Re: "why privacy" revisited

when i talk to people like the Direct Marketer's Assn., they honestly don't
understand what the fuss is about. Their attitude is, quite literally,
"What's the harm being done here?" 

what do you think the community interested in privacy protection can do to
best illustrate to the general public the "harm" in the collection of
personal information?

Jonathan Gaw


At 09:28 AM 3/22/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>Much as I agree with the point that privacy is desirable, I find the
>"market efficiency" arguments unpersuasive, at least as presented below:
>
>At 1:01 PM +0000 3/22/97, Adam Back wrote:
>
>>You requested an argument couched market economic terms as to why
>>reduced privacy might be a bad idea for the market efficiency.
>>Consider:
>>
>>Less privacy is a bad thing in market economics terms, because as
>>privacy takes a downwards spiral, which leads to ever increasing
>>government intervention, increasing sizes of governments, fascism,
>>etc. the free market economy will go to hell.  Poverty, and food
>>shortages will result, a la the former USSR, which is slowly
>>recovering from the decline caused by statist, facist policies.  We on
>>the other hand, absent pressure from outside government, law
>>enforcement and secret services circles are collectively headed into
>>that fascist driven downward spiral.in economics.
>
>Or, since we all understand perfectly well that *credit cards* and *checks*
>and other forms of *electronic payment* are not private in the way cash is,
>Adam's argument could read as follows:
>
>"Using credit cards and checks is a bad thing in market economics terms,
>because as privacy takes a downwards spiral, which leads to ever increasing
>government intervention, increasing sizes of governments, fascism, etc. the
>free market economy will go to hell.  Poverty, and food shortages will
>result, a la the former USSR, which is slowly recovering from the decline
>caused by statist, facist policies.  We on the other hand, absent pressure
>from outside government, law enforcement and secret services circles are
>collectively headed into that fascist driven downward spiral.in economics."
>
>In other words, I submit the fallacy of this comment, that traceable
>payment schemes such as credit cards and checks have _not_ destroyed the
>U.S. and Western economies as evidence that Adam's thesis is incorrect.
>
>(One might point to the correlation between increased credit and check
>instruments over the past 50 years and the rise of government spending, but
>such a correlation would not, in any reasonable view, be causative. I'll
>elaborate on this if there's real interest.)
>
>
>--Tim May
>
>(I'm not arguing against privacy. I just don't see the validity of some of
>the attempts to "prove" that privacy enhances markets (whatever that means)
>and that non-privacy undermines markets. Such arguments are mostly
>unpersuasive and depend strongly on assumptions and interpretations and
>selective admission of facts.)
>
>Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
>We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
>---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
>Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
>W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
>Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
>"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
>
>
>
>
>
******************************************************
Jonathan Gaw
The Star Tribune
Minneapolis, Minnesota
jonathan@gaw.net
*********Wasting Digital Bandwidth Since 1986*********

Bring down the price of accumulating the information.  Most
people are shocked to discover how much anyone can find out about them
& their lives, and worry about it, even if they can't put their finger
on the reason.  Asking the DMA about privacy is like asking Catholic
priests about birth control.  Sure, they have an opinion, but there
might be better sources of information.  

Adam

Jonathan Gaw wrote:
| when i talk to people like the Direct Marketer's Assn., they honestly don't
| understand what the fuss is about. Their attitude is, quite literally,
| "What's the harm being done here?" 
| 
| what do you think the community interested in privacy protection can do to
| best illustrate to the general public the "harm" in the collection of
| personal information?
| 
| Jonathan Gaw
| 
| 
| At 09:28 AM 3/22/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
| >
| >Much as I agree with the point that privacy is desirable, I find the
| >"market efficiency" arguments unpersuasive, at least as presented below:
| >
| >At 1:01 PM +0000 3/22/97, Adam Back wrote:
| >
| >>You requested an argument couched market economic terms as to why
| >>reduced privacy might be a bad idea for the market efficiency.
| >>Consider:
| >>
| >>Less privacy is a bad thing in market economics terms, because as
| >>privacy takes a downwards spiral, which leads to ever increasing
| >>government intervention, increasing sizes of governments, fascism,
| >>etc. the free market economy will go to hell.  Poverty, and food
| >>shortages will result, a la the former USSR, which is slowly
| >>recovering from the decline caused by statist, facist policies.  We on
| >>the other hand, absent pressure from outside government, law
| >>enforcement and secret services circles are collectively headed into
| >>that fascist driven downward spiral.in economics.
| >
| >Or, since we all understand perfectly well that *credit cards* and *checks*
| >and other forms of *electronic payment* are not private in the way cash is,
| >Adam's argument could read as follows:
| >
| >"Using credit cards and checks is a bad thing in market economics terms,
| >because as privacy takes a downwards spiral, which leads to ever increasing
| >government intervention, increasing sizes of governments, fascism, etc. the
| >free market economy will go to hell.  Poverty, and food shortages will
| >result, a la the former USSR, which is slowly recovering from the decline
| >caused by statist, facist policies.  We on the other hand, absent pressure
| >from outside government, law enforcement and secret services circles are
| >collectively headed into that fascist driven downward spiral.in economics."
| >
| >In other words, I submit the fallacy of this comment, that traceable
| >payment schemes such as credit cards and checks have _not_ destroyed the
| >U.S. and Western economies as evidence that Adam's thesis is incorrect.
| >
| >(One might point to the correlation between increased credit and check
| >instruments over the past 50 years and the rise of government spending, but
| >such a correlation would not, in any reasonable view, be causative. I'll
| >elaborate on this if there's real interest.)
| >
| >
| >--Tim May
| >
| >(I'm not arguing against privacy. I just don't see the validity of some of
| >the attempts to "prove" that privacy enhances markets (whatever that means)
| >and that non-privacy undermines markets. Such arguments are mostly
| >unpersuasive and depend strongly on assumptions and interpretations and
| >selective admission of facts.)
| >
| >Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
| >We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
| >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
| >Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
| >tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
| >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
| >Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
| >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| ******************************************************
| Jonathan Gaw
| The Star Tribune
| Minneapolis, Minnesota
| jonathan@gaw.net
| *********Wasting Digital Bandwidth Since 1986*********
| 


-- 
"Well, that depends.  Do you mind the end of civilization as we know
it?"

At 11:47 AM -0600 3/22/97, Jonathan Gaw wrote:
>when i talk to people like the Direct Marketer's Assn., they honestly don't
>understand what the fuss is about. Their attitude is, quite literally,
>"What's the harm being done here?"

And why should they care what "harm" (putatively) is being done to those
who voluntarily use credit cards, etc.?

The issue is really quite analogous to the situation with those who
publically post articles, such as we are doing here (when secure nyms are
not being used). Imagine someone writing:

"when i talk to people like the maintainers of the Cypherpunks archive
site, they honestly don't understand what the fuss is about. Their attitude
is, quite literally, "What's the harm being done here?" "

Indeed, those who post public articles do so with the realization that
their words may be remembered, may be linked to their meatspace names, may
be filed away in dossiers, and so on. How could it be otherwise in a
nominally free society?

(Cypherpunks should of course reject statist laws like the so-called "Data
Privacy Laws" many European nations have adopted. If Alice says something
publically, or used the bankruptcy courts, or whatever, and Bob "remembers"
it, either in writing or in his head, no one is entitled to inspect his
file cabinets or tell him what he is allowed to "remember." If Alice wants
parts of her life held private, it is almost completely her responsibility
to keep these parts private, not rely on men with guns to do it for her.)


>what do you think the community interested in privacy protection can do to
>best illustrate to the general public the "harm" in the collection of
>personal information?

This places the focus in the wrong place. The problem is not with the
compilers of publically-offered information (assuming no contract exists to
keep the information offered private).

We should never, never, never push for legislative fixes to such alleged
problems. (For many reasons. Eric Hughes has pointed out some of them,
others of us have written extensively about technological over legislative
fixes, etc.)

"Educating the masses" is also usually a waste of time.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."