Privacy

[MoreCoffee]

The USA Department of Justice wants to access Microsoft data about non-USA people held on Microsoft Servers in non-USA territory. What do you think of that?

 

[Albion]

It would be very beneficial in the struggle against terrorism, wouldnt it?

 

[psalms 91]

Slippery slope I say

 

[NewCreation435]

I guess it depends on what type of data they gather

 

[Albion]

If they established only the identities of people seeking to enter the country from abroad, that would be a big gain. I heard something on the news the other day that 90% of the refugees who have entered Denmark recently are actually not from the countries they claimed and not of the age they claimed. That's also true, by the way, of a lot of the so-called Dreamers currently in the news in the USA.

 

[Josiah]

On the one hand, I think that GENERALLY privacy is a good thing, as a matter of principle.

On the other hand, it's a universal reality that it's not absolute, it's not always the case. For decades, law enforcement has been able to search your home, intercept your mail, tap your phone, all legal under certain conditions. Law enforcement can take your home or work computer and find out what you've been up to, all legal under certain conditions. When you are in the military, your mail can be searched and phone call tapped to be sure you are not disclosing secure information. When I'm at work (which I often am when here at CH), the security knows exactly what I'm doing (good reason to not go to THOSE sites, lol) because I can't disclose work information: I'm welcome to send email, post, etc.... just not disclose work information, and all KNOW that we are being watched. An invision of privacy? Sure. But it's legal and permitted and many feel it's both necessary and good. Can a teen boy harass and threaten to kill my daughter via email and he can do so because email is "private?" Hum. So it's not an absolute "yes" or "no" issue, it's more complex than that.


Microsoft is ALREADY gathering the information.... if it's gathering the information that's objectionable, then take that up with Microsoft (I'm sure they have legions of attorneys you can talk to). Whether some should have access to that and for what reasons.... that's complex.

 

[tango]

On the one hand, I think that GENERALLY privacy is a good thing, as a matter of principle.

On the other hand, it's a universal reality that it's not absolute, it's not always the case. For decades, law enforcement has been able to search your home, intercept your mail, tap your phone, all legal under certain conditions. Law enforcement can take your home or work computer and find out what you've been up to, all legal under certain conditions. When you are in the military, your mail can be searched and phone call tapped to be sure you are not disclosing secure information. When I'm at work (which I often am when here at CH), the security knows exactly what I'm doing (good reason to not go to THOSE sites, lol) because I can't disclose work information: I'm welcome to send email, post, etc.... just not disclose work information, and all KNOW that we are being watched. An invision of privacy? Sure. But it's legal and permitted and many feel it's both necessary and good. Can a teen boy harass and threaten to kill my daughter via email and he can do so because email is "private?" Hum. So it's not an absolute "yes" or "no" issue, it's more complex than that.


Microsoft is ALREADY gathering the information.... if it's gathering the information that's objectionable, then take that up with Microsoft (I'm sure they have legions of attorneys you can talk to). Whether some should have access to that and for what reasons.... that's complex.

You raise good points regarding exceptions to privacy and I think the crucial thing in common is a credible threat of a crime being committed.

If someone harasses and threatens your daughter then it is reasonable to suspend their privacy to identify them to make sure they do not carry out their threats. That said there has to be a presumption of innocence and therefore privacy.

Lots of people endlessly bleat the mantra "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" but it didn't work out too well for Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian who was shot dead on the London Underground and proven to be innocent after many layers of police lies were unravelled. Besides, if we are supposed to be a free nation it makes more sense for the government to have to demonstrate why it feels the need to spy on me before it is allowed to access any of my personal information.

I remember reading a saying that the average American commits at least two or three federal crimes per year, in most cases without even realising they are breaking the law. I gather there are moves afoot to tweak the legal code such that criminal intent must be established before convicting someone of a crime. In the meantime a dragnet approach that is unlikely to do much to help the fight against terrorism (when hunting a needle in a haystack the last thing you need is regular truckloads of hay being added) but could potentially incriminate someone who is merely going about their almost entirely lawful business genuinely unaware that some trivial matter of their life breaches the federal legal code.

 

[tango]

Incidentally, there is another discussion lurking among all this which relates to the power of the technology giants. WIth Microsoft, Faceache, Google etc all gathering previously unimaginable amounts of data about us there should be a discussion regarding what is done with the data. The kind of information people freely post on Faceache is a marketer's dream - it's widely reckoned that, for many people, Faceache's computers can figure out what mood they are in at any given moment. I find that truly terrifying, quite aside from the vulnerabilities people expose if they are in a really dark place it provides an obvious "in" for marketers to figure someone is feeling down and take advantage of their weakness to sell them something "to help cheer them up".

 

[MoreCoffee]

The issue is not that Microsoft gathers information, everybody already knows that just like everybody knows that google gathers information, the issue is that the USA government through the Department of Justice wants to apply USA laws to people who are not USA residents by gathering data from overseas Microsoft servers. Microsoft is fighting against the DoJ claim.

 

[Albion]

How does that represent an application of US law to other countries?

 

[MoreCoffee]

How does that represent an application of US law to other countries?

The data is held in other countries and it is about people from other countries so what business is it of the USA DoJ?

 

[tango]

The issue is not that Microsoft gathers information, everybody already knows that just like everybody knows that google gathers information, the issue is that the USA government through the Department of Justice wants to apply USA laws to people who are not USA residents by gathering data from overseas Microsoft servers. Microsoft is fighting against the DoJ claim.

The thing is the issues are related. Microsoft gathers huge amounts of information, and nobody knows (I suspect the vast majority don't even think about it enough to care) what happens to that information. If Microsoft weren't gathering it in the first place the DoJ wouldn't be able to get their hands on it.

As with many issues there are lots of twists and turns. Microsoft is a US-based corporation and it makes little sense to argue that US laws cease to apply to it just because it moved something virtual to another location. Allowing that sort of thing would mean that any company could evade just about any laws by setting up a server in some tinpot republic and then insisting laws didn't apply because the server was in Elbonia or some such. (Much like the way multinationals shuffle profits around, paying tax in the jurisdiction of their choosing).

It's really no surprise that a government wants information. That's what governments do these days, they gather lots of information about us under the guise of keeping us safe. Sadly a lot of people swallow the lie and start bleating the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra.

It is curious to see how many people are quite happy for Microsoft, Google, Faceache etc to have vast amounts of personal information about them but suddenly get agitated when the government wants the same information. In many ways I'm more concerned about the damage technology giants can do with my personal information than what the government might do with it. Just part of the reason I very seldom post anything except recycled memes on Faceache.

 

[Albion]

The data is held in other countries and it is about people from other countries so what business is it of the USA DoJ?

I did not ask about "what business is it of the USA?"

I asked about this statement--

...the issue is that the USA government through the Department of Justice wants to apply USA laws to people who are not USA residents by gathering data from overseas Microsoft servers....

What application of US law to non-citizens in other countries would there be? If anything, it would be to NOT apply privacy guarantees to them that Americans expect.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I did not ask about "what business is it of the USA?"

I asked about this statement--

What application of US law to non-citizens in other countries would there be? If anything, it would be to NOT apply privacy guarantees to them that Americans expect.

Never mind.

 

[Albion]

Agreed.

It would amount to NOT extending to people of other countries one legal protection--in their own countries--that American citizens are guaranteed by US law. Is that wrong? Probably not.

 

[Josiah]

The issue is not that Microsoft gathers information, everybody already knows that just like everybody knows that google gathers information, the issue is that the USA government through the Department of Justice wants to apply USA laws to people who are not USA residents by gathering data from overseas Microsoft servers. Microsoft is fighting against the DoJ claim.

I think you are trying to impose that there is some ABSOLUTE and HUMAN right to privacy. You need to prove that.

I suspect that the LIMITED "right" to privacy is - in some jurisdictions - a CIVIL right. People - by virtue of their being humans - are not born with some absolute HUMAN right to privacy, IMO. A legal jurisdiction (such as Australia) MIGHT, perhaps, extend SOME degree of privacy to SOME people (say non prisoners and non military personal 18 and over) but that's only in that jurisdiction and probably only for citizens of that country in that jurisdiction. It is a CIVIL "right". If civil rights were universal - then I'd be able to vote in Australian elections and you'd be able to be president of the USA. I think you get the point (even if you choose to ignore it or try to make a funny out of it).

If you want to insist that privacy is an ABSOLUTE and HUMAN right - applying to all homo sapiens simply because they are homo sapiens (regardless of age, gender, citizenship, etc.) then I think you need to establish that. Otherwise, your premise is baseless.

 

[Stravinsk]

I think you are trying to impose that there is some ABSOLUTE and HUMAN right to privacy. You need to prove that.

I suspect that the LIMITED "right" to privacy is - in some jurisdictions - a CIVIL right. People - by virtue of their being humans - are not born with some absolute HUMAN right to privacy, IMO. A legal jurisdiction (such as Australia) MIGHT, perhaps, extend SOME degree of privacy to SOME people (say non prisoners and non military personal 18 and over) but that's only in that jurisdiction and probably only for citizens of that country in that jurisdiction. It is a CIVIL "right". If civil rights were universal - then I'd be able to vote in Australian elections and you'd be able to be president of the USA. I think you get the point (even if you choose to ignore it or try to make a funny out of it).

If you want to insist that privacy is an ABSOLUTE and HUMAN right - applying to all homo sapiens simply because they are homo sapiens (regardless of age, gender, citizenship, etc.) then I think you need to establish that. Otherwise, your premise is baseless.

You are confusing rights that are self - evident (and a degree of privacy is one of them) and "special rights" - such as what the State can give. The State is not God and has no inherent authority but that which it is given by the people - and your constitution has this idea at it's very core. Pauline Christianity, on the other hand - is submissive to the State, and despite Christians thinking otherwise - really didn't found the USofA - Deists did. Yes, you can thank US (that is - how we think) for your freedom - because without Deism - there would be no USA - and you'd continue to pay taxes and homage to England and the British empire in general because according to various Biblical Scriptures - it was your duty to.

 

[tango]

I think another issue is that people so willingly give up their privacy. Even if an absolute right to privacy does exist it doesn't override an individual's freedom to waive all or some of that privacy.

If I decide I wish to make my name, address, date of birth, social security number etc, public I am free to do so. If I want to tell the world what I ate for breakfast I am free to do so. Having done so I lose any right to complain about the associated lack of privacy because I voluntarily made the information available.

In many ways what the tech giants have done is merely provided something that offers convenience in exchange for privacy. People sign away their privacy, often by clicking the "I agree to the terms and conditions" button without even reading the terms and conditions, and then wonder why they have no privacy.

Another associated issue is why the state has been allowed to come to believe that it has the right to whatever information it cares to demand, whether that be in the form of taking a census or expecting companies to hand over data on their users. Many bleat the endless "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra as if enough repetition will make it true but it would make more sense for the state to be required to justify why it needs the information rather than merely hiding behind a vague assertion that national security is at stake unless it spies on each and every one of us.