From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 6c828d314e3e17868f3ee168d706c53a31d72885e2edf557ffedfedfb9398cde
Message ID: <3.0.2.32.19970603105437.0072b4dc@panix.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-03 15:17:05 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:17:05 +0800
From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:17:05 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Why Privacy
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970603105437.0072b4dc@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Here's one of my old essays that I found while doing disk cleanup:
WHY PRIVACY?
The last few years have been bad ones for privacy in America. As of June
1st,
1987 it became a crime to hire anyone, even your own child, who does not
present identification cards. The "drug" laws passed in recent years require
ever more detailed reporting of smaller and smaller cash transactions. Any
children over the age of two who are to be claimed as dependents on their
parent's tax returns now need Social Security numbers. I suppose that with
all this new prying there will be less illegal drug use and everyone will pay
their fair share of taxes although past restrictions on privacy did not seem
to reduce these problems.
We seem headed for a National Identity Card system. According to government
officials promoting ID cards, the main argument in favor of this radical step
is that the law-abiding would have nothing to fear from it. This seems a
curious argument for the proponents of such a dramatic change in the
relationship between the people of the U.S. and their government since it
fails to state any benefit for the law-abiding either.
The fact is that the argument is false. The law-abiding have a great deal to
fear from all invasions of their privacy by the minions of the state. If the
history of this century has proved anything, it has proved that the innocent
have far more to fear from government than the guilty.
Why guard the privacy of the innocent (the guilty can and will take care of
themselves)? After all the enforcers say, "If you have nothing to hide, you
don't need privacy." The answer should be obvious, "The innocent won't know
what they have to hide until it's too late."
The reason to value privacy is simply that we know from the most casual
reading of the history of Europe that every sort of person has at certain
times and in certain places been killed because of what others knew about
them. Over the last 400 years, within the confines of Europe, peasants,
workers, aristocrats, bourgeois shopkeepers, Jews, Protestants, Catholics,
Communists, Nazis, anarchists, monarchists, and others have faced death
simply
because of what they were. These people may have gone about their business
in
seeming safety for years until a change in circumstance marked them for
death.
By then it was too late for them to hide their selves.
This is why privacy must be valued. It may be that every single one of the
millions of current employees of the international, national, state, and
local
governments who will make use of the information collected about us is a
noble
human being without a tyrannical bone in his (or her) body but we cannot
guarantee the future. The average American has some forty years of life left
and forty years is a long time in the life of today's nations. There may
come
a time within those forty years when innocent information surrendered to the
state will mean death. No nation is immune to domestic or foreign tyrrany,
given the fluid nature of modern politics.
To make the abstract concrete, how was it that the Nazi government of Germany
identified Jews for extermination? It proved to be a simple matter of
consulting local records. Did the Jewish mother and father in 1880 or 1900
or
1920 realize when they listed their child's religion on birth records in full
compliance with the law that they were condemning that child to death? Or
what about the passport. Promoted at the beginning of this century as a
means
of easing international travel and safeguarding the passage rights of
neutrals, it has become a major impediment to international travel and even a
threat to life. If one is on board an airliner with armed Palestinian
terrorists, would one rather be carrying an American, Israeli, British,
Swiss,
or Syrian passport?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0 beta
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM5QwKoVO4r4sgSPhAQHU0wQAurkb8o8xMiNV6urPikwmn7R57EFqx/nl
SX48j+6PdihKT1c8oV9b+SmWlJMLjfCdEee0AZWhSlnrl2H6yt+JC5SrxD40dtSE
C0tg4tbjXe5H5VI8HT1i6qobS7y5dI6moWyaHhxc4Zg4g7ztpNnYLTMKOxsLG2jk
Pp0ZgLdS6Kc=
=OtSv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to June 1997
Return to “Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>”
1997-06-03 (Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:17:05 +0800) - Why Privacy - Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>