Those who know me...

...Will know that, unlike most of my countrymen, I do *not* regard this as a feature of the hotel room, but a Bug.

At least I've still got 3G on this side of the hotel. Unlike some others I've spent too long in this year...

Same as it Ever Was...

I see our glorious leadership are standing firm to their previous positions to be for civil liberties and against nanny-state intrusion as they promised.... Oop, my mistake it turns out they're listening to the Spooks after all.



When people communicated through the telephone, and before that through letters, or face-to-face, there was an asymmetry of effort required that provided some assurance of privacy: the costs of interception were high enough that you wouldn't bother unless you had a vested interest. In the case of the State that meant some level of reasonable suspicion of malpractice or bad intent that could justify the efforts to intercept. Under these conditions, there is a reasonable expectation that if you're not up to harm, there's no interest in tracking what you're doing and there's therefore an expectation of some level of privacy. Put even more bluntly: I don't see armies of public employees steaming open envelopes in huge back-room offices, therefore I can assume that my letters aren't getting read.

But intercepting internet traffic is laughably easy, for a state organisation. It's not exactly difficult for the general public - see FireSheep for example. This reduces the asymmetry considerably. And the temptation to exploit this must be tremendous for those responsible for our collective safety. 

My objections to this are twofold:

1. There's a step-change in civil liberties here, from a position of "Innocent until proven guilty" to "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide". With the implicit assumption that if you've got something to hide, or even to obscure, you're guilty of something.
2. I don't trust the government. Or any large organisation for that matter. Not necessarily that they'll abuse the information they're gathering - I think it's done openly enough that they probably are being mostly honest about the whats, whys and wherefores. No, I distrust their ability to secure that information and prevent it's leaking to other parties that would abuse it for their own means. IT Security is hard, and I've yet to see anyone demonstrate a convincing lock-down mechanism invulnerable to leak through malice or even simple cock-up.

Let us be blunt about this: We all have stuff we'd rather not came out in public. I might surf sites late at night that I'd rather my kids didn't see, you might purchase gifts for a friend you'd rather not have exposed, he watched that Justin Bieber video on YouTube 15 times in a row, etc etc. Just as with telephone conversations or letters, the overwhelming majority - 99.999% - is totally harmless and/or no-bodies business but your own.

So why does Big Brother need to track it at all? Is it really just as simple (and stupid) as "Because We Can?" Sadly, it probably is. That and the fear that comes from living in a world where failure to plan for the worst is punishable in the court of public opinion...

And on that point, I'd say this: Yes, I am happiest if The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number means the odd nasty event. Privacy for all is more important than slightly increasing the chance of preventing the next mindless atrocity.

(I must admit I thought the incoming administration shared this point of view, to some extent, based on pre-election posturing and statements. More fool me for believing them, I guess)