Post by ordoabchao on Nov 13, 2007 23:55:34 GMT -5
No more do you have to worry about your Privacy being violated or abused by big brother. Due to the supreme intelligence of your unelected beaurocrats, a flaw in the defenition of privacy has been found, thrown into the memory hole and replaced with a proper and contemporary defention.
The new meaning of the word "privacy" will now be "the secure feeling citizens get by knowing that their government is collecting and protecting their personal data."
Both the AP and the New York Times have stories about principal deputy director of national intelligence Donald Kerr's recent speech [ tinyurl.com/23dycq ] to the Geospatial Intelligence Foundation. Here are some of the quotes from Kerr:
"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."
. . .
"Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity, but in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity or the appearance of anonymity is quickly becoming a thing of the past."
When asked to elaborate on the "privacy does not equal anonymity" implications, Kerr responded:
"It's a really good question because, in fact, it's a personal question that everyone, in a way, has to answer for themselves. But I think today, you know, I'm willing to call up, pick the vendor of your choice. I'm willing to share my credit card number and expiration date with a person I have never seen, have no idea whether they've been vetted or not. I've certainly been able to get past being anonymous in that transaction. And of course, you multiply that by all of the transaction [sic] that you're involved in every day.
Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it's an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Long Ranger [sic � I'm sure he meant to say "Lone Ranger"] wore a mask but Tonto didn't seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You'd think he would probably need one even more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity � or the appearance of anonymity � is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Anonymity results from a lack of identifying features. Nowadays, when so much correlated data is collected and available � and I'm just talking about profiles on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube here � the set of identifiable features has grown beyond where most of us can comprehend. We need to move beyond the construct that equates anonymity with privacy and focus more on how we can protect essential privacy in this interconnected environment.
Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change. "
So because I've used Google once in my life, I have agreed to have the United States government tap my email and phone??
Towards the end of the AP article, the Electronic Freedom Foundation gives their response, which I couldn't agree with more:
"Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "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."
"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy."
Trust Big Brother. Big Brother loves you!
www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Terrorist-Surveillance.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The new meaning of the word "privacy" will now be "the secure feeling citizens get by knowing that their government is collecting and protecting their personal data."
Both the AP and the New York Times have stories about principal deputy director of national intelligence Donald Kerr's recent speech [ tinyurl.com/23dycq ] to the Geospatial Intelligence Foundation. Here are some of the quotes from Kerr:
"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."
. . .
"Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity, but in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity or the appearance of anonymity is quickly becoming a thing of the past."
When asked to elaborate on the "privacy does not equal anonymity" implications, Kerr responded:
"It's a really good question because, in fact, it's a personal question that everyone, in a way, has to answer for themselves. But I think today, you know, I'm willing to call up, pick the vendor of your choice. I'm willing to share my credit card number and expiration date with a person I have never seen, have no idea whether they've been vetted or not. I've certainly been able to get past being anonymous in that transaction. And of course, you multiply that by all of the transaction [sic] that you're involved in every day.
Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it's an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Long Ranger [sic � I'm sure he meant to say "Lone Ranger"] wore a mask but Tonto didn't seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You'd think he would probably need one even more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity � or the appearance of anonymity � is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Anonymity results from a lack of identifying features. Nowadays, when so much correlated data is collected and available � and I'm just talking about profiles on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube here � the set of identifiable features has grown beyond where most of us can comprehend. We need to move beyond the construct that equates anonymity with privacy and focus more on how we can protect essential privacy in this interconnected environment.
Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change. "
So because I've used Google once in my life, I have agreed to have the United States government tap my email and phone??
Towards the end of the AP article, the Electronic Freedom Foundation gives their response, which I couldn't agree with more:
"Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "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."
"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy."
Trust Big Brother. Big Brother loves you!
www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Terrorist-Surveillance.html?_r=1&oref=slogin