Return to Author Return to Main PageThis article attempts to explore the general community confusion regarding forfeiting ones right to privacy and the assumption somehow privacy is connected with secrecy and wrong doing. One of the common themes I hear people say these days is “the government can look at what ever they want, I’m an open book, I have nothing to hide”. Should a government really have the right to be invasive when the person has done nothing wrong or at the very least having no history of doing wrong? To monitor each individual as the government sees fit? What happened to the phrase innocent until proven guilty? What happens with the information they collect and how will that information be used or what impacts will the use of such information cause that individual. Most importantly, will the government who maintains this data they have collected, freely pay compensation without reservation should this private information be released in anyway I.e being hacked etc.
Before we continue, I feel we need to define what the differences are between privacy, secrecy and I’ll also throw in an anonymous definition as Austin Powers would say “for shits and giggles”.
While privacy is typically confused with secrecy, the fact remains their are some subtle differences between the two. Privacy is having the right for the individual to chose whether to divulge information or not. The choice to withhold information from the public domain has no bearing on right or wrong what so ever. I can give two simple privacy examples that that I feel demonstrate how the choice of being private does not reflect any individuals wrong doing. The first example while being crude is to imagine when your in the bed room with your partner it is assumed one of three things are occurring. The first being the both of you are sleeping, the second is that your both having sex or sharing some intimate time together, the third is that either one of you are naked or just generally chatting. That time in the bed room is a private moment, a moment that two people are choosing to share with each other as an initiate moment. Now, If I am in the room watching you both this is no longer a private moment, and the fact you both don’t want me in your room does not mean you are doing anything wrong.
The second example is the simple choice of who I decide to release my phone number too. I may choose to release my number to my friends and family, but withhold my number from blood sucking telemarketers, or anyone else trying to hit me up to part with my hard earnt cash. The choice to withhold my information from everyone else other than my friends or family does not mean I am doing anything wrong, and certainly does not mean I am doing anything or intend on doing anything illegal. It just means that I don’t want my number to be used as a weapon to disturb me with unnecessary marketing harassment. These days organisations have absolutely no respect for people and will phone and pester for money or trying to on sell something that I never asked for. Again, I reiterate the fact that I may wish to maintain my privacy does not automatically reflect any wrong doing, it’s a personal choice.
I am not talking about the Hacker group, however that would certainly be an interesting example how the choice of being anonymous can become a double edged sword. Being Anonymous is generally reflective on the choice where one may wish to omit their identity. It is the choice to withhold information in such a way which is not traceable to the individual. Their are many reasons why a person may choose to remain anonymous. One reason may be due to illegal activity, however even though governments and the media wish to portray the negativity, the reality is anonymous behaviours can also equally include good will. For example a person may wish to donate a large amount of money to an orphanage or charity and not be identified because they don’ t want to draw attention to themselves. Another example could be winning lotto and not wanting others to know iorder to prevent the financial leaches asking for money. The donation of a large sum of money is a good charitable action, the anonymous donation just protects the individual giving the money away being recognised with no sinister ulterior motive. Some other anonymous examples may be essential for minority groups protection from persecution such as and not limiting too religious beliefs, sexuality, nationality, well lets just say all forms of discrimination. Therefore the fact a person wishes to act anonymously doesn’t mean they have or will be doing anything wrong to harm others, it just may be needed for self preservation reasons.
I would describe secrecy as an attempt to hide information from others which explicitly states information is not conveyed to others without the permission from the original person releasing information.
I will concede to the fact that in certain behaviours anonymous, secrecy and privacy may influence individuals to act unjust or differently because they are not recognised. However remaining completely open and transparent is still subject to abuse just as equally to remaining hidden. A transparent person is still subject to being a victim of fraud, being stalked and of course a transparent person is still able to participate in a lone wolf attack. So before we even consider forfeiting out civil rights, one must always remember transparency itself will not protect individuals any more than the right to have privacy or the right to remain anonymous. Because in most cases the event will still occur and the only difference is that it just paves the way to place blame on a person after an event occurred. Case in point, the recent 2017 mass shooting in the Las Vegas USA. As I’m writing this paragraph I just can’t help to picture the ancient yin/yang symbol that while having differing interpretations, the most relative interpretation for this article is that “Every bad has good, and every good has bad”. This is life and will never change because it is nature. Anyway, the point I have made in all three above definition examples is the choice to maintain a secret, anonymous or ensuring your own privacy does not mean a person has or will do anything wrong. Thus “intent” is the key binding all three definitions.
The main difference between secrecy and privacy does not lay within the realms of good or bad, because these good or bad aspects are driven by “intent” which in it self is an entirely different matter. I believe the word intent is where the general society now days become confused and it is here where politicians and media alike have been able to obfuscate the true issue by blending privacy, secrecy and anonymity with intent where now if someone wishes to keep something to themselves it is generally viewed as a bad thing or that person must being doing something wrong.
Yes, it is true that privacy and secrecy can lay in the same bed together, however fundamentally they are two separate beasts. If we are to examine the differences between privacy and secrecy, we can say that privacy is the individual’s choice to release information to another person of our choosing, however their is nothing explicitly specified the second person should not disclose the information to others, it is only implied. Example: In privacy I will decide who I give my number too. Obviously out of general courtesy the second person should not disclose that new information unless otherwise informed, however their are no explicit demands not to share the information. Whereas, secrecy is fundamentally different because the information restriction is enforced by a guarantee that others will not release the shared information. A good example here is government defense information. However the fundamental difference regarding being anonymous is any information shared with a second party can not be traced back to the original owner who released the information in the first place. Therefore, the initial owner of the information does not have to worry if the second person releases information to others.
An interesting event recently occurred a month ago where petrol prices were about to increase significantly and I had decided to go and buy additional petrol. OK, well I decided to fill up all three cars and I was lucky I did because over night the petrol price had jumped 30+ cents a liter. The next day I received a phone call from the anti-fraud department clarifying that I had made the purchases at the petrol station. In terms of safety this is a good thing, however the subtle reality is that all things I purchase with my credit card are being monitored. Some may say the good outweighs the bad in this example and on the surface this is true. However what is stopping services monitoring my purchases for other purposes, selling certain data onwards, how long does this information stay recorded for? Can other organisations obtain such details? What about court, can the things I buy be called into question in a court room? The answer is yes, anything digital we must always assume consider it being collated and can be used to reveal your choices and other behaviors about you.
Another interesting example was the time I had been to Woolworth’ s shopping for food. Once I had finished at the auto check out teller, I paid via credit card because I didn’t have the right amount of cash with me at the time. As the machine was printing my receipt, the receipt jammed and I couldn’t get the receipt. I was asked by the checkout operator if I still wanted a receipt printed, in which I had replied “yes”. I was then told to goto the front counter and the staff will be able to reprint the receipt, all I had to do is show them my credit card so they could tell which receipt to print for the items I had purchased. So your most probably thinking whats the issue with this. The issue is that all my purchases are stored in computers and linked to my credit card, hence traceable to me. The other issue is by showing my credit card, I am no longer an anonymous shopper as the staff can see my name. My future prediction would be that at some time in the future in some way this innocent data would be used by health insurances or other organisation that may not be in my best interests. Perhaps a random marketing opt-out program occurs that I am not aware of.
Their is no hiding the fact that our civil liberties AKA the simple Australian right to privacy is consistently under attack. While the external events of today namely fear, anxiety and the good old terrorism threat claims are the weapon of choice to bludgeon the innocent citizen into submission so you forfeit your right to privacy in a desperate hope that we will remain safe. After all, isn’t that what the government has initially claimed? That we will be safe.
The lord giveth and the lord shall taketh away and apparently so do our governments. No I’m not religious, however we have seen the Government initially assert the premise that mining and storage of our personal data was to make Australia a safer place. I find it ironic the past and current governments are making a big hoo harr over the threat and dangers regarding terrorism in Australia when more people die in Australia due to motor vehicle drive under influence (DUI) accidents and assaults alone. If the government truly wanted to keep Australians safe, then changes in the laws which prevents these idiots killing innocent people by creating mandatory life sentences should be considered first. Sadly even when the police do catch criminal offenders the victims families have to mourn for the rest of their life, while it seems offenders tend to receive minimal sentences compared to the severity of their actions. Did you know in 1993, 29.4% of road fatalities were as a result of a DUI driver ? What about between the year 2000 to 2012 a total of 1181 people died in NSW alone due to DUI driver controlled vehicles? And how many people have died on Australian soil in the last 10 years due to a specific terrorist attack? A quick look at Wikipedia lists the following deaths in relation to a terrorist activity.
The above numbers only include deaths of the victims and not the death of the offenders or injuries. While I don’t quote Wikipedia as being 100% correct, it is still sufficient to incorporate into this article and the argument that I put forward which is to date, more people die by far as a result of DUI than terrorist activity on Australian soil and I haven’t even quoted the death by assault, gang related deaths etc. I don’t deny the possibility of terrorist attack and the numbers of victims could sharply rise, However the reality is that as of today we have more to fear from uncivil behaviours in Australian streets than terrorist activity in Australia. Even if a terrorist attack was to occur in Australia, this would also render the premise “to sacrifice our civil liberties” would be for nothing and only see the governments find more ways to erode the privacy rights.
About eight weeks ago on the TV we had three politicians (Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Andrews & Mrs Berejiklian) stating that “Australians know they have to pass up individual civil liberties in order to be protected”. The question must be asked, from who are we seeking protection from? A couple of terrorists? Or a government that seeks to continually implement laws that restrict, surveillance and prevent individual freedoms of privacy? The ongoing slippery slope is ridiculous where it’s no longer even a slope, it’s now the equivalent of base jumping without a parachute! How hypocritical this has all become when prior government representatives would get up in front of camera in the years past and say “go about your business, its important we don’t let the terrorists change our way of living”, yet the very laws the government seeks to implement 100% change the way we live, and the new “safer security” laws are changing Australia into a policing state, with no citizen privacy and ongoing surveillance. Mr. Turnbull even said that “eventually something will happen” meaning a terrorist attack is inevitable. So if this is the case, the efforts of sacrificing our civil liberties for this imagined protection has become a pointless exercise because we are still at risk of harm. All we have done is permitted a government to be much more invasive who at somtime will use the information for their own biding just like how the governments have used robo callers to harass its citizens with unsolicited political calls because they already have everyones phone numbers.
Daniel Andrews misses the point by suggesting in a news conference ’preventing terror attacks trumps over civil liberties”. The interesting thing with his remarks is that Victoria hasn’t been able to control their own state gang behaviour and he wishes to illicit the fear of protecting us from terrorist attack. The same is said for Mrs. Berejiklian NSW state government protecting us, because this week random protesters ran up the Sydney Opera House which is supposed to be protected site which is secured and safe. Their are several points to note here, with the first being my concern is not of the potential terrorists in Australia, but more so of the criminals who obtain very weak sentences for serious or repeat offending crimes. The reality as it stands is that I am more likely to be assaulted via a road rage incident or a robbery, shot or bashed by some idiot thinking they are a hardened dude trying to score a name for them self or even killed by a drink driver than dying via a terrorist attack in Australia. The key words here is more likely, doesn’t mean it will or won’t happen. The third point, is all the politicians who openly support the introduction of AI facial recognition and the increased withholding persons totally miss the point of a free society and a society that is supposedly not to allow the terrorists to win by changing our way of living. Mr. Turnbul, Mr. Andrews and any one else who support these new measures I say this. If we as a society travel down the road treating every citizen as a potential threat or putting everyone in the same basket I.e total surveillance then our society has then lept from a free and just society into a policed state. And these new laws that are trying to be implemented now are always subject to be furthered with future governments. Lets face it, governments have always found reasons why to keep decreasing civil liberties which is what has just happened. This is why it is important to draw the line here and no further because the other reality is even if the government pushes all these laws in, their is still no 100% guarantee we will be harm free. So I say to all Australians, speak now or forever shut up!
As we already know the Australian Governments of present and past have consistently used any means possible to gradually erode civil liberties. We were told “straight from the horses mouth” because not long ago some politicians have already indicated that it is OK to erode or forfeit a civil liberty to prevent terrorism. Well I’m sorry, I do not subscribe to this ideology.
I suspect further technologies will continue to be used in order to control the population such as facial, eye, vocal, gait and thumb print recognitions, AI behavioural analysis and much more. Yes it does seem George Orwell was right in his 1984 book after all. In the near future you will no longer be able to go for a walk without something monitoring your every move and now the only thing left is for Australia to turn from a democracy into a dictatorship and total control of a population is complete. Mark my words, the next move for future governments will be to focus on limiting the Internet freedoms, preventing the right for an individual to encrypt their own data, and general online rights to use the Internet will be hampered by firewall restrictions IE the government will at some point in time restrict what you can and can not view. Further down the line we will see the free society ruled by a dictatorship where all the data collected over the years will be used to beat the citizen into submission without a voice to defend themselves. But don’t worry you will have two options, too comply or suffer the consequence. Just imagine what could have been achieved if the Internet surveillance, data monitoring and collection as it stands now was as sophisticated for Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol pot, Idi Ahmin, The Gulag, Religions organisations who would burn people suspected of being witches or killing people at the mere accusation of being different. Religious governments setting up to kill GLBT community or forced treatments to “cure gender and sexuality non conformities”, even a government who may chose that all must join a union as a mandatory action for employment etc. The power will be all their ready for the taking because it will sit in mass data bases ready to be used. This is why I say Australia speak now or for forever shut up! Because in the not so distant future their will come a time you will have no ability to speak out. They say cool minds prevail and for us to achieve this we must vote with our heads, not vote for these politicians like you would a football team. Politicians who can not speak honestly, cant even answer a straight forward question with a straight forward answer in question time, those who deceive, speak mis truths, who have been caught out acting unethically or spending excessively should never be re voted back in.
Australia has never before seen the likes of this current threat by its government which imposes changes which undermine its citizens by progressively reducing the very freedoms ANZACS fought and died for. And because Australia has never seen war in its home land soil like other middle eastern nations, we are blinded by thinking dictatorship could never occur here.
We have talked a little about the differences between the terms privacy, anonymous and secrecy. As I see it all boils down to two simple facts. The first being all three of these terms can be used for good or bad purposes, while the second and most important fact is the right for a individual to have choice, because after all this is the basis of a free society. Like most things in life anything can be used for the good or bad. A fine example is a simple steak knife is used as a dining implement to cut meat into smaller pieces so our food is more easily digested, however this same knife can be used to inflict harm or death to another person. Similar to the steak knife example, the common motor vehicle is used for good because its main function is transporting persons from one location to another, that same car could be used as a weapon to run people down and kill everyone in sight. As we can see in the car and knife examples, the only difference is the intention and the actions which follows. We don’t ban cars on the road just because a few maniacs decide to use the car as a weapon, so why are we so willing to permit a government to remove the right of personal choice to privacy? The point to remember with these examples is most people when thinking of a car or a steak knife would automatically think of these items as an object with positive attributes, however when we attribute the word privacy and taking steps to protect ones privacy their are many people who automatically suspect something hidden is necessarily evil. This is the mindset where governments want you to maintain your focus, because if you stay in such a mindset the governments are forever able to push the boundaries to depreciate individual control and social liberties for the purpose of controlling the population.
If we are indeed a “free society”, the right for privacy is imperative to consider here and protest we should when this civil liberty is threatened by anyone who acts to subvert our freedoms. The right of choice due to the Australia governments gradual erosion of privacy is consistently being attacked into submission, where now the typical Australian citizen no longer has a choice. This can be seen with the latest proposal of AI and facial recognition of all citizens which inevitably will be used everywhere in society. Let us call a spade a spade, we are being monitored, our communications are recorded and saved in mass databases. Do these actions truly represent a government who values a free society? Especially where the actions of the few have now been dictated to the majority, all this would be akin to a murderer killing one person and the whole Australian population being suspected of murdering someone. Which is no different to that murderer using a pair of scissors and now ever other Australian would have to provide their full identity should they wish to buy scissors. It’s just crazy.
In my eyes Australia is not a free country, we may have a more choice than other countries, but we are by no means a free country. It is only a matter of time when these technologies purported to protect us will be used against us. History has proven time and time again the need for power, control and greed usually has adverse affects towards the great population. I’d much prefer the Australian government to stop pushing the deceptive commentary on how we are a free an tolerant country, because the simple truth is we can not have a free society when things are dictated to the individual such as mandatory monitoring of innocent Australian citizen communications and citizens faces. Australian citizens have the right to have privacy, and the laws being thrust upon us have not even been voted for, just imposed. It’s truly baffling how on one hand a government who can not have the balls to make an outright decision for marriage equality and then on the other hand the government is willing to annihilate the Australian civil liberties without consent from its citizens. By forcing laws which permit an individual being formally taken into custody for 14 days without legal representation, facial recognition, permitting massive databases exchanging driver license photo ID all without any consultation from the Australian citizens. Are the GLBT community that much more scary that require the whole country to vote?
At the end on the day if you value your privacy, the only best way to minimise loss of privacy is to ditch electronic devices altogether. I know this sounds crazy, however the advice is sound on the basis that all electronic devices one way or another have been turned as some type of monitoring device, and record keeping system for someone else to collate your every move, and then use that information against you for their own purposes even if it is something as small as marketing campaign. Although I feel the most simplest and ethical action to take is government should create laws which prevent mass data collection and should not be allowed to monitor a whole population. Yes an individual suspect or immediate contacts of that suspect with Judaical approval could be permitted, but only when an issue had been identified.
I don’t oppose monitoring outright, its the monitoring of a whole population that is by large innocent is what I object to. The government is treating every single one of us as an offender because of the actions of a mere few people in the Australian population is just outright offensive to me! If the government were that truly concerned for the welfare of its citizens, they would significantly tightened laws that give mandatory life sentences to though who have outright killed a person, and of course preventing the legal system letting people out of jail with a slap on the wrist. I concede the fact if a person has a criminal history, is jailed for serious offenses, or has links to known drug dealers, criminal activity, terrorist activity and those of the same ilk, then by all means monitor as much as possible. As it now stands, monitor every citizen for what? Our laws are so week, people are let off all the time because of one excuse or another, with Mental Health seeming to be in vogue these days.
Until next time...
Darren Hamburger
Page Last update:12/11/2017
Return to Author Return to Main Page
Copyright © 2017 Darren Hamburger. All rights reserved.