Comments on: To be anonymous or not to be, that is the privacy question

Privacy experts debate merits of surveillance society at Stanford legal conference.

[perfectblue97]

It's not the data, it's data mining.

The problem that we have here is not the collection of existence of data, but rather the uses that it is put to.

I have no problem with Amazon tracking my book purchases and then suggesting titles that I might like to buy, however I strongly object to the Feds having this information.

Say I'm writing a book the history of Wikka and Witchcraft in America and I rent out some books by people who claim to practice them. That's perfectly innocent and perfectly legal.

Now suppose that my kid gets hit in the face by a dodgeball an is taken to the school nurse who find that she's got a couple of scrapes from where she fell off her swing-set last month.

It wouldn't take much for the Feds with access to my kids school record and my library record to add the two unrelated events together and to haul me in on claims that I'm using my kids in black rituals.

They'd quickly find that it's a silly notion, but already I would have a note against my name with child services to say that I'd been questioned in regards to child abuse which would be near impossible to get removed even I was proven innocent.

[Leria]

Wicca isn't about black rituals

They wouldn't give it a second look if you were just checking out books on Witchcraft and Wicca in your public library, even with the other things.

Now, if you were checking out books on SATANISM.... then they could look more closely, but again, as you said, it is none of their business in reality.

Most of the privacy infringements in the world today are done on the basis of 'protecting the children!' when the children are quite good at protecting themselves in all reality.

We should be looking at this with a leery eye and a skeptical outlook on the necessity of data mining.

[Hu Kayers]

You will be assimilated

When a leading scientist at one of the major arms dealers for the assault on our personal space says:
"A total surveillance is not only inevitable and irreversible, but also irresistible.", I listen.

It says to me that he believes that not only is total surveillance possible, it is a worthy and achievable goal.

When a legal director supporting some of the arms dealers who might help defend our personal space offers laser pointers and encryption as weapons to defend against this assault, I think he misses the point. Every new assault on our personal space requiring a technological response reduces the number of people willing to devote the time, energy, and or money to remain in the arms race required to defend themselves against such assaults. That in turn makes those defenders remaining stand out more.
I use the term "assault on our personal space" instead of "invasion of privacy" because to call "total surveillance" an "invasion of privacy" severely underestimates its importance and because fear mongers are succeeding in turning "privacy" into a dirty word.

[private-internet]

Anonymity does not equate to Privacy. When you enter a public venue and announce who you are and where you live - that is no privacy violation. When you are in your own home, you do not expect others to violate your personal space - there is an expectation of privacy. On a public Internet forum, you identify your self, you want to share something to the public - there is no expectation of privacy. In your own home network, where you are interacting with your friends THEN there is expectation of privacy.