[LINK] Security 'vs.' Privacy [Was Re: A security question

[Janet Hawtin]

if n entities(individuals and companies) have effectively infinite wealth
leverage and privacy
why would transparent civil groups have an impact if the law can be changed
through secret trade agreements (dmca)
and governments do not resist private priorities.

people learn from what happens to those who seek change
eg. what happens to whistle blowers?

if change is possible it needs to address $ and other leverage.
do the entities who have the leverage want it to change?
what would make change attractive to those entities?


On 19 December 2013 13:04, Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au> wrote:

> Great stuff Janet!
>
> Join an appropriate Committee or Board of APF, or EFA, and multiply
> your and our impacts.
>
> http://www.privacy.org.au/About/Contacts.html
> http://www.efa.org.au
>
> _________________________
>
> At 12:22 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 11:35, Roger Clarke
> <<mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au>Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au> wrote:
>
> At 11:09 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote:
> >Where do security/privacy overlap?
>
> Reject the 'you can have security or privacy - choose one' mythology.
>
>
> I am playing an online computer game.
>
> It used to have trouble with bot players distorting the economy.
>
> It does not now. Other players said that the game can now check if
> the computer is running a bot through the Windows desktop.
>
> I thought that was interesting.
>
> Facebook.
>
> Political parties have people liking them or not.
>
> Campaigns for civil rights, through Facebook and other sites.
>
> People liking companies and products.
>
> Music, film, books
>
> each other
>
> Twitter
>
> ongoing opinions and connections
>
> Phone apps
>
> pick a topic..
>
>
> Customised search results.
>
> Meanwhile cases are being fought to have evidence in camera for
> motorbike groups.
>
> TPP is conducted secretly.
>
> How much of UN or WIPO is accessible publically.
>
> imho people are becoming transparent
>
> systems government and corporate interests have the means and
> leverage to secure privacy.
>
> that changes the balance of rights
>
> companies are not people
>
> that used to mean rights for people allowed for civil rights.
>
> what does it mean now?
>
> voting is private
>
> what does that mean now if everything outside the ballot box is transparent
>
> what were the reasons for political privacy, how does democracy tilt
> without it
>
> i think the public and private spheres are getting different
> pressures on security/privacy
>
> i don't think we are talking about the both of them in context and
> what they mean in terms of power differential/right of way.
>
>
> --
> Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
>
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
> Tel: +61 2 6288 6916                        http://about.me/roger.clarke
> mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/
>
> Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
> Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>