If the banks can handle electronic privacy…
Following my most recent post, Mark Herpel wrote in to say this:
…the two words ?online privacy? are a bit like ?Jumbo Shrimp? they just don?t belong together. Protecting your IP when you post to a BB forum or blog is one thing and most of the time helpful, expecting this to protect you from legal action or aggressive tactics to locate you, that is another topic all together. Beyond covering your IP, I think anything more is overkill and would really only be used by folks who ?have? something big to hide. Ample privacy can be found in the use of a VPN, anything more is excessive.
I responded thusly:
…you certainly make a valid point when you say that you?re accepting a certain amount of exposure when you put information on the web. Yet clearly there are people who prefer a greater level of privacy, and the nothing to hide argument can?t be used as a presumption of guilt. Shouldn?t people be entitled to privacy if they want it? To what extent are sites responsible for disclosing how data can be used? To what extent should websites make it possible for people to keep their personal data private?
I meant it when I said he makes a valid point. But something was niggling at me, and it took me until today to put my finger on it:
If the banks can do it, why can’t we?
If the banks can guarantee online privacy, why can’t everyone else?
Come to think of it, if an electronic banking system is effective and auditable, why can’t an electronic voting system work?
Do you watch Boston Legal? Remember that episode when Denny Crane got put on the no-fly list? Here are some excerpts from Alan Shore’s closing argument (via the Travel Security blog):
Some of the new iPods, you can load up to twenty thousand songs on them… The technology in this country is staggering!
And yet, the government can’t get their computers to erase my client from the No-Fly list. Even though they admit he shouldn’t be on it. Instead, nobody named Denny Crane can fly.
…We have geniuses in this country. True pioneers of aviation. Steve Jobs, Steven Woziak, Steve Ballmer. If we could just round up some of our best Steves. We’ve got kids in garages inventing Google and YouTube. Jets can not only fly by computer, but they can now take off and land on auto pilot. Should we truly be stumped by this No-Fly computer list?
How about something as simple as issuing a flyer’s license? It could have your picture, fingerprints, you show it, scan the card and your fingers at the gate, if it’s a match you get your aisle seat! This can’t be undoable.
…they simply cannot dispatch a representative to this courtroom to say the problem isn’t fixable, while thousands of Americans are being denied due process. It so easily has to be fixable. And in the meantime my client sits here today, a law-abiding man, grounded!
I realize that I’m making a bit of a fragmented argument here. But there is a unifying thread:
If we want to accomplish something, we can.
As individuals, as communities, as a nation, as a people.
You cannot tell me that if I choose to go online, I have simply no choice but to share my personal information with the world.
You cannot tell me that it isn’t possible to create and implement the technology to allow people to retain ownership of their private data.
You cannot tell me that the nature of the Internet is such that we must resign ourselves to living exposed to the world, and to anyone who choosed to investigate.
Perhaps it’s true that if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear… but only from a legitimate and uncorrupt authority.
If you’ve got nothing to hide, you still might prefer that identity thieves don’t have access to your information. You still might prefer that potential employers won’t be able to look up pics from your rave days, which under the current technology and thanks to the glory of archiving will still be available when you’re old and gray. You still might prefer that spammers and unethical marketers can’t access you when you don’t want to be accessed.
You simply cannot tell me that it’s not possible to create the Internet we want. If the banks can do it, so can we.
Your thoughts?
October 1st, 2007 at 6:09 am
I am a large box wrapped in colorful paper tied with string. You pull the string to open the box.
If we fail to provide authentic privacy, we wrap ourselves in nothing, not even brown paper, and no string.
But perhaps we’ll all become accustomed to living without privacy as wartime rules change our culture.
For example, NASA employees are concerned that new security requirements are demanding so much transparency, folks will be packaged in glass.
A number of scientists and staff have joined a lawsuit to be heard this week. According to this article about a JPL professional, she must “either sign over to the Federal Government the right to investigate every aspect of her life or she can “voluntarily” choose to not be allowed entry into the building wherein she works.”
A new Presidential Directive is demanding a privacy waiver from employees which will authorize fingerprinting, credit checks, financial history, bill paying and spending habits, marriage and court records, medical and mental health records, character references, family and sibling disclosure, and not the least, authorizes investigating adverse comments from peer and neighbor interviews, with any of these investigations to be carried out by third-party contractors.
“Executive Order 10450 requires National Agency Checks with Written Inquiries…” where ALL federal employees, as well as contractors, students, etc. associated with the government must sign the waiver or “voluntarily” not show up for work.
One employee struggled to retain her Unemployment benefits when she stood to her principles. I suppose glass packages can break.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I’m a rank amateur at privacy matters I’m just a bit familiar with what issues surround digital money privacy. For this discussion its probably important to state which items of privacy are shared, are we talking (1) web sites visited, type of browser you are using or (2) your SSN / SIN numbers and sexual preferences?
“You cannot tell me that if I choose to go online, I have simply no choice but to share my personal information with the world.”
>>Unfortunately, living in today’s society, this is how it goes…this is the ‘norm’ except for those that work to defeat the intrusions
“You cannot tell me that it isn?t possible to create and implement the technology to allow people to retain ownership of their private data.”
>>>It possible just not used widespread on today’s internet. As I’ve said before, if you create good enough stealth technology, the gov will want a copy and a backdoor. Examples: PGP, Cell phone clipper chips
“You cannot tell me that the nature of the Internet is such that we must resign ourselves to living exposed to the world, and to anyone who chose to investigate.”
>>>Well I won’t tell you but that is the true nature of the Internet as of today, except for a very few who diligently create and operate privacy technologies. Example: PGP, Metropipe
I honestly think that what type of info is shared online will depend on your jurisdiction and the ’society’ in which you live. Pre 9/11 what a visitor shared is different than today, that fact is based on the society in which we live. I feel there should be privacy for those that want it but the party responsible for society will always be trumping that privacy in the name of protection, that much I really don’t mind.
If someone is peeping into my emails for random keywords and text or is listening on the phone for keywords, that’s OK with me as long as my kids are not blown up on the way to grade school. I can live with that trade off no problem here.
The US is very different than say Central America, in Belize its estimated that the gov listens in on 1/3 of all phone line in the country…but you never hear anyone shouting about their privacy be abused there. Outside the US, in Central and South America, its pretty much a given that someone may be listening and watching, there are no ACLU offices in Panama.
Intercepting information for marketing is widely accepted in most countries without issue, I always assumed one could just opt out or find software to protect that information if one so desired.
Mark
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 am
Brian and Mark, thank you so much for your thoughtful comments.
Mark, I agree with you that the norm and the present nature of the Internet is not favorable for people who want to maintain privacy. You may not object to your phone calls being tapped, and that is entirely your prerogative. Someone else might not want her phone calls to be tapped. Should she have the right to object?
My post was not intended to say that this minute anyone can access the Internet privately. Its intent was to say that if we wished to create an Internet that gives users control over their privacy, we could.
It also bears repeating that someone’s motives for privacy could well have zero correlation with a propensity for illegal activities. The current state of the Internet doesn’t allow for privacy from anyone: the party responsible for society, marketers, malicious hackers, new boyfriends. And many users of the Internet—I suspect the vast majority—have absolutely no idea how much of their information is readily available online for free or a small fee.
I truly appreciate your input and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Best regards,
Kaila