Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- From: aracari <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:00:55 +0100
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:10:05 -0700 (PDT) 'Mel Rowing'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:
On Jun 18, 9:35 pm, aracari <spamt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But those with nothing to hide would not be happy to post naked
photographs of themselves to this newsgroup. I hope.
True.
The simple argument I have used against the 'nothing to hide'
crowd is to ask for copies of all their bank account statements.
Both arguments are fallacious.
With regard to the second, though I would be adverse to my bank
statements being posted on the Parish Board, there is no doubt that
others then me do see my bank statements and necessarily so. The
reason why this does not embarrass me is that those with such access
are prevented from use, or rather abuse, of the information. A bank
employee would suffer instant dismissal and possibly worse should they
be found to have divulged details of my bank account to any
unauthorised party.
Laws often change who/what is authorised *after* you have provided
the information. You have no control over this.
In short safeguards protect me within this context and there is no
reason to suppose that similar safeguards would not protect me in the
wider context. One thing is for sure however, you cannot place an
absolute burden of confidentiality upon the banking system without at
the same time creating a secure repository for ill gotten gains and
ill gotten gains do exist. They are not hypothetical.
Similarly create a totally secure telephonic system and its just as
secure for the wrongdoer as the innocent user.
Exactly the same considerations apply to all other aspects of privacy
and confidentiality. One man's bastion becomes another's refuge. It's
all a matter of balance between the understandable desire of the
individual to maintain his privacy against his own embarrassment and
those who might seek to abuse it and the equally understandable desire
of law enforcement agencies not to provide safe and secure facilities
to further wrongdoing.
The notion that somehow some future authoritarian probably
undemocratic government might misuse intelligence facilities in order
to supress dissent is simply a nonsense in itself. Any such
government, in my view, is unlikely to pay heed to any safeguards put
ino place no matter how rigid. If they want to know about you, they
will simply look and it will be a brave man who stands in their way.
That is of course on the assumption that they would be that
interested. Given the absence of law and judicial systems themselves
there to protect our liberties then intelligence of the kind we are
discussing here becomes less necessary. If you stand up to be counted
you will be very rapidly discounted. Justice becomes a matter of
expediency and evidence correspondingly relative just as is the case
if an organised criminal sees you as a threat.
to his liberty.
The issue here for me Mel is that *I* wish to be in control of a)
what personal data/information I hand out and b) who *I* give it
to and c) for what purpose it will be used. After all, the data
*belongs to me*, not the State (that is, in a properly regulated
democracy).
It's about a fundamental right to personal privacy.
In these situations I will sometimes release information providing
I receive an assurance about the purposes for which it will be
used. eg: I rarely give my home telnum out to people for fear it
will end up on some telemarketeer db or whatever.
In the case of such data being given to the State, nobody knows
how it will be used and assurances of confidentiality and security
are darn worthless. If they don't lose it or leave it on a train,
they sell it!
An innocent(?) example is the DVLC website now available for
renewing RFL. It goes off and checks that your car is insured
before processing the transaction.
That may seem sensible and innocent, but it also means the
insurance companies and DVLC are exchanging data with each other
and are shuffling *my* private data about without my permission.
Previously, the only requirement was to prove you had insurance
before a RFL disc was issued, but no record was kept about who
the insurance was with.
--
socialism is like chronic heart disease ...
you may not know you suffer from it, but it'll kill you in the end.
"David Davis For Freedom":
http://www.daviddavisforfreedom.com/
....the battle against totalitarian 'database Britain'
under Gordon Brown's NooLab socialist government.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- From: Dr Quite Evil
- Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- From: aracari
- Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- From: Mel Rowing
- Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- Prev by Date: Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- Next by Date: Re: britain now has an over-mighty and dishonest usurper who has deluded himself into believing he is king......
- Previous by thread: Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- Next by thread: Re: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
