Quote:
Originally Posted by ilago
I like to see something that indicated any technological expertise in any government, my own included. At least in the US there seems to be some members with technology backgrounds. Our parliament here seems to be made up of ex civil servants and party officials, lawyers, accountants and farming interests. I don't think there is one scientist or engineer among them. Don't know about your lot.
This paper was linked on BadPhorm. It's a valuable insight into privacy and conceptions of privacy. In particular, it debunks the "nothing to hide" argument.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=998565
There is a link to download the PDF. Worth reading from end to end. There are several arguments that may help convince those that don't understand the implications of a loss of a right to privacy and what it really means. |
Excellent read and very enlightening views on the meaning of privacy. I notice once again our good friend Bruce Schneier (Chief Security Technology Officer of BT) is well quoted from the
Eternal Value of Privacy article on "wired.com" .
This BT/Phorm/Webwise/ (Government spying??) relationship must sit very heavy on his conscience. It seems to go against many beliefs he has written about.
Incidentally, I love Bruce's quote in that article in "wired.com" on countering the faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.
"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. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide"
@R Jones - You should use that quote in some targeted BT correspondence to Emma
