Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wotan!moxie!lobster!nuchat!sugar!taronga!peter From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: The end of privacy... and so what comes next? Message-ID: Date: 3 Apr 91 13:11:51 GMT References: <63473@bbn.BBN.COM> Organization: A corner of our bedroom Lines: 34 cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > 1) privacy is just a cloak for illegal activity [i.e., trading > privacy for security is a win] Privacy is a cloak for socially unacceptable behavior (having unpopular political beliefs, being a member of a minority group, having a non- heterosexual orientation, etc...). Is it acceptable to force people to disclose this sort of thing? Why? > 2) privacy just makes life unnecessarily difficult [i.e., trading > privacy for convenience is a win] Security and convenience are frequently opposed goals, too. Yu have to choose your trade-off. Note that my trade-off and yours may differ. The same holds for privacy. > 3) no single bit of information is really "private" anyway [i.e., the > problem is not the data, but its aggregation]. False and irrelevant. Certain types of data are private, other aren't. > 1) Just look at the caller ID debate. There is the barely veiled > accusation that anyone who would want to make a call under the cloak of > anonymity MUST be up to no good, This really fits under slot 2 for me, not 1. My trade off is different from yours: so you can default your line to unlisted... just be prepared to turn on ID when you call me, or put up with my answering machine. This, of course, assumes per-call and per-line blocking, and blocked-ID blocking or smart equipment at my house. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`