A bit dated and lengthy, but nevertheless a great read.
I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgment and intentions are.
I have this exact quote printed on my paper planner every year as a reminder. It’s a great quote.
Honestly I do not think it’s a very good paper. The end conclusion is essentially “it’s ok if there’s a warrant”. I’m sorry but no. If it’s the government doing it, it’s one thing, but this completely avoids any discussion of private companies collecting every single piece of data they possibly can on you to sell.
And the lawyers that somehow lost the argument on whether spam mail harms people is astounding. “I could have gotten a letter telling me I had an inheritance, but I get so much spam mail it could have gotten lost. It’s impossible to know the extent of the harms I’ve endured due to the amount my data has been sold.”
The end conclusion is essentially “it’s ok if there’s a warrant”
I think it’s a fair compromise. Let’s not be naive, there’s lots of evil in the world. As was stated in the article: “This is a mechanism of oversight—it forces government officials to justify their suspicions to a neutral judge or magistrate before engaging in the tactic.”
If it’s the government doing it, it’s one thing, but this completely avoids any discussion of private companies collecting every single piece of data they possibly can on you to sell.
Data collection falls under a different category of privacy issues, than government surveillance, as he was pointing out in his article, so conflating them is unhelpful.
And the lawyers that somehow lost the argument on whether spam mail harms people is astounding. “I could have gotten a letter telling me I had an inheritance, but I get so much spam mail it could have gotten lost. It’s impossible to know the extent of the harms I’ve endured due to the amount my data has been sold.”
Not sure what you’re on about here, wasn’t mentioned there at all.
If it’s the government doing it, it’s one thing, but this completely avoids any discussion of private companies collecting every single piece of data they possibly can on you to sell.
Data collection falls under a different category of privacy issues, than government surveillance, as he was pointing out in his article, so conflating them is unhelpful.
It doesn’t though, since the government can now just purchase that data. It’s no longer considered a search since a private company did it of their own accord, at least in the U.S.
So the government is just bypassing all these protections and just buying the data outright.
And the lawyers that somehow lost the argument on whether spam mail harms people is astounding. “I could have gotten a letter telling me I had an inheritance, but I get so much spam mail it could have gotten lost. It’s impossible to know the extent of the harms I’ve endured due to the amount my data has been sold.”
Not sure what you’re on about here, wasn’t mentioned there at all.
A similar problem surfaces in another case, Smith v. Chase Manhattan Bank. 99 A group of plaintiffs sued Chase Manhattan Bank for selling customer information to third parties in violation of its privacy policy, which stated that the information would remain confidential. The court held that even presuming these allegations were true, the plaintiffs could not prove any actual injury: [T]he “harm” at the heart of this purported class action, is that class members were merely offered products and services which they were free to decline. This does not qualify as actual harm. The complaint does not allege any single instance where a named plaintiff or any class member suffered any actual harm due to the receipt of an unwanted telephone solicitation or a piece of junk mail.100From the paper.
Fair enough , I suppose things have changed since it was written and now some things intersect.
