Do DUers care about privacy, at least on principles?

[question everything]

Many years ago, as I was ready to graduate, the placement office suggested that I establish a file with letters from my professors to be used when a prospective employer would need a reference.

I was taken aback when I was presented with the form with an "option" to waive my right to read the letters. I would not have bothered, never did, but I do not like to waive rights that others before me fought hard to achieve. I thought that if a professor preferred his comments to be confidential, that it was up to him to ask for this, not to put a student, clearly at a disadvantage position, to make the decision.

I did not select that option and later heard that the chairman of the Dept. said that his letter was going to be very bland and non-committed. I never used that service.

Several years later, two young men working for me - at different companies - applied to graduate schools and requested recommendations from me. To my chagrin, they have already waived their right to read my recommendation. So I gave them a copy of my comments.

Fast forward to post 9/11, to the Patriot Act, when many of us would read letters to the editors or other comments from people saying that they "have nothing to hide" and therefore have no problem with a government agency listening to their phone conversations, keeping track of their travels, of their book use in the library, of their emails, web sites visited and bank accounts. For many of us, at least, I have taken it for granted, that most DUers would object to this based on principles, even though most of us have nothing to hide.

And now we have Facebook and other sites where people reveal all about themselves. I once asked about it here and the answer was that it is different when one chooses to reveal personal details as opposed to others digging them, often without one's knowledge.

So now we come to DU where it was revealed that the administrators know how we vote on the many polls that we have here. And that four individuals who voted yes on a very bigoted poll were banned.

What surprised me were the many responses, like the ones about the Patriot Act that they "have nothing to hide." Again, it is not the opinion itself - most of us are very vocal about our opinions - but the principle involved.

Most of the polls are about issues, but some of them are demographic that DUers are on occasions interested to know the makeup of this community. And, yes, some DUers do reveal their income level but if there is a poll about it, this means that the administrators can "triangulate" the results and know a lot about us.

Yes, it is their toy and their prerogative to run it as they want. But I think that a warning that they do know how we vote would have been welcomed. And, no, knowing that one has already voted is different from knowing how we voted.

Again, my concern is less with the administrators but more with DUers who "have nothing to hide" so anyone - a government agency, a web administrator - can track their activities. I did not expect to find such acquiescence on DU.

OK, start flaming. Before it is locked.

[pitohui]

1. people who have "nothing to hide" have nothing to hide because they are do nothings

i'm highly suspicious of people who say they have "nothing to hide," IME they are either liars or they are useless, and it's almost better if they are liars, because there is no upside in life to being useless

[Lars39]

2. No flames from me.

I won't be voting in any more polls here because of this.

[Medusa]

26. No polls for me either.

I'm afraid I'll select the "wrong" answer. I was more than a little surprised to see they banned people for answering incorrectly on a poll.

[Skinner]

3. Just in case some people did not see our explanation

Here is a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4169960&mesg_id=4170818

[question everything]

8. Thank you for the link

As it says, you admitted only a few days ago that you know how people vote. I think it would help all of us to know this up front, which by now we do.

[uppityperson]

10. I thought people were banned quietly, not announced formally.

It seems that posts about someone who gets banned are usually locked, with discussing them and their banning discouraged.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. So DU is just a TIA front, gathering info on potential radicals.

My phone is already tapped, and they're watching me through my Cable, so I don't think they're going to get any from DU they don't know already.

:tinfoilhat:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

7. better get that TV out of your bedroom!

[peacetalksforall]

5. People who say they have nothing to hide - cannot project - they

(with nothing to hide) can't visaulize how it might be used against them - knowing what we know about technological capabilities to store and access it - and knowing how far this regime has gone to control us - they can't conceive that something in their database record will disqualify them in later years - if we can't get on top of this issue. What might they be disqualified for - their life. Some in this regime have referenced the population problem. It's not easy to imagine. Think about the Hitler regime - to the train or back to the cot or the kitchen. Knowing what these people have cnFor eamploe, why would anyone who knows the state of your health or the history of your genes not use that concocted or the world, why would anyone pretend that they are safe?

This is dramatic - but the difference between someone saying that they have nothing to hide on the one end and and the train example above is wide - with a variety of other uses in between the extremes. Approval for a transplant for one of the Duer's or one of their relatives is one example?

When a person says they have nothing to hide they mean they have no criminal record. This is not about the crime of the citizen - this is all about the crimes of this regime who never disbands.

Anyone who doesn't know the words in the deliberations for the Bill of Rights should study up to learn how some esteemed privacy.

I will not flame you, question everything. I will not participate in any poll that asks for private information whether a fact or ephemeral diddy. I only reply to political polls - because I have nothing to hide in that area.

I find that some people are totally open, some cautious, and some suspicious. We have NOTHING to be totally open about when it comes to the people who are COLLECTING THE DATA, ENTERING THE DATA, STORING THE DATA, and U S I N G the data.

I repeat - you don't own your data and someone is possible going to use it against you - if we keep going the way we're are going.

We would trust that Mr. Iran-COntra, John Poindexter, has our best interest at heart along with his buddies?

[question everything]

9. Even on DU, I am sometimes amazed at the openness that people

take.

Several years ago someone was ranting about his boss - which was RW - and he gave enough details, he was in professional show, that someone recognized him and he was fired.

Similarly I am amazed at people who post on DU, or just surfing the Internet from work. Computers at work are the property of the employers and they can, and do, monitor what the employees do.

What people do not realize is that it is not just trusted DUers who read what they say, but, practically, the whole world.

And, as you pointed out. What today may be considered a harmless detail, in ten years can be considered a serious one that can affect someone's access to health care, or to jobs.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. Archiving of everything you ever posted or voted on the Internet means folks will have a dossier

to judge you by in 20 years, whether "embarrassing" or not does not matter, all that matters is the subtle self-silencing of what you say, like people used to do in Eastern Europe.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. Heck, at this point I'd imagine my keystroke patterns are filed away somewhere.

And, not on DU.

It's scary stuff.

Yet, if I hadn't accessed the internet and found so many like minded people decrying what has become of our country, I would not be as politically aware and involved as I am now.

Instead, I'd be quietly fuming and feeling helpless.

So, like everything else in life, it's balancing risk to benefit.

MKJ

Disclaimer: Please be aware that my keystrokes comment is loaded with pure speculation :tinfoilhat:
and is not the basis of anything in the least bit factual.

2nd edit, at least I admit, up front, I'm making it up as I go around here. :-)

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. Your response has been noted and will be duly analysed for stray unedited remarks. ;-)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

19. Hey, stop that!

:rofl: MKJ

[Initech]

6. I love the "I have nothing to hide" argument.

I completely owned a poster on another board who said that. So I replied with "OK, then you wont mind posting your full name, age, address, social security number and place of employment". The guy got fucking pissed. That was brilliant.

The people who say that they have nothing to hide are the same ones who say "HEY! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT MY MYSPACE/FACEBOOK! SEND ME E-MAILS! LOVE ME!". :eyes:

[uppityperson]

11. I am a strong believer in privacy and those remarks seemed odd to me too.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Wait, 4 people (of 13 who voted) were banned for saying use of "colored" is acceptable in some poll?

That is the way I'm reading Skinner's remarks.

I know little about this (I just pulled up the thread Skinner links to)
but it strikes me as highly distasteful if mods are pulling up the
voting history of poll respondents to determine which ones are "trolling"
by responding to the "wrong" answer on polls.

As in "some of us may not be fighting (politically) for
the same things others of us are fighting for, such as
the ethic of liberal discourse we were taught in school,
as a philosophical matter, when it comes to privacy and
the extension of civil liberties to stuff like
electronic tracking of customers."

When I started out on the Internet, site admins agonized over appropriate action
to take when it came to dealing with disputes and appropriate dialogue. After all, they were
mostly civil libertarians who wanted the internet to follow the rules of a classical liberal
town hall -- in the best Enlightenment tradition (leaving aside the donor--er--property
requirement that the fathers of the Enlightenment created to privilege the investor class
in the original town halls). And many admins saw their forum as a community that
they were hesitant to move in and break apart as DU and other places suffer from
all too often around primary season, etc. Of course a political site will attract trolls
-- although the harm to real life of trolls on DU (barring the exceptional case)
is intrinsically limited. Now most admins on the internet just follow a rule and can't
care quite so much -- with 1000s of people using the site, what is the individual patron?
With 1000s of users means probably dozens of people probably have to get banned every day --
can't afford to get sentimental about the reasons, in that case. And who's to say
the rules are good or bad? The site owner has absolute property rights -- the circle is
complete and we're back to the privatized realm of those 17th century
Enlightenment burgomeisters who invented modern discourse.

I just donated money to said privatized realm (what will happen if I
say how much? will someone check?) Someone tell me I did the right thing...

[question everything]

21. Of course you did the right thing..

:hi:

and if you go back and read the whole thread from which Skinner's post is taken, you will find the anxiety of some who sometimes vote just to be see how far they can go, or even some who by mistake hit the wrong button (happened to me more than once).

Which is why I commented that, yes, this is their property - though I wonder whether all of us, who donate money are shareholders - but that I was disturbed by the "I have nothing to hide" sentiment on DU, of all places.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. Why would the admins NOT know. They've built this website from the ground up, so to speak.

I think we all have to exercise some level of protecting what we feel should stay private, but I never operated under the assumption that there was some kind "curtain" behind which the admins couldn't see what posters do.

By all appearances, Skinner, Elad and EarlG run this website in a manner which has consistently worked to find a balance between free speech, which is a cornerstone of this message board, and maintaining some parameters to allow it to keep its mission statement of being a progressive Democratic board. A balance that is all but impossible to achieve, but in perpetual motion.

I also imagine the admins could read PM's, if they had some reason to do so. Why is this so shocking? :shrug: MKJ

[question everything]

22. As I pointed in the OP, my concerns are with DUers

who claim that they "have nothing to hide" and don't mind the administrators knowing how they vote. This is a matter of principle that I was surprised to find on DU, of all places.

Someone asked about PM in the same thread from where Skinner posted the link and the reply was only if an alert is sent.

[LWolf]

15. I care about privacy. More than just generally.

Frankly, I consider any person or group compiling any information about me to be a gross violation of privacy, whether it is legal or not.

I provide my employers with a background check. I don't like it, but accept it as necessary. I'm a teacher, and I think it is ok for my employers to make sure that I am not a criminal before they turn me loose with other people's kids.

Still, I'd like nothing better than to be absolutely untraceable. I have nothing to hide. I have lived my life in a conscious effort to do no harm, and to do positive things for those around me whenever possible. It's not that I need to hide. It's the principle of the thing.

I would never consider running for a public office for that very reason. Not that I couldn't do a decent job in some offices, but I don't want to be a "public" person, giving the public a right to examine my life, any more than I already have.

As far as privacy at DU goes, I know better than to expect it. There's a Catch 22: when you sign on, you do so with the clearly communicated understanding that DU is a private site; that the site owners make the rules, that the rules exclude many and allow control of the conversations, and that certain kinds of dissent are grounds for tombstoning.

Personally, I think that dissent, respectfully offered in a constructive conversation, is essential to reasoned discourse. (Which is different, of course, than anonymous flamebait posted to provoke a cyber battle that ends reasoned discourse.) I think DU would be a better place if it wasn't organized to be a "gang" of partisans, with a few like-minded outsiders allowed, as long as they never disagree with the partisan line. I notice that there are some obvious contradictions in Rule # 2:


<snip>

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

This rule identifies Democrats as progressives. Not all Democrats are progressives. There are plenty of corporate, centrist, and conservative Democrats. I don't know that those Democrats can be said to be supportive of "progressive ideals." What's more, not all Democratic candidates are progressive, or supportive of progressive ideals. A mandate to support all Democratic candidates ranks partisan politics higher than progressive ideals. After making clear that partisan politics takes highest priority, we are then reminded that the site is NOT affiliated with the very party it mandates partisan support for.

With contradictions like that, mods and site owners can interpret the votes and posts of any individual DUer to be either "not supportive of progressive ideals," or "not supportive of Democratic candidates."

And we know all of that when we read the rules and agree to abide by them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. Excellent point. I'm sick of hearing "forums like these are private" since there is no public realm

anymore.

Moreover, the fundamental (common law) right to privacy is a PROGRESSIVE
ideal, one in admitted conflict with the "castle" doctrine governing the
endlessly privatized discussion forums, but this particular ideal is one
that many DU-supported candidates are at this moment OPENLY flaunting in
the FISA and voter ID debates.

Not to mention the double standard when it comes to tolerating statements like "Evangelicals (of a certain color) are dogshit"
(the original post which the mods said was MERELY anti-religious
and anti-homophobic -- an uneasy combination if you ask me.)

Here's what I wrote elsewhere -- I'm repeating it because it contains a suggestion.

The ethical thing to do would be engineer a piece of software to
tag the poll the minute it is alerted. A message would then go up

"This poll has been alerted and may or may not violate our content policy.
Respond at your own risk."

Other than that, responses to any anonymous poll, on any site, should be sacrosanct. Expectation of privacy. Social workers and civil libertarians know it well. I thought we were fighting to help them?

A site does not have to keep track of how a user voted in a poll.
All it has to do is keep cookies.

The truth is the program functions because they want the ability to track
of user data in case they suspect somebody of being a troll. This is not
necessarily the most ethical approach, whether it's their site or
Bob Jones.

And yes, I'm free to consider not posting on DU -- I much
prefer real life to the peculiar combination of incivility and overarching
control mechanisms for separating users of different persuasions that
much of the blogosphere has developed into. Bloggers seem to want to
validate so much of what conservative commentators claim is "wrong"
with the traditional university / town hall mode of "liberal discourse"
which dates only from the 17th century and is quickly being destroyed.

The notion that we can't trust each other to be responsible for their
own behavior without "adult supervision" and "freedom from perceived injury".

I suppose you could construct any scenario that would break the ethical bank. The Holocaust poll, for example. At what point does an unlocked poll (whose originator's original post was let slide quite merrily) become so horrible that the site admins are forced to weed out whoever voted or posted? It is not a power I would voluntarily accrue, were I running a site like this one... and yes, I am free to "find a site I like" but that's not the point. The point is I believe in right and wrong. Ethics of liberal discourse that we are supposed to be fighting for.

[Moochy]

20. K&R

:applause:

[LWolf]

24. I'd like to recommend this post;

it would make a great OP. Thanks for giving your input on this important issue.

:hi:

[question everything]

23. What an excellent post. Thank you

I am with you 100% about running for office as I, too, like my privacy.

As for the rule, you have to remember that this site came following the 2000 elections when, let's be honest, Nader took many votes that may have gone to Gore. In many states, including Florida, Nader had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.

So I can see the desire to keep promoters of a third party, as progressive as it may be, out of this forum. Indeed, such threads often get locked.

[LWolf]

25. You're welcome, of course.

:hi: