Slashdot Log In
Privacy is a Biological Imperative?
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jul 13, 2007 09:11 AM
from the only-for-some dept.
from the only-for-some dept.
sevej writes "As a lead-in to an article in the August 2007 issue, Scientific American recently published an interview with Carnegie Mellon computer scientist Latanya Sweeney regarding the trade-offs between security and privacy. Dr. Sweeney provides a refreshing counter-point to Sun Microsystems CEO, Scott McNealy's 'famous quip', 'Privacy is dead. Get over it.' She advocates the idea that privacy is not primarily a political expediency, but rather a biological one. Suggesting that technological design doesn't have to take a 'soup OR salad' approach, she calls for changes in the way present and future computer scientists are trained. Dr. Sweeney is quoted as saying, 'I think if we are successful in producing a new breed of engineers and computer scientists, society will really benefit. The whole technology-dialectics thing is really aiming at how you should go about teaching engineers and computer scientists to think about user acceptance and social adoption [and also that they] have to think about barriers to technology [from the beginning].'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yarrrr! (Score:5, Funny)
Yo ho ho a pirates life for me!
Avast!
Ohhh, you said Privacy
Biology would be pro-active defense, not reactive (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're thirsty, your mouth gets dry. You drink water. If you don't, you die.
There is no biological response, yet, to keeping your information private. When you get a new credit card, do you read the contract that is included with the application? It's all there. When you install new software, do you read the contract? It's all there.
If you don't like a contract because it gives up what you consider private information, don't sign it. If you feel you need the item or service, find an outlet selling it that won't breach your privacy. It's quite simple. If there is no outlet for that service without giving up what you deem important, find out why. Many times it is State-intrusion in a market that creates a monopolistic cartel of providers. Don't blame that market for the privacy issues, blame your government that created the cartel (mercantilism, not capitalism).
Privacy to me is useless. I can't think of one reason why I need or require complete privacy. If someone wants to peep on my wife and I in bed, I close the shades. Big deal. Financially, it already makes little to no sense to have personal credit or a good personal credit score, because of past government interventions. I still track my credit report monthly, and am alerted to changes. If someone wants to try to steal my identity, let them try -- I already have an inexpensive insurance plan against identity theft. Privacy, to me, is irrelevant in my life.
What is important is the freedom for me to work the way I want to work, and have fun the way I want to have fun. If either of those issues "become public," so be it -- they're who I am. If someone doesn't want to work with me because of what I like to do, so be it, they're free to associate or disassociate with me. What do I have to hide?
Re:Biology would be pro-active defense, not reacti (Score:5, Insightful)
I find that funny. So why do you close the shades then if you don't need privacy? What exactly are you hiding? If you had nothing to hide, you'd keep the shades up!
Parent
Re:Biology would be pro-active defense, not reacti (Score:5, Interesting)
Many monkeys will go berserk if you just stare at them, and staring at a charging feline will very often stop it dead on it's tracks; this is why thai farmers will wear masks on the back of their heads, it will stop tigers from attacking.
Animals need privacy, too, and will make sure they get it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
As to animals attacking when you stare at them, they're not attacking because they want to be alone, they're reacting to what they perceive is a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
All you need to do is look at how the idea of privacy is communicated among various cultures. Some languages don't even provide a word for privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Biology would be pro-active defense, not reacti (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Biology would be pro-active defense, not reacti (Score:4, Insightful)
While you claim the information is all there in contracts, most contracts are written in ways that only lawyers, or those trained in legal rhetoric can understand (just an observation). So it's not as clear cut as you think and that is the problem. Too many people view the world only through thier own set of blinders and don't/wont'/can't see beyond them. Training computer scientists to consider the impact of technology and how it affects users wether that is in UI desing, privacy and security, stability, what ever, is certainly a benefit. Unlike any other discipline that I can think of, programmers and designers have a huge impact in how technology is used or not.
While we are all used to the file system structure in Unix and Windows system, does it really make the most sense for an average user who hasn't necessarily been trained to think in heirarchies? Probably not. And if you reply with "Well, users should learn to think that way, damnit" that shows you don't understand the nature of the problem.
There is a visceral response most people have when their privacy is invaded, very much akin to fight or flight. Whether that is nature or nuture is immaterial. The result is still there. If you know that your privacy may be invaded, perhaps the shock is less, but it is still there. Do you really think if I provided you with your personal information like your financiual history, sexual history, book buying habits, you would not have a reaction?
Awareness it s good thing.
Parent
Re:Biology would be pro-active defense, not reacti (Score:5, Insightful)
The hundreds of tiny embarassments that everyone is guilty of.
Society to date has depended on much of what one does being private - everyone knows that 90% of men masturbate (and 10% lie about it), but it's not polite to discuss or exhibit, and it's embarassing to be discovered. This is, perhaps, irrational, but it is also the way things are.
Maybe you don't want people knowing that you bought Hairspray on HD-DVD. Maybe you don't want people knowing that you're gay. Maybe you don't want people knowing you had an abortion. Maybe you don't want people knowing your great grandfather owned slaves. Maybe you don't want people knowing you smoke weed. Maybe you don't want people knowing you donate money to the Republican party. Maybe you don't want people knowing you did 3 years' hard time - whether or not you were actually guilty. Maybe you don't want your abusive ex-husband to know where you live.
The other alternative is to make sure you stay both legal and conformant to all social norms. Which, even if possible, isn't the way most people want to live their lives.
Given society as it currently is, those are your choices. Your personal crusade to change the social norms such that nothing legitimate is embarassing any more, though possibly impressive, is unlikely to bear fruit before privacy is eliminated.
Parent
So what's with factories and the military (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention orgies. (not just in factories and the military)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not having doors isn't because the user doesn't want them, it's because the military doesn't want you to have privacy for some reason. Probably because the think gays in the military are uncontrollable hump machines.
Sex(I assume you meant sex orgies) are a choice people make. Just because some people decide to share the privacy with may people doesn't mean it's not private. Just that the group you are sharing privacy with is larger. Biological doesn't just mean sex.
Figures (Score:2)
Biology (Score:3, Funny)
Privacy isn't biological (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've shagged my share of dogs in public
Dogs would prefer to do it privately. Hell, they don't want to be even smelled by strangers. Despite being pack animals (a live or die proposition in the real world), they'd also prefer to eat, urinate, defecate, give birth,
Privacy is important (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should be give up our right to privacy? It is a Constituational right. But it is also a personal right. Stop for a moment to consider how much you want other people knowing about your bad habits. Opposite side, of that picture, do you really want to know how much lint come from your neighbors...... pockets?
I say no. Privacy is needed for inner peace of mind. This includes the knowlege that you are not being watched 24/7. People are more stressed out stuggling to keep their private lives private rather than enjoying their lives.
9th Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "secret section" you mean the 9th Amendment, then yes. Let me refresh your memory:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Re:9th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, it has not succeeded.
Insofar as we wish to abide by the intent of the founders, there should be no distinction made between the rights enumerated by amendments 1-8, and the rights collectively enumerated (not that the phrase actually makes sense, but I hope you take my meaning) in the 9th (and 10th, for that matter).
Parent
I call BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm pretty sure the scientists and engineers thought long and hard about signing on to the A-bomb project, and without them it is likely that the bomb would not have been developed by the end of WWII if at all. Feynman in his memoirs talks a great deal about this.
The 'if I don't build it, they'll just find somebody who will' idea is only true so long as it doesn't take a significant degree of inventiveness or special skills to complete. If the physicists on the A-bomb project quit, I don't think the U
Re: (Score:2)
My point remains - "educating" geeks to be socially responsible for what they build or invent doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
"slightly"? No there was a lot of stuff no person had ever done. Hell, building some of the test tools to determine critical mass alone was very advanced for the day.
Why do you think geeks can't be in power? You may go through life thinking "Well, I'll just do what ever the man says and not think for my self." Not me.
Some people believe those things are good to have;which brings up the point "Who the fuck are you to decide what is 'good' or 'bad'?
Now, diffe
Wow, Zonk is on a roll. (Score:2)
If we just control people precisely and carefully in then minutest possible detail, we'll have utopia.
Privacy it a relatively modern concept. A few hundred years ago, it was unheard of.
That's not true (Score:4, Insightful)
government's took it away. The idea the the need for privacy dictated in law has only been around for a few hundred years.
I also happen to believe that there are different types of privacy, and that privacy is implicit in any relationship.
Meaning, If I choose to share information with a credit card company that's fine, but the data is still private between me and the Credit card company. Saying the credit card company can share your information implies that it's not yours anymore. It also mean information about you is being used and you have no control over it. Which is wrong no matter who is using it.
Our founding father understood this, and made it so the government can not take those things that would be private to the citizens. While allowing people to choose who the bring into there person ring of privacy; Which can include everybody.
Parent
Summary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Giving up privacy = giving an advantage to others (Score:4, Interesting)
A large number of human situations involve some degree of negotiation and are to some degree adversarial. Knowledge can be power, and knowledge can be money. You don't need to be a control freak to want to retain some degree of control.
Not that I expect to get the better of a car deal, but I still don't necessarily want the salesman to know how much money I can write a check for today, and he doesn't necessarily want me to know the financial state of the dealership or his sales goal for the month and how many cars he's sold.
Privacy Cells (Score:2)
Biological necessity? Maybe so... (Score:2)
Nice soundbite (Score:2)
Nice soundbite. Has anyone got a clue if this actually means anything or is it just psuedo-intellectual drivel?
Privacy is a necessity of life (Score:2, Insightful)
When someone (person, company or state) knows all about you, it will be a matter of time when that information will be abused, cause although your life is transparent theirs is not.
So Asimmetry of information gives those on top the best negotiating hand of cards, you might be getting all that convenience of service but will bite you back when you least expect.
Some examples:
- You sta
Privacy is based in natural rights (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an especially ironic error since the U.S. Constitution was written in terms that make it clear that rights do not come from a constitution. You have rights, period. The U.S. Constitution does not list your rights. It lists the legitimate powers of government.
So, when someone says, "You have no constitutional right to privacy." they are making a fundamental mistake. They are suggesting that your rights are enumerated, when, both implicit in the structure of the U.S. Constitution and explicitly stated in Amendements IX and X: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Privacy is a natural right. Without it, many other rights become a nullity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Privacy is based in natural rights (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Hamilton hit the nail on the head. Read the bill of rights and think of how many times those are blatantly, or pushed, or broken on a technicality of interpretation. Imprisoning journalists for their sources while questioning if they are, indeed, a "journalist." In many places you cannot freely assemble a large, peaceful group without a permit. Arguing if an assault weapon ban is legal because individuals aren't a milita. No need for warrants for email, etc. Holding people in guantanamo, abusing them, and not affording them due process because they are "prisoners of war" or whatever the current defense is. Then there's the whole civil rights movements: where does it say the government has the power to rescind the right to vote based on race or gender such that it was *necessary* to amend the constitution to rescind the government's power to do so?
I would like to hear what Hamilton would have to say today with a few centuries proving him right...
Parent
It's a learned behavior (Score:2)
Biology replaced (Score:2)
FBI knowledge makes you biologically advanced (Score:2)
The issue of engineering attitude. (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been two main technological obstacles to ubiquitous surveilance. The first is getting the data from the sensor to some central location. Universal wireless networks have taken care of that. The second is the storage and filtering of all that data. That problem's been solved with cheap storage and better computers and software. So, in building other things people want (cell phone systems, computers with enough storage and power to handle video, etc.) we've put all the tools in place of a low cost, universal surveilance system.
Even the last minor hurdle - powering the sensors - is being overcome with "energy harvesting" technology. It's not enough to power video cameras yet, but the market forces will certainly push it in that direction.
The days are over when we could safeguard our privacy by technological limitations (the "who's going to bother looking at what I'm doing" defense). So perhaps it is time for the engineers and the computer scientists to start considering the privacy issues from the beginning, as a technology issue.
We work hard to build devices that don't electrocute or maim us. It's time we started considering social harm as well, and not leave it all to the politicians.
minority Phds (Score:2)
On the other hand, part of her interview was about racism/sexism she encountered at MIT in the 70s.
Something to read about privacy (Score:2)
I got that from a previous slashdot story. It brings up some good points to think about.
Longhouse, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of privacy is a very, very recent. Most societies have a point in their history where everyone in the community lived together, ate together, maybe even slept communally. Even if there were walls, the neighbors would usually know when Jones' were working on making another kid.
If modern humans enjoy privacy, it is the effect of social change and perhaps overly comfortable living. Certainly not biology.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't language marvelous? Of course, my point is they are fundamentally wrong from the moment they narrow the issue so there's only one option (and not even valid, at that). Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a lot of people in positions of power and authority who do not deserve to be there, and are only there because they've tricked everyone around them.
Those people are not going to be advantaged by the inevitable loss of privacy.
The more influence they have, the more they are wielding their power with flagrant disregard for their fellows, the more that the truth will hurt them.
None of this, ho
Rational! (Score:3, Interesting)
Humans are, after all, a thinking species - we know how to use information, both for ourselves and against our competitors. By denying information to our competitors we gain an upper hand, whether it be in war and combat, social standing, accessing food and water, and so on. How often, for example, has a social situation felt like a game of poker, with bluffing and deception?
Knowledge is power. By denying information to our competitors we may well improv
Re: (Score:2)
Re:we'd never reproduce (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All it says is that the people using MySpace are too young to care about privacy... yet. I was that way 15 years ago, too. But something changed -- I gained wisdom. Or rather, I realized that I now have something to lose. I don't want the things I said or did when I was a child to be used as weapons against me now; I have a job, a mortgage, and 3 other people depending on me.
Simply said: i