Rum Doings Episode 214: In A Pool Of Olive Oil
by John Walker on May.25, 2016, under Rum Doings
In our 214th ever Rum Doings, our topic is, shouldn’t Elton John’s husband David Furnish be entitled to the same privacy as all of us.
Entirely separately from our topic, because what would it have to do with those two?, we discuss privacy and the peculiarity of injunctions. We come up with Stewart Lee’s next live show, and then move on to looking at the new television programmes that we’ll be flying over to America to watch this Autumn.
To get this episode directly, right click and save here. To subscribe to Rum Doings click here, or you can find it in iTunes here.
Or you can listen to it right here:
[audio: http://rumdoings.jellycast.com/files/audio/214_rumdoings.mp3]
May 26th, 2016 on 00:53
John, you’ve shown your racist side once again! The guy pronounces his name “crypt key.”
May 26th, 2016 on 12:27
I understand youse were talking in the context of press injunctions, but it’s wrong to bandy about phrases such as ‘there’s no such thing as privacy’. Press freedom is not the same as privacy. By the time the press come to publish something about you, your privacy has already been breached. We should all be grateful for what little privacy we have these days.
May 26th, 2016 on 12:54
You misunderstand, scotchmi_st. I did not suggest there’s no such thing as the “notion” of privacy: merely that it should not be, in general, the State’s responsibility to enforce it. You are quite welcome to enforce your own privacy.
But the moment the State decides that it has the right to decide what True Facts it will and will not allow to be discussed (beyond very narrow national-security and victim scopes) is the moment we’ve entered actual fascism.
May 26th, 2016 on 14:46
I agree it’s not up to the state to say what can and can’t be published. I still think you’re referring to press freedom there though, not privacy as such. It should be up to the state to devise laws that make it illegal to unduly invade other people’s privacy, but not to dictate what can and can’t be published. Unless you’re saying that it’s fine for a newspaper to tap someone’s phone line- the person should have been using strong encryption for all their communications.
May 26th, 2016 on 17:14
“make it illegal to unduly invade other people’s privacy”.
That’s one of those things that sounds “reasonable” but is so vague that it ends up being used to protect billionaire arms-dealer crimes. Which is exactly how the “privacy laws” in France are used.
And yes – if I have a loud conversation in a train carriage, I expect people to be able to hear and report on it. This is what non-encrypted communication is. If I send a cleartext Email, I consider it ultimately no more secure than I consider a postcard. It’s MY responsibility to remember that and act appropriately.
May 26th, 2016 on 18:47
Come now, you were plenty vague in your last statement about what the state is “in general” responsible for. We can debate what I mean by “unduly invade other people’s privacy” if you like. I can give specific examples. I don’t think you can reasonably expect the man on the clapham omnibus to be secure in themselves against state or private actors without some laws in place. That’s why the 4th amendment exists (for all it’s worth these days). Otherwise presumably, you think dissidents in tyrannical regimes have only themselves to blame if they send a text that gets intercepted, and leads to them having their head blown off. Or the neighbours of some low-level Stasi operative being overheard grumbling and sent to the gulag.
May 27th, 2016 on 13:49
Dissidents in tyrannical regimes would be “protected” by a “privacy” law how exactly?
May 27th, 2016 on 15:17
A good example of why privacy laws are useful and called for under tyrannical regimes is the British colonisation of America, from which the 4th amendment was born- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Background
> Homes in Colonial America, on the other hand, did not enjoy the same sanctity as their British counterparts, because legislation had been explicitly written so as to enable enforcement of British revenue-gathering policies on customs; until 1750, in fact, the only type of warrant defined in the handbooks for justices of the peace was the general warrant.[4] During what scholar William Cuddihy called the “colonial epidemic of general searches”, the authorities possessed almost unlimited power to search for anything at any time, with very little oversight
One thing tyrannical regimes have in common is a lack of respect for the privacy of its citizens. This is because the more space that is given for privacy, the more space there is for people to dissent. In some bizzarre hypothetical where citizens have next to no rights but the right to a private life, the regime wouldn’t last long, since the citizens would be given the chance to conspire against their masters.
May 28th, 2016 on 06:03
Again, you miss point. Why would a tyrannical regime suddenly become a prim respecter of its own privacy law?
And, furthermore, you’re confusing a law that demands the State respect the privacy of its citizens vs a law which demands the State enforce press and other censorship on behalf of its (usually wealthier) citizens.
May 28th, 2016 on 08:48
Well of course a tyrannical regime wouldn’t, for the reasons outlined above. If they did, the regime wouldn’t last long, since the citizens would be given the chance to conspire against their masters. The American colonials understood that strong privacy laws are important in preventing tyrannical regimes from coming about in the first place, along with other freedoms such as the freedom of the press.
Where have I confused “a law that demands the State respect the privacy of its citizens vs a law which demands the State enforce press and other censorship on behalf of its (usually wealthier) citizens”? I’ve said it twice already but I’ll say it a third time- I agree it’s not up to the state to say what can and can’t be published. That’s a question of press freedom there, not privacy. Privacy stops state and private actors from finding these things out in the first place. It should be up to the state to devise laws that make it illegal to unduly invade other people’s privacy, but not to dictate what can and can’t be published. I’m glad we can finally at least on the distinction between those two things.
May 28th, 2016 on 15:05
Just to clarify further here, if what you are saying is that in a tyrannical regime there may be a difference between the actions of the state and the laws of that state, as far as I am concerned they are one and the same. There is no law without enforcement.