Internet privacy, my concerns, and what I'm doing to protect myself

[ursus262]

Guys,

I'll give you an example of the sort of thing that I am worried about. A couple of years ago, an Englishman made a joke comment on social media about constant delays at his local airport, saying that he'd blow it up if they delayed him again (or words to that effect anyway). I remember reading it at the time in the media and I took it as a joke - a joke in bad taste, maybe, but a joke nonetheless.

The result? The man was arrested and charged and the case went to court. The memory is hazy, but it had something to do with terrorism charges or something like that. The judge dismissed the case (or he was convicted, but the conviction was quashed on appeal), saying that anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen it that way and that the case ought never to have come to court.

If such errors of judgements are made for items such as this that are placed in the public domain, then isn't the risk of such errors also there for scanned emails which, generally, are private between the sender and recipient or recipients? And couldn't this happen to any one of us?

My thoughts are that the technology has outstripped the state's ability to set up a proper accountable infrastructure and what this whistleblower has done is encourage the debate that surely needs to take place in our democracies.

And no, I don't think he is a traitor. I see him as a conscientious objector on the basis that what he saw were actions being taken that were morally and ethically wrong. We are currently having a debate about whistleblowing following a scandal in the NHS recently, as very often they act in the defence of the little man.

 

[pigoo3]

A couple of years ago, an Englishman made a joke comment on social media about constant delays at his local airport, saying that he'd blow it up if they delayed him again (or words to that effect anyway). I remember reading it at the time in the media and I took it as a joke - a joke in bad taste, maybe, but a joke nonetheless.

The result? The man was arrested and charged and the case went to court. The memory is hazy, but it had something to do with terrorism charges or something like that. The judge dismissed the case (or he was convicted, but the conviction was quashed on appeal), saying that anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen it that way and that the case ought never to have come to court.

What if it really wasn't a joke...and the man actually did try to do what he said?

That's the problem with statements like this that people make. 1000 folks may say it...but it only takes one person to actually do it...and create a tragedy.

So what should we do when this happens?:

- Investigate no one...and let the tragedy happen.
- Investigate everyone...and hopefully prevent a tragedy.

Or maybe people should grow-up...and stop making such stupid statements!!!

Ask anyone who has lost a friend or relative in a terrorist attack...and I think that you'll have a very hard time finding someone that agrees with you.

- Nick

 

[ursus262]

Nick

I understand what you are saying. The debate that needs to be had is where do you draw the line. The problem is that such jokes are common in the UK, so it might be a cultural difference anyway.

 

[chscag]

And no, I don't think he is a traitor. I see him as a conscientious objector on the basis that what he saw were actions being taken that were morally and ethically wrong.

Then explain why he's in Hong Kong, an area controlled by the Chinese communist government if he's not a traitor? In case you don't know.... when you're issued a security clearance by the US government, you also swear to its secrecy. I'm sure the procedure is the same in the UK. And if he were a citizen of the UK, your government would likewise go after him as a traitor.

If he were really as you say a conscientious objector, he would have taken his objections to the proper authorities and not run off to a Chinese controlled territory.

 

[Raz0rEdge]

Nick

I understand what you are saying. The debate that needs to be had is where do you draw the line. The problem is that such jokes are common in the UK, so it might be a cultural difference anyway.

The perceived anonymous nature of the Internet allows people to say and write things that they would never to fail to utter in real life. You wouldn't stupid enough to go to an Airport, stand in the crowd surrounded by all the security staff and scream, "I have a bomb"..

Well that little rant that you mentioned is essentially similar to doing that.

Using common sense with what you say and do goes a long way to avoid situations that can misinterpreted by highly sensitive security forces that don't want anything bad to happen on their watch.

This is not to say that you can't rant about things..but all means do so with your friends and not out in the public or the Internet for the world to hear/read..

The ease with which people can put up a FB, G+ or Twitter post somehow seems to bring down the barrier the question "Should I even be posting this" raises..if you wouldn't scream about something in a very public place, don't post it on the Internet..

 

[RavingMac]

My last word (maybe). . . .

I would be happiest if the govt collected NO information about me, but that isn't going to happen. In the preamble to our Constitution it specifically states a preeminent reason for its existence is to secure the commone defense. I am delighted that somebody has that duty and takes it seriously.

Since I am not a threat, am not engaged in threatening actions, or do I knowingly consort with those that do, why should I object?
True, there is always the chance at becoming a false target, or being falsely arrested. Thats a risk I am willing to take. It happens, but people are hit by lightning too. So, I'll stay inside during thunderstorms and avoid consorting with suspicious people, and take my chances.

On the otherhand IF they began to single me out for reasons that had nothing to do with my being a real or perceived threat (by my standards) I would be looking to emigrate.

 

[ursus262]

The ease with which people can put up a FB, G+ or Twitter post somehow seems to bring down the barrier the question "Should I even be posting this" raises..if you wouldn't scream about something in a very public place, don't post it on the Internet..

Well, quite! It's certainly not something I would do either. However, a little common sense in my opinion goes a long way.

Also, in response to an earlier post (I haven't figured out how to mutiquote) had the whistleblower followed the procedure, he almost certainly would have been coerced into keeping quiet. In fact it is well known that whistleblower protection simply doesn't work. The gentleman concerned knows this, because the people he embarrassed are far more powerful than him and the fact that he is holed up in Hong Kong is suggests a far deeper problem at the root of power than any failing on his part - in my opinion.

 

[Raz0rEdge]

Well, quite! It's certainly not something I would do either. However, a little common sense in my opinion goes a long way.

Also, in response to an earlier post (I haven't figured out how to mutiquote) had the whistleblower followed the procedure, he almost certainly would have been coerced into keeping quiet. In fact it is well known that whistleblower protection simply doesn't work. The gentleman concerned knows this, because the people he embarrassed are far more powerful than him and the fact that he is holed up in Hong Kong is suggests a far deeper problem at the root of power than any failing on his part - in my opinion.

Yup common sense on and off the Internet is prudent..

When you go public with the wrongs that a private company is doing, the whistleblowing laws on the book tend to protect you and ensure that the company is made to deal with whatever it's doing wrong. When that "company" is the government and you are an "employee" with security clearance giving you access to very delicate information, in most cases exposing things doesn't make you a whistleblower, it makes you a traitor to the country and the oath and spirit of the security clearances you have. I wouldn't necessarily bunch them together..

If Snowden were to have voiced his opinions and concerns to his superiors, would they have quieted him? Probably depending on how the revelations affect the operations in this country and outside..and is that a bad thing to be oblivious to all the monitoring and work that goes on behind the scene..I don't know..

 

[ursus262]

When that "company" is the government and you are an "employee" with security clearance giving you access to very delicate information, in most cases exposing things doesn't make you a whistleblower, it makes you a traitor to the country and the oath and spirit of the security clearances you have. I wouldn't necessarily bunch them together..

Well, yes. Of course. But... and this is a big but.... that important set of values about keeping your oathes and promises and, for that matter, having integrity is worthy and very important. We agree on that point.

But, that can only work on the presumption of probity and integrity on both sides of the contract. The problem here is that there wasn't. Once you are in that situation, then you have to ask yourself if the oath you gave is worth anything at all.

 

[Raz0rEdge]

Well, yes. Of course. But... and this is a big but.... that important set of values about keeping your oathes and promises and, for that matter, having integrity is worthy and very important. We agree on that point.

But, that can only work on the presumption of probity and integrity on both sides of the contract. The problem here is that there wasn't. Once you are in that situation, then you have to ask yourself if the oath you gave is worth anything at all.

The problem with certain oaths are that they are more than just words and are things that carry some legal burdens that aren't easily discarded based on moral objections..

 

[XJ-linux]

Once you just get over it and assume you are on whatever "lists" they have, life gets simpler. Assume you are buggered and prepare to respond accordingly. The well-intentioned people wishing you to give them stewardship of your freedom and choice will eventually, through attrition, be replaced by others. Many of them will have no interest in your having either freedom or choice.

"When you are mad as **** and can't take it anymore, grab your rifle and head out into the street. If you are the only one there... it isn't time yet."

 

[vansmith]

I'll give you an example of the sort of thing that I am worried about. A couple of years ago, an Englishman made a joke comment on social media about constant delays at his local airport, saying that he'd blow it up if they delayed him again (or words to that effect anyway). I remember reading it at the time in the media and I took it as a joke - a joke in bad taste, maybe, but a joke nonetheless.

That's inherently different though - that is a public utterance (Twitter, after all, being all about public appearance and discussion) that effectively threatens violence (however sarcastic it may have been). That individual could not have reasonable expected a right to privacy nor could they have thought that such a statement was prudent.

On the otherhand IF they began to single me out for reasons that had nothing to do with my being a real or perceived threat (by my standards) I would be looking to emigrate.

I'm always looking for new neighbours!

Then explain why he's in Hong Kong, an area controlled by the Chinese communist government if he's not a traitor? In case you don't know.... when you're issued a security clearance by the US government, you also swear to its secrecy. I'm sure the procedure is the same in the UK.

When that "company" is the government and you are an "employee" with security clearance giving you access to very delicate information, in most cases exposing things doesn't make you a whistleblower, it makes you a traitor to the country and the oath and spirit of the security clearances you have. I wouldn't necessarily bunch them together..

This is where the logic in your shared argument gets risky though. Yes, employees of the state have an obligation to some sense of secrecy. However, I would argue, moral imperatives supersede this. Let me give you an example. I was reading up on John Kiriakou, a government agent who blew the whistle on the use of torture by the U.S. government (that's not necessarily a value judgment on my part by the way). That man was sentenced to prison for effectively bringing to light a program that, at its best, enacts a particular form of violence that is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Now, remove opinion from this context (because, really, it's irrelevant to the forthcoming point). Is someone, because they are an agent of the state, expected to remain silent simply because of this position? If the government was brutally torturing innocent people, does that person's moral apprehension have to take a back seat to the law? Essentially, it would appear that you are both arguing that, simply because they are government agents, they have an unbreakable allegiance to the state that should never be contested. I think that's a very risky position to hold in light of what history has taught us - that states can do real damage (again, this is not a judgment of American politics for this can and does happen everywhere).

Now, I realize that the moral divide of this act is nowhere near as stark nor do I wish to suggest that it is. However, I think it's important to recognize that the line between whistleblower and law breaker is really grey. This is why I have yet to classify this guy and instead, I'm more interested in the consequences.

 

[harryb2448]

Well the best thing to do may be to stay away from Facebook, Twitter etc. and perhaps avoid the 'net. Things are changing in EU also. Serious talk this eroding civil liberties:-

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/...eaked-eu-proposal-would-erode-civil-liberties

 

[Stanley]

Guys it's not just YOU personally. It's what happens to society with such tools in place utterly without safeguards. I don't want politicians using it for elections. I just read that several major economic meetings such as the G20 were all infested with this type of activity. So the G20 folks are all terrorists? It affects people and is used to control them to someone else's advantage. Which then affects you, just not directly in your face in most cases.

 

[XJ-linux]

Guys it's not just YOU personally. It's what happens to society with such tools in place utterly without safeguards. I don't want politicians using it for elections. I just read that several major economic meetings such as the G20 were all infested with this type of activity. So the G20 folks are all terrorists? It affects people and is used to control them to someone else's advantage. Which then affects you, just not directly in your face in most cases.

What do YOU propose to do about it, other than voicing your dismay on the internet? Seriously, do you have an end game, or are you merely working through the stages of grief on this issue? Not sure what you are angling at, other than life sucks when we let people run it for us.

 

[Stanley]

What do YOU propose to do about it, other than voicing your dismay on the internet? Seriously, do you have an end game, or are you merely working through the stages of grief on this issue? Not sure what you are angling at, other than life sucks when we let people run it for us.

Where did that come from? I just noticed that so many sheep types just care if they will hear a knock on the door or not. If not then they go back to the grass. That's all. You might want to read up on the subject, it is not a new one at all.

 

[Stanley]

This is for those that say something like "if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about".

CBS News Says Computer Hacked Possibly By Obama Administration | The Raleigh Telegram

Well what did this reporter/analyst do wrong?

Trying to suppress the news and intimidate people at that time does not help any of us. Since the press helps keep our governments more honest, a form of check and balance. The same reporter had pressure from her bosses not to cover those same stories at the time too. And some of those people had pressure placed on them by others and some have allegiances via personal relationships to some in power.

See how it works when you can secretly snoop on anyone without limits, warrants, or accountability? Things like that can swing elections and affect many people.

 

[dan_f14]

No Government is entitled to the knowledge of private communication, ever. Nobody waives their right to private correspondence because they use email. Yes there are safer forms of communication but that doesn't give someone a right to snoop into the private correspondence. What happens if you have 2 firms fighting over multi-billion pound/dollar deal. A person in the Government plays golf with the MD of one of the firms and just informs him of the private correspondence giving that MD a significant advantage. Imagine how much such information would be worth? It would be open to such abuse. Another example say a politician has certain sexual desires (legal of course) but perhaps not widely accepted as they are a bit out there to some people (cross dressing, homosexuality, group sex, wife swap, multiple relationships). If released to the public domain (ie leaked to the press) it could affect his political campaign. The politician has a right to such privacy. The point here is that information, no matter how trivial and/or innocent, can be highly valuable in the right/wrong hands. Knowledge is power after all.

There is a legitimate aim claimed by the US Government; this data mining is used for national security. But it is too severe, too draconian. Thats like having a blister on your foot and chopping your leg off to get rid of the blister. The cure is worse than the cancer so to speak. That is just in respect of US Citizens of which I am not. The US Government has no right whatsoever to interfere in the lives of non-US Citizens that do not reside within its borders.

 

[ursus262]

This is where the logic in your shared argument gets risky though. Yes, employees of the state have an obligation to some sense of secrecy. However, I would argue, moral imperatives supersede this. Let me give you an example. I was reading up on John Kiriakou, a government agent who blew the whistle on the use of torture by the U.S. government (that's not necessarily a value judgment on my part by the way). That man was sentenced to prison for effectively bringing to light a program that, at its best, enacts a particular form of violence that is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Now, remove opinion from this context (because, really, it's irrelevant to the forthcoming point). Is someone, because they are an agent of the state, expected to remain silent simply because of this position? If the government was brutally torturing innocent people, does that person's moral apprehension have to take a back seat to the law? Essentially, it would appear that you are both arguing that, simply because they are government agents, they have an unbreakable allegiance to the state that should never be contested. I think that's a very risky position to hold in light of what history has taught us - that states can do real damage (again, this is not a judgment of American politics for this can and does happen everywhere).

Now, I realize that the moral divide of this act is nowhere near as stark nor do I wish to suggest that it is. However, I think it's important to recognize that the line between whistleblower and law breaker is really grey. This is why I have yet to classify this guy and instead, I'm more interested in the consequences.

Well, this is exactly what I have been trying to get across. Admittedly the example I gave about the Twitter poster wasn't a very good one, but it does, I hope, illustrate the point how messages can be misinterpreted, whether or not they are intended for the public domain.

 

[ursus262]

The problem with certain oaths are that they are more than just words and are things that carry some legal burdens that aren't easily discarded based on moral objections..

I'm afraid I really do disagree with you on that one. Supposing a legal oath had been sworn by an agent of some pretty unpleasant regimes, like in Iran or Zimbabwe or, for that matter, a historical one like the Nazi regime in Germany. If those agents had broken the law by revealing the atrocities of their respective regimes, what would you say about them? Traitor or Hero?

I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to catch you out. If you guys feel that he is a traitor, then so bit it. Just be careful what you wish for is all I am saying.