Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Friday, 21 June 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)18. The Prism: Privacy in an age of publicity by Jill Lepore
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/06/24/130624fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all
An extraordinary fuss about eavesdropping started in the spring of 1844, when Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian exile in London, became convinced that the British government was opening his mail. Mazzini, a revolutionary whod been thrown in jail in Genoa, imprisoned in Savona, sentenced to death in absentia, and arrested in Paris, was plotting the unification of the kingdoms of Italy and the founding of an Italian republic. He suspected that, in London, hed been the victim of what he called post-office espionage: he believed that the Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, had ordered his mail to be opened, at the request of the Austrian Ambassador, who, like many people, feared what Mazzini hopedthat an insurrection in Italy would spark a series of revolutions across Europe. Mazzini knew how to find out: he put poppy seeds, strands of hair, and grains of sand into envelopes, sealed the envelopes with wax, and sent them, by post, to himself. When the letters arrivedstill sealedthey contained no poppy seeds, no hair, and no grains of sand. Mazzini then had his friend Thomas Duncombe, a Member of Parliament, submit a petition to the House of Commons. Duncombe wanted to know if Graham really had ordered the opening of Mazzinis mail. Was the British government in the business of prying into peoples private correspondence? Graham said the answer to that question was a secret.
Questions raised this month about surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency have been met, so far, with much the same response that Duncombe got from Graham in 1844: the program is classified. (This, a secret secret, is known as a double secret.) Luckily, old secrets arent secret; old secrets are history. The Mazzini affair, as the historian David Vincent argued in The Culture of Secrecy, led to the first modern attack on official secrecy. It stirred a public uproar, and eventually the House of Commons appointed a Committee of Secrecy to inquire into the State of the Law in respect of the Detaining and Opening of Letters at the General Post-office, and into the Mode under which the Authority given for such Detaining and Opening has been exercised. In August of 1844, the committee issued a hundred-and-sixteen-page report on the goings on at the post office. Fascinating to historians, it must have bored Parliament silly. It includes a history of the delivery of the mail, back to the sixteenth century. (The committee members had showed so much antiquarian research, Lord John Russell remarked, that he was surprised they hadnt gone all the way back to the case of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, who opened the letters which had been committed to his charge, and got Rosencrantz and Guildenstern put to death instead of himself.)
The report revealed that Mazzinis mail had indeed been opened and that there existed something called the Secret Department of the Post Office. Warrants had been issued for reading the mail of the kings subjects for centuries. Before Mazzini and the poppy seeds, the practice was scarcely questioned. It was not, however, widespread. The general average of Warrants issued during the present century, does not much exceed 8 a-year, the investigation revealed. This number would comprehend, on an average, the Letters of about 16 persons annually. The Committee of Secrecy was relieved to report that rumors that the Secret Department of the Post Office had, at times, sent entire mail-bags to the Home Office were false: None but separate Letters or Packets are ever sent.
The entire episode was closely watched in the United States, where the New-York Tribune condemned the opening of Mazzinis mail as a barbarian breach of honor and decency. After the Committee of Secrecy issued its report, Mazzini published an essay called Letter-Opening at the Post-Office. Two months after the Mazzini affair began, the Secret Department of the Post Office was abolished. What replaced it, in the long run, was even sneakier: better-kept secrets.
The opening of Mazzinis mail, like the revelations that the N.S.A. has been monitoring telephone, e-mail, and Internet use, illustrates the intricacy of the relationship between secrecy and privacy. Secrecy is what is known, but not to everyone. Privacy is what allows us to keep what we know to ourselves. Mazzini considered his correspondence private; the British government kept its reading of his mail secret. The A.C.L.U., which last week filed a suit against the Obama Administration, has called the N.S.A.s surveillance program a gross infringement of the right to privacy. The Obama Administration has defended both the program and the fact that its existence has been kept secret....
MUCH MORE AT LINK
An extraordinary fuss about eavesdropping started in the spring of 1844, when Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian exile in London, became convinced that the British government was opening his mail. Mazzini, a revolutionary whod been thrown in jail in Genoa, imprisoned in Savona, sentenced to death in absentia, and arrested in Paris, was plotting the unification of the kingdoms of Italy and the founding of an Italian republic. He suspected that, in London, hed been the victim of what he called post-office espionage: he believed that the Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, had ordered his mail to be opened, at the request of the Austrian Ambassador, who, like many people, feared what Mazzini hopedthat an insurrection in Italy would spark a series of revolutions across Europe. Mazzini knew how to find out: he put poppy seeds, strands of hair, and grains of sand into envelopes, sealed the envelopes with wax, and sent them, by post, to himself. When the letters arrivedstill sealedthey contained no poppy seeds, no hair, and no grains of sand. Mazzini then had his friend Thomas Duncombe, a Member of Parliament, submit a petition to the House of Commons. Duncombe wanted to know if Graham really had ordered the opening of Mazzinis mail. Was the British government in the business of prying into peoples private correspondence? Graham said the answer to that question was a secret.
Questions raised this month about surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency have been met, so far, with much the same response that Duncombe got from Graham in 1844: the program is classified. (This, a secret secret, is known as a double secret.) Luckily, old secrets arent secret; old secrets are history. The Mazzini affair, as the historian David Vincent argued in The Culture of Secrecy, led to the first modern attack on official secrecy. It stirred a public uproar, and eventually the House of Commons appointed a Committee of Secrecy to inquire into the State of the Law in respect of the Detaining and Opening of Letters at the General Post-office, and into the Mode under which the Authority given for such Detaining and Opening has been exercised. In August of 1844, the committee issued a hundred-and-sixteen-page report on the goings on at the post office. Fascinating to historians, it must have bored Parliament silly. It includes a history of the delivery of the mail, back to the sixteenth century. (The committee members had showed so much antiquarian research, Lord John Russell remarked, that he was surprised they hadnt gone all the way back to the case of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, who opened the letters which had been committed to his charge, and got Rosencrantz and Guildenstern put to death instead of himself.)
The report revealed that Mazzinis mail had indeed been opened and that there existed something called the Secret Department of the Post Office. Warrants had been issued for reading the mail of the kings subjects for centuries. Before Mazzini and the poppy seeds, the practice was scarcely questioned. It was not, however, widespread. The general average of Warrants issued during the present century, does not much exceed 8 a-year, the investigation revealed. This number would comprehend, on an average, the Letters of about 16 persons annually. The Committee of Secrecy was relieved to report that rumors that the Secret Department of the Post Office had, at times, sent entire mail-bags to the Home Office were false: None but separate Letters or Packets are ever sent.
The entire episode was closely watched in the United States, where the New-York Tribune condemned the opening of Mazzinis mail as a barbarian breach of honor and decency. After the Committee of Secrecy issued its report, Mazzini published an essay called Letter-Opening at the Post-Office. Two months after the Mazzini affair began, the Secret Department of the Post Office was abolished. What replaced it, in the long run, was even sneakier: better-kept secrets.
The opening of Mazzinis mail, like the revelations that the N.S.A. has been monitoring telephone, e-mail, and Internet use, illustrates the intricacy of the relationship between secrecy and privacy. Secrecy is what is known, but not to everyone. Privacy is what allows us to keep what we know to ourselves. Mazzini considered his correspondence private; the British government kept its reading of his mail secret. The A.C.L.U., which last week filed a suit against the Obama Administration, has called the N.S.A.s surveillance program a gross infringement of the right to privacy. The Obama Administration has defended both the program and the fact that its existence has been kept secret....
MUCH MORE AT LINK
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
America’s non-banks, The anointed: The number of too-big-to-fail institutions gets bigger
Demeter
Jun 2013
#6
At NYU, plunder has become a very attractive career path.Naked Capitalism / By Yves Smith
Demeter
Jun 2013
#7
Meet America’s Most Shameless Defender of 1%, Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw / Lynn Stuart Parramore
Demeter
Jun 2013
#14
Celebrate the Defeat of the Granny Bashers! Billionaire-backed Campaign Fails to Cut Social Security
Demeter
Jun 2013
#11
20-Second Aerial Video Shows Just How Gigantic Last Night's Protest In Rio De Janeiro Was
xchrom
Jun 2013
#25