Why “I Have Nothing to Hide” Is the Wrong Way to Think About Surveillance

[midnight]

Some will say that it’s necessary to balance privacy against security, and that it’s important to find the right compromise between the two. Even if you believe that, a good negotiator doesn’t begin a conversation with someone whose position is at the exact opposite extreme by leading with concessions.

We’re not dealing with a balance of forces looking for the perfect compromise between security and privacy, but an enormous steam roller.
And that’s exactly what we’re dealing with. Not a balance of forces which are looking for the perfect compromise between security and privacy, but an enormous steam roller built out of careers and billions in revenue from surveillance contracts and technology. To negotiate with that, we can’t lead with concessions, but rather with all the opposition we can muster.

Even if you believe that voting is more than a selection of meaningless choices designed to mask the true lack of agency we have, there is a tremendous amount of money and power and influence on the other side of this equation. So don’t just vote or petition.

To the extent that we’re “from the internet,” we have a certain amount of power of our own that we can leverage within this domain. It is possible to develop user-friendly technical solutions that would stymie this type of surveillance. I help work on Open Source security and privacy apps at Open Whisper Systems, but we all have a long ways to go. If you’re concerned, please consider finding some way to directly oppose this burgeoning worldwide surveillance industry (we could use help at Open Whisper Systems!). It’s going to take all of us.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

[midnight]

1. "If everyone’s every action were being monitored, and everyone technically violates some obscure

law at some time, then punishment becomes purely selective."


This is taken from the article I posted.

[OnyxCollie]

2. Prosecution based on political affiliation.

The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

We compare political profiling to racial profiling by presenting the results (January 2001 through December 2006) of the U.S. Attorneys' federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials. The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).

Data* indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.

...

Instead of clearing out the politicized US Attorneys (like Clinton did), Obama kept them.

They serve at the pleasure of the President.

[midnight]

3. I didn't realize this.... This politicized U.S. Attorney scandal hit Wisconsin...

In the frenzied days of the 2006 midterm election, U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic, in hot water with Karl Rove for “not doing enough” to bolster the Republic election effort, brought and hyped a prosecution of Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin public official, for “corruption.” The prosecution was transparently pursued to assist the election prospects of the Republican challenger for the governorship. Alas, despite Biskupic’s best efforts, the GOP failed to retake the Madison statehouse. However, Biskupic got a reprieve. He was allowed to keep his job. Thompson was convicted and took an appeal to the Seventh Circuit, where a panel of Republican judges called the entire affair “preposterous” and ordered her immediate release.

Now the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that Thompson is seeking compensation for having spent four months in prison on bogus and corrupt charges.

A state worker who spent four months in a federal prison before having her conviction reversed on appeal filed a claim with the state Friday for nearly $360,000. Thompson, 57, was convicted in federal court a year ago of steering a travel contract to Adelman Travel, whose officers had donated $20,000 to Gov. Jim Doyle’s campaign. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago overturned her conviction in April, freeing her from a Pekin, Ill., prison.

“Payment will not undo the emotional trauma of such charges and wrongful incarceration, but it will help her put the pieces back together,” Thompson lawyer Stephen Hurley wrote in the claim…


http://harpers.org/blog/2007/06/us-attorneys-scandal-milwaukee/

[OnyxCollie]

4. Something I wrote a long time ago

that I need to dust off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8807073&mesg_id=8809373

[midnight]

5. So the patriot act changed the rules of appointing the AG...

"With the establishment of the rules, this paper will now observe the moves of the competitors in the balance of power game. The first move was to change the rules. In spite of the long-accepted, constitutionally sound, independence-preserving method of appointing interim U.S. Attorneys, the appointment process was radically changed with the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006. Removed was the interbranch appointment from the district court; the Attorney General could now make interim U.S. Attorney appointments. Also eliminated was the 120 day period that interim U.S. Attorneys could stay in office before a district court could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to fill the vacancy. Interim U.S. Attorneys could now remain in office indefinitely, or until the President appointed a U.S. Attorney to the district. Interim U.S. Attorney appointments bypassed Senate confirmation, leaving the determination of qualification to the Justice Department."