Is snooping a genetic or social defect? Maybe both, and maybe we'll never know for sure. But what we've established this week is that it's immoral and unlawful.

To wit, Prudie's reply to the first letter:

"You have committed such a violation of your mother's privacy that it's going to take a long time to regain her trust. Normally, I would say information gathered by opening envelopes in someone else's nightstand is of such a radioactive nature that it should be buried in the Yucca Mountain of your mind. People are entitled to their past and their secrets. However, I make a general exception when it comes to erasing the existence of another person who is a member of your family."

We'll have to forgive Pruide her one lapse in judgment. Erasing the existence of another person is precisely when you need privacy the most.

I'd like to now turn to the awards part of our program. The following recipients contributed in positive and enduring ways to our discussion on the right of privacy. We did good work here this week, people. Stand up and take a bow!

Texwiz for getting the ball rolling, and for supplying intelligent, well-reasoned arguments throughout.

bzl, counter-puncher, seeker of truth, and uber-hottie.

SusanM, tireless advocate of human rights. It should be noted I agree with SusanM 99.8% of the time on every issue.

EJ Pooper for stating her opinions with conviction. I may have unintentionally scared her off.

Honorable mention goes to JudgeJanie, lincolngirl, IcogNeato, Graylodge, mermaid33, and MessyOne.

As the pollen fills our lungs and the mutinationals gauge us at the pumps, I'd like to wish everyone a happy start to summer! Take care of each other out there.

Did you see where the guy who advertisers his SSN is getting sued, because it's proven people have successfully used it and he found out about it, in spite of his privacy service? The article points out there may be people using it in other ways - like obtaining driver's licenses - that he isn't even aware of.

Want to bet there are at least 1000 illegal aliens using it on their job applications?

at the pumps. And gauge our reactions, which is unsurprised.

using it on their job applications could only help him couldn't it?

Speaking of the pumps,... our illustrious government - Harper - aka Hitler - has decided that removing the taxes from gas wouldn't make much of a difference. At 28% (yes, 28% taxes on gas when you add them all up), I think it would make a difference.

At $1.25 per litre, 28% would make a difference of $0.35 per litre. On a 50 litre tank, that would be $17.50 in my wallet.

I think it will hurt when he applies for social security benefits. He'll have to prove he is "THE" whatever-his-name is, and which jobs he actually worked. I don't know why the IRS doesn't contact people who appear to be working 3 or more jobs in 3 or more states for verification.

Wait, there is some guy who advertises his SS#? Is he crazy?

one of the problems is ID has been tacked on to things that it shouldn't be, like SSN and drivers licenses. These things don't prove identifcation, so they're obviously faulty when used for that purpose.

The ultimate ID, both for ID and security, would be to create a system based on everyone's life entropy. It would be something that you know and something that you are, and it would be impossible to duplicate or forge. In the privacy context, this would be impossible for anyone else to know, including governments (but they're never going to go for that).

Then, it would be a simple matter of using these tokens, like SSN and driver liscenses, to do things in the world. But your identity and privacy would be completely preserved.

It's strange when you think about it. If somebody else controls your personal data, in the information age, they for all intents and purposes become you. They can erase your existence-- and this happens to people!

I don't know if there will ever be a foolproof system, but it's obviously important.

PhysicsGirl:

Wait, there is some guy who advertises his SS#? Is he crazy?

The CEO of "LifeLock" service made a bunch of commercials stating that he uses his own service, and as "proof" of the effectivess of his business he flashed his SS# all around the commercials stating "this is my SS# FOR REAL!"

Now he's being sued because him being the victim of ID theft proves that his service is worthless. Which is pretty much is. First off, for a fee they put fraud alerts on you three major credit files. Well, that can be done on one's own for free, with one simple phone call (there's one main number that connects all three credit reporting bureaus; I've done it myself in fact!) For another, this doesn't protect you anyway if the credit bureaus are not contacted for something in your name. And as has been pointed out here, your SS# can be tied into ID in many other ways (unfortunately.)

All that side, YGGY I'm proud to have made your list! Woo hoo!

its yggy:

The ultimate ID, both for ID and security, would be to create a system based on everyone's life entropy. It would be something that you know and something that you are, and it would be impossible to duplicate or forge. In the privacy context, this would be impossible for anyone else to know, including governments (but they're never going to go for that).

Then, it would be a simple matter of using these tokens, like SSN and driver liscenses, to do things in the world. But your identity and privacy would be completely preserved.

How about fingerprints? I'm really surprised that more hasn't been done in utilizing fingerprints in ID technology. I think some people cry "privacy" but in the case of simply establishing non-tamperable ID methods I just don't see it as a privacy issue. If my driver's license says who I am, or my SS# says who I am, why is my fingerprint as an ID method any worse of a privacy violation? It'd be one of, if not THE, most secure methods!

Well hopefully he never needs to get a loan! Or no one assuming his name commits a crime that involves a warrant being put out for his arrest.

He doesn't sound like the brightest crayon in the box. Maybe he has pointy hair?

There are rather complex ways of forging or copying fingerprints. The crudest but simplest would be cutting off the fingers, of course, like in some movies. The main drawback would be to honest people who lost lost or mangled fingers, and no longer have those fingerprints, or they have been severely altered. That and criminals who get identified every time they try to buy anything or go anywhere. I suppose a police state could track even honest people that way, if they wanted to.

There are reasonably safe and effective bio id's already available. They are a bit expensive, which is why they haven't taken hold yet. Also, many people heve unreasonable fears that their DNA will somehow be taken by these methods, or that their fingerprints will be used if they ever decide to commit a crime. Look at how hard police have it trying to get parents to fingerprint their kids in case they get lost or kidnapped, when the parents will be keeping the only copy! Real faith in their own child-rearing efforts, if they are afraid the cops will end up with their kids' prints, and the kids will end up in jail someday because of it.

doesn't have fingerprints. Did you know that? Also, like Neato points out, fingerprints can still be spoofed. Ciminals sometimes burn them off before committing crimes. I read a grisly story of a guy in Hong Kong who thought he was smart for installing a fingerprint ID system on his new Lamborghini. Yep, the crooks just cut off his thumbs and stole his car!

Like I said in the post above, the best system would be if each of us could generate a key every time we needed it. The key would make a one-time handshake with the "lock" (whatever you were trying to do). The alogorithims to do this could be something insane like 100,000 bits. The bits would be taken from your life experience, say a trip to the beach when you were a kid.

This would effectively be uncrackable. Then you could have an "ID card" that says "I'm bzl" and the public key would authenticate that. So if I came into possession of your card, it would be clear that "I am not bzl." You could do the same thing with driver licenses. It would verifiable that it was you and that you could drive.

There are problems with this. Not the least of which is getting this up and running. ha! People who can't verify their keys would be locked out of their own lives. ha! And like I said, governments would not like this. They generally like to have unfettered access to who we are and what we're doing. And this isn't always bad. For example, if a dead body turns up, how would you ID it??

This is one of those massively complex issues. It gets back to privacy. Nobody should have access to your life that you don't want them to have. Is it possible for you, me, and everyone else to manage that? And would governments let it happen?

its yggy:

I'd like to now turn to the awards part of our program. The following recipients contributed in positive and enduring ways to our discussion on the right of privacy. We did good work here this week, people. Stand up and take a bow!

While I appreciate the honorable mention, I feel you've done us a disservice, sir. I had no idea a competition had ensued. I feel like Al Gore after Florida. I'm out of the foxhunt 'cause I didn't hear the horn. I'm Carrie on prom night. This is so unfair! How was I supposed to know that people would rather have intelligent conversation about civil rights and privacy issues instead of the gopher in my lawn?

Seriously, though, I'd have weighed in but it seems like we've had this privacy discussion over and over. Everybody's entitled to whatever they feel comfortable with and all I know for sure is that if you are not involved with someone who exactly shares your views on privacy, life will be hell for both of you. One person will always think the other too secretive and the other will think the person too invasive.

For the record (like anyone cares): The Reverend and I have been together for 15 years this month. I value my privacy so rabidly that he has called me "Waco" (as in willing to live in an underground bunker for the rest of my life so I can remain undetected by the authorities). We would only go into each other's purse or wallet in an emergency. We do not open each other's mail. I would not, even if I could figure it out, look at his laptop or his cell phone. I covet my personal privacy above most other things and I extend that to those around me.

Now, The Reverend, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he checked up on me occasionally, as he has an issue with trust from his previous relationship. I have absolutely no indication of this, however, and he displays a respect for my request for personal privacy so I don't dwell on this possibility. If it makes him feel more secure, that's fine, as long as I don't know about it. If he wants to look through my phone or whatever, fine knock yourself out, but don't let me or anyone else see you disrespecting me that way by displaying lack of trust, please, for someone who's never given you a moment's pause. (Granted, this is easier if you don't have anything that you might need to feel guilty about, which I don't, so I can be cavalier like this.)

Now, if he were to ever dare come to me with something he'd "found" I would probably pull out the old "why do you ask" because unless he could tell me a real good reason why he feels it necessary to grill me about this particular person or phone call or text (a good business reason) then I would have to take his inquiry for what it is - an accusation. And if what he is telling me is that he was snooping for information and is now making an accusation (veiled as an inquiry) then I would not entertain the conversation further.

My feeling on the privacy between us is that, if I suspected I was being cheated on, I wouldn't lower myself to snooping on his cell phone or reading his mail (like anyone writes love letters lol) or even looking at his computer because that involves personal privacy. I would just flat out ask him and if he denied it, I still wouldn't resort to snooping. I wouldn't want to become the kind of person that tries to wait till he's in the shower to look at his phone, to lower myself that way. You never want to obtain your "evidence" by snooping into another person's personal stuff; just look at the reactions here on the board to snoopy cancer girl. Boyfriend's possible transgressions fly right out the window because she found out by snooping on his phone. So you discover, you confront, he denies, you look like a hysterical snoop, you lose.

However, if I felt I was being cheated on I would feel it within my right to inspect more closely the business evidence that a third person might be being involved in my business. I would assume a right to inspect bank statements, credit card statements, etc., to see if any of my money were being spent in a way that violates our agreement. I do not own this man, but I do own my money (well, my half, give or take) ;)

Now, I can see this thread has turned to the topic of what kind of rights of privacy we can expect from our own government, and I will just say that everything y'all is talking about is scaring the hell out of me and I swear I'm going out back with my shovel and commence to bunkering!

Although I did enjoy the part about the thumbs and the Lamborghini.

I find myself kind of rooting for high gas prices! Now, I don't own a car, so you might think that's just schadenfreude. But I think we have to get away from imported oil. It might be a little different in Canada, but in the US here people need to change.

A lot of our consumer tendencies don't reflect reality. Prices are supressed or inflated in all kinds of ways. Some Americans are like shocked and outraged that gas prices are so high. They don't get that they're the reasons why! They just don't get that!

I';m planning on buying a car in the next couple years, and I was looking for something fun, like a convertible roadster. But now without question I'm getting a hybrid. The current Prius versus an Audi A4 is $2,000 per year in gas. It's just not worth it to me. I'll take that 2 grand and do something much more productive with it.

Point is, this technology has been around for decades, but it's been dormant because prices were lower for whatever reasons. So I see this as a day of reckoning. The folks who want to drive V8 400hp engines can. It's a free country. But just don't bitch about $4 a gallon gas (not saying you peronally are)!

And you know that it's only going up from here!