Being private isn't the same as being anonymous according to the Bush administration. So what does privacy mean, according to Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence?
Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.[snip]
"Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."(AP, Guardian Online)
On the other hand, anonymity remains the privilege of phone companies who don't want to be held accountable for the fact that they broke the law from 2001 to 2006 by wiretapping us. Thanks to our Congressthings they can now do it legally. Prospective authorization isn't enough for them, however. The phone companies want immunity for lawbreaking that took place before the law was changed by act of Congressional cowardice. The White House is backing up their claim of anonymity by threatening to veto any bill that doesn't include immunity for phone companies. Why should we care?
"The government has tremendous power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it together [said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation]."
According to the government, though, this is a dead issue. The younger generation has already voluntarily surrendered all of our anonymity by virtue of voluntarily giving their names on some website:
Millions of people in this country - particularly young people - already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers [Kerr said].
"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
The government's message: protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Translation: Resistance is Futile.
- Log in to post comments
Wait... so because I have a myspace page I am implicitly giving the government the right to use wiretaps on my home? Did I miss something or just trip and fall into the looking glass?
When I shop in a brick and mortar store, I'm not agreeing to let the government use my credit card information. How is shopping online different?
Benito Mussolini, in his book, Fascism:Doctrine and Institutions, 1935, stated:
"Primarily, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the
future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of pacifismborn of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to the highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. "
And then he declared:
"Fascism repudiates any universal embrace, and in order to live worthily in the community of civilized peoples watches its contemporaries with vigilant eyes, takes good note of their state of mind and, in the changing trend of their interests, does not allow itself to be deceived by temporary and fallacious appearances."
So Mussolini glorified war, like our beloved Neocons, and stated the citizens have to be watched with vigilant eyes.
Mussolini's followers were also good at torture. They would force their victims to swollow caster oil, and other nice treats.
Does any of this sound familiar?
I've posted the following yesterday at some other blogs. This seems a likely place for another response to Kerr.
ahem:
Now, Mr. Kerr, lemme see if I have this right. I have a right to privacy. Up till now, I've been seeing to its integrity with no problem. But now, because bellicose bedouins followed through on threats that are decades old, I can no longer do so. Given that the all seeing eye of the gummint clearly understood and reacted to these threats when the were first made, I can only ask, "Why do you ask this sacrifice or me? Surely my yielding will not hold the bombers from the crowds. Why, then?"
Is it because when I care for the details of protecting my own privacy, you find yourself without a way to twist my arm and can't make me dance a jig when you snatch the strings? Or is it the deep malaise that your feel when I'm not gasping and freaking over a threat that has clearly existed for over a quarter century, thus casting your alarm in a dimming light? Either way you've missed the boat.
In the first case, one basis of this nation is the peoples' surfeit of interference "from above". In the second, your fear mongering is not only late, it is also shrill, affected and profitless. How can you protect my anonymity better than I? Indeed, if I left it up to you, my identity et cetera would be at your fingertips as well as mine (not to mention any gummint functionary who managed to get clearance to access my data. No telling how hard that would be, eh?). Tell, me again, how does this ensure my anonymity? How does it make me, and America, all comfy?
This nation is not made up of just voters and friendly districts. This nation is also contains a significant measure of people who take their constitutional rights seriously because they have taken the time to find out just what those rights are. Chief among these rights is security; in person, papers, property, coming and going and association, in personal conviction and expression both private and in public. In fact, the fundamental assumption of these freedoms is precisely what America is all about. How to answer the suggestions of one such as you has been dealt with by those more able than I. But, to summarize their sentiment, "Nuts to you".
thank you
I have a very simple outlook on privacy and anonymity. I trust very few. It is just easier to keep no secrets than it is to cover up lies. I am always who and what I say I am.
I want people to know who I am and how to contact me. That is a sure way to build trust from your friends and customers. However the government really shouldn't be poking it's nose around unless it's got good cause... granted, with recent legislation they could always suspect that you're a terrorist which gives them the right to break into your home, take all your stuff, and investigate it until they find what they're looking for. They can also detain you for an indefinite period of time with no rights at all. Funny how things work like that.
The government has quite a bit of power. I would certainly suggest that no one try to irk them.
The FBI, in an investigation of the shooting of civilians by Blackwater employees, has found that of the 17 shot, all but 3 were unjustified.
So now US government employees murder for fun, with total impunity; while simultaneously, through the Rendition Program of the FBI and CIA, citizens and non-citizens are taken to secret prisons in foreign countries to be tortured and killed.
And our new attorney general says he does not know if waterboarding is or is not torture.
The United States has entered into a new fascist dark age, and there is no turning back. Those Iraqi civilians were innocent, and were killed unjustly. All US citizens that allow this to happen to their country have blood on their hands. If you have the money, get out of the country now, before it is too late.
There was a movie about the phone company spying on us. The following is extracted from a wikipedia article, where you can read the whole plot.
This issue is not being framed correctly. The general citizenry doesn't fear intrusion based on activism or oppostion to the war, or being targetted for an active campaign by the police to discredit. But what if every complaint against a government action - towing your car improperly - could be retaliated against by a leak of every web site you visited, book you downloaded, bill you didn't pay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"The President's Analyst" is a 1967 comedy film written and directed by Theodore J. Flicker, starring James Coburn. [edit] Plot
Dr. Sidney Schaefer (James Coburn), a psychiatrist, is chosen by the U.S. Government to act as the Presidents top-secret personal psychoanalyst, against the advice of Henry Lux, the director of the all-male-under-5'6" Federal Bureau of Regulation (FBR). ... Kropotkin arranges a pickup with his trusted CEA opposite number Don Masters (Godfrey Cambridge), the CEA assassin who vetted Dr. Schaefer while undergoing psychoanalysis, but Schaeffer is kidnapped again this time by TPC, otherwise known as The Phone Company. Masters and Kropotkin use their superspy abilities to come to Schaefer's rescue, and help him to foil a TPC plan to enslave the human race. They emerge victorious from the ensuing bloodbath, but months later, as Dr. Schaefer and his spy friends are enjoying a Christmas reunion, robot executives from TPC look on approvingly.
And another movie called Enenmy of the State with Gene Hackman and Will Smith.
A short comment here on this one. Its not a fascist state because both governments determined that they were illegal killings. Therefore there will be a trial or some sort of arrangement agreed to. The FBI doesnt have jurisidiction, the Iraqi's do however and they could issue warrants for the shooters. The laws are different there but they along with the US could be held accountable financially. But to cover the tone above this isnt a fascist state (US) because if it was you wouldnt be commenting here, nor would your voice ever be heard because by now you would be in the gulag, tortured, or dead. Its as simple as that.
A conclusion that the shootings were illegal is not an indictment or a trial. The extension in the last two weeks of US law to cover Blackwater will not hold. It hasnt in the past and its just a bunch of fluff generated to make it appear they are doing something about it. In all likelyhood some key individuals son stepped up with an AK to a window and started to fire. If you saw that video they were being fired upon.... How does one come to square "illegal" while there are bullets slamming into your vehicle? Thats the reason there are courts. We will have to wait and see what really happened.
Anyway, its not the kids who gave it up Revere. It was our parents. The surveillance of US citizens has been going on for over 40 years. Its just moved into the high tech arena.
According to Greek mythology, when Prometheus brought fire to mankind, Zeus balanced that act by giving mankind woman and her name was Pandora. Pandora opened a box entrusted to her, and let forth the world's evils.
The Chinese sage Lao Tzu warned in Pien 80 against technology: "Though there are highly efficient mechanical contrivances, the people (should) have no use for them."
Given fire (which I see as a metaphor for technology), all the rest follows. It is as inevitable as the flow of history that surveillance technology and information organization will improve. It is also inevitable that unscrupulous people will seek to use surveillance technology for advantage.
Our only choice is to lay groundrules. Nobody ever stopped a war by banning weapons. OTOH the USA and the Swiss have developed the most remarkably stable liberal civilizations on the planet despite guaranteeing unrestricted access to weapons.
The people who have most to fear from surveillance are the people who have dishonestly acquired wealth and power. I have a personal preference for privacy, but accept that there is no way any legislation could 100% enforce it.
Perhaps the solution is a free online search engine (like Google) with identification software (sourced from all publicly owned CCTV etc.) on everyone.