BT 2006 trials of Phorm

[James Firth]

Ian Batten wrote:
> 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.

No it doesn't.  Once the information source is compiled, it remains (subject
to ageing).  Once the information gathering mechanisms are built, they
remain.



> 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.

Irrelevant, as I wasn't talking about the legality, I was talking about the
physical data source.

 
> 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.  

I don't contest this.  It is one specific case and irrelevant to the
specific point I was making about data warehousing.



> > 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...

Firstly, I was using the Mail as an example of the section of the media
which presents opinion as frequently as fact in its content.

Secondly, to use your own argument against you:
> I suspect that you're spending too much time amongst people you know.

Is it really insulting to suggest that large sections of the population have
more pressing issues to worry about than "what if's" of information
gathering?  

I don't frown down on plumbers, bricklayers and lorry drivers, if that's
what you're insinuating, as I would be insulting much of my own family.

Merely I see that you are attempting to question my own knowledge of
psychology and sociology.

According to Maslow's hierarchy surely you would agree that mainly the
self-actualized minority have spare time to consider fully the issues
associated with data warehousing, Phorm, RIP etc?

Therefore the majority of the population, some of whom are struggling to
make enough money each week to feed and cloth their family, some struggling
with healthcare or battling to get school places for their children are less
inclined to spend large amounts of time reading forums, media and talking to
others to the extent needed to form an opinion on certain subjects.

Therefore this majority is more likely to be swayed by newspaper opinion on
subjects they haven't fully considered.


> >  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.

No contempt, just that a lot of people I've spoken to recently about data
privacy issues have told me just that.  1.) They have nothing to hide, and
2.) They see that something needs to be done to bring down online crime and
fight terrorism.

I know this is a highly subjective summary, and lacking supporting evidence,
but I don't see how this is contempt, other that your obvious contempt of my
posting this opinion.

> 
> >  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.
> 

Did you read the start of my post?  I was highlighting a paradox faced by
privacy campaigners.  They either choose to highlight the ethical and moral
issues with profiling, an issue you chose to shoot me down on by
highlighting the "liberal left" problem i.e. an issue that is somewhat noisy
in itself, and risk losing the audience, or jump to rhetoric such as I
highlighted, and as you correctly pointed out risk losing the audience.