- Hewlett Packard executives hiring private investigators to spy on employees and journalists.
- Rep. Mark Foley sending innuendo-laden instant messages – a reminder that digital communication lasts forever and that anonymous sources can be unmasked by clever bloggers from just a few electronic clues.
- The federal government allegedly compiling a database of telephone numbers dialed by Americans, and eavesdropping on U.S. callers dialing international calls without obtaining court orders.
- Privacy will remain in the headlines in the months to come, as states implement the federal government’s Real ID Act, which will effectively create a national identification program by requiring new high-tech standards for driver’s licenses and ID cards.
- The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may seem innocuous — so much so that many consumers do it with no questions asked. Yet that one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again. Future attacks on your privacy may come from anywhere, from anyone with money to purchase that phone number you surrendered.
- ...MySpace pages laden with fraternity party photos might one day cost (someone) a job.
- Virginia Shelton, 46, her daughter, Shirley, 16; and a friend, Jennifer Starkey, 17, were all arrested and charged with murder in 2003 because of an out-of-synch ATM camera. Their pictures were flashed in front of a national audience and they spent three weeks in a Maryland jail before it was discovered that the camera was set to the wrong time.
I think each one could be a valid starting point for a discussion. Where should a person's privacy rights extend to in this new age where your personal information is a traded commodity, where employers spy on employees and there are cameras on every street corner? Can privacy be regained? Should it be regained? How much would you be willing to give up to known or unknown entities for market research? for security? for convenience?
There are other issues brought up in the later articles in the series too. The difference in the US vs Europe is what is in the third article:
Europe:
- Personal information cannot be collected without consumers’ permission, and they have the right to review the data and correct inaccuracies.
- Companies that process data must register their activities with the government.
- Employers cannot read workers’ private e-mail.
- Personal information cannot be shared by companies or across borders without express permission from the data subject.
- Checkout clerks cannot ask for shoppers’ phone numbers.
There is also a side-by-side comparison of the US versus the EU on the second page of the article (click here to go directly to page 2 of this the 3rd article). It is an interesting and telling difference. There is quite a divide between the two.
What are your thoughts on this one?
7 comments:
I have always thought privacy was a fundamental right, and it seems that in this country it is increasingly under attack both from the government and the private sector. In the former, I think it is trickier; in the latter, I can't see how/why a company has any right to know any of your personal information.
As for the state, I recognize issues of domestic security, but it seems that there existed (prior to the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales domestic spying orders) very clear avenues and circumstances through which and when the state could overtly invade an individual's privacy through reading emails, tapping phones, etc.
Warrantless privacy invasions are a terribly un-American actions since they not only violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the 4th amendment, but also encroach on the power of the judiciary. I worry much when our government begins to adopt similar policies to those we vehemently opposed in places like the Soviet Union and its satellite states. At least we don't have a domestic spy agency, although it seems the CIA has taken up some of this activity in recent years.
As for companies, I don't get it at all. I find it hugely problematic that companies are able to buy and sell consumer information so freely. I am sure that somehow it is linked to corporate personhood and the newly emerging "inalienable" rights of the corporation. But that is getting off topic a little.
In the workplace, I see no reason that employers should get to read employee emails or record their conversations. If there is suspicious activity then involve authorities or conduct an official internal audit. Many businesses and most schools keep records of all emails sent on their email service. Usually these are only accessed in the course of official investigations, but that is not law, more just habit and respect for employees' and students' privacy. I guess it's always a good idea to use a separate email account for anything that might be perceived as "questionable." But if a business routinely reviews its employees' private conversations, it suggests it has little trust in those employees, which then begs questions about either their hiring process of their ethics generally. I guess I would prefer not to work for such a company period. But I would much rather have the peace of mind that there are laws protecting those rights.
On balance, I say Europe comes out ahead on this one. Most EU states also have universal health care and better wage laws, yet still have GDPs as high as the US--maybe we need to get our act together if we want to hold onto that "greatest nation in the world" mantle.
In this age of blogging, myspace, email, text messaging, name your poison, there is no expectation of privacy when you're putting your life, thoughts, pictures, etc. out into cyberspace. In my opinion, anything you chose to display, is free game for the government to investigate, in fact, you're welcoming them to it; however, it is quite a different story when the government is spying into parts of your life without invitation. It is a scary era we are living in when the government takes more authority than it should by preying on the fears of Americans. There must be a justifiable cause, a reason why Uncle Sam takes an interest in a person or else we can expect to have no privacy left. No one is safe. There has to be a system of checks and balances and right now, that system is failing and there is too much abuse of power. There are a few people have too much freedom to do whatever they deem appropriate and there is no one checking on what the reasons are behind their actions.
By the way, brilliant strategy to prove a point by posting Anonymous :-)
Well Anonymous, what are your thoughts on private companies keeping tabs on you without your knowledge or consent?
And we haven't really touched on the fact you can't walk anywhere in public anymore without being on camera. Is that ok with everyone? You alright with Big Brother monitoring your every move? Should this be instituted on every street corner? If it is, then are we going to enforce every law, every time one is broken? Littering? J-Walking? The same way we are enforcing running a red light.
Privacy is more than information on the web isn't it?
My opinion is in many ways with Anonymous. If you put it out there, then you are subject to what one might reap from it. It can and will be used against you in investigations.
But private companies are another matter. I think that credit agencies like Equifax and its ilk should be outlawed. They have collected information on me without my knowledge or consent. I have not put my credit history out there online so someone can access it with a mouse click. Nor have I ever had ANY dealings with these "merchants of viability". This practice is unethical in my opinion, it really needs to be made illegal. They reduce human beings to an equation, that degrades their humanity, and does little to mitigate credit scores with the changing variables in people's lives.
Companies spying on employees = shameful.
Warrantless wiretaps and such = wrong.
Cameras on public streets = so far I actually have no problem with that, but I am willing to listen to arguments.
This is going to be one of the big issues of the 21st century I think. We need to keep a dialog going to ensure we are ready for what might befall us.
Ok, Pope, to respond to some of your questions..I agree that companies that monitor their employees and warrentless wire taps are despicable acts conducted by people who should probably be monitored themselves, but let's talk about cameras on street corners, take for instance, London. They have had cameras placed on their streets for years now and it has reduced their crime rate and it enables the police to catch criminals in the act. That practice does not scare me, in fact, I think it is a good idea. Think how many people stop doing something they shouldn't be doing because someone could be watching.
I agree with you on the point of monitoring by private companies should be illegal; however, you are putting yourself out there anytime you use credit, which I'm assuming you do on a day to day basis. Speaking from personal experience, I believe them to be cold hearted bastards that do little to "monitor" and are the most difficult people in the world to deal with when they have messed up your credit score.
Privacy is more than just the internet. Privacy is everything in your life that you don't want to share with just anyone. It should be your decision who you share it with, not the governments based on some delusion of danger or fear.
So basically Anonymous, we are on the same page about most of this stuff then.
Though I somewhat disagree about the using credit thing. I have entered into a contract with a Credit Card company sure. I buy things on credit sure. But that doesn't automatically give these companies the right to just report all my activities to the credit agencies does it? I perhaps need to reread my contracts... doh, it might. But what about bank loans and jewelry purchases and whatnot? Evil, vile practices only concerned with the bottom line profit and not the human beings they may well be destroying.
But in general Anonymous, I think we are on the same page here.
And one more quick comment to Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous. I said I had no problems with the cameras on street corners (though perhaps you were just presenting an argument to help me support my position - in that cause, you rule!). I have heard about the positive results in London. My only question would be how far to take it? What laws would be applicable to "distance ticketing"? In general, I really don't mind the cameras on the streets.
Man, a real eye opener, and very interesting read.
Personally, I find it interesting how U.S. Privacy laws are geared primarily to protect our privacy from the government, rather than each other... and the EU's privacy laws do almost exactly the opposite.
Personally, I wouldn't mind one bit borrowing some ideas from the EU in this respect. Frankly, it's not our government I'm afraid of... FBI can listen to every single phone call I make to Iran, I couldn't give less of a shit. I want someone to protect me from the asshole that keeps spamming me with emails entitled "mak3 her l0ve y0u. enl@rge p3n1s tod@y!"
Post a Comment