A blog on objective thought in today's irrational, subjective world tackling some of the hardest questions of existence using reason and logic.
It's a scam and always has been
Published on February 24, 2005 By John Galt In Politics
Yes, that’s right. You have no privacy. It’s an illusion. It’s based on a logical fallacy. Get over it. Privacy is a desire of human beings to hide that which they are ashamed or embarrassed of. While this desire may be understandable, it in no way has anything to do with reality. In the past, the illusion of privacy was easy to keep up, much like the belief in God and miracles. However, in the day and age of integrated computer systems, satellites orbiting with nanometre imaging, cameras everywhere and your life contained in your bank pin, the illusion is fading quickly.

Hogwash you say! Well I do say. Let’s look at privacy and what it requires. Put simply privacy requires that other people are inept. It relies on government agencies to not talk to each other (i.e. the guys that run the satellites, not talking to law enforcement, not talking to the courts, not talking to the meter-maid/man walking by your car which has 52 outstanding parking tickets on it).

The concept of privacy through ignorance is at an end. Every day dozens of spy satellites pass over your house and take pictures of you, everything in your house, everything you do, even the kinky sex with your husband and his buddy that you don’t want anyone to know about. Every day, the cameras that are used to protect you at the ATM are also taking pictures of every store that you window shop at including the dildo store on Younge St. in Toronto you just can’t help yourself from looking in (Is that place still there? We got a lot of laughs because of that store when I was at Ryerson!).

And on a more low-tech scale, your car has a licence plate, everyone if they cared could write down that licence number and know exactly where you are and keep track of that information. In fact the police have been using this since the advent of the licence plate to find out if you were at the scene of a crime. Every time you get into your car to go to the porn store, you’re relying on people not caring enough to bother to notice that you passed or that you were in the parking lot and that even if they did care, well they don’t care enough to tell your wife, or don’t know her.

Relying on other people’s laziness, stupidity, ignorance or ineptitude is a sure way to get burned. That in the past it took significantly more effort to put all of the information together only serves to make the point. It was easier for the people that held the information to be lazy than to put it all together with all of that leg work that was required. But make no mistake, some people would go to the effort and your privacy would be “breached” (if you think that privacy is something that is real) or more to the point, your delusion of privacy would come tumbling down around your ears and the consequences of reality would hit you over the head. This is the fundamental principle of law enforcement. Detectives look for the evidence that you left behind and find out exactly what you were doing and when. Now CSIs do a lot of that work because it requires highly specialized knowledge of DNA etc., but the result is the same and even more sure. And by the way, everywhere you go, you’re leaving evidence that you were there in the form of DNA. Someone just has to care enough to collect it and they will know everything you do.

As Ben Franklin said “Live your life as if you were in a glass house”. Everything you do, everything you say can be known by others and this is nothing new, it’s just easier now. The point is, live a non-contradictory life and act justly and you will never have anything to feel ashamed or embarrassed about and thus you won’t need the illusion of privacy.

Ok, so privacy doesn’t exist, but there is a bigger issue here. In the past, you could be relatively sure that the government was incompetent because it relies on bureaucrats that get paid regardless of if they do their jobs or not, and are almost impossible to fire. Now, computer systems put all of the information together without the lazy guy at the desk having anything to do with it. Is there anything wrong with that per say? No. The problem is that socialism gives government the power to do things with that information that violates freedom in the name of “the greater good” (see my previous blog entry). It gives the government the right to decide that polygamy is illegal and thus you cannot practice it even though all 50 of your wives agreed, or that sodomy is illegal and thus you can’t have sex with your wife in that naughty way you just love and your wife tolerates for some god forsaken reason. It means that the government can decide that speeding is bad and give you a ticket because of the GPS system in your car that allows you to know where you’re going, even though you didn’t harm anyone or even attempt to harm anyone, or that the government even has any information that even indirectly suggests that speed has anything to do with increased risk of accidents (see Montana if you need an example of the opposite) and thus didn’t break any just law.

The key to the fear of lack of privacy isn’t the lack of privacy, it is the underlying knowledge that the government has too much power and could at any time arbitrarily decide that what you do that affects no one else but you is now illegal and that you’ll get caught. The solution is to get back to freedom. Get back to the concept of if there is no involuntary physical harm, there is no violation of the law. We have to get back to the position that the government does not have the right to pass any tax that the individual paying the bill doesn’t use (User pay). If you use the highways, you pay gas tax to have the highways maintained and that tax goes only to maintaining the highways and nothing else. If you want to have Unemployment insurance you can go ahead and pay into it if you so choose and not otherwise. If you want government organized healthcare with public hospitals, you can choose to pay into that service as well. If you want to partake in private health care, you can do so if you so choose without fear of prosecution under the Medicare act.

The solution for the loss of perceived privacy, itself an illusion, is a government that cannot infringe on your freedom in any way shape or form. That cannot bill you for anything that you do not opt in directly for (just like your cable bill!), and cannot charge you for anything that does not physically harm another or that the other gave you permission to harm them (assisted suicide).

Again, freedom is the solution. Privacy is the obviscation. Embrace freedom, and forget the concept of privacy. It doesn’t exist and never has.

Comments
on Feb 24, 2005
Excellent article. I was going to write a similarly titled piece, but with a different spin. You get the "nail on the head" award for the day.
on Feb 24, 2005
Every day dozens of spy satellites pass over your house and take pictures of you, everything in your house, everything you do...


Is that true? Let's say there are 290,000,000 people in my country and let's say that there are 3 people to each house, so roughly 96,000,000 households. Also, let us say that each 'spy satellite' can completely and thoroughly (which would be impossible anyhow) catalog 10 houses a day. That means we have 9,600,000 satellites orbiting our country alone, eh? And just think of all the people that would be needed to maintain the satellites and interpret the data!

Now, if I misinterpreted your article or the time you meant it to take place in, feel free to delete this comment.
on Feb 24, 2005
Wow! their just gonna shit when they peep in at me! Hope they enjoy the show...
on Mar 06, 2005
TheFazz. The Satellites take pictures of every square mm of the earth every single day. If it's cloudy, they use infrared, if it's sunny they use visible spectrum. The americans even use Terahertz imaging now just like the Isrealis do from hummers in the streets looking for terrorists.

The key here is what I talked about. If someone has the will, they can take that data and find out all about you. Are you willing to stake your life on people not caring? And even if you do, the privacy ideal is still just a scam. At any point, if someone decided to care, they could go look at all of the cateloged data and find out all about you. And keep in mind it isn't even just the American government. The public sector has some of the best satillites out there for this sort of thing, and then there is the brits, the french the russians and the chinese, all of which are doing the same thing. (and a few others!)

Gideon: thanks
on Mar 06, 2005
If these satellites have such grand capabilities, why haven't we found Bin Laden yet? Why did it take so long to find Saddam? Surely with 9,600,000 satellites finding people would be a breeze!
on Mar 06, 2005
TheFazz. The Satellites take pictures of every square mm of the earth every single day. If it's cloudy, they use infrared, if it's sunny they use visible spectrum. The americans even use Terahertz imaging now just like the Isrealis do from hummers in the streets looking for terrorists.

The key here is what I talked about. If someone has the will, they can take that data and find out all about you. Are you willing to stake your life on people not caring? And even if you do, the privacy ideal is still just a scam. At any point, if someone decided to care, they could go look at all of the cateloged data and find out all about you. And keep in mind it isn't even just the American government. The public sector has some of the best satillites out there for this sort of thing, and then there is the brits, the french the russians and the chinese, all of which are doing the same thing. (and a few others!)


The imaging isn't *that* good. Unlike what you've been told those satelites can *not* track an individual. If they could have we would have had Osama.
on Mar 15, 2005
1 cm optical accuity is pretty damn good. The problem with Osama is that he knows when they're overhead and always seeks cover so that he isn't caught. (see Patriot Games for more detail on this... it's real, just better now, and yes, it is that clear of images if they're processed)
on Mar 15, 2005
In America we continually speak of the need for "equal opportunity" fully aware that, in reality, people are not born equally. The principle we abide by, however, is that we strive to give people as equal a chance as our government and society can provide. The same should apply to the privacy issue. Certainly today's cashless, tagged, chipped, barcoded and surveilled masses are, in reality, without privacy but we should be able to apply the privacy principle to all citizens. We are human, not animals or cogs in a machine to be manipulated and hoarded over by some great Leviathan of our own making.

Today, call your congressman, call your senator. Tell them the Intel Reform Act and Patriot Act should both be rescinded and if their answer doesn't satisfy you, THROW THEIR BUTTS TO THE CURB COME RE-ELECTION.

on Mar 15, 2005
"The imaging isn't *that* good. Unlike what you've been told those satelites can *not* track an individual. If they could have we would have had Osama."

I beg to differ. I may have brought this up before, but when I was in fifth grade (circa '90 or so), our social studies teacher brought in a picture from the USGS (United States Geological Survey) that was based in our hometown. Her husband had been given a copy of a satellite test image showing a man sitting in a lawn chair outside near his inground pool. In slightly fuzzy b&w, I saw a top down view of a man relaxing poolside at the back of his home. I was told that image was taken in '85.

I'm certain satellite imagery has evolved by leaps and bounds since then, enough to target an individual in great detail. Not being able to locate Osama bin Laden certainly seems to contradict this supposedly omniscient and superior technology, but , as long as long as he can't be "found" the administration's license to poke in to any corner of the world searching for the "terrorist ringmaster" can go unchecked as well as help keep the culture of fear alive and pervasive in American citizen's hearts.

on Mar 23, 2005
Deference: You're first post... it doesn't say anything at all, and then you go and make an assertion about the patriot act and the intel reform act. While I agree with you on both acts because of other reasons, you don't get to say nothing to back up your oppionion and then make that statement. People that do that are why we still have that bill and why it was passed in the first place. Privacy is not a principle, it is a logical falacy. Just because it's easier to get the information now than it was before means nothing. It just means it's easier, it doesn't mean that at some point in the past you had privacy and you've lost it.

Your second post, while actually providing proof assuming that we believe the image that you saw (I do, but that's because I have independantly verified what you wrote with separate instances of seeing data like that) makes a statement. It then goes on to make an assertion that is completely not related to the proof you gave. One doesn't lead to, two unless you show the math. Before you go and make any othe rediculous comments like these, please go read up on logic and logical falacies. It will save you a great deal of embarassment.
on Mar 24, 2005
Mr. Galt, you should tend to your own before offering redundent criticism without counter argument.

Instead of reading between the lines and making inferences about the text, you simply repeat that I've made an "assertion" and a "statement" - without specifics or correction. You failed to understand the parallel I drew between the principle of equal opportunity and the principle of privacy. To be succinct, though not everyone is born equal; though everyone is without privacy in today's modern world within U.S. confines; Americans still expect their government and fellow citizens to abide by and honor the ideas behind those principles and that those principles be reflected in our contemporary law and government. I never argued that privacy was an actual thing, your only true missive on my response was actually a misfire.

In your second paragraph of Reply # 10 you state (once again) that I've made an assertion following a statement that is not related to the proof I gave regarding Reply #9. Reply #9 was in response to drmiler's Reply #6 wherein he stated;

The imaging isn't *that* good. Unlike what you've been told those satelites can *not* track an individual. If they could have we would have had Osama.

To which I gave a reply that was hardly any sort of argument (more an off-hand comment) and certainly not bound by some syllogistic rules resulting in a "logical falacy". I encourage you to buy a dictionary or use MS Word or comparable editor to save you the "embarassment" of future mispellings.

Only someone who cannot connect the dots will claim that I've made some sort of statement and assertion totally exclusive to each other in this particular case.

Though I'm still awaiting satisfactory counter argument, I don't know if you will be able to muster a response without another eight days to make another baseless, misapplied, and redundant two paragraphs.
on Mar 24, 2005
Deference: I was going to make an entire point by point argument against your post that again says nothing. Demonstrate with direct quotes from your original post and how the two relate logically baring in mind that one is a freedom that must be granted to all or all will be oppressed and the other is a vacuous concept that is a convenient lie and always has been (for which I have already given evidence in my original post). Privacy never existed, it's just easier now to find out about someone if you want than it has been in the past, so it's harder to ignore the obvious. Ben Franklin wrote about this in his memoirs in detail. "Live your life as if you lived in a glass house." This statement was written almost 300 years ago and at the time it was obvious that privacy was an illusion that was fading quickly because of the advances of the time. The advancements have proceeded, and just like religion is fading and believing in an all powerful God is getting harder to buy into every day (as evidenced by the wack-jobs that now make up the religious right) because science keeps tearing down the fiction created by a few powerful men 2000 years ago, privacy is getting harder and harder to believe in, because it's getting easier and easier to defeat the lie. That is what's called drawing a parallel that has a direct correlation and actually makes sense btw. Your own analogy is completely false on it’s face because the founding fathers that created the concept of equal opportunity with the founding of the United States didn’t believe there was such a thing as privacy, thus the analogy can’t possibly be true.

You attack me, after I made a point about your post. You failed to even now show that you actually had a valid point. In my very simple paragraph immediately above I completely debunked your parallel that you drew because they are indeed not a parallel. It is not coincidence that you have no evidence documented in your post to backup the parallel, because the parallel does not exist.

So before you choose to attack me (and btw, pulling out spelling errors as some proof of your superior intellect is one of the surest signs that you're losing an argument there is, so I wouldn't bother bringing that one up again) make sure your house is in order and your contradictions and false parallels are addressed and you have evidence for your position. If you read my original article again, you'll see that I give specific examples of what I said, demonstrating that privacy doesn't exist now, and never did exist, thus debunking your entire point from the very start. Thus if you wish to make the point that privacy does exist, you must prove it, or at least disprove my position that it doesn’t. You have done neither.

Once you backup your comments with proof or at least a logical position based on fact, I'll be interested in carrying on a dialog with you because then maybe there is something to learn from you. But until you learn how to debate without contradiction and without logical fallacy, I'm not interested.

As for 8 days. Well I have a life. My blog is a stress reliever nothing more. I get back to it only when I have nothing better to do, or need to relieve stress as a result of world events or events in my personal life. I no more need your approval or to engage you in useless banter that means nothing than I need to go to church to feel that I have purpose. (there I go again drawing logical parallels…) Sorry if that offends you that I am not your slave and don’t agree with you and point out the illogic of your position. I know it’s a whole lot easier if people just agree with you without you having to put any effort in, but hey, no one other than Sonya has ever said that I was easy to get along with
on Mar 29, 2005
pri•va•cy
n.
1. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
2. The state of being concealed; secrecy.

- Dictionary.Com

“[privacy] is a vacuous concept that is a convenient lie and always has been.” – John Galt

or

“…it is a logical fallacy” – John Galt

Your proof, John, was this blinding rhetoric:

“Just because it's easier to get the information now than it was before means nothing. It just means it's easier, it doesn't mean that at some point in the past you had privacy and you've lost it.”


That is very entertaining to read, Dictionary.com disagrees with you as does Merriam-Webster and every other dictionary I consulted. In fact, these tomes of knowledge unanimously agreed that privacy was a noun. So what is a noun? No before I have to deal with people such as you declaring that a noun is also an ambiguously labeled “logical fallacy”, I’ll consult the dictionary again. A noun is defined as a person, place or thing. Allow me to hold your hand and guide you through this critical thinking exercise.

Privacy= Noun

Noun = Person, Place, or Thing

Privacy ≠ Person

Privacy ≠ Place

….sooooo that means Privacy must be a

THING!

(Privacy = Thing)

You may believe I’m simply insulting you but since I’ve apparently spoken so densely that you miss easy inferences time and again I’m simply not taking chances - you raging twit.

…on to other mistakes:

You have quoted Benjamin Franklin as saying,

“Live your life as if you lived in a glass house.”

After consulting many different sources on Benjamin Franklin, I was unable to find any that attributed the quote to that eccentric founding father. Can you produce a source? I did find some of his other quotes at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benjamin_franklin.html, which I thought better illuminated his perspective on government and liberty.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”

Doesn’t sound like a man who would side with you in pronouncing privacy a “logical fallacy.”

Now let’s move to the meat of the argument.

You asked me to,

“Demonstrate with direct quotes from your original post and how the two relate”

Since I only made the declaration of there being a parallel between a privacy and equal opportunity principle without expounding upon the plank of the argument, you know this cannot be done. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and attempted to save myself the time having to explain the parallel between the two thinking you were quick enough to catch the drift. Perhaps you are and you simply want to be a pain in the ass, but now I have to dictate to you as if you were a child upon seeing your post. The most aggravating element of your post is your ignorant insistence in declaring privacy moot – a preface to most fascist (and today, neocon) arguments that if that is true, we in society should be forced to live without it. This is an insulting and degrading argument against humanist ideals and should not be tolerated.

The parallel between equal opportunity and privacy is that both have historically been promoted, defended, expected by the American people, and articulated in our law. You may have heard the terms expectation of privacy; a belief in the existence of freedom from unwanted esp. governmental intrusion in some thing or place, invasion of privacy; the tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public interest, or by publicizing information that unreasonably places him or her in a false light, or even right of privacy; the right of a person to be free from intrusion into or publicity concerning matters of a personal nature called also right to privacy.

With all of these terms referring to privacy, one would expect there to be plenty of laws reflecting government’s role in protecting our right to privacy, addressing our expectation of privacy, and protecting us against invasion of privacy; the tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public interest, or by publicizing information that unreasonably places him or her in a false light.

Guess what? In America, we have a rich set of laws passed and judicial precedents set that protect privacy, that logical fallacy, that vacuous concept that is a convenient lie you so damnably decry. Allow me to introduce the Privacy Act of 1974.

http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm

This act was instituted in reaction to public concerns about governmental data and record keeping as we slowly moved to keeping public records in electronic databases. If you observe sec. ( it neatly sums up the intent of the bill:

( Conditions of disclosure
No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be-

..and it goes on to articulate what conditions would be acceptable / appropriate.

You’ve stated that our founding fathers did not observe there being privacy but that is not what is reflected within the Bill of Rights they authored.

Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights is the best example of the founding fathers’ wise implementation of guarding citizens’ right to privacy:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Merriam-Webster commented upon this by saying:

a penumbral right of privacy has been held to be encompassed in the Bill of Rights, providing protection from unwarranted governmental intrusion into areas such as marriage and contraception. A person's right of privacy may be overcome by a showing that it is outweighed by a compelling state interest…

and…

In order to successfully challenge a search or seizure as a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must show that he or she had manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area of the search or the object seized and that the expectation is one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable or legitimate.

I could go on and on providing example after example showing how our laws reflect citizen need and expectation for privacy. Instead of using up more of my time, I’ll simply encourage you to visit Google with the key word “privacy”. Duh, but maybe you are still becoming familiar with the internet? Perhaps I’ve misjudged you and you’ve never had privacy as well and that is why you argue so vociferously against it’s existence? Have you never used a restroom by yourself? Have you never used a public restroom and had an expectation of privacy or a zone of privacy? Has someone ever intruded upon you while utilizing a restroom stall and invaded your privacy? If none of these things have happened to you then I can certainly understand why you so ignorantly might argue against this “convenient lie” – privacy.

I don’t expect a response, Mr. Galt, but a simple “you’re right” would be nice.
on Mar 31, 2005
Privacy= Noun

Noun = Person, Place, or Thing

Privacy ≠ Person

Privacy ≠ Place

….sooooo that means Privacy must be a

THING!

(Privacy = Thing)

It is a thing that doesn't exist because a noun can also be a concept. And concepts can by definition be impossible in reality. That's the downfall of man and the highest ability of man, to conceive of things that are not possible and then attempt to make them possible. No one is talking about making privacy possible. They are talking about something that they think already exists. If if you wanted to make it possible??? Read below:

Look at your definition:

1. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
2. The state of being concealed; secrecy.

The Quality or condition of being secluded from the presense or view of otthers.

I demonstrated how this isn't true. That it never did exist except by accident or because people didn't care. If you interact with society it is enevitable that this will be undone (see below)

next...

The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.

This would assume that the intrusion didn't already exist. It would also assume that it was possible to acheive this state. Since the intrusion exists, and has always existed, either by your own government or some other government or agency, or anyone else that chooses to know about you, it is not possible to be in that state. Further you cannot posibly be in this state while part of society. If you're walking along a bridge at 2 am and don't want to be seen, anyone seeing you is intruding. If you walk infront of your window at 2am with the light on and no curtains across and someone happens to be walking down the road, they will see you and you'll be intruded upon. It is impossible to not be intruded upon visually, auditorily, or otherwise while there is more than one person on the earth. Eventually inadvertantly they will intrude upon you through no fault of their own and the gig is up.

"A person's right to privacy"

Where does it say that in the constitution? Where does it even imply it? Can you find anything from any of the founding fathers that actually holds privacy as a value or a right? You can't. Read Franklin's memoirs if you want to find the quote. I'm not going to do the work for you. I referenced where it's from. Now you have to read.

2. The state of being concealed; secrecy.

By definition a secret is only a secret if only one person knows about it. Thus you are known (i.e. not concealed) if you interact with society. Thus if you wish to be part of society (and really if you don't) you can't possibly have privacy. The spook phrase "need to know" comes to mind here as yet more proof that even the people that peddle in secrets don't believe in any form of privacy even when they're trying to keep something secret.

Thus, and I say again, privacy cannot exist without contradiction. Freedom on the other hand can exist without any contradiction and isn't just a convenient lie to make us feel better. (as I've demonstrated multiple times, and as has Ayn Rand, Terry Goodkind and many many others.)

Thus your position and your analogy does not work. One cannot be used for proof of the other.

I know you'll ignore this but remember the Wizard's 6th rule: You are free to ignore reality, but you're not free to ignore the consequences of reality." So when you're sneaking around on your wife cheating on her and you get caught, remember me warning you about it