privacy regulations suck also (Re: Formal apology)

[Adam Back]

Aimee wrote:
> I agree, but you yourself stated that the average American isn't
> that concerned about privacy and won't purchase privacy enhancing
> technologies.  (In a general privacy sense, I don't see a lot of
> "privacy reclamation." I do see a lot of notice provisions -- the
> functional equivalent of placing 99% of Americans in a
> social-adhesion contract.) I don't think it's conservative. I think
> it is a new and unusual threat - to the majority of Americans.

I've been thinking about the current trend in privacy regulations
also.  I came to the same conclusion.  My bank sent me a shiny new
leaflet explaining their privacy position.  It wasn't even an
especially desirable or equitable position, but they presumably felt
the new regulations obliged them to write it.  I'm thinking: "so how
do the laws that caused this leaflet to be written help my privacy?"

These laws are almost exclusively about *handling* of data, rather
than questioning the fact that the data is collected in the first
place.  (Well there is a principle that they should have a reason for
collecting it, and/or that they get consent, but they do have some
reason to have pretty much all the data they collect by their
standards.)

So here's the problem: these laws will if anything make it less
visible what information companies and governments have on you because
they will restrict uses.  How the data is handled and used isn't the
problem, the problem is that the information is collected, and
available to law enforcement, national intelligence and your average
dick (private detective).

Privacy to me means being able to keep my affairs private from
governments if I choose.  The UK princple allowing you to use any name
you want (so long as it is not for committing fraud or a crime) is
agood one.  (I'm hoping that using an alias does not affect the legal
systems evaluation of the severity of the crime -- and that there are
no "use of an alias in the commission of a crime" types things in
effect though I don't know the details).

So with this definition of privacy, the actual problem is the
existance of a whole raft of laws outlawing privacy.  New laws
governing use are window dressing.  I don't even care about the use
typically, junk mail is easy to throw away.  Think about for example
anti-money laundering laws vs the desire for financial privacy in a
free society.  The requirement to show and present government issued
ID for all sorts of things in society and so on.

So the solution appears to be technological countermeasures, and
repealing laws.  Neither of which appear even remotely likely within
the political system.  The political system has a systemic desire to
create more laws.  Every new law introduces more problems.  The people
writing the laws don't know the technology, they are control freaks,
and pander to media and take bribes and broker favors with special
interest groups.  So at this point I firmly believe in "write code not
laws", and think that "cypherpunks write code" is important. 

btw. The main reason I have not indulged overly in political
discussions for some time is that I resolved to not even spend the
time to read or keep up to date overly with government and legal
system intrusions into privacy.  The historical predictor that
whatever they are doing it's bad for privacy and the balance of power
is sufficient information for code writing.  Reading the crap is just
frustrating.  Time better spent writing code.

So the question of what code to write is the consuming question these
days.

> Oh, blah, I'm sure I'm not adding to the intellectual group capital

Actually you're pretty far above average first post in
insightfullness.  Welcome to cypherpunks.

(btw "Mr" etc is more formal than normal here, and you never know if
it's correct half the time -- I've come across at least two people who
I had presumed the wrong sex for.  Nyms, handles email aliases -- just
refer to people by whatever they refer to themselves by.  Some don't
even give a handle.)

Adam

Personal opinions of course.