• Flattr FoI: 
Falkvinge &Co. on Infopolicy
BEFORE-FALKVINGE-IF-ANY FALKVINGE &CO. ON
INFOPOLICY
Falkvinge on Infopolicy - Home
»
Fences on a lawn, private residence in background, signifying dividers and privacy.

Privacy: The Political Divider

6

Privacy – Henrik Alexandersson

Privacy – Henrik Alexandersson

Privacy issues are political dividers. Either you take the classical liberal stand – that citizens are individuals, who should be judged by their actions, or you choose a socialist or conservative stand – where citizens are to be seen and treated as a collective.

Almost no one denies the need for surveillance when it comes to people who are suspected of serious crimes (or obvious preparation of such crimes).

The issue is if you want surveillance of all citizens, all the time. Just in case.

The public Big Brother discourse seems to focus on things like terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, sexual abuse of children, public order, and similar alarming issues.

But the justification for surveillance has nothing to do with the approach to it as such. Everything can be excused. Practically everything.

We cannot draw the line on a case-by-case basis, as the boundaries of what our elected representatives deems to be acceptable or not keeps changing depending on time, zeitgeist and place. There are no guarantees that the ruling classes will use surveillance for reasonable purposes only, at all times.

We must draw a line that stands on principle.

Surveillance should only be used if there is a tangible suspicion of a crime being committed, or about to be committed.

When this principle is established – but no earlier – you can take on the day-to-day discussion about what should be legal and illegal. That is a neverending and ever-changing process.

We must accept and respect the right to privacy as a fundamental human right.

Today’s day-by-day and case-by-case approach will, with absolute certainty, lead to the right to privacy being hollowed out altogether. You need only give politics a glance to understand that.

A society without the right to privacy will be a highly unpleasant, hostile and dangerous society. Especially for the innocent.

We, the people, must demand our right to privacy back. Because no one else will do it for us.

Originally posted at The Embedded Citizen and at Hax’ private blog in Swedish.

You've read the whole article. Why not subscribe to the RSS flow using your favorite reader, or even have articles delivered by mail?

About The Author: Henrik Alexandersson

Henrik Alexandersson works in the European Parliament as an assistant to Christian Engström, Pirate Member of European Parliament. He has a libertarian background and his blog focuses on such policy.

Liked This?

By participating in the discussion and posting here, you are placing your contribution in the public domain (CC0). If you are quoting somebody else, credit them.

Contributors take own responsibility for their comments.

6

  1. 1
    jimbo

    i think that it is far too late for the people to demand anything. governments everywhere, democratically elected or not, are not interested in anything or anyone other than imposing as many freedom-removing and privacy-removing laws as they possibly can on to the people. while doing this, they are also making sure that there are as many protections as possible being put into place so as to ensure that their best buddies in industry are never going to have to justify whatever it is that they want or want to do. this all started many years ago but, in my opinion, has intensified dramatically because of the devastating attack on The World Trade buildings in New York in 2001. as bad as that was, i feel the US response has been typically OTT. they seem to be of the opinion that there is a terrorist behind every door, every tree in every country, just waiting to blow up more unsuspecting Americans and the way to tackle it is to have as much surveillance as possible, on as many people as possible, in as many situations as possible. not content with that, they are forcing their opinions and measures on to as many other countries as possible, threatening sanctions etc if there is any sort of resistance. the biggest thing i think they have forgotten is that when there is something serious that is gonna happen, it isn’t the ordinary person that instigates it or carries it out. looking closer to home at the more powerful people that are supposed to be the ‘pillars of society’ would have more success. in the mean time, as per usual, it’s never the rich, powerful and famous that lose anything, it’s the ordinary citizens that lose more and more, suffer more and more and gain less and less, if anything at all. whenever anyone tries to fight ‘the system’, what happens? basically, nothing! why? because no one that could make a difference gives a toss! a good example was the recent ‘dinner over the homeless people’ issue. not just a joke, a bloody insult!

  2. 2
    Ano Nymous

    I’m afraid that very few people realize just how dangerous mass surveillance is, and won’t do so until death at a massive scale occurs. By then the only remedy will be more death: the fourth box, which Rick mentioned in an article not too long ago, will be the only one that still works.

    The only way to prevent that it goes that far, is education. The only way of educating that many people is by mainstream media. Mainstream media is controlled by those who don’t want such education to occur. Catch 22.

  3. 3

    When thinking about violations of privacy, I am reminded of the abuse of the phrase, “probable cause”.

    When I hear authorities asserting that they have “probable cause”, I would, sometimes, like to ask them what they estimate that probability is.

    If such an authority were honest with themselves, they would admit that, often, that probability is less than 50% – or, they may not even know what the probability is, at all. The estimate may be based upon presumptions and assumptions, rather than rational discourse – specious thinking, concealed behind a curtain of ‘official confidentiality’ and – too funny! – ‘concerns about privacy’.

    Which means, it is not PROBABLE. cause It is POSSIBLE cause. That is an entirely different thing.

    And so we see that those in authority are as vulnerable to muddy thinking as anyone else. Their reasoning is faulty. And they know it.

    Perhaps, if we insisted upon a more rigid definition of “probable cause” – say, requiring the entire statement to be phrased as a sequence of IF/THEN statements, so that the reasoning is clear to all …instead of allowing the emotional impact of the words, “probable cause”, to overcome our capacity for rational behavior …

    … Then, we, as a human society, would would be able to engineer an increased level of privacy, by incorporating additional, linguistic mechanisms, to negate the natural tendency of some humans to be influenced by access to power.

  4. 4
    Anonymous

    something that should be added, although it is a bit of a different subject is the extra-marital affair of David Petraeus, the now former (but only just) CIA director and renowned general. the point being as raised above, it’s the important, rich and/or famous that need watching the closest. perhaps if more heed had been paid to what this guy was doing (particularly by the FBI, instead of the ‘make believe terrorist threats i keep reading about that they have invented so as to maintain their high level of funding!) rather than concentrating on the lives of ordinary, innocent people, there would not have been the ‘lightning bolt’ that came with the disclosure. yes, ordinary people have affairs and yes, people get emotionally hurt, but they are not normally involved with watching or maintaining a nations’ security. that could have led to a disaster! bit different to sharing a movie, though, eh?

  5. 5
    printersMate

    The most useful axis for judging politicians and political activists is one running from anarchists at one end, through libertarians, small government people, large government people, to totalitarians. Most active politicians, whether from the left or right, are in the large government or totalitarian camp. At this end of the spectrum there is also a strong tendency to holding strong political beliefs, or a self belief in knowing what is best for the population. There is little difference between such people and fundamentalist religious people, opposing views are heretics and need to be converted to the true ‘faith’, by force if necessary.
    In western democracies, in part due to the type of person attracted to party politics, the central parties have turned the grass root parties into supporter organisations, rather than an active part of policy making. This allows the parties to drift further towards the totalitarian end of the spectrum, resulting in elected politicians that lean towards this part of the spectrum. This does drive most people out of active participation in politics, and low turnout in elections because they feel that they cannot influence the politicians.
    While western democracies place some restraints on such people, they will jump at any excuse to monitor and control a population. Police and security services attract people who will exercise power over other people at the command of their masters, and will obviously try to make their jobs easier by asking for laws that make data available to them without having to bother with warrants and other legal niceties. Because of the drift towards the totalitarian end of the spectrum the politicians are more likely accede to these requests rather than acting in the public interest and denying such demands.
    People at the other end of the spectrum do not desire the exercise of control over their fellow citizens, and usually have a much more pragmatic approach to politics. The small government people will stand as independents, but the political parties have convinced most people that voting independent is a wasted vote. While their are few real anarchists, most people accept that some laws are necessary which makes them libertarians rather than anarchists. (an aside most so called anarchists that want to use violence to overthrow a government are really at the other end of the spectrum and oppose the existing government and want some form of one party state).
    The libertarian end of the spectrum can be argumentative, and will accept that no law is required to deal with an issue, but rather people should make up their own mind. This is the world of the occupy movement, and the free and open source software movement. They can effectively organise when required, see @OccupySandy. efforts in New York.
    Defeating the big brother tendency in politics require convincing the public to vote for independents and small parties, selling a message of decentralisation and placing limits on the powers of higher level governments. Hopefully the Internet will allow a movement towards this more decentralised and libertarian government, and allow pressure to put on the existing politicians to block bad laws from being passed. The alternative is increasingly totalitarian system until it eventually collapses or is overthrown by a revolution.

  6. 6
    n

    But if most people infringe on copyrights on the internet, then you have probable cause to suspect everyone, right?

Add a Comment

1 + = 7  

On Facebook

Popular Articles

US Capitol Buildings
23

Quality Legislation – Nozomi Hayase

Quality Legislation – Nozomi Hayase

handcuffs
22

Quality Legislation – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Quality Legislation – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Open water - Photo by Flickr user elisfanclub
9

Reflections – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Reflections – Zacqary Adam Xeper

liberator
8

Civil Liberties – Christian Engström

Civil Liberties – Christian Engström

Other Recent Headlines

Bitcoin concept
13

Cryptocurrency – Nozomi Hayase

Cryptocurrency – Nozomi Hayase

PyramidCapital
29

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Screenshot from Librep-2014-08-10-take1.mp4
10

Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties

Librep July 12 frame
32

Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties

Money cut into pieces - Photo by Flickr user Tax Credits
80

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

colorblindflag
23

United States – Zacqary Adam Xeper

United States – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Adobe the leech - original photo by OakleyOriginals on Flickr
171

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

peter_sunde_0237
14

Swarm Economy – Lionel Dricot

Swarm Economy – Lionel Dricot

solarroad
16

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

European Parliament
71

Pirate Parties

Pirate Parties

About The Author

Henrik Alexandersson works in the European Parliament as an assistant to Christian Engström, Pirate Member of European Parliament. He has a libertarian background and his blog focuses on such policy.

More On Infopolicy

NSA Seal Holding the Heartbleed Logo
40

Infrastructure – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Infrastructure – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Bitcoin concept by Antanacoins. CC-By-SA, Flickr.
42

Cryptocurrency – Charlie Shrem

Cryptocurrency – Charlie Shrem

Bottles of Snake Oil - Photo by Jagrap on Flickr
29

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Xeper

facebook
12

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

523377_63619557
4

Infopolicy – Henrik Brändén

Infopolicy – Henrik Brändén

photo_10071_20090418-646x363
71

Copyright Monopoly – David Collier-Brown

Copyright Monopoly – David Collier-Brown

National_Security_Agency_headquarters,_Fort_Meade,_Maryland_public_domain_image
155

Infopolicy – Christian Engström

Infopolicy – Christian Engström

"God Hates Signs" next to "God Hates Fags" protesters
8

Freedom of Speech – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Freedom of Speech – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Many different currencies - CC photo by epSos.de
45

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper

le_tresor_rackham_le_rouge_1280x1024
11

Copyright Monopoly – Lionel Dricot

Copyright Monopoly – Lionel Dricot

Valve mechanism
96

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech

Books before copyright
99

Copyright Monopoly – Johnny Olsson

Copyright Monopoly – Johnny Olsson

Collaborative whiteboard at OuiShare 2012, full of wonderful ideas for venture capitalists to ruin - photo by Natalie Ortiz
15

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Spices - Marrakech 09 Souks
58

Swarm Economy

Swarm Economy

Screen Shot 2013-06-27 at 7.23.12 PM
33

Copyright Monopoly – Travis McCrea

Copyright Monopoly – Travis McCrea

An Ouya console and controller
15

Infopolicy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Infopolicy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Smári McCarthy
36

Privacy – Christian Engström

Privacy – Christian Engström

1984-ish poster from London's Public Transport
8

Privacy – Loz Kaye

Privacy – Loz Kaye

Man slamming his head on a desk in frustration - CC photo by Flickr user mbshane
36

Privacy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Privacy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

This publication is protected under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden. Any problem you have with this publication remains exclusively yours. Accountable publisher: Rick Falkvinge.
All text on this site is Public Domain / CC0 unless specifically noted and credited otherwise. Copy, remix, and inspire. (Troll policy.)
Log in | Original theme design by Gabfire themes (heavily modified)