New research (abstract) suggests that those in higher-level positions are more likely to make decisions that value security over privacy, and be more determined to carry out those decisions. In one experiment, people who were appointed supervisors showed a significant increase in their concern for security. The researchers also found that participants who were assigned a worker-level status expressed higher concern for privacy, but not significantly higher.
We find that a high-status assignment significantly increases security concerns. This effect is observable for two predefined sub-dimensions of security (i.e., personal and societal concerns) as well as for the composite measure. We find only weak support for an increase in the demand for privacy with a low-status manipulation.
Maybe this explains why the UK Government think their data retention law needed an emergency process.
Related Stories
A one week emergency process to pass laws to fill the legal gap left behind by the striking down of the EU Data Retention Directive has resulted in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill being passed in the House of Commons. The bill received support from all three major parties and was passed with a huge majority, despite criticism for the process and content of the bill:
"The government won a large majority of 387 on its proposed Commons timetable for the legislation, as MPs agreed by 436 votes to 49 to complete consideration of the bill in one day. MPs subsequently approved the general principles of the bill at second reading by 498 votes to 31, a government majority of 467. It later passed its third and final reading by a comparable margin of 416 votes."
During the very short lead time between the announcement of the bill and it's reading in the House of Commons, senior labour leadership expressed support for the content of the bill but reservations about the speed of the process. The Conservative MP David Davis made a speech in the House of Commons in which he also criticised the process, describing it as "entirely improper", likening it to "democratic banditry resonant of a rogue state", and accusing infighting between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat factions of the ruling coalition of causing the three month.
The legislation also drew fire from many civil liberties groups and commentators. The Open Rights Group post a scathing analysis of the bill criticising the emergency nature of the bill and asserting that the bill will significantly extend data retention scope and enforcement jurisdiction, to the contrary of previous assurances by Home Secretary Theresa May that the bill would closely replicate the powers of the withdrawn EU Data Retention Directive. Isabella Sankey, the Policy Director for Liberty commented on the group's blog that this was a closed-doors agreement between the party leaders designed to evade democratic oversight and pass legislation equivalent to the previously abandoned Draft Communications Data Bill, otherwise known as the "Snooper's Charter".
The bill has now moved on the House of Lords, where it must also be approved before it becomes law.
UPDATE 17-07-14: The bill has now cleared the House of Lords and is becoming law. The criticism to the timetable for passing it has resulted in the insertion into the bill by the opposition of a six-monthly requirement for the Interception of Communications Commissioner to report on usage of the powers granted and to ensure that "same as the EU DRD" does genuinely mean that. It also means the EU Court of Justice's assertion that the EU DRD "[entailed] a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, without that interference being limited to what is strictly necessary" now applies to this new law as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Friday July 18 2014, @01:36AM
That statement is almost right. It should read: those in higher-level positions are more likely to make decisions that value their political security over everyone else's privacy.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 19 2014, @03:17AM
That's only true for those who strive for being in higher level positions. Myself, every time I've been put into higher level position, I didn't like it (except once when I had a perfect crew) and did not give one shit about my political security. Never did have to worry about security vs privacy though.
(Score: 2, Funny) by mrider on Friday July 18 2014, @03:10AM
Link to IMDB for 'Yes Minister' [imdb.com]
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 18 2014, @04:27AM
I loved that show.
Telling the minister he was taking a courageous stand was enough to the minister in utter terror.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mojo chan on Friday July 18 2014, @07:27AM
Nah, it's actually worse than that. It's simple cowardice. Cameron even admitted it in a press conference in front of the entire country. He doesn't want people to say he could have done more if there is a terrorist attack, so will happily piss away our fundamental rights and freedoms to avoid looking bad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @04:10AM
Sacrifice Privacy For Security deserve neither.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @07:20AM
Why not, if it's my privacy and my security?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday July 18 2014, @07:04PM
i dont know why this post got modded troll. if you want to give up your privacy for security, thats fine, everyone who thinks that way should gather together in their own little community with security cameras everywhere, NetNanny or something similar monitoring their internet and phone lines, etc.
but you do not get to give up my privacy for your security theater.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @11:57AM
Thought privacy and security were one in the same?
If you have no privacy, how can you have security?