BT 2006 trials of Phorm

[Ian Batten]

On 06 Jun 08, at 1534, James Firth wrote:

> Wendy M. Grossman wrote:
>> Paul Vigay wrote:
>>
>>> I must admit that I'm a bit more blunt and 'go for the shock factor'
>> when
>>> it comes to answering the "If you have nothing to hide...."  
>>> question,
>>> simply replying with, "try telling that to a holocaust survivor" -  
>>> which
>>> usually stops the conversation!
>>
>> Yes, but that's what's wrong with it. You don't want to end the
>> conversation entirely - Godwin's Law - with a scenario they think is
>> unlikely to happen to *them*. You want to get across things that are
>> real and person to their own lives.
>>
>
> Which neatly sums up the paradox faced by campaigners against data
> profiling.  The true crux of the problem is the nightmare Godwin/Nazi
> scenario where instant access to a comprehensive profile of the  
> majority of
> citizens is open to misuse by a rogue government.

But the ``ah, this law could be misused'' argument relies on the  
strange fiction of the liberal left, the law-abiding criminal regime.   
Bad governments don't need legislation that has a potential for  
misuse: they either pass enabling acts or just act without any concern  
for legality.

With regard to the information, rather than the laws, the example we  
usually drag up is the records of Jewish origin that were held by the  
Dutch government after a census of the 1930s and in tax records, and  
that's linked to the low levels of survival of Dutch Jews.

However, the census that was actually used to perform the deportations  
was conducted by the Nazis in 1941.  People, still naively believing  
that this was an occupation by a legal government, stated their  
origin.  From Wikipedia, although it ties up with other things I've  
read:

> In the Nazi census, some 121,000 persons declared they were members  
> of the (Ashkenazi) Dutch-Israelite community; 4,300 persons declared  
> they were members of the (Sephardic) Portuguese-Israelite community.  
> Some 19,000 persons reported having two Jewish grandparents  
> (although it is generally believed a proportion of this number had  
> in fact three Jewish grandparents, but declined to state that number  
> in the fear they would be seen as Jews instead of half-Jews by the  
> Nazi authorities).

Violent fascist governments don't say ``ah, I was going to murder you,  
but as you're protected by clause 14 subsection 6 I won't'', nor do  
they say ``you look a bit Jewish and have a Torah on your shelf, but  
as you are declaring your ethnic affiliation as `prefer not to say'  
that's one space on the cattle truck that will be going east  
empty''.    They're violent fascist governments, and the only way to  
defend against them is to stop them from obtaining power.  You can't  
legislate safety from them: how much protection is the Zimbabwean  
constitution offering right now?
>
> But of course the general public would arguably only believe this if  
> the
> Daily Mail told them to.

Yes, because insulting the vast majority of the population is an  
excellent rhetorical device.

The UK has a population of about 61 million.   The Daily Mail sells  
about 2.4 million copies, slightly more on Saturdays, and is estimated  
to be read by at most 6 million people: less than 10% of the  
population.  Now you're obviously a sophisticated media consumer who  
is immune to the blandishments of any rhetoric, but let's assume your  
contempt for the rest of the population is justified and every one of  
those six million people is marching to the Daily Mail's drum.   In  
2004, it was estimate that 21% of the readership voted Labour and 17%  
Lib Dem: how do you explain that?

>  I personally think the majority of internet users
> do really think "I've got nothing to hide" and genuinely believe a  
> lot of
> the data warehousing proposed by governments will help fight  
> terrorism.

The former is their own decision.  Or does your contempt extend to  
knowing what's best for them?  The latter may be true, but if you  
accept the first premise you need the second premise to be neutral.

>  So
> we try with lesser examples, medical records or the fact that your  
> bank
> statement shows you purchasing "a meal" at 3:30am at some seedy joint.


As a rhetorical device, assuming your interlocutor has a sexually  
transmitted disease or an alcohol problem, and is wont to frequent  
brothels, tends not to work well.  They will reply ``but that's not a  
problem for me'', AND THEY'LL BE RIGHT.

ian