[tt] [silk] Liberty vs. Control

Sat Feb 16 18:58:25 UTC 2008

----- Forwarded message from Udhay Shankar N <udhay at pobox.com> -----

From: Udhay Shankar N <udhay at pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:10:32 +0530
To: silklist at lists.hserus.net
Subject: [silk] Liberty vs. Control
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Reply-To: silklist at lists.hserus.net

This is unlikely to be news to anybody on this list; but I'm just 
doing my part of giving this latest piece of lucidity by Bruce 
Schneier some more exposure. Feel free to forward widely.

Udhay

** *** ***** ******* *********** *************

     Security vs. Privacy

If there's a debate that sums up post-9/11 politics, it's security 
versus privacy. Which is more important? How much privacy are you 
willing to give up for security? Can we even afford privacy in this 
age of insecurity? Security versus privacy: It's the battle of the 
century, or at least its first decade.

In a Jan. 21 "New Yorker" article, Director of National Intelligence 
Michael McConnell discusses a proposed plan to monitor all -- that's 
right, *all* -- Internet communications for security purposes, an 
idea so extreme that the word "Orwellian" feels too mild.

The article contains this passage:  "In order for cyberspace to be 
policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed 
Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would 
mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of 
any e-mail, file transfer or Web search. 'Google has records that 
could help in a cyber-investigation,' he said. Giorgio warned me, 'We 
have a saying in this business: "Privacy and security are a zero-sum game."'"

I'm sure they have that saying in their business. And it's precisely 
why, when people in their business are in charge of government, it 
becomes a police state. If privacy and security really were a 
zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former 
East Germany and modern-day China. While it's true that police states 
like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens 
are fundamentally more secure.

We've been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often -- 
in debates on security versus privacy, writing contests, polls, 
reasoned essays and political rhetoric -- that most of us don't even 
question the fundamental dichotomy.

But it's a false one.

Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't 
have to accept less of one to get more of the other. Think of a door 
lock, a burglar alarm and a tall fence. Think of guns, 
anti-counterfeiting measures on currency and that dumb liquid ban at 
airports. Security affects privacy only when it's based on identity, 
and there are limitations to that sort of approach.

Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved 
airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing 
they have to fight back, and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything 
else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just 
security theater and a waste of effort.

By the same token, many of the anti-privacy "security" measures we're 
seeing -- national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data 
mining, and so on -- do little to improve, and in some cases harm, 
security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or 
against fake threats.

The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control.

You can see it in comments by government officials: "Privacy no 
longer can mean anonymity," says Donald Kerr, principal deputy 
director of national intelligence. "Instead, it should mean that 
government and businesses properly safeguard people's private 
communications and financial information." Did you catch that? You're 
expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who -- 
presumably -- get to decide how much of it you deserve. That's what 
loss of liberty looks like.

It should be no surprise that people choose security over privacy: 51 
to 29 percent in a recent poll. Even if you don't subscribe to 
Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's obvious that security is more 
important. Security is vital to survival, not just of people but of 
every living thing. Privacy is unique to humans, but it's a social 
need. It's vital to personal dignity, to family life, to society -- 
to what makes us uniquely human -- but not to survival.

If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose 
security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's 
still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And 
liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote 
attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up 
essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve 
neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give 
up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.

McConnell article from "New Yorker":
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_wright
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080117-us-intel-chief-wants-carte-blanche-to-peep-all-net-traffic.html 
or http://tinyurl.com/2xkwvu
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/feds-must-exami.html

Trading off security and privacy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ka-taipale/privacy-vs-security-se_b_71785.html 
or http://tinyurl.com/2gdqbn
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-rotenberg/privacy-vs-security-pr_b_71806.html 
or http://tinyurl.com/2hozm8
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GER/is_2002_Winter/ai_97116472/pg_1 
or http://tinyurl.com/2yk23v
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/51_say_security_more_important_than_privacy 
or http://tinyurl.com/ypcen8
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/briefings/privacy.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p11s02-coop.html

False dichotomy:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0109a.html#8
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/commentary/circuitcourt/2006/05/70971

Donald Kerr's comments:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/redefining_priv.html

Related essays:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-008.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-096.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-036.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-160.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-100.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-108.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-163.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080119-analysis-metcalfes-law-real-id-more-crime-less-safety.html 
or http://tinyurl.com/23h88d
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/09/more_on_the_ger_1.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/06/portrait_of_the_1.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html"

This essay originally appeared on Wired.com.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/01/securitymatters_0124 
or http://tinyurl.com/yr98nf

** *** ***** ******* *********** *************

-- 
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE