You Thought You Had Privacy?

Image via WikipediaI always get a kick out of stories like this and even more so the fact that people get all worked up about this. Basically, it's about privacy issues and how your gadgets will betray you in the sense that you can be tracked and your actions documented. We all know that unless you move off the grid, basically everything you do is tracked. Use a credit card....trackable. Have your phone on....traceable. Drive a car....completely traceable. Walk around in public spaces.....on video. The list goes on. To be honest, I've given up on worrying. Even if you move off the grid, good luck not being caught on video somewhere (which is already searchable based on facial features). Some people (like the Unabomber) may like living in the backwoods but I can't get my Starbucks there. I like my car. I like my credit card. Sometimes I even like my phone. My theory is that the only people who really give a shit about privacy issues are those who have something to hide. Shacking up with your mistress? Hiding from the g/f or wife! Trying to avoid taxes? Good ol' tax evasion! Avoiding surveillance cameras? Uh, criminal or fugitive! You get my point. Sure, we screw up at times and don't want this documented. I'm convinced somewhere I'm on camera picking my nose in an elevator or scratching my butt. No one really cares and if they do (about my nose or butt), they have much worse problems than privacy!

Comments

[Jackie Danicki]

Are you joking?

EVERYONE has something they want to keep not only from the government, but from everyone else. It's called "private life," not "private from everyone but the state".

The fact is a lot of law-abiding people have very good reasons not to want their every movement tracked. For example, a woman looking for somewhere to escape a violent husband; someone who's in AA but wants to keep it private; a girl whose family disapproves (for whatever reason) of her seeking education but is doing it anyway...and so on.

As for adultery, you don't have to approve of it to know that it is 100 per cent NONE of the state's business.

Paul, if you have no problem with privacy issues, why don't you make your search and surfing history a matter of public record. Or, for that matter, the content of your email and Twitter DMs. After all, you're not a criminal, so what do you have to hide?

[Paul J.]

Jackie, to be honest, I do keep the majority of my private things private by not communicating them via digital or online mediums. The point I am making is that at this time, the privacy we may have had in the past is gone. I agree with you that "the State" shouldn't be given blanket access to everything that we consider private but I wasn't speaking about "the State". At the same time, you know just as well as I do that with credit cards, mobile phones and surveillance cameras an extensive network of devices already exist which are making our movements and actions increasingly less private. I find arguing, as the article I pointed to does, that your life is no longer private is nothing new and often rings of hysteria or sensationalism (usually much more so in less tech oriented publications). If I knew that my private DM's were easily accessible I'd move those conversations offline which if you think about it can easily happen in the future. If my searches were open to the public, I'd obviously be much more cautious about doing them. Sure, there are law abiding people as in your examples who have very good reason to keep things private.....no arguments against that and you make a good point. Hence I would tell someone who is in AA and doesn't want it exposed to never communicate about it via email as there is technically hardly any privacy there. People will have valid reasons as you noted for privacy yet that is not what I am getting at. I'm more concerned about being told that my phone can be used to track me. What can I do about it? Move off the grid. I also could stop using credit cards or walking around in public. I make the choice to use these technologies obviously knowing the risk of losing privacy. And to argue against your examples of positive needs for privacy, I sure as hell don't want things in place which allow those with criminal intent to easily get away with it because "hey, it's their right to be granted privacy". I know it's a fine line between "good" and "bad" use of technology but I think we've crossed the line of having any true privacy anymore when it comes to the tecnologies we use (by choice or default).

[Paul J.]

Case in point Jackie:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece

This is where it gets super "hairy" in terms of what's right and what's wrong. But, this comes up as soon as you bring "the State" into play. I am addressing general information about you collected by the respective service providers like Google, or mobile carriers or security firms who at least now are still not collecting everything in one place for "the State" to have easy access to.

[Jackie Danicki]

The point is that, with credit cards, Google, et al there is a choice involved on the part of the individual. In your post, you said: "My theory is that the only people who really give a shit about privacy issues are those who have something to hide." I was pointing out that *everyone* has "something to hide," and so to bang on about how privacy issues are the domain of the dodgy is not only wildly inaccurate but insulting. Ditto your argument that anyone who wants to avoid CCTV is "criminal or a fugitive".

You may not think this is a big deal, but it's passivity as displayed in your post which has allowed our privacy to be eroded by the state.

With regard to the database example you linked to, I don't see where the "hairiness" is with regard to what is right and wrong. Clearly the government's plans are wrong.

[Paul J.]

Nothing is "clear" in regards to this issue. Are you telling me that if crime is potentially deterred via such a system, it's "clearly" wrong? Sorry, don't buy that argument. I am not in favor of this approach to thwarting crime and it is truly "big brother" but I'm also not exactly sure what you are trying to argue at this point? The original post was about believing you have privacy when you don't.

[Jackie Danicki]

Paul, I don't see where the confusion lies. I argued both your original post and the link which *you* posted.

Where is the lack of clarity about whether it is right or wrong for individuals' communications to be owned not by them but by the state? If crime is "potentially deterred" by everyone's homes being searched without reason, is it then "hairy" as to whether or not that is right or wrong? It's all clearly wrong.

[Bill Moore]

I'm going to bet you're a republican who thinks George Bush is doing a good job, right?

[Paul J.]

Jackie, I am so intrigued by the level of interest in this topic. Stay tuned for more on privacy issues. Thanks for your arguments. Has me pondering this more than I ever planned to but in a good way.

Bill........uh....no!

[Jackie Danicki]

Heh, where the hell did the Bush comment come from? Sure, Bush has a horrendous track record on this stuff, but the Dems would happily sell our privacy up the creek, too. If you want to talk party politics beyond the US, you'd be hard pressed to name a major political party which ISN'T willing to sacrifice principles for good PR and votes.

But maybe I shouldn't feed Paul's trolls... :)

[Adriana]

If I knew that my private DM's were easily accessible I'd move those conversations offline which if you think about it can easily happen in the future. If my searches were open to the public, I'd obviously be much more cautious about doing them.

Hm, so you are saying that you think that your DM's and searches ARE private and assume can be kept so? So it IS possible to have some privacy online. Why then throw in the towel and pretend nothing can be done about it? Why not think of the tools and ways of making sure that your data is yours and that you have some degree of control over it (not total as talking about control on the web is moot).

I have been concerned about privacy and security online for ages (with my samizdata hat on) and am currently working on a way to give people a chance to reclaim their data without giving up the benefit of being on the web. Funnily enough, just blogged this where I am taking the opposite approach to yours. :)

http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2008/05/on-data-shadows-and-giving-up-control/

[Paul J.]

Adriana, no I didn't say I assumed my DM's and e-mails were private. As the post is trying to say, nothing online is private. If am truly concerned about the content of my mails or DM's being exposed, I take more care. I simply wouldn't communicate certain things via DM and e-mail.

[Paul Sebright]

Well, there’s one aspect to this debate which can’t be credibly denied – it certainly stirs up a lot of passion. I’m with Paul J on this – the propagation of personal data is a fait acompli. Sensible people have to accept that whatever they communicate is essentially liable to be accessible to a vast anonymous community at some stage. So, yes, avoid delving into your deepest personal issues online.

There aren’t many things that the UK excels at anymore, but the monitoring, tracking, retention and propagation of private data has been well and truly refined here. So if you’re outside the UK, cheer up – it could be worse! We are truly sliding into an Orwellian state; and Bill, the UK is *the* prime example of a pseudo-liberal state adopting a right-wing/”republican” agenda. So it’s across the spectrum.

The one point I’d make around the state/corporate divide is that, here at least, the two are deeply entwined. Knowing what I do about data protection and information security, even the best organised and funded corporations are pretty awful at classifying and securing data. The companies typically involved in outsourcing state functions (and therefore storing sensitive data) are themselves, hardly bastions of competence. So expect more cd’s containing millions of tax records to go missing.

The real concern for me is identity fraud – add in to the mix the idea of a UK national DNA database and we’re really looking at a potentially sticky situation. Once your DNA is “out there”, just image the potential for exploitation as technology develops.

My approach? 1) Take reasonable, practical steps to protect yourself. 2) File the problem away under “Issues beyond my control”. 3) Reach for a cool beer.

[Paul J.]

I'll come and have the beer with you Paul.