Simson Garfinkel: Privacy matters. Until recently, people who wanted to preserve their privacy were urged to "opt out" or abstain from some aspects of modern society. Now, however, abstinence no longer guarantees privacy. The story of privacy in America is the story of inventions and the story of fear; it is best told around certain moments of opportunity and danger. It's comforting to know that U.S. law eventually gets things right with respect to privacy--that is the power of our republic, after all. But it's also troubling how long it sometimes takes. Though a stronger identification system would undoubtedly harm some citizens through errors, I think the opposition is unfortunate. We need to learn how to protect privacy by intention, not by accident.
Decius, in February 2009: The ship has already sailed on the question of whether or not it's reasonable for the government to collect evidence about everyone all the time so that it can be used against them in court if someone accuses them of a crime or civil tort.
Noam Cohen's friend, in February 2009: Privacy is serious. It is serious the moment the data gets collected, not the moment it is released.
See also: “Given his role in REAL ID, Tom Davis would not be a good choice for privacy, which is something that President Obama specifically promised to protect in his remarks on the cyber security strategy,” says Jim Harper, the director of information policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Many cyber security planners refer obliquely to ‘authentication’ and ‘identity management’ programs that would devastate privacy, anonymity and civil liberties. Davis would probably work to roll past these issues rather than solve them.”
Privacy Requires Security, Not Abstinence | 
