for Debbie: Explaining votes made while representing NCSG while on GNSO Council

[Alex Gakuru]

Hopefully enriching the conversation
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Nothing-to-Hide/index.html (off:
http://surprisinglyfree.com/2011/07/05/daniel-solove/).

Citing earlier paper: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings
of Privacy at http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565



The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent. Responding to this
argument in a way that registers with people in the general public.

Daniel Solove takes on the 'nothing to hide' argument and exposes its faulty
underpinnings. At the base of the fallacy, as Bruce Schneier has notes, is
the "faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.

The nothing to hide argument is one of the primary arguments made when
balancing privacy against security. In its most compelling form, it is an
argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal to trivial, thus
making the balance against security concerns a foreordained victory for
security.

Sometimes the nothing to hide argument is posed as a question: "If you have
nothing to hide, then what do you have to fear?" Others ask: "If you aren't
doing anything wrong, then what do you have to hide?"

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The spirit of resistance to government is so
valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive" and
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face
reality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or who says it," added Malcolm
X.

-ends-


On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> Works for me.  :-)
>
> As for reducing cybercrime, it's unclear to me just how much of this really
> requires special exceptions to due process in piercing the veil of privacy
> in the DNS registration system.
>
> The point is not that criminals deserve privacy, but that the rest of us
> deserve it, and you can't distinguish up front which registrants may or may
> not be a criminal.  IMO, to violate the privacy rights of all of us
> preemptively in order to hope to interfere with some cybercriminals earlier
> in the enforcement process is a dangerous trade-off.
>
> What we're looking for here is genuine due process as opposed to fake due
> process.  It makes a big difference, because the fake kind is importantly
> open to abuse, which those of us who don't call the shots (which is most of
> us) will come to regret.
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> At 9:53 AM +0700 10/15/11, nhklein wrote:
> >Thanks, Dan.
> >
> >I would even re-phrase your sentence saying "we want to reduce
> >cybercrime *while also* protecting free speech " - having some
> >experience suffering from both, I would rather prefer to say: "we want
> >to protect free speech reduce *while also* reducing cybercrime."
> >
> >Agreed about this sequence of priorities?
> >
> >Norbert
> >
> >
> >On 10/15/2011 06:00 AM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> >> One may of course respect a diversity of views, but when a single policy
> >> requires implementation according to the principles of a single view,
> >> there needs to be some resolution of diversity to (if possible) a
> >> consensus position.
> >>
> >> I guess then it would help to define what "as much as possible" means --
> >> to me that sounded like "at any cost" (including the unfounded impugning
> >> of innocents, since that inevitably will happen if you want to address
> >> *all* malfeasance, however defined).
> >>
> >> If what you really meant was "as much as possible without stomping on
> the
> >> rights of innocents without power" then I would begin to agree with you
> in
> >> principle, though the devil is in the details because there is a
> trade-off
> >> required here.
> >>
> >> The fundamental question is: how do we want to arrange that trade-off?
> >> That is to say, we want to reduce cybercrime *while also* protecting
> free
> >> speech.  To express only one half of this trade-off is to miss the real
> >> issue before us, because we cannot have both in perfect degree.
> >>
> >> The fundamental difference of opinion here seems to be which goal has
> >> priority, security or expression?  Ideally we would want "balance" here,
> >> but until we can find that balance, how do we proceed in the near term?
> >> Personally, I side with Wendy.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Dan
> >--
> >A while ago, I started a new blog:
> >
> >...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
> >http://www.thinking21.org/
> >
> >continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.
> >
> >Norbert Klein
> >nhklein at gmx.net
> >Phnom Penh / Cambodia
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111015/49e01566/attachment-0001.html>