What’s happening now is the true global equivalent of a village – not a place where we’re not only all brought together by the media, but where, again, we’re back to the model that has existed in humanity since the dawn of civilization.

Many comments imply that privacy is an anti-social izing concept – ranging from “if you’ve got nothing to hide, don’t worry” to “you can opt out if you want” to “it’s worth the benefit.” These comments have analogs to the old village system: those with something to hide were often brutally persecuted; those who chose to opt out were forced to live in deeply primitive conditions (I’m reminded of the blind hermit in Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”), and those who believe the trade is worthwhile are the ones who populate the village (while those who run it are the ones who best aggregate the information others are transmitting.)

And it may be, in fact, that privacy doesn’t entirely benefit society – because a right to do what we want in our homes or to keep our personal tastes to ourselves is also the right for government officials to conduct clandestine surveillance or run secret prisons (not because such things are ethical, moral, or legal; because – I’d argue – that the issues of personal, social, and political transparancy are complex.)

I’m not advocating the destruction of our privacy rights; in fact, I mourn the loss of what appears to be a blip in the history of individual/group interactions. If the “blip” had somehow continued, it might have, in fact, flowered into true societal transparancy. But, cynical as it sounds, it hasn’t (and does anyone find it ironic that the same people who helped usher in the era of individuality – the children of the 1960s – are the ones who, as the baby boomers, are now selling it out from under themselves and their children?)

It is a rather bleak outlook, I know, but if you want to feel even worse, re-read the above and the other comments here, and substitute the word “literacy” for privacy. The idea that everyone has a right to read is just as alien in the vastness of human history, and it may be that text – which, after all, is only a symbolic way of communicating ideas and information (but a supremely flexible and versatile one) may also be on the way to becoming archaic – just think about how many different non-textual interactions you have today versus a decade ago.

• Dan

Om Malik notices that we’re living a Cached Life: ‘You have zero privacy anyway… Get over it.’ — Scott McNealy , CEO of Sun in 1999 If we’re willing to give up (a certain amount of) privacy to gain something…

This used to be Google’s privacy policy concerning its desktop search tool – a popular local version of the Google engine that you can download and which searches your own computer: These combined results can be seen only from your

In an attempt to rollout a Citywide Wireless Internet plan (TechConnect) two major approaches being considered by San Francisco which may significantly encroach on the public’s privacy. The two options are a for-profit solution which will finance the solution by monetizing the public’s privacy or grants from Homeland Security. This occurs in the context of elected officials and city administrators patting themselves on the back for what the voters approved (2004) in a watch law ordinance that makes Patriot Act requests difficult for the Federal government to pursue in San Francisco.

The targeted advertising solution (google and others) would track all the email and surfing habits of any user. This information could be used as in Gmail and Amazon to send specific advertising. It is of course , also available for National Security Letters and other legal methods which would not be presented within the legal context of San Francisco – avoiding the Watch Law. While networks can be created that do not track a user’s private information (no server logs, etc) that is not a method being promoted publically by vendors like Google and in fact is partly the reason the Justice Department and Google are now fighting over production of user’s search records – Google can’t say they just don’t have the information. While there are questions about Privacy in the RFP, they were specifically written as Open Ended rather than as Minimal Standards. Public Advocates and Organizations like ACLU, EFF.org and EPIC.org have all written and some have spoken about their concerns with this approach Before the RFP was created and released – yet no changes were made. Also DTIS has the ability to waive any RFP requirements in the contract negotiation process anyhow.

The other funding concept that is being quietly discussed as a mechanism for the San Francisco Municipal Wireless solution is Homeland Security Grants – the calendar image below is from the city official Chris Vein who is in charge of the RFP process which requires bid submittals by 2006/2/21 – See Below

Washington Post: 2006-01-19 Fed Grants (Homeland Security) for Surveillance Cameras for Small Towns .. this seems related to Municipal Wireless funding efforts as well in San Francisco

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802324.html

The Homeland Security funding option: “Motorola’s proposal suggests that the city pitch the project as a public safety issue, and capitalize on grants from government organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security. They suggest that the network would help law enforcement by enabling the SFPD to put wireless cameras across the city cheaply, and that the signal from a particular camera could be routed wirelessly to officers in their cars as they approached the scene.” (thanks to http://www.JacksonWest.com for summary)

Combined brief ACLU, EFF.org and Epic.org
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004078.php

SF Watch Law Re Patriot Act
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/about/watchlawprogram.pdf

Jackson West summary of TechConnect RFI/C submittals (the step before the current RFP process)
http://gigaom.com/2005/10/18/politics-of-san-francisco-wifi-project/

Chris Vein DTIS Acting Director’s calendar showing a meeting planned with Motorola (obtained through a Public Record’s request) Bob Siemmens/Motorola 925-218-4213 “Techconnect – Homeland Security” – 2005-12-16

more at:
http://www.webnetic.net

1) Use a personally controlled proxy for web browsing and use an ssh tunnel to connect to it, then make sure your browser has a privacy setting and that it’s turned on.

2) Use a non-caching IMAP client and only connect to your personal mail server through an SSL/TLS connnection.

Both of these pretty much require you to have access to a trusted server, generally your own.

Shoot me an email if you want more info on this method.