Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!eff!mnemonic From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: The end of privacy... and so what comes next? Message-ID: <1991Apr5.213419.1489@eff.org> Date: 5 Apr 91 21:34:19 GMT References: <10777@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1991Apr1.180311.5557@eff.org> <63565@bbn.BBN.COM> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Lines: 104 In article <63565@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > >}.. John pointed out >}that we live in a society in which each of us breaks laws, >}knowingly or unknowingly, all the time.... > >In what way is this a relevant observation [aside that it is true]? >Should we deny the police to enforce the burglary/rape/whatever laws >effectively because they might use those powers to enforce >parking-too-far-from-the-curb violations? Yes. The price of privacy is that it makes it harder for the police to do their job. We must be aware of this at the outset. It is always more convenient and more efficient for the police not to be limited in what they can know about you. But that's not the society I want to live in. My observation is relevant in particular because, once the police are in enforcement mode, it's hard to dissuade them from nailing you on whatever pretextual offense they can find. These seems to be an occupational hazard of being a policeman. > Should we let muggers go >free so that we don't go wild arresting people for tearing the tags off >of their pillows? I think it's important, Bernie, that you stick to reasonable arguments rather than rhetorical excesses. Otherwise, I won't respond to them. > Why shouldn't the response to John's observation be >"OK, so fix the laws, but what does this have to do with the police >going after the REAL criminals?" The response to the response is that, in a very real sense, you're a "real" criminal if the police say you are. Real privacy makes it harder for them to say you are. >}The easy accessibility >}of personal data makes it easy for the government to exercise >}its discretion to prosecute us or otherwise make our lives >}miserable. > >This is all very hypthetical. Who gets to decide which are the bad crimes >and which are the good? You can do it, and have done it in this posting. When you juxtapose mattress-tag-ripping and muggers for rhetorical purposes, you demonstrate that you have an intuitive sense of which crime is more serious. What's more, your rhetoric demonstrates that you think your audience shares this distinction. So, let's not pretend this is a difficult philosophical problem, shall we? Or at least be consistent in your own postings. In any case, this is not hypothetical at all. It's happening now. > This discretion exists ANYWAY, and crippling >the police from enforcing the laws, all of them and any of them, is >pretty arbitrary: if you don't want the police to enforce some >particular law, shouldn't you be making the law go away, rather than >trying to so-cripple the police that they _cannot_ enforce it? Dear Bernie: not all limits on police power "cripple" the police. It is the position of the civil libertarian that police can function with reasonable, although not perfect, efficiency in an environment in which their actions are limited by ordinary citizens' rights. Search warrants, the right to counsel, and the privilege against self-incrimination make it harder for police to do their work too, you know. Shall we eliminate those? Are they devalued because they're invoked so often by guilty people to obstruct police work? I think not. >Is THIS what privacy is for: to allow us to *knowingly* flout the >laws? No. Privacy is a value in itself. The right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was created in recognition of the fact that limits on searches and seizures would make it harder for police to catch crooks. Moreover, you've missed the import of Gilmore's remarks. The question is not whether one gets in trouble for "knowingly" flouting the laws, but for running afoul of the law without even trying. In today's crime-law-happy society, this is remarkably easy to do, and anyone who doesn't think so is probably also guilty of mopery. > Should it be personal discretion as to which laws we use our >"cloak of secrecy" to hide? What sort of society is that? Again, you go to rhetorical excess. Why do this? Some people whose privacy is invaded will be prosecuted and found innocent. But if their privacy had been protected in the first place, they wouldn't have had to defend themselves at all. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "Language is a virus mnemonic@eff.org | from outer space." Electronic Frontier | Foundation |