Orwell's "1984" and the (Worldwide) Erosion of Personal Privacy

[Mckk]

You'll love Google then. My husband got my a new laptop a couple of weeks ago and helped me install various stuff on it, including importing my Chrome bookmarks. Sounds ordinary enough, right?

Then I go and start using my new laptop and browse on Chrome - first thing, I look at the bookmarks.

And guess what? They were exactly the bookmarks I had from 2.5 years ago, on another computer entirely, at work. You see, back when I worked for that firm, they used Chrome and Google Docs and Calendar for everything. But that was a work computer, and I've never transported any data from my work computer to anywhere else.

And now, 2.5 years later, in an entirely different country, with different internet connection, different provider, different physical laptop, I find all my bookmarks - over 20 of them, in the exact order I had it at work.

That was really freaky for me. For the first time, I saw just how much information Google keeps on you, and for a long time too. And it's not even illegal, considering when we started using google and gmail etc we've agreed to letting them store our data.

I'd actually be more afraid of Google than surveillance cameras and governmental data centres. I mean, most officials surely have better things to do than sieve through useless emails and texts talking about how great the weather was and that my cat sneezed this morning.

[Gatsoh]

Lemex if you don't think the government has access to all of the information that our digital footprint leaves behind you're very deluded.

[Dryriver]

I personally don't trust everything I read on, or hear from Wikileaks.

They provide a masterlist of surveillance-tech vendors from 25 countries who mainly sell to governments. There's also 287 or so leaked documents that are manuals, brochures, presentations, spec sheets or pricelists relating to the surveillance-tech that these companies peddle to governments.

I've checked it out, and it all looks quite legit to me.

Don't know why you have such a problem "trusting Wikileaks".

Maybe you are uncomfortable with the "picture of the future" that emerges from studying this stuff?

If yes, that only makes you "normal" in my book. =)

[Lemex]

Lemex if you don't think the government has access to all of the information that our digital footprint leaves behind you're very deluded.

I like to think of it in these terms: 'I don't believe everything I hear just because it's from an otherwise respected source' or 'thinking'. Dryriver could very well be right, I don't know what goes on in the higher echelons of power. Do you?

They provide a masterlist of surveillance-tech vendors from 25 countries who mainly sell to governments. There's also 287 or so leaked documents that are manuals, brochures, presentations, spec sheets or pricelists relating to the surveillance-tech that these companies peddle to governments.

I've checked it out, and it all looks quite legit to me.

Don't know why you have such a problem "trusting Wikileaks".

Maybe you are uncomfortable with the "picture of the future" that emerges from studying this stuff?

If yes, that only makes you "normal" in my book. =)

I see. Well, it looks like after University I have some reading to do. My 'problem' (not exactly a problem) with Wikileaks is that it's only one source, I can't just believe something I've heard once over the internet and you can't expect me to. I find conspiracy theories largely silly to be honest, but totalitarian visions of the future? Yeah, you'd have to be crazy to not be uncomfortable thinking it.

[Dryriver]

That was really freaky for me. For the first time, I saw just how much information Google keeps on you, and for a long time too. And it's not even illegal, considering when we started using google and gmail etc we've agreed to letting them store our data.

Wanna know what seriously freaked me out?

I'm not on Facebook (for privacy reasons).

One day I get an email from Facebook:

"Blah person invites you to join him on Facebook..."

Then came the freaky thing:

"You may also know the following 14 people on Facebook:"

There was a list of 14 names in the email, and 12 were people I actually know/knew once.

So even though I am not on Facebook - and have never been - Facebook "knows" me, as well as 12 people I know from various places.

How did Facebook pull off this magic-trick?

It seems that Microsoft sold my supposedly "private" MSN Messenger usage data to Facebook, and Facebook used that data to infer that I know these particular 12 people!

Very scary!

I feel kind of sorry for the current generation of kids being born...

They will never experience the world of the 70s/80s/90s, where what was "private" actually remained "private" and actually meant something...

[Gallowglass]

We should consider not just the law itself - as scary as it is - but what it could be used for by a less-than-scrupulous government (aka. a government). We've seen in the UK how 'anti-terrorist' legislation has been used by council workers to rummage through your bins, carry out detailed surveillance of you and your family for weeks on end, and quiz you for information on how much you and your family exceed the RDA of salt and saturated fats.

The 'if it saves but one life' and 'nothing to hide...' arguments have no merit here, either: these laws have not once been used for their stated purpose of 'combating terrorism,' and so have no saved one life or exposed anything untoward. Rather, they've been aimed exclusively at enhancing the government's sphere of influence in your private life.

You may not see anything wrong with that now, but you will when you find that your 'stalker' is a council official, that your three-year-old is on a 'national database of people with racist views because they said 'yuk' to curry, and that, according to your local authority, you need to go on a diet.

[Dryriver]

The 'if it saves but one life' and 'nothing to hide...' arguments have no merit here, either: these laws have not once been used for their stated purpose of 'combating terrorism,' and so have no saved one life or exposed anything untoward. Rather, they've been aimed exclusively at enhancing the government's sphere of influence in your private life.

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best: He said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As to the "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?" idiocy that gets thrown in everyone's face on the internet so much, International Human Rights Law actually guarantess the right to personal and family privacy, and has done so for decades.

People who use the "nothing to hide" argument online are either a) totally ignorant of the privacy rights guaranteed by various human rights treaties or b) possibly paid to advance the fallacious argument that "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't get worried about the digital surveillance schemes being deployed".

Call me a Conspiracy Theorist, but I believe that the "nothing to hide" argument is actually popularized online by people who have a vested political or business interest in bringing various mass-surveillance schemes to life.

I can't see how a normal human being with an education and an IQ over 70 would in any way advance a fallacious argument that consists of "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried".

Any psychologically normal, educated human being who wants to preserve his/her basic privacy rights, and the privcacy rights of others, will never make an argument like "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

[Lemex]

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best: He said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As to the "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?" idiocy that gets thrown in everyone's face on the internet so much, International Human Rights Law actually guarantess the right to personal and family privacy, and has done so for decades.

People who use the "nothing to hide" argument online are either a) totally ignorant of the privacy rights guaranteed by various human rights treaties or b) possibly paid to advance the fallacious argument that "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't get worried about the digital surveillance schemes being deployed".

Call me a Conspiracy Theorist, but I believe that the "nothing to hide" argument is actually popularized online by people who have a vested political or business interest in bringing various mass-surveillance schemes to life.

I can't see how a normal human being with an education and an IQ over 70 would in any way advance a fallacious argument that consists of "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried".

Any psychologically normal, educated human being who wants to preserve his/her basic privacy rights, and the privcacy rights of others, will never make an argument like "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

Agreed. Privacy and personal liberty are two things I hold dearest of all. And when you quote Benjamin Franklin you make a friend of me.

[Gallowglass]

The very fact that the government thinks, without evidence, that you might have something to hide/might be fat/could be a racist and goes well out of its way to find or manufacture proof is something to fear in itself. A government with a self-appointed 'higher purpose' is a government that will stop at nothing to get what it wants. All tosee mothers who've lost their babies to secret evidence and bought-and-paid-for experts in the family courts system will tell you that.

[Gonissa]

these laws have not once been used for their stated purpose of 'combating terrorism,' and so have no saved one life or exposed anything untoward.

You cannot prove this statement. Given that much of that sort of thing is probably classified, we wouldn't know anyway, at least not until 30 or so years from now when they declassify some stuff.

Y'know, the simple answer is just to not put stuff on the net.

[Kaymindless]

You cannot prove this statement. Given that much of that sort of thing is probably classified, we wouldn't know anyway, at least not until 30 or so years from now when they declassify some stuff.

Y'know, the simple answer is just to not put stuff on the net.

That is the simple answer but not viable. Everything we do is on the internet now. From e-mail to shopping to research. Heck, I work from home via the internet. There's a running joke whenever my sister or me start doing research on the net because we're probably hitting red flags everywhere.

No, Gallow's statement is false; I'm sure the current laws we have have been used in the correct capacity quite often, but I'm just as sure that they have been misused just as often. I'm not an optimist on human nature. If they continue to add these invasive laws for our safety, protection, etc, the only viable option is going to be to attempt to move off the grid. And I like running water so that's not gonna happen.

[Gallowglass]

Some lesser criminals may have been convicted on the basis of evidence acquired through such means, but having access to communications data will not stop a crime in progress. If we're talking terrorism, all of the terrorist plots uncovered since these laws were introduced have been discovered through 'internet chatter' or police surveillance of individuals already known to them. None of them have been rumbled by fishing through emails, asking a phone company who called who and when, or checking what sites someone visited.

[Cogito]

Time to close this down.