Michael Wilson on Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:42:52 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> The problem with privacy advocates |
As an employee of one of the "protectors" mentioned by Brin, I feel compelled to respond to a few of his charges. Although I don't claim to speak for the organization, in my experience the issues Brin raises are of daily concern to the ACLU ? one of the most audible voices in the current debate. [PF: We're five months out from Sept. 11. What's changed in regard tosecurity and privacy in the U.S.? BRIN: Panic, but not as much as some people feared. In fact, the new powers of sight demanded and received by the FBI aren't all that awful. What bugs me terribly is that there have been no accompanying and countervailing powers of oversight, enabling citizen watchdog groups to observe how these new powers of vision are used. That second half of the deal was never offered to us. Nor did most of our protectors in the civil liberties community even ask.] To a sci-fi author capable of imagining extreme dystopic scenarios, the Patriot Act may appear to demand relatively benign compromises (this view is echoed by many on the right) but the ACLU has argued otherwise: http://www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html As for oversight, the lack of it has always been the central issue underlying any privacy invasion, but we have addressed this problem directly in light of present circumstances: http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n012402a.html [PF: What concerns you more: government surveillance trampling on civil liberties, or government's inability to prevent terrorist attacks? BRIN: The question itself is what concerns me most. All across the airwaves we see security mavens demanding tighter restrictions on daily life "for our children's safety," while civil libertarians preach that we should accept risk and danger as a price for avoiding "Big Brother" and protecting freedom for our descendants. In fact, both sides are foisting a poisonous notion on us for their own self-interest. Both groups assume a fundamental trade-off between safety and freedom, and derive economic benefit from the fact that we swallow this awful notion. But is such a trade-off real? I can tell you that I refuse to even let it be a basis for discussion! Nobody tells me that I must choose between safety for my children and their freedom. It's a non-starter. Can we have both safety and freedom? The evidence can be seen all around us. We are - even after 9/11 - toweringly safer and freer than any other people in history. The two go together. All it takes is breaking the stupid notion of dichotomies and trade-offs.] This debate was precisely the one the ACLU wished to avoid when we launched our campaign in response to the post-911 security measures: just type the words "safe and free" into Google. Although this slogan might remind one of an advertisement for maxi-pads or adult diapers, it does serve to illustrate the point that the civil libertarians are preaching more than the acceptance of "risk and danger". Brin's charges of elitism and narrow-minded adherence to orthodoxy may be appropriate criticism of any entrenched advocacy group. However, in characterizing the current field of privacy debate so one-dimensionally, Brin betrays an unfounded arrogance as well as clear ignorance. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net