The desire for privacy reflects an internal feeling of shame for one’s actions. Be honest, this is where the desire for privacy comes from. Shame and fear. That is something I think we need to address.

College student “weekend partier” may not care about the fact that he barfed on his shoes at a party(aside from the bother of scrubbing the barf off of the shoes).

However human resource manager B doing a web or image search for information on prospective hire college student “weekend partier” may be concerned enough to not offer him the job.

Not being ashamed of something, not even being aware of it, or caring about it for that matter does not mean it might not have an impact.

That is a privacy benefit you and others who scoff at privacy appear to be completely oblivious to.

It seems to me that we need a law prohibiting the unauthorized inclusion of persons in face recognition databases, at least publicly accessible databases.

A unit on a squad car constantly monitors licence plates encountered in traffic and compares them to stolen car and outstanding warrant lists.

While writing down licence plates and comparing them to lists are both things ordinary people could do, taking down every license plate would take another officer in every car and comparing them in real time is something only a computer could do.

Effectively, every person encountered undergoes a warrant check every time that person drives near a police car.

David Schwartz: Think how hard government abuses will be to conceal in a “private surveillance state” where the government doesn’t have the power to limit the private use and exchange of information.

I’m all for limiting government power, but trying to limit private power on the theory that individuals can assist the government is a suicidal recipe. It’s absurd on its face.

I could live with an extension of the 4th Amendment to cover data mining and dragnet public surveillance of otherwise public facts.

And abuses against unpopular groups don’t even need to be entirely hidden as long as a law has in fact been violated, selective enforcement might be welcomed.

Chris Travers: I’m still concerned about an ability for “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” to develop here. Once privacy is a thing of the past, doesn’t it become possible for arbitrary mob rule through the organs of democracy? Like it or not the 300 million little brothers are a part of that mob.

Think how hard government abuses will be to conceal in a “private surveillance state” where the government doesn’t have the power to limit the private use and exchange of information.

I’m all for limiting government power, but trying to limit private power on the theory that individuals can assist the government is a suicidal recipe. It’s absurd on its face.

Chris travers said: I a not entirely sure I agree with this. Obama, for example, admitted to using not just marijuana but also cocaine. However, because he disclosed this publicly in his books, it just wasn’t possible to attack him for it. Compare to the response to “I didn’t inhale.”

Everyone knows Ms. California had sex with her boyfriend: no scandal, but a video pops up and Big Effing Deal. Paris Hilton, Tommy lee/Pamela Anderson, and numerous others will tell you that there is a big difference between what everybody “knows” and what everybody has seen. Obama would have been unelectable if there were a photo of him lip-locked with a 3 foot bong floating around.

What is real and what is “real” are two very different things. Everybody knows he smokes cigarettes, a legal substance, but the only photos you’ll find of it are (poorly)doctored photos on conservative websites. His people know an image is infinitely worse than the ephemeral knowledge of his nicotine habit. So do conservatives.

Tobacco companies know that a photo of a diseased lung on a cigarette pack will hurt business far more significantly than block text. I think this is true across the board. We are extremely visual, and absent photo evidence, True things are less true.

Kamal:
.The desire for privacy reflects an internal feeling of shame for one’s actions.Be honest, this is where the desire for privacy comes from. Shame and fear.

It sounds like this is something you have to deal with. The desire for privacy comes from a need to balance individuality with sociability.

David Schwartz:
Compared to billions of people who want to exchange information freely, it’s a pretty small price to pay.

I’m still concerned about an ability for “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” to develop here. Once privacy is a thing of the past, doesn’t it become possible for arbitrary mob rule through the organs of democracy? Like it or not the 300 million little brothers are a part of that mob.

We shouldn’t forget the way that the Soviet Union punished dissidents using generally applicable laws. And if you say “end overcriminalization” I’m not sure how you even define that, much less do it.

Hidden in Plain Sight: Ever thought about the thousands upon thousands of people who have been threatened and live in fear of their identity/location being found? How about the 10s of thousands of kids who are need protection from abusive parents and other miscreants.

Compared to billions of people who want to exchange information freely, it’s a pretty small price to pay.

Kamal:
Kamal said: …The desire for privacy reflects an internal feeling of shame for one’s actions. Be honest, this is where the desire for privacy comes from.

Wow. How to respond to such an idiotic statement?

Ever thought about the thousands upon thousands of people who have been threatened and live in fear of their identity/location being found? How about the 10s of thousands of kids who are need protection from abusive parents and other miscreants.

You really think it’s a great idea for anyone and everyone to put pictures online and tag people at will when facial-recognition tools exist that will enable anyone, anywhere to anonymously access data from billions of photos with only a few clicks? Forget about the government (well, not entirely), 300 million little brothers already exist.

Your naivete of the real world is amazing in its depth.

I’d suggest it is a mistake to think we won’t adapt to the new technology. A very simple example is the use of phoney names on sites like this. For all of you who think Elliot is a jerk, ever wonder if we are actually colleagues?

Why would anti-abortion groups not photograph every person who walks into an abortion clinic, use facial recognition to identify them, and use public name-and-address databases (see below) to target mailings (or harassment) to each person’s home? Why would anti-gay advocates not do the same for people who frequent gay bars, or liberals target “Tea Party” activists, or statists target libertarians, etc?

In such situations I’d think publishing the photos and names on a website would be more effective than sending junkmail. However, the targets of these attacks could use the same tactics against their accusers. Spamming, harassment, and outing people aren’t going to be very popular activities in that environment. Flame not, lest ye be flamed.

We’ve needed a Bureau of Sabotage for a long time. It’d be an excellent Experiment :) and might actually be useful, aside from how cheap it would be to implement

Kamal: I think that as we start breaking down barriers between cultures (and the internet is a great tool for this) problems such as ‘determining who to place on no-fly lists’ become more rational and less ‘gut’ based.

The main problem with the no-fly list is bureaucracy–the no-fly list is prone to errors and there is no way to correct them, leaving people permanently screwed. Becoming more tolerant isn’t going to help with this–tolerance is relevant to intentions, not implementation.

Chris Travers: I guess my concern with that viewpoint is that we have the 4th Amendment in part to prevent fishing expeditions for criminal charges against individuals by the government. I.e. one thing it’s supposed to help prevent is a shift to “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

For us to do away with privacy means that we don’t just trust our government for now to be wise and limited but that we’d trust it to be forever wise and limited. I’m not willing to gamble with my grandchildren’s country to that extent.

We needn’t trust it forever. Just as recent changes threaten privacy and require a response, so future changes that threaten freedom will require a response. We just have to keep moving in the right direction, which is maximizing freedom.

In a trade-off between freedom and privacy, we should almost always prefer freedom. It’s simply much more valuable.

Duracomm: The 24 hour surveillance state risks driving the development of a political class filled with sociopaths that decided at a young age obtaining a political position where they can wield power over others is more important than actually having a life.

I a not entirely sure I agree with this. Obama, for example, admitted to using not just marijuana but also cocaine. However, because he disclosed this publicly in his books, it just wasn’t possible to attack him for it. Compare to the response to “I didn’t inhale.”

Duracomm: The small number of politicians with any real world experience will completely disappear.

Unless we simply start voting for people with real world lives and experience. SLS, like Mr. Thompson, makes a facially compelling point that breaks down in application.

Maybe this information has always been “public,” but it was never so readily available.

This seems to be the crux of your position. I’m not sure how/where this fits into the wild west analogy. It doesn’t move me stand-alone, nor does it when applied:

should it be a privacy tort to publicly identify private citizens by name if they are walking into an abortion clinic, a gay bar, a Tea Party rally, a divorce lawyer’s office, a police station (to “snitch”), or a substance abuse treatment facility?

You imply Yes; I still say No. If I see you go into an abortion clinic, I can recognize you or otherwise find out who you are, and tell people about it. No problem. But because that task is made easier by the internet, now you propose that I (or the host of the website that enables this) am to be liable? I see you go into a gay bar in life, I can tell people about it. Maybe they’ll infer you’re gay, maybe not. (I’ve been to gay bars, how many people think I’m gay? Who cares?). You argue: I search the internet to find out you were at a gay bar a month ago, say, and the web host and I should now be liable for invasion of your privacy when I tell people about it? I could go on, but…

It all seems like such an unnecessary over-reaction to a non-problem that will do such tremendous damage to free speech and information.

The 24 hour surveillance state risks driving the development of a political class filled with sociopaths that decided at a young age obtaining a political position where they can wield power over others is more important than actually having a life.

The small number of politicians with any real world experience will completely disappear.

Duracomm: I guess that explains why you don’t have doors on your bathroom.

Your statement is a clever re phrasing of every police state thugs favorite saying “if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be worried about”

And I missed an opportunity to ask him for his credit card number….. ;-)

My hope is that with increased visibility into the imperfection’s in all our lives that people will be become more tolerant of the mistakes and differences of others.

If the naivete in that statement was any denser it would risk creating a black hole.
Those of us in the reality based community realize you can hope in one hand and spit in another and there is no doubt which one will fill up first.

The desire for privacy reflects an internal feeling of shame for one’s actions. Be honest, this is where the desire for privacy comes from. Shame and fear. That is something I think we need to address.

I guess that explains why you don’t have doors on your bathroom.

Your statement is a clever re phrasing of every police state thugs favorite saying “if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be worried about”

David Schwartz: I think his point is more that privacy is over-valued and that we’d do better to work on a world where we don’t need so much privacy rather than a world where we have more privacy. For example, one of the main reasons we need privacy is because of over-criminalization. Better laws would mean less need for privacy. Less need for privacy would mean less reason to sacrifice other values (such as freedom) for privacy.

I guess my concern with that viewpoint is that we have the 4th Amendment in part to prevent fishing expeditions for criminal charges against individuals by the government. I.e. one thing it’s supposed to help prevent is a shift to “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

For us to do away with privacy means that we don’t just trust our government for now to be wise and limited but that we’d trust it to be forever wise and limited. I’m not willing to gamble with my grandchildren’s country to that extent.

Suppose I’m the lawyer for a major political website which generates tens of thousands of user comments daily. When do I have “knowledge of liability-creating content,” (what is knowledge? what is liability-creating?) and what ability do I have to remove the content before liability attaches?

Chris Travers: So, you are against privacy?

I think his point is more that privacy is over-valued and that we’d do better to work on a world where we don’t need so much privacy rather than a world where we have more privacy. For example, one of the main reasons we need privacy is because of over-criminalization. Better laws would mean less need for privacy. Less need for privacy would mean less reason to sacrifice other values (such as freedom) for privacy.

Cheap Wholesale T-shirts

Kamal: The desire for privacy reflects an internal feeling of shame for one’s actions. Be honest, this is where the desire for privacy comes from. Shame and fear. That is something I think we need to address.

So, you are against privacy?

Kamal: Which explains a lot of your comments..

Yes, I learned a lot about the tolerance of The Left there.