That may seem like an aggressive statement, but the only way you will ever get the privacy you want is if you don’t put anything out there. No mobile phone, no email, no Facebook, no Twitter, and no browsing. Nothing. Shop at brick-and-mortar, do your banking in person, and if you want to talk to someone, call from a land-line. Maybe you can write them a letter, if you can trust the Post Office.
As I have already said in a number of posts, if you want ANY of the convenience that your mobile phone or the Internet provides, you pay a price in loss of personal privacy. Did you really think it was free? Or worse, do you actually EXPECT it to be free? You want all the benefits and none of the downside?
We have an expectation that it’s the government’s responsibilities to protect its citizens, from either external aggressors, or internal threats. How do you expect them to do that if they don’t at least TRY to do the same things the bad guys do? It’s called testing. As far as I am concerned, they can take whatever data of mine they like, as long as they do nothing with it other than work out how to plug the holes.
And if you’re worried that the government might use your data against you, what exactly are you doing?
Should there be more oversight? More transparency? Probably, but do you WANT to let the bad guys know how we’re catching them?
Question: Whom would you rather find a cancerous tumor in your body, a doctor, or a coroner? The doctor will be every bit as invasive, but will do so to save your life. You trust them, right?
OK, so that’s a little dramatic, and the other side of the analogy is excessive, but I think it makes the point. I WANT the government to find the holes before the bad guys do, because the bad guys have no rules whatsoever. They will steal from you, ruin your life, or whatever takes their fancy, and then not give you another thought unless it’s to laugh about how you made things so easy for them.
Businesses hire ‘bad guys’ all the time to test their systems, they are called ethical hackers. Same mind-set as a bad guy with one twist; they are there to help fix the problem, not exploit it.
Was Prism so different? They have no choice BUT to sift through everyone else’s data to find the ones who are doing bad things. Can you think of a better way of doing it? Seriously, if you can, I’d love to hear it, it will have far-reaching impact on the way security professionals think / work and should be heard.
It’s fairly clear which side I’m on, and this really is a issue with only 2 sides; for, and against the monitoring our private information. What’s needed now is a guest post from someone who is on the other side of the fence, maybe even a lawyer, and that’s all I can tell you about them or they’ll beat me up.
Let the debate begin!!
[If you liked this article, please share! Want more like it, subscribe!]