Re: The Utility of Privacy

[snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>]

> At 6:55 AM 11/18/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> >C'punks,
> >> Examples [of people who have suffered due to loss of privacy]?
> >Phil Zimmermann often tells the story of a woman whose marriage
> >was destroyed by the revelation of a long-past indiscretion. 
> >After her husband divorced her, she committed suicide.
> Deceiving your spouse is not a good reason to protect your privacy.

      Sure it is. Earlier this year I threw a party for my wifes birthday.
A suprise party. I had to deceive her to keep her out of the house I needed
privacy to do this.    

> >Any number of celebrities have been stalked, attacked and even
> >killed by obsessed fans who found them through public records.
> Unfortunately most readers of this list do not have this problem.

     It is still a valid example. Someone made the claim that people do not
need privacy, this is an example of someone who needs it. 
> >Every year, children and business executives are kidnapped for
> >ransom.  The proximate cause of these kidnappings is a breach in
> >privacy about the whereabouts and schedules of the victim.  
> Or this problem.

     See above.

> >Hitler's gun registration in Germany allowed the Jews to be
> >disarmed.  I'm sure you are aware of the ultimate consequences
> >of that little invasion of privacy.
> Not a bad example, but genocide happens rarely.

     Germany. Cambodia, Boznia, Somilia, Rwanda & Zaire. Soviet Russia, 
China...

     All within the last 60 years. 

     Yup. Rarely happen. 

> Those alert enough to protect their privacy in advance might be alert
> enough to get out in time, anyway.
> Subjective utility: low.
> 
> >The US Post Office co-operated in the identification and 
> >imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during the second
> >world war.
> 97,000 victims over a ~100 year period.  Doesn't really show up on the
> scope, sorry.  (Plus downside bad, but few were murdered.)

     I am sure that there are other victims in the PO's history, but 
not with as big of numbers. 

     1 is a crime, 100,000 is a crying shame. 

     You know that red thing you see when you open your eyes? It's your 
prostate. 


> >The problem with having a whole lot of private information about
> >you floating around in public is not what damage it can do to you
> >now, but rather the problems it potentially could cause in the
> >will you be about them if there is extreme right or left takeover
> >in the future?  Start to get the picture?
> These things CAN happen.  Will they happen?  Odds are low.
> BTW, are you operating under your True Name?

     I am, but I don't mind being a target. 

     If you think privacy is so bad, why are you indulging in it. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com