Friday, April 7, 2017

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"

While we were being distracted by Gorsuch, Xi, and the Syrian missile strike, Congress and Trump sold our privacy ... It’s Done. Your Internet Provider Can Sell All Your Web History ...

Yesterday, as expected, President Trump signed a resolution reversing the previously approved FCC internet privacy rules. The former Obama-era regulation set privacy requirements that internet service providers (ISPs) would need to follow before they could share or sell their consumers’ private and sensitive data, such as their financial or health information or browsing history.

It was argued against, of course. Here Mike Capuano (Captain America's uncle! ;) speaks ...

But to no avail. When people like me worry about government sanctioned abuse of privacy, others often say, "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Here's Edward Snowden commenting on why that's wrong ...

29 comments:

  1. I think Snowden is a traitor. I am about a hundred pages into Edward Jay Epstein's How America Lost its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft. Having said that, Snowden is very articulate (especially for a high-school dropout) in the clip, and I certainly do not approve of rolling back the privacy rules.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't read that book but have only read of him in the news (and watched the Oliver Stone film about him). He gave up a lot to to expose the truth of the government spying on innocent Americans - I think he's a hero, so I guess we're diametrically opposed :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. About Snowden, it's not just me. Here's an article from the New Yorker ... http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-edward-snowden-is-a-hero

    ReplyDelete
  4. This issue is part of a broader issue, the ubiquity of vast data collection system, e.g. reward cards.

    The store where I buy almost all my groceries has a rewards card. I “save” almost $1200 a year by using it, including $400 a year in free gas! Now they are not making money selling more gas, so I presume they are making money by selling my buying data to others.

    In this case I could opt not to use their rewards card, for which I would then pay an addition $1200 in grocery costs.

    So maybe people who don’t want to opt into these internet data systems should be paying higher internet service fees.

    These vast data systems have many potential uses, including to the consumer. For example since I purchase almost all my groceries from this store, and they are only for me, and I rarely eat out, they have all the data to reconstruct my dietary habits for the last decade, e.g. they could generate a report of calories, protein, carbohydrates, fasts, sodium, etc. And it could generate details on exactly how I should change my buying habits to have a better diet, and could provide me with monthly reports of how well I am doing.

    So maybe the question is not so much who gets to opt in or out of these systems, but rather who gets to use the data. Should not all this data be made available to consumers, doctors, health care providers, county health officials, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My grocery store has this program too. I resisted for a time but my sister kept nagging me to do it for the savings. Now I flinch with guilt every time the automated clerk scans my ice cram :)

      Delete
  5. In unrelated news about privacy: HR Bill 1313, Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, would allow employers to charge employees more for their health care/wellness if they don't give up their genetic info.

    While the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 protects you from being being forced to disclose genetic information, the new bill would allow employers to charge you up to 30 percent more for your health care package if you choose to keep that info private.

    The bill has passed the House of Reps and is currently in committee.

    This is pernicious. It assumes that if you won't give up your genetic info, you have something to hide.

    I'm really to old to be affected by this by an employer, but at what point will Medicare patients be subject to higher rates for genetic factors?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. The issues with regard to professional confidentiality (i.e. doctor, lawyer, priest) are different from the issues of general market place transactions confidentiality (e.g. internet and grocery stores).

      I see genetic information as a part of physician provider confidentiality. As long as we don't have single payer, there are going to be big issues in this area because insurance companies are not on the side of the consumer.

      Delete
  7. Jean, that is indeed pernicious. I can't understand why it passed the House. Aren't the crowd who are in there now the ones who tend to be a little paranoid about government overreach and privacy? The insurance under my employer gives you a discount if you are not a smoker or go through a nicotine cessation program, if you exercise, and if you go through health screenings. Which is kind of a pain sometimes but at least it is for things which are under your control. Which of course one's genetics aren't. Actual genetic diseases are relatively rare; most ailments are due to behavior, environment, or random bad luck, or combinations of those things. Could it be that those who gave this dubious bill a pass actually don't understand genetics too well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an insurance company tactic to raise money, and Congress is on their payroll.

      Delete
    2. Yes, of course it is. And they're not technically forcing you to give up your genetic info. But, as someone with a genetic mutation, I would never give that info to an employer, especially in these days if "employment at will" and "right to work." They'll use it to get rid of you.

      Delete
  8. Eventual logical consequence of genetic data mining = Blade Runner. We genetically compromised people will be left here in poverty on Earth while the uber people go on to settle new planets with SpaceX ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geez, I forgot about Blade Runner. I always liked that movie despite its pretensions. The Philip K. Dick novel was also v.g.

      Delete
  9. Yes, the novel. In some ways much more grim, especially for the animals.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do not see Snowden as a hero. He was not in a position to judge what kind of damage he could do by releasing information about a classified program. I was an independent contractor for most of my career with clients ranging from non-profits that had programs for inner city girls, to big companies that do government work, including defense and national security. As a self-employed consultant I did not have a security clearance. Snowden did, as the employee of a huge government contracting company. But even without working on the classified parts of projects, I picked up enough understanding of the importance of our national security agencies to believe that Snowden was arrogant and reckless, if not a traitor (which may involve intent). He seems to see himself as being a hero, but I disagree. His contempt for the faults of the US seem to ring hollow when he ran - he didn't believe in his actions enough to stay and have an open court trial, and the countries he chose to run to for asylum (including China initially) are among the most oppressive in the world when it comes to the rights of their citizens, including privacy rights.

    Re grocery store cards. When I sign up for a card at a store, which I do frequently because of travel, I do not give my real name, real address, real phone # etc. Sometimes they hand me a card and tell me that I can turn the paperwork in later. If you want to use your phone #, you need to remember your fake one, or just hang on to the card itself when you check out. Theoretically, they could cross-check the info with credit card info, but they have never done that. The gas rewards really make a difference!
    Data mining has a very long history and it's everywhere. There is no privacy! The push to make people reveal confidential medical information is so totally over the line that people need to really push back.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In psychology graduate school one of my professors said he was a behaviorist until he had children; a very active one whom he managed to calm down slightly, and a very quiet one whom he managed to liven up slightly.

    In my 30's I was diagnosed with high blood pressure. The Dr. suggested I reduce my sodium intake, I did and managed it well for a decade. When I went from an agency to the political environment of mental health board my boss told me to develop a thick skin; I went on blood pressure medication.

    Now I think it is quite likely that I have a genetic background that makes me susceptible to high sodium and stressful environment.

    However I am even more convinced that I would never have had high blood pressure if I lived in a society without our high sodium levels, and which emphasized cooperation rather than competition in its social organizations. I am not responsible for either my genetics nor my culture. I don't think I should pay a penalty if I do not succeed in managing them both with my behavior.

    I think the same thing could be said for alcoholism, depression, weight and other "medical" problems. They are problems that we have to face at the cultural level as well as at the individual level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack, I think you're right. Genetics is just one part of the health picture. Too bad stressful work environments are endemic in our culture.

      Delete
  12. Anne, that is also my take on Snowden. Arrogant and reckless pretty well describes his actions. I think you are right that he wasn't in a position to judge the kind of damage his release of classified information could do. And it is ironic that his present place of residence (last I heard) is Russia. Not exactly a bastion of transparency and freely flowing information.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In defense of Snowden ...

    - He didn't begin his career as an independent contractor. He was hired and trained by the CIA and worked for them for three years (2006 - 2009) before quitting and then later becoming an independent contractor.

    - He didn't choose China exactly, he was in Hong Kong, and that was just a place for meetings with journalists (Glenn Greenwald and someone from The Guardian).

    His plan was to go to live in Ecuador. He was in Russia because WikiLeaks lawyers had given him that itinerary as a circuitous way to get there. He was forced to remain in Russia because that's where he was in the airport when the US canceled his passport.

    No matter where he had chosen, it would have had to be a country that didn't extradite, so it's not like he could pick one of our allies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I worked with companies that are contractors for the CIA (as well as for most of the other alphabet agencies). I worked with former CIA employees who had become contractors, as well as with former employees of the other agencies, including NSA. There is a fair amount of back and forth that goes on with people who work for the government in DC, including the intelligence agencies, DoD and pretty much every other agency. Work for the govt, work for the private sector that works for the govt., back to the govt etc. The government provide far more security as the contracts for the government are often up for re-bid every few years. When a company loses a re-compete for a contract, most of the staff need to find a new job. Sometimes they go with the new contractor, sometimes back to the government. There is quite a revolving door.

    Simply working for one of the agencies as an employee of the agency does not qualify someone to make a decision that could lead to much harm being done, as Snowden's decision did when the information was released by Wikileaks. Most agree that the government classifies too much stuff, and one friend of mine had a regular task after he retired - a part-time job reading and declassifying material that no longer needs to be classified. Snowden did not have this man's background or training (30 years in the national security sector, at very high levels), nor his good judgment. There are specific things that have to be taken into consideration when declassifying information.

    I knew Snowden's goal was Ecuador and that he feared extradition. As far as I am concerned, let him live in Russia for the rest of his life. But if he comes back to the US, the right thing to do would be to hold him accountable and have a trial. A lot of savvy lawyers would be willing to defend him, but could not guarantee that he would win his case.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I doubt he could get a fair trial given what the evidence would reveal - it would probably be a secret trial with no way for the public press to ensure fairness. Trump has said in the past that he thought he should be executed. I was hoping Obama would pardon him. Did you see Oliver Stone's recent film about him? I thought it was pretty good ... http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/296912-snowden-movie-presents-another-side-to-whistleblower

    ReplyDelete
  16. PS - here's an article by Daniel Elsberg (the Pentagon Papers) on why Snowden would not get a fair trial ... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act

    ReplyDelete
  17. The corporate media latches on to Snowden to make it all about him. What they snatch attention from is the question of our computerized surveillance state. And now private companies own our data and can dispose of it at their will. We are in a bad situation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, I think the point isn't Snowden's character but what he revealed about the government's surveillance of Americans. People seem almost desensitized to the idea that mush of their lives is mow an open book to the government, whether they've done anything suspicious or not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Our lives are an open book to not just the government, but anyone with the expertise and technology, or enough money to hire the experts or technology. I'm actually more worried about corporations and employers having access to all this info. And now people tell me that you can't even rent a house or apartment without being cleared on whatever database the landlord subscribes to. But I don't think the problem is going to be solved by people like Snowden spilling our guts to any and all.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There are laws that the rest of us must adhere to ... like tapping people's phones or reading their private emails ... that the government has not been adhering to, so it isn't that we all can find out everything about anyone else.

    And Snowden didn't just dump all our stuff out there for the world to see. He tried to be careful about what he released, and he released that to journalists like the NYT to decide what and how to release. That doesn't mean mistakes couldn't have been or weren't made, but he didn't just dump info indiscriminately, like WikiLeaks has.

    ReplyDelete
  21. But anyway, I give up. I just watched a two year old episode of John Oliver's show in which he went to Russia to visit Snowden. He told him that most Americans don't really care about their right to privacy and, depressingly, it seems that is so.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Katherine, I agree with you - I am more upset about the fact that private enterprises are tracking my every move so that they can try to sell me something than I am about NSA. But I am also unwilling to give up the convenience of free internet, free google, a smartphone etc. My choice. Would I like more privacy? Of course, we all would and I resent far more the fact that my personal information is available to those who want to make a profit from it than I do having our security agencies have access.

    I simply do not think it is a good thing for an unqualified person like Snowden to take it upon himself to reveal national secrets. If he had persisted privately, knocking on doors until someone listened it might have been possible to reform the program to address privacy concerns without revealing too much to our enemies. He not only revealed US secrets, but those of several of our closest allies. What right had he to do that? Eventually someone would have listened if he wanted to raise the issue with competent authorities. He just needed to find the right staff members, get their attention, and they would take it to the bosses. That’s SOP in DC, since he would be unlikely to get the attention of the bosses themselves. But he made the decision himself.
    Terrorists will not be stopped with conventional methods. Trump can order up tanks and planes and ships costing billions, but that won't defend us against a truck driver. Most of those involved in recent incidents had been somewhat on the radar of the security agencies in their countries, but there are so many that keeping close track of all of them is difficult without the help of sophisticated computer technology. Terrorists and criminals now use encrypted apps to try to hide their conversations, embed messages in ordinary seeming websites etc. It's unlikely that they don't know about burn phones either. ;)

    Every time a secret surveillance technique is disclosed to the world, we are in more danger than before it was made known. I prefer that experts make the decision to disclose rather than a contractor/tech expert who may understand technically what the security agencies are doing, but not why.

    Anyway, some will continue to see Snowden as a hero, and some of us will not, and, it's almost irrelevant at this point. Just keep him out of our country. I don't care where he goes. Ecuador is welcome to him but it seems they aren't too anxious to take him either. Nor are they terrible excited to move Assange out of their embassy in London to their country.

    ReplyDelete
  23. OK, bear with me while I give two examples of why whistleblowers like Snowden are heroes, not traitors.

    1) Serpico. He's just a cop, pretty new to the force, when he notices what seems to be corruption among his fellows. He tries to tell superiors but they either shut him down or assure him they will pass his info up the chain of command. Nothing ever happens. When he asks why they tell him the time must be right, that they don't want to harm the very necessary police force, etc. He must go outside the system to reveal the corruption.

    2) A young priest, pretty new to the cloth, notices what seems to be an organization-wide effort to cover up sex abuse. He knows of abusers himself. He goes to his superiors and they tell him they will see to it, and then he gets moved around. He tries again but is told he cant expose the church to scandal, that a necessary institution would be damaged by revealing the truth. He must go outside the system, to journalists, to bring the cover-up to public attention.

    Company loyalty, even in dangerous times, can't trump bringing the truth of wrong-doing to light.

    ReplyDelete