Privacy Is About Controlling Information About Yourself

from the doublespeak-is-doubleplusungood dept

As Congress debates whether to expand the executive branch's eavesdropping powers and immunize the telecom industry for illegally sharing customer information with the government, a senior Bush administration official, Donald Kerr, says that we need a new definition of privacy. He says the old definition revolved around a right to anonymity, and that in our increasingly wired world anonymity is becoming increasingly difficult. Therefore, he said, we should accept a new definition of privacy in which we just accept that "government and businesses" have access to private data on us, and we focus on holding those institutions accountable for not misusing it. But as my colleague Jim Harper points out privacy has never meant anonymity. Rather, privacy is about having control over what information you divulge, and to whom. It's true, as Kerr notes, that Google and Facebook have a lot of private information about us. But the important point is that they only have the information that we have voluntarily chosen to give them. If those companies violate our trust, we can switch to Yahoo, MySpace, or numerous other search engines and social networking sites that will be more respectful of our data. Or we can prevent our information from being collected in the first place, for example by using software to block Google's web cookies or by not signing up for Facebook at all. The government is different. You don't know when you're being spied on, what information is being collected, and what's being done with it, and you certainly don't have the option to opt out if it makes you uncomfortable. That's why there needs to be much stricter regulation of government data-collection than information collected by the private sector.

Kerr argues that it's sufficient that government officials are subject to stiff fines and even jail time for misusing peoples' private information. Yet this is the same administration pushing to exempt AT&T and Verizon from liability for violating the privacy laws already on the books. And this spring, the Inspector General found that the FBI had issued hundreds of "improper" (read: "illegal") letters demanding private customer data without a warrant. As far as I know, no one at the FBI has been indicted for these breaches of the law. So if the administration is breaking the laws already on the books without facing any penalties, what reason is there to think that the threat of criminal penalties will be sufficient to make future administrations behave themselves? Moreover, as Julian pointed out last week, if the eavesdropping program is kept secret from its targets, and if telecom companies are also given immunity, there will be no one to object if the government starts misusing your data. The only way to ensure the law is followed is by requiring that an impartial judge review each wiretapping request before it begins.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    * Miss Universe, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 3:22pm

    Prosecutability?

    FBI had issued hundreds of "improper" (read: "illegal") letters demanding private customer data without a warrant. As far as I know, no one at the FBI has been indicted for these breaches of the law
    Are there legal logistics that would hinder either the DA or the Attorney General from prosecuting the FBI?

    Or could this spell political death?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 3:48pm

    I agree, Tim. What this administration is doing should outrage every US citizen.

    The stakes are immense.

    We need to keep this in front of the public, and publicize specific cases. The public must be awakened from its lack of interest.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 5:00pm

    I regard ANYTHING that I transmit via the Internet to be public domain. I don't send anything to anyone, either via websites or any kind or email, that I would have a problem with anyone else on the planet knowing about.

    If you don't want people to know stuff about you, don't put it out there. Obviously you can't stop government agencies finding out things if they really want to but why make it easy for them, and anyone else, by volunteering stuff.

    If you're worried about somebody knowing all your Facebook, (or any other collective site), details, don't put them there, better still, don't sign up.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Joe, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 6:32pm

    I agree with Anonymous Coward

    The internet has so much open access that if you want to protect your personal info, than don't put it out there. There are people who do nothing but sit all day hacking websites, emails, and networks in search of personal data. No one or anything is safe on the web.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    common_sense, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 7:17pm

    nothing online is private

    anyone who thinks they have any privacy online, or who doesn't realize what can be taken, duplicated, imitated, or faked is extremely naive and shouldn't be using the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2007 @ 8:35pm

    What gives #1, #3, #4 and #5 the mistaken idea that this is just a matter of the internet?

    I guess if you never read the papers or watch TV, you don't realize what's happening in the world.

    Turn off the computer - get out of your jammies and fuzzy slippers and get dressed, then go (god forbid) outside. Take a few breaths of fresh air - it may make you sneeze but won't kill you outright - buy and read a newspaper. USA Today doesn't count, and for TV news, Fox doesn't either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  

    Wake up Americans

    I too am very concerned with what this administration thinks is fair game with regards to our personal information and privacy. To try and prevent any intrusion as best as I can, everything is wireless is my life.

    My drivers license, credit cards, and basically everything I have in my wallet leads to a mailbox rental place that has no idea where I actually live. Even my website leads to a different name and obviously a different location.

    Am I paranoid of the government spying on it's citizens. YES! Am I on America's Most Wanted? NO! Is my system perfect? No, as I know there are tracking devices that can locate me but I'm not going to make it any easier for Big Brother to snoop where it doesn't belong.

    If the majority of citizens believes this only has to do with protecting our country from terrorists, we are in deep trouble.

    Yea, we need a new definition of privacy, just not the one Donald Kerr suggests.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anthony Kuhn, Nov 13th, 2007 @ 2:42pm

    Privacy

    Ooh, nice Orwellian reference in the title. You think this scary, wait until you get an RFID chip implanted on the day you enter this bold, new world.

    Anthony

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This