Chicago Law Professor Claims No Privacy In Your Emails, As Long As The Content Isn't Used To Detain Or Harass You
from the oh-really? dept
Eric Posner, a law professor in Chicago and a full-blown supporter of extreme authoritarian governments (he's even written a book about why the US presidency needs more power and less respect for the Constitutional separation of powers), is, not surprisingly, a big fan of the NSA's surveillance efforts. In the past, he's mocked Snowden and Manning, and talked up why a government that keeps secrets is better than one that's actually accountable to its public. In other words, he's the perfect stooge to try to come up with a justification for Rep. Mike Rogers' ridiculous claims that your privacy isn't violated if you don't know about it.His latest article isn't directly a justification for that statement -- in fact, it doesn't even mention it -- but it's clearly cut from the same cloth. He makes the argument that the NSA should keep spying on all foreigners in part because they spy on us (and also because he thinks we're good at it). However, he also has a rather unique interpretation of privacy:
Mass surveillance—where emails and other communications are vacuumed up, stored in databases, and then searched for keywords—doesn’t harm anyone in itself. The problem only arises when the information is used to detain, interrogate, or harass people.He's using this bizarre and laughable line of argument to suggest that it's okay when governments spy on citizens in other countries because their "intelligence agents do not have the time or inclination to harass random Americans, nor the capability as long as Americans remain in the United States." So, in his mind: no privacy violation happens.
He doubles down on this thinking later, arguing again that if there's no known "harm" to the individual, there's no privacy issue at all.
Suppose that the NSA collects the emails of foreigners and conducts searches of them for keywords. Occasionally a false positive turns up, and an analyst reads someone’s email to his lover, therapist, or doctor, ascertains that the email contains no information that identifies terrorists or other security threats, and deletes it. The writer of the email never finds out, and the analyst of course has no idea who this person is. Has a human right been violated? It is hard to identify an affront to human dignity, or even a harm, any more than if a police officer overhears a snatch of personal conversation on the bus.Of course, how hard is it to reword that paragraph just slightly, to demonstrate the insanity of Posner's claim?
Suppose that some hackers collect the emails of Eric Posner, and conducts searches of them for keywords. Occasionally a really embarrassing one turns up, and the hacker reads about Posner's sexual proclivities, financial difficulties, medical problems or similar such things, ascertains that the email contains no information that identifies crimes that Posner is planning to commit and deletes it. Or maybe he saves it for use at a later date. Or to share with a friend. Or a lot of friends. Posner never finds out, and even though the hacker knows who Posner is, he'll never see him in person. Has a human right been violated? It is hard to identify an affront to human dignity, or even a harm, any more than if a police officer overhears Eric Posner talking on a bus.Posner's basic assumption is flat out crazy. He's arguing that there's no privacy violation until something bad happens with the information, not when it was seized, and not even when it was perused by human eyes -- but only when something nebulously bad happens with it. That makes no sense. The violation comes much earlier. There is real harm in having your information exposed, even if you don't know about it.
Beyond the fact that Posner is simply wrong about when the privacy violation occurs, even if we accept his wacky argument, he's still wrong. That's because he's making two giant assumptions. First, that such information isn't abused. He pretends that "national borders" protect spying on foreigners because you can't do something legally to a person in another country. I would imagine that people killed by US drone strikes might disagree with that assessment. He also argues it's unlikely that there would be many abuses of this information, because any abuses would harm the spying country and its spies once they came out. Pretty much all of civilized human history suggests that's wrong. Give people power, as Posner is aching to do, and they abuse it. Over and over again. But, I guess he's okay with that, just as long as he never finds out about it. Dictatorships and ignorance are bliss!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: emails, eric posner, nsa, privacy, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As the saying goes: 'Put up or shut up'
In this case the one doing PR duty for the NSA has even given himself an easy way to demonstrate that he believes what he's saying, all he has to do is make public his email account, in case anyone is curious as to who he's talking to and what they're saying. By his logic, as long as no one uses his private communications to 'detain, interrogate, or harass' him, then no violation of his privacy has occurred.
Of course I'm sure he'd consider even asking for such a private thing would count as 'harassing' him, but that would just showcase his hypocrisy even more, so win-win either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So same position as Google.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2013/08/20/its-not-a-surprise-that-gmail-users-have -no-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy/
"The new Google privacy policy is: You have no privacy."
03:42:28[d-765-1] [ This is necessary to suppress the kids here from fraud of using my screen name. ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So same position as Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So same position as Google.
However, there's a difference between not being able to use one company's service because of privacy concerns, and not using an entire communication medium. It's easy to set up e-mail, it's easy to secure it to a reasonable level. It's quite hard to make sure the mail never routes through some specific other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So same position as Google.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2013/08/20/its-not-a-surprise-that-gmail-users-have -no-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy/
Of course, if blue actually read TechDirt, he'd know that's not what Google said. At all. But this is blue and blue doesn't do facts.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130814/14262524177/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So same position as Google.
Like this?
_________________________________________________________________________
8:00:85 My posts aren't complete unless I put in lines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the Stupid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope, wrong. The problem arises when information can be used to target, threaten, attack, or use against someone else when it normally wouldn't be.
If it's stored, that means (surveillance data) has no value right now. If it has no value right now, it shouldn't have value in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So to argue all this surveillance is ok because "trust us" misses the point. It's not ok because it can be used to "target, threaten, attack" etc. Perhaps not now, but later. That's the problem with dragnet surveillance.
You have to imagine what happens if really bad (or just really greedy, or even just really lame) people get into power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But that's the problem with dragnet surveillance, too. Things that seem innocuous now can be "reinterpreted" later when those in power change their opinions. (Think McCarthyism.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guy looks like he should have a pedo bear in every picture:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law professor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I PROMISE I won't use it to harass you.
Wanna buy a bridge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 posner's
How much does this guy pay to clean up his wikipedia profile? It seems like a lot of money, given how magically non-controversial it is (in comparison to his claims). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Posner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 posner's
i *think* probably related to a well-known jfk k-k-k-konspiracy 'debunker', called gerald posner, who is an authoritarian slimeball, too...
again, when i think of anti-american propagandists like the posner klan, i think: *someone* has to be the shills on the spook's payroll...
(make no mistake, i think there are PLENTY of mis-guided, mis-informed, mis-human beans who carry the water of authoritarians without being paid a dime, because that is what the unthinking asshats actually believe; but i am certain there are more than a few who get some lucre for the job...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly, I would expect a law professor to know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know what Eric Posner is other than a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is that it might take many years before something bad happens. Storing the data make what was an accepted point of view now a reason for bad things when a government changes form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he likes extreme authoritarian governments so much...
There are a number of candidate countries that would qualify, and at least one of them must be to his liking.
It seems like this would be so much easier than trying to turn the US into an extreme authoritarian governments -- even though it seems to be happening anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If he likes extreme authoritarian governments so much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If he likes extreme authoritarian governments so much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If he likes extreme authoritarian governments so much...
/rhetorical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mass surveillance
• The Berlin Wall was erected beginning in 1961.
• Eric Posner was born in 1965.
So Eric Posner was born into a world where the Berlin Wall had stood already for four years. In those four years, JFK had come to Berlin and gone, and the first wire fence cutting off Berlin had been improved. The improved wire was replaced with concrete beginning in 1965, perhaps around the time Eric was conceived.
When Eric Posner was about ten years old—
The Wall stood until—
Eric Posner was about 23 or 24 years old when the Wall crumbled.
Mass surveillance of a population corrodes the fabric of a society, coursening the people. It strikes fear into people —they censor themselves— limiting not just the things they dare to write and say out loud, but going so far as to limit the range of thoughts they dare to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait what, he won't give me his password? Thought so. Practice what you preach, mate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Postcard
If you must send sensitive data through email, encrypt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
delete?
I've haven't heard that there's deleting going on. Everything I've read indicates that any accidental records that get scooped up are fair game for future scavenger hunts (with no justification required).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: delete?
Of course, it turns out that they have been using the evidence against people for plenty of things unrelated to terrorism or security threats. For instance, they'll happily pass information to the IRS or the DEA -- but when they do, they instruct the recipients to lie about where they got the information, and tell them to construct a false
chain of evidence.
At the very least, that's a clear violation of the Sixth Amendement rights to be "informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation" and to be "confronted with the witnesses" against you; depending on where you draw the line, it may also be a violation of the Fourth Amendment via the exclusionary rule.
In other words, some of the information collected by the NSA can be and is already being used to "harrass, interrogate, and detain people" in violation of their constitutional rights. If they choose not to use your information to harrass, interrogate, or detain you, with the understanding that they'd lie about doing so later, then yes: they're required to delete your emails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, I think I spot a slight gaping hole there...
The NSA has shown itself more than willing to share the information with other law enforcement bodies in the United States (as well as out), and they do have "the time, inclination and the capability to harass random Americans in the United States."
So I'm sorry Mr Posner but, like the man wearing cellophane shorts, I can clearly see you're nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
My guess is his reading comprehension is not that good, but that won't ever stop a lawyer because they make up their own interpretations of text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually, i am very pleased with this line of reasoning. it means i can slip into someone's home, find the lady's panty drawer and learn what she likes, visit that bedside drawer, and maybe enjoy myself a little bit, and i did nothing wrong if no one but me knows about it. and i have a national representative and maybe a chicago law prof to back me up.
excuse me, please, i have some preparations i need to get started on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about harm to society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CREEPY
"never finds out, and the analyst of course has no idea who this person is. Has a human right been violated? It is hard to identify an affront to human dignity, or even a harm"
So then as long in his world:
--A college guy having sex with a passed out girl who never finds out (as long as she isn't pregnant or has contracted a disease)is neither a "violation" nor "an affront to human dignity".
--Peeping Toms do not violate privacy as long as they never reveal what they are doing and the target never finds out.
--Any corporation/agency/organization can put spyware on your comp, cameras in your house, and GPS tracking on your car and monitor all your activity as long as you never find out and they don't actually "use" it.
This is a creepy line of thinking even if we ignore the naievete of trusting the government never to use it. Allowing the collection of data without seeing its inevitable "use" and abuses is like saying a death threat isn't a violation until the knife point breaks your skin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CREEPY
if he has nothing to hide...
*snicker*
seriously, the day of nanobots is not far off, and then -since they are effectively unnoticeable crawling our brains- there shouldn't be any problem with that, richtig ? ? ?
dick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Did you take Logic 101 in college?
2) Did you pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) No.
2) Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]