6 ms·
Schneier: The Value of Privacy
- Dmunro 17y agoThough the article is from 2006, it's timely
- lpolovets 17y agoSadly, articles like this are always timely.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- JohnFritzen 17y agoI think it was posted in response to this... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717
- trebor 17y ago> Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. [...] Personally, I phrase the debate as Security and Privacy versus the Government.
- theBobMcCormick 17y agoJust the government? So you have no problems with Google, Microsoft, etc. violating your privacy? It's only a problem if the government does?
- txxxxd 17y agoA corporation will use your information to make money, and they only have access to data that you freely provide them or their partners. The government can gather your information covertly, can obtain data from multiple companies using legal means unavailable to corporations, and typically do so with the goal of charging one with a crime.
- karzeem 17y agoThe key phrase here is "using legal means unavailable to corporations". Governments retain a monopoly over things like use of force, forcible investigation into your affairs, etc. And when they abuse those powers, you legally have significantly less recourse than you would if a private company did the same thing to you.
- diego 17y agoA corporation is composed of people, who are corruptible. There must be many people at Google (just to name one high-profile company) who have access to the email archive and search history of pretty much everyone they know. It seems inevitable that someone will misuse that information if it hasn't happened yet.
- derefr 17y agoIn a world where everyone has an equal lack of privacy (e.g. everything everyone does is filmed and can be watched by everyone else), don't you think social mores regarding what is "embarrassing" or "shameful" would change?
- wmf 17y agoYes, but it would take a generation and there would be a lot of damage along the way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society http://books.google.com/books?id=hsyA7hmDEqYC http://books.google.com/books?id=hsyA7hmDEqYC http://www.davidbrin.com/transparent.htm http://www.davidbrin.com/transparent.htm
- ErrantX 17y agoAs already pointed out this has pretty much already happened for homosexuality. Is it a totally bad thing? (or rather is the "sacrifice" of a generation worth considering?)
- adamc 17y agoOnly if _they_ choose to do it. Individuals who sacrifice their own privacy in the cause of social justice may be heroic. Giving the government (or, indeed, any other party) that option is abusive.
- roundsquare 17y agoBut these changes should happen when the time is right. People need to be open enough to an idea and then change can occur. If everything comes out in the open at once, people may learn about things society isn't ready for yet. The example that comes to mind is one my high school history teacher taught us. He said Martin Luther (from the 15th century) made an impact by being the kind of guy to question things but also by being alive at the right time for these questions to make an impact. Not to mention that there are probably a lot of things that go on that most people (including all of us here) don't know about. Having all that come out at once might be a strain on society.
- RevRal 17y agoAh, the tumultuous calm before the storm.