 |
|
|
Musings on Privacy
by Robert Drake
November 3rd, 2005
Today I went to a lecture done by a Mr. Jim Harper of the Cato institute, a libertarian leaning think tank in Washington DC. I came up with the idea of putting down my political musings a few days ago and today I finally decided I would get something written. I do so today not because I have lacked opinions on the news, but rather because today I have been struck in the face with an argument that provokes a certain passion in me: privacy.
To briefly outline the speech, Mr. Harper outlined the possibilities and consequences of technology in the future specifically related to legality and privacy. Two related, but separate topics struck me as particularly noteworthy. First who is responsible? The example he gave is a company with a forum that was meant to be used primarily by children. What if it attracts child predators? Who is to blame if a child is attacked? How can this be prevented?
The obvious answer to me is the parents. A parent at the lecture brought up a point that I am still mulling over in my mind. In the society of America in this age parents are encouraged to work making them unable to fully watch their kids. As technology grows and expands many do not know how to protect their children. Are parents really the only people responsible?
Yes. Yes, they are the only ones. Or at least should be. There are two types of families that aren’t able to watch their children. Those who can’t and those who won’t. Knowledge is hardly an appropriate excuse. It takes no knowledge of technology to watch a kid type online or to view the games they play or the movies they watch or the people they talk to on the phone.
The key is presence. The parent must be present. Does this restrict the privacy of the child? Yes it does. Of course it does. That’s the point. A responsible parent who has taken the time to be present around a young child will find their presence is less necessary as the child gets older. The child remains the parent’s responsibility, but the parents trust their child. At 17 and a half years old do the parents still have a responsibility to know everything their child does. Yes they do, but hopefully by then the parent trusts their child to make good decisions. If they are not able to trust their child then they have a full right and an obligation to watch their child like a hawk.
Now let’s talk about presence. As I mentioned before there are two types of families that aren’t able to watch their children. First there are those who won’t. These are power-couples that won’t give up their second job so they can live a better standard of living. I have no sorrow here. These parents would rather have a fancy car than spend a day with their children. They shouldn’t even have children. Unfortunately they do. Lacking parents, what can be done for these children?
Ultimately this is a societal problem. There should tax benefits to having a non-working parent. Our society should encourage a parent to be with their children or encourage less children. It’s an unfortunate truth that baring that the parents should simple be held responsible for their children in full. I can only imagine the reaction of the world if a parent is charged with neglect and child endangerment after their kid is attacked by a predator. The parent’s failure to watch over a Life is as much a crime as being a child predator. The hope is that actions like this will encourage parental responsibility.
That regards parents who can watch their children, but don’t. Ultimately guilt of neglect must coincide with having had the ability to provide support. Not every family can provide this. The truly poor are in an unenviable position. Child tax breaks are a step, school education on the dangers of predators and other dangers to the children are another step. Ultimately however one must wonder how the child accessed the technology in the first place. If the parents were wealthy enough to provide a computer and internet connection then perhaps they could have spent more time with the child? What if the child accessed the content via a library? Is the library responsible? That is unsatisfactory. If a library is responsible for the content within it then libraries will resort to stringent censorship at best or simple being non-existent at worst.
A possible middle ground would be to limit child access at schools and libraries, which is commonly already, but ultimately this is a situation that, while unfortunate, can simply not be helped. The means of resolving it are worse than the problem. Yes certain children will be in danger, but their parents are legitimately unable to watch over them properly. While you could make the argument that having a child you cannot support has a certain bitter taste itself that is most definitely a different discussion. In order to prevent this danger you either hold the companies involved responsible, most likely leading to services not being provided, or you institute mass scans and censorship that themselves are prone to abuse, risk, and possible failure.
Which brings us to the second topic? If you have nothing to hide then what need do you have for privacy. I find this to be, amongst my little world, a universally reviled proposition, but rarely have I heard it argued against effectively.
“The government could use the information to become totalitarian.”
Yes they could, but let’s assume for a second that our constitution remains intact. We still have, at least at face value, a democratically elected government. If the people decide something is wrong then who are you to try and hide it. Again if you haven’t done anything wrong as decided by the people of the United States of America than what is your worry? The first thing that comes to mind is demagogues. To pull a cliché, Hitler was elected. But let’s go a bit deeper than that. Let’s say the government really truly has all my best wishes at heart. Let’s assume that a government capable of genocide or censorship or red scare tactics is not an issue for a second. If the government has all this data and they always have my best wishes at heart, then what is the worry?
The worry is that someone else will find that data. The worry is not the government, but my fellow citizens. Let me pose a few different situations. An insidious hacker terrorist breaks into the United States’ Government’s database of information in order to track the location of an important target. The government might have legitimate, honorable use for such data, but what if that data isn’t perfectly secure.
Let’s go in a different direction. What if I’m pro-choice in a very conservative town. They pull up that data because I wrote on article on pro-choice five years prior and then that night send a party to lynch me. It’s nice to know that they would be committing a crime, but I’m still dead. I have committed no crime. I have nothing to hide from the government. But I might have something to hide from my neighbor. Unless the government can assure that all my legally done actions and legally held beliefs and legally used freedom of speech will not result in harm coming to me then I cannot support the government having that data.
To put it a different way, lets say a national ID was connected to my tax returns. From this a person could infer my monetary status. My identification card could possibly make me a walking target for muggers. Again I may trust the government, but I don’t necessarily trust those around me to not commit crimes. Obscurity and anonymity is in many cases the best defense.
Finally I come back to government’s interest. When national security is at stake the government, perhaps rightly so, tends to err on the side of severity. After a terrorist act or similar has occurred many might say round up everyone who is even remotely suspect. Being able to do a fishing expedition of possible suspects will allow for security, but would also cause many innocent people to be detained. Now that happens and will happen anyway, but at least some manual research must done. There must be at least a vague amount of thought put in to apprehending people. If can be done via an automated database of security then even that small barrier against tyranny is broken. Once again, privacy is a guardian against an imperfect world.
Whew.
I have written this at a furious pace, but have ended my burst of inspiration and must now end it. Perhaps at another time I will further my thoughts on privacy, but for now I believe this to be an adequate response. Despite my general fear and apprehension I look forward to seeing how all this play out.
 |