One of the basic tenets of American society is the right to privacy. Or at least, it used to be. With advances in technology though, it seems as if privacy is a passé idea in an information age where every transaction is digitally stored, every report is saved in bits and bytes, every communication traceable. But as human beings are inherently social creatures, needing of companionship in one form or another, so too do we need moments of privacy, away from the watchful eyes and ears of others. It is in these times that we have the occasion to contemplate or relax or be carefree. All of deserve these moments of privacy, whether alone or with our families, even public figures. For even in our faster paced and over-scheduled society, we still find moments to steal away from the rush and enjoy some quiet timeand family vacations away from our daily lives, unfettered by physical intrusions .
But the subject of this essay is the assault on our private information by government agencies and private businesses and identity thieves. Today’s privacy concerns involve the thousands of pieces of information about who you are, what you like, and what you buy, pieces that are collected and sold to the highest bidder so that they can market their wares to you and get a pretty good return on their advertising dollar. Today’s concerns involve the slip-shod way in which this information is collected and protected, allowing thieves to hijack a person’s entire digital identity and bleed it dry. So while it would be nice to have people take their phone calls out of the restaurants and into their homes, our privacy concerns today are of this other nature.
A quick internet search with the phrase “privacy rights” reveals the varied nature of the whole privacy concept. Instantly, one finds links to Consumer Privacy Rights, Health Information Privacy Rights, Educational Privacy Rights and even ways to protect my privacy in the digital age. It becomes clear that we have parsed the definition of privacy into an almost meaningless concept, for if we need rules to cover all these different aspects of “privacy” then we must assume that anything not specifically covered by a named “right” is either to be considered public or at least non-private. So to begin with, let’s get back to the most basic definition of privacy, which says that privacy is the condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others or the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?
But when dealing with information, what constitutes privacy? And who, if anyone has the right to encroach upon that privacy? These are important questions to answer because as the world becomes more and more interconnected through technology, the amount of privacy we are afforded becomes smaller and smaller. And in times of political upheaval, one of the first things that we lose is our unfettered right to privacy from the government’s watchful eye, often under the guise of security.
What Should Be Private? Information collected by the government should always be considered private information and should not be allowed to be sold to or shared with any agency other than the one it was originally given to. This includes your name, age, address, contact numbers, health status, and any personal business between you and the government like taxes or financial status. This same provision should prohibit medical care providers, insurance underwriters, employers, banks, credit bureaus, and anybody you do business with from sharing or selling your information too. Rather than forcing people to opt out through a purposely arduous process, the standard operating procedure should be for people to opt-in. These days, privacy is becoming something you have to ask for, instead of being something presumed, and frankly that’s just backwards.
In addition to being responsible for keeping your information private, collectors of information must take more active steps in safeguarding the information that they do collect with your knowledge. The simplest way to ensure this is through a kind of “safe deposit box” mechanism, or something with two “keys” for access. In the digital age, this could be done rather simply with RFID chips or something similar. The information would always be encrypted and access would require both chips to be scanned or read before any information could be released. This would have the added benefit of ensuring that any individual records released would be done only with the knowledge of the individual herself.
The fact of the matter is that so much information exists on each and every one of us in the databanks of corporations and schools and hospitals and government records. The information is already there. We just need to protect it better.
What Isn’t Private? Unlike individuals, businesses and government activities don’t have the rights to private information, at least not in the same way individuals do, or at least they shouldn’t. Except for the private information of employees, and of course proprietary information integral to their businesses continued success, corporations should not be able to hide their financial operations or any legal actions against them by the government or private lawsuits. Government should not have the privilege of privacy in any actions involving public domestic policy or the expenditure of tax dollars. Nor should they expect privacy in matters of legislation or their own financial dealings. The reasoning behind this is simple: government exists to serve the people, and an accountable government does not conceal its actions. Similarly, a corporation provides products and services to the general public who has a right to know who they are dealing with and what they are getting. Only in matters of investigations of wrongdoing should a level of privacy exist.
For individuals, any record of public or military service would not be considered private, nor would any criminal convictions or public lawsuits be considered private matters, at least not from a protected standpoint. Another individual could access that information for general informational or educational purposes.
Need To Know Basis Personal information should be acquired only on a need to know basis. Both government and business have entered an age when information can be collected quickly and acted upon rapidly before its been analyzed properly, and both have a tendency to do just that. Both should be held responsible, financially and punitively for any unauthorized release of private personal information. If companies know they can be fined and if bureaucrats know they can be fired for letting information get into the wrong hands, we would probably see the numbers of identity theft diminish and the practice of personal smear campaigns. On the other hand, legitimate government investigations need to be able to share their information more easily, and if they have obtained a proper court order, information could be collected without individual authorization. The caveat would be that any release of that information not associated with the investigation or information improperly obtained would result in the dismissal of those responsible. In truth, there is very little need for all our information being zapped around in cyberspace, other than the trade of it creates money for everyone except the individual whose information is being bought and sold.
Privacy does require vigilance by the individual, but with the laws today, even the most vigilant consumer couldn’t keep tabs on all of his information, nor could he prevent its release. Not only does this invite identity theft, which wreaks havoc on personal and public finances, it also invites government intrusion, especially when anti-leaders who tolerate no serious, vocal dissent are running the government. Like so many things, the loss of our privacy has been given away as much as it has been stolen. B
ut it is not to late to reverse the trend.
This entry was posted on Friday, October 14th, 2005 at 6:58 am and is filed under Common Sense, General, Life, Politics, Reform, Religion, society.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 14th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
It’s a shame that people are so afraid of working for a living, and resort to stealing the lives of others. =\
nerdorgeek.blogspot.com
October 15th, 2005 at 3:46 am
Hi Ken! Thanks for commenting at Wordslightfires and indeed I did. I’m a humanist and it is my own tenet to living my life attempting to do that which is right. You’ve got a great sight here, keep blogging you are making a difference.
United in Peace………..
October 15th, 2005 at 3:51 am
Ken,
Every time I walk in to the grocery store and they ask me to “swipe my club card,” if feel violated. My local grocery store knows more about my daily living than my own mother, it seems.
Privacy, unfortunately, has become a myth and with the abdication of all individual rights by the signing into law of the so called Patriot Act.
Orwell’s Big Brother is alive. I feel betrayed by our government. Am I alone?
October 16th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
(responses)
Drakonik- I agree, but I don’t think it’s becasue they are afraid of work…it is because they have few skills that can get them a good paycheck, so theft is easier.
Jeanette- Thanks for dropping by again. Always good to hear from you.
Windspike- I hear you. OF course, you can always offer up false information to secure their “savings cards.”
You are not alone.
October 16th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
It seems to me that the only true privacy anymore belongs to the man or woman with enough money to buy a large home, build a large wall around and sound proof the property. Then, in the deepest section of their house and away from prying eyes and open windows, they can truly do as they wish. This is the only true freedom of privacy left and it is not truly a freedom for it costs quite a lot more money than most people ever make much less see.
In regards to electronic freedom, that’s a lost cause. By having the ease of transporting ideas and money so quickly, we also lose that individuality that comes from person-to-person transactions. Thus, while the Internet seems to distance us from others, it puts almost everything about us in an easy-to-access system for anyone to take who knows the way the system works. That means that in the public world, there can not be any true privacy anymore.
Overall, I would still say that the only true privacy is that of the rich person in the deepest room of their walled-off home. Nowhere else can one truly escape the public or even have a quiet, unobserved moment. Even in the deepest, darkest corner of Africa, cannot the government still watch you with a spy satellite?
Good post Ken! Good post!
October 17th, 2005 at 2:45 am
terrorism is the plot set by some lowly criminals to strengthen the security and military industry, and to make governments have more reasons to weaken democracy by spying on everyday lives of their citizens.
i hate the paranoid androids created by the current state of terrorism-feared civilization.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
(responses)
OKLib- Even if “actual” privacy is in some ways less attainable to the common man, the inference of privacy should remain strong.
And I don’t think electronic freedom is a lost cause so long as we put our minds ahead of the profit mongers and search for real security of sensitive information.
Eko- Terrorism goes a bit deeper than that I think- but the responses to terror can have some of the same chilling effects. I only hope people recognize and work to prevent that from happening.
Nice to hear from you as always.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Your blog contained issues relating to identity theft legislation which I found quite absorbing. I would argue that identity theft legislation matters are best left to the professionals in most cases.