Why does one need a high level of privacy/anonymity for legal activities?

Question

This question is sort-of spun off of a previous one.

How to counter the statement: "You don't need (strong) security if you're not doing anything illegal"?

There are a lot of great security-focused answers there. However, I think the true question that is brought up is more about privacy and anonymity than it is just security.

I'm looking for concrete examples that can be presented that show the need for strong security when conducting perfectly legitimate activities. Examples in the areas of trust worthy encryption on end-to-end communications for cellular networks, network identity obfuscation services like Tor or VPNs, complete and total data destruction, and so on are what I'm after.

I'm always inclined to point to social uprisings in states like Libya and Egypt but these events tend to be presented to too many of the people I encounter that use this argument as "things that happen on TV" and not real things that have any effect on them or their personal liberties. So counter-arguments that keep it squarely in the first world, it-could-hurt-you-or-your-grandma kind of are really valuable here.

The examples brought up in the post copied above are really more specific to privacy and anonymity than they are about general security. I'm sure you'll find that most "Joe Users" will agree there is a need for Antivirus, Wi-Fi encryption, and other common defensive measures. But, why would the same people have a need for things like Tor, or end-to-end encryption over cellular networks?

To be a bit more clear: What are some arguments for personal online privacy/anonymity that your regular Joe User - who plays Angry Birds on Facebook while sitting in his boxers on the living room couch - will relate to?

Answer 1

One real world example - when you are naked in your shower, not doing anything wrong, would you like it if everyone came by and took pictures? Or televised your shower for the world? Probably not.

Another example - if I send a love letter, or write a will dividing up my savings, should that be published on the front page of the national papers? Again - no.

If I am carrying out my own business, the expectation should be that I have privacy, except where I have consciously and deliberately waived it. This was the case before technology became pervasive - it should still be the case. In the old days law enforcement needed a warrant before they could access your property or communications, because the assumption has to be innocent until proven guilty. This has been eroded as technology has developed.

If I encrypt all my emails to my friends, the expectation should not be that I am a criminal for doing it, just that I want privacy, like leaving a room to take a private phone call. I could be planning a surprise birthday party, or applying for a new job, or possibly just enjoy using PGP - it doesn't really matter - it's my business.

From the EFF's privacy page:

Privacy rights are enshrined in our Constitution for a reason — a thriving democracy requires respect for individuals' autonomy as well as anonymous speech and association. These rights must be balanced against legitimate concerns like law enforcement, but checks must be put in place to prevent abuse of government powers.

Answer 2

Turn the question around

We would need a society where everyone was trustworthy.

• All ISP's that handle my traffic.
• All Web sites.
• All users on the Internet, for every country.
• All governments (how many wars right now).
• All companies.
• All staff of every company.
• All aliens (they are out there).

If we don't encrypt communication and lock systems then it would be like:

• Sending letters with transparent envelopes.
• Living with transparent clothes, buildings and cars.
• Having a webcam for your bed and in your bathroom.
• Leaving unlocked cars, homes and bikes.

All of this makes it clear that there is no way that we should give up all security technologies just because you trust your ISP or Government, you must trust EVERONE IN THE WORLD to make a 'drop your pants' strategy viable.

Answer 3

The answer is “Joe User” does not want end-to-end encryption over cellular networks or Tor and will not be using it in the future. “Joe User” does not care that his GPS location, tracking his entire life, is reported back to his wireless vendor or that his social networking behaviors are tracked and exploited. “Joe User” likes thrilling, cheap, free, and easy. The real world forces at play are diametrically opposed to the spirit of this question.

This response is not intended to be flippant or offend but rather to suggest a new point of view would be appropriate relative to this question. “Joe User” does not care about privacy and anonymity but rather he/she is a carefree technology hedonist. Therefore, our role in securing his and our systems is much tougher than assumed in the world suggested by your question since “Joe User” logs onto and plugs into our systems. The question suggests that there are some empirical truths to which we are privy which, when shared with ‘Joe User”, will enlighten him/her. Once enlightened, “Joe User” will change behavior, embrace relatively complicated security protocols, and support additional costs at home and work to defend privacy and anonymity. That would be a nice world to live and work in. That world does not exist.

Instead the world is full of Homer Simpsons that gladly share the most intimate details with mega-companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars precisely because they have access to that very information. Neither Homer Simpson nor the associated mega-companies tracking his habits with their K Street lobbying power want to see the vision embedded in your question come true. As Scott McNealy from Sun famously stated in 1999 about privacy “You have zero privacy anyway .. . Get over it” (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538). Scott was sharing reality as far as the mega-companies saw the world in the dot-com adolescent days and planned for its future. His comment precisely predicted the world we live in today and will live in tomorrow.

Thus I suggest we plan for a world without common user privacy protection beyond TLS and wireless router encryption. Angry Birds trumps the point of view of the traditional security expert in this area.