Schneier on Security

Curious • December 5, 2019 6:08 AM

Presumably a greatly misunderstood idea might be ‘privacy’.

Instead of ‘privacy’ having real meaning as it would pertain to people’s most private moments or intent, I can’t help having the impression that ‘privacy’ is instead thought about as either ‘secrecy’, or some kind of protectorship (if that is a word in English). ‘Secrecy’ might sound nice at first because the very word seem to be something that appeal to your sense of power, but if the power isn’t given to you, or, isn’t even entertaining the notion of empowering you, somebody else get to have that power, and then I find it problamatic whenever you don’t get to own your own things anymore I would think.

Living in Europe myself, I can’t help but think that the US legal(?) phrase “no expectation of privacy” is helping not only hollowing out the possible notions of what ‘privacy’ would mean for people that would want or do depend on it, but so to speak voiding the very consideration of ‘privacy’ in its entirety, as if, ‘privacy’ was not a matter of tangible rights for consideration (but instead being something to be deemed “expected”, or not simply offhand), but that of ‘policy’ (read: something utterly arbitrary). Sort of a principled, anti-principle if you will. Thus ‘policy’ imo, itself becomes a dirty word in this context the way I framed it as understood as being pure politics, insofar as one thinks of it as being something subject to pragmatism, or politics, as opposed to scientific research and philosophy, and ideas of human rights even.

I myself never liked the word ‘pragmatic’. I think I know what the word means, and I can see myself using it to say something without it having negative conotations to it, but I wouldn’t trust others with being pragmatic, if any ideas or claims of ‘necessity’ isn’t real, but faked, or elevated to some importance that isn’t merited as something blatantly obvious.

Curious • December 5, 2019 12:05 PM

@Clive Robinson

I am unfazed in considering (some) people as thinking about the word ‘secrecy’ as being somewhat naugty and selfish if you will, after all that is only to be expected or anticipated I would argue, if one say took up an interest in wondering what a particular neighbor was perhaps doing behind his/her closed curtains seen in their living room. One might for a moment be entertaining the notion of having a-need-to-know, but unless such a need was necessary, it would be wrong to even vaguely assume such.

So from what I wrote and in response to what you wrote after that, it seems pertinent of me here to simply state that, and for hammering my point home about what an idea of ‘privacy’ for individuals or people ought to be thought of, a given problem arise (given by me that is), or an understanding if you will; that having to rely on other people’s interpretation of what is and isn’t considered ‘private’ or otherwise pertaining to issues of ‘privacy’, as if such an understanding was found to have been delegated to people that find such terms either appropriate or inappropropriate in any given case, is just wrong (if you care about privacy for yourself and others). Outsourcing the meaning of ‘privacy’ to tech people, or politicians, or police/military is thus just wrong, regardless of policy being good, bad or benign. It is like, if asking if something like ‘democracy’ wasn’t “people power”, what the hell would ‘democracy’ otherwise be if not just that? Maybe a policitian could coyishly equate ‘democracy’ with ‘security’ as a conceptual metaphor, but with sitting protestors having being peppersprayed in the face with a big bottle, that shit wouldn’t be believable (a reference to a UC Davis University event), or it shouldn’t I would have to argue.

Thus, if ever tempted to think of anything ‘privacy’ as being a THING in the world that you believe that you youself and others have to relate to (as if ideas about privacy was simply self evident and given, in an instance of defeatism or idiocy even, even at age 20 I had no idea what ‘philosophy’ was), the appeal of such shouldn’t be the mere notion of there being an appplied ‘universality’ to such idea(s) regarding ‘privacy’, when obviously any applied idea of ‘universality’ or similiar would be but a fancy word if said notions about universality also was hollowed out by limitations and exclusions, an obvious red flag, or red card, or flashing red light if you will. As if making a reference to ‘a society’ or ‘society’, but for a moment seemingly arguing about everybody being the same as one, while conveniently forgetting that there would likely be damning nuances to such a generalization which in turn would make the notion of a “one” into something entirely different, like there being a majority and a minority, or, just disparate interest groups for whatever sensible reasons.