
Privacy has always taken a back seat to security, going all the way back to
the dawn of the republic. It strikes me that people who are militant about
privacy are doing their cause a disservice by allowing the issue to be framed
like this: a preference for "security" over "privacy".

The issue is and always has been where the line is drawn.

Instead of quoting Ben Franklin and talking about how dumb the American people
are --- and the UK people and the French people and the Spanish people, who
have comparable or worse tradeoffs in their laws --- maybe specific policy
prescriptions would be a more productive thing to discuss.

~~~
unethical_ban
I do a bit of both. I make the quotes, I make the comparisons and analogies
that everyone else of my opinion does. I also talk about specific policy
issues - reform/removal of the well-abused PATRIOT Act; civil asset
forfeiture; independent investigations for police violence, and so on.

I bring up issues of privacy on topics many think I would unabashedly support,
such as police cameras. Who gets to see that footage, under what
circumstances? How long should tapes be retained, if they aren't needed for an
investigation?

I suppose I agree with your point, and decided to respond with how I take that
approach.

------
cryoshon
It's the old folks who don't get their information from the internet who are
okay with giving up their privacy for security. IMHO they're a lost cause
because the mainstream media's stranglehold on them is far too strong to ever
break.

Look at the 18-29 demographic in the poll-- neck and neck, and likely to be
heavily swayed toward sacrificing privacy by the most recent terrorist attacks
in Paris. There can be a real debate with these people, informed by what
Snowden brought out.

These are the people who grew up with the internet. They're probably the most
likely to have heard of evil government dissent-squashing programs like
COINTELPRO and its modern successor, JTRIG. I am always beating this drum to
anyone who will listen (and unfortunately I am probably preaching to the choir
here), but here's a few thoughts on why trading privacy for security is a
terrible decision:

1\. Privacy "traded" for security is usually just taken by the government
using a flimsy excuse without any input from the public.

2\. This stolen privacy is never given back, even when the alleged threat
passes.

3\. The information gained from stolen privacy will be used for things other
than the alleged purpose-- the timely example here is the NSA's parallel
construction (legal system circumvention) used to make drug arrests.

4\. The information gained from stolen privacy will be used to crush
nonviolent dissenters (JTRIG, COINTELPRO, many other programs).

5\. The information gained from stolen privacy will be handed off to third
parties for gain(corporations, friendly governments)-- Palantir, Google,
military contractors, whatever else.

6\. The information gained from stolen privacy won't be able to stop whatever
it claims it will help in stopping--the perfect example here is the Boston
bombing, in which surveillance of the two perpetrators didn't prevent the
attack.

7\. The information gained from stolen privacy will certainly create a
chilling effect which will prevent people from speaking about and eventually
thinking about topics they think will get them into trouble-- you see this all
the time already with people grumbling about how they are probably "on the
list".

I am going to be bold and say that people who support trading privacy for
security don't understand the issue, have been systematically misled, desire
totalitarianism, or have a monetary incentive.

------
qeorge
Another way to read this is that every generation gets braver, and more
willing to stand up for their privacy. (The proportion of people in the
'protection over privacy' camp consistently goes down with age).

I hope its a generational thing, and that these young folks won't change over
to the "protection over privacy" camp as they age.

~~~
AdamFernandez
I don't think they will change. These events will have an impact the way they
see the world in the future.

------
zachlatta
I'm frightened that 63% of citizens in their sample value "protection" over
privacy. When I've tried to explain the need for privacy to those outside of
my circle, I always find my explanation lacking due to my inability to
articulate why exactly privacy is important to me.

How have others been explaining why privacy is important?

~~~
usefulcat
Privacy is like freedom. If you don't value it for its own sake, you're
unlikely to see any reason not to sacrifice it for the sake of security
(perceived or otherwise).

~~~
Create
Privacy _is freedom_ of thought.

[http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/berlin-
keynote....](http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/berlin-keynote.html)
[https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-
of-...](https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-thought-
requires-free-media)

~~~
spaceshipdev
It's a right too.

------
mike_hearn
These polls have to be read very carefully. People's responses can vary a lot
according to the wording.

In this case the question seems to have been about "investigation" vs
"privacy". Investigations don't sound very scary. They sound targeted and high
effort. If the question was more like,

"Do you agree that the government should have a camera in every living room
and a microphone in everyone's pockets in order to reduce the risk of
terrorist attack"

... I suspect the answers would change dramatically, though still show the
same age biases (older people who lived through the cold war tend to be more
authoritarian).

------
higherpurpose
It seems when most Americans are afraid, they automatically believe what the
government tells them and that it solution will work to "save" them or protect
them.

It seems to be exactly the same case with torture as well. Most seem to
believe the US gov _should_ use torture and that "it works". Facts be damned.

Mass surveillance doesn't work [1] either to stop terrorists, but facts (such
as the panel reviews saying so), or logic be damned. If the government _says_
it works, then it must be true, and must be what's needed - whatever the civil
liberties cost.

[1] -
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_f...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_for.html)

~~~
ynniv
They don't just accept what the government says, they also demand that the
government do something, liberties be damned. I think this is the same reason
the Republican party is so popular: people are voting for their own prosperity
above all else. (That the the Republican party doesn't actually provide this
is immaterial.)

------
spaceshipdev
"Whatever it is, you don't want your private electronic mail or confidential
documents read by anyone else. There's nothing wrong with asserting your
privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution" \- Philip R. Zimmermann

------
j_baker
To be fair, here's a choice Snowden quote:

""" I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just
another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening
and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide, the public needs
to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.' And I'm
willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, 'I
didn't change these, I didn't modify the story. This is the truth; this is
what's happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.' """

------
kefs
reddit user /u/161719 explains the harmful effects of government surveillance
and dispels the "i have nothing to hide" argument.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/cd89cqr)

bestof:
[https://np.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2aoig4/u161719_expla...](https://np.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2aoig4/u161719_explains_the_harmful_effects_of/?sort=top)

------
sjreese
I don't see myself as a hero because what I'm doing is self-interested: I
don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room
for intellectual exploration and creativity.

Edward Snowden

Read more at
[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edward_snowden.h...](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edward_snowden.html#otyO13Tkqv3lrUhm.99)

------
leshow
The trade-off proposed by the survey isn't even true.

People aren't trading their privacy for increased security because mass
surveillance isn't effective, they're trading their right to privacy for peace
of mind with no actual gain in security.

------
guard-of-terra
The terrorists were professional (Syria-seasoned?) islamists guided at some
points of their life by special ops.

How can ruining your middle-class privacy help prevent those?

How can people be so blind?

