Privacy
Ralph Dobbertin, May 2015
Why we should care about privacy
“Even on my arrival, as the train rolled slowly over the viaduct with its curious pointed turrets on both sides and into the dark station concourse, I had begun to feel unwell, and this sense of indisposition persisted for the whole of my visit…”
W.G. Sebald…Austerlitz
In short we should care about privacy because its erosion is a canary in the coal mine undermining dignity and liberty, which many of us see as foundationally important.
“Privacy is important for a number of reasons. Some have to do with the consequences of not having privacy. People can be harmed or debilitated if there is no restriction on the public’s access to and use of personal information. Other reasons are more fundamental, touching the essence of human personhood. Reverence for the human person as an end in itself and as an autonomous being requires respect for personal privacy. To lose control of one’s personal information is in some measure to lose control of one’s life and one’s dignity. Therefore, even if privacy is not in itself a fundamental right, it is necessary to protect other fundamental rights.”
We live in a world where social media and the commoditization of the data it creates, along with uses of this data for business and security requirements, recklessly and carelessly assault privacy, continuously in a perfect storm. Ostensibly for good reason, and of course the difficulties lie in the fact that there can be many good reasons for doing so. Social media is fun and nourishes community, business thrives and security concerns must be given strong standing in a dangerous world. But there is also a downside and that downside is the devaluation of privacy, which I fear over time, will result in a loss of liberty. I worry that today we are on the wrong side of caution. There is insufficient debate. Social media, business and security trumps at the cost of liberty and human dignity.
I am arguing that Privacy is a fundamental requirement for human dignity, liberty and democracy. I am also arguing that we are too easily allowing these to erode.
We live in a world where our televisions listen to us and security services worry about us if we try not to be surveilled. We live in a world of “big data” where the new Promised Land is in mining our data and predicting our wants and actions.
“Samsung is warning customers about discussing personal information in front of their smart television set.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31296188
“Attempts to stay anonymous on the web will only put the NSA on your trail”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/anonymous-web-nsa-trail-janet-vertesi
IBM will have access to the full public stream of tweets as they are posted, as well as all tweets generated since Twitter was founded in 2006, the companies said Wednesday. The data will be shared with IBM’s roughly 10,000 consultants to help solve client problems.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-and-twitter-forge-partnership-on-data-analytics-1414601963
It’s not only Orwellian (as cliché and Disneyfied as this word has become) but also Kafkaesque and absurd to watch as our societies grapple with our slowly eroding “requirements” for privacy. Absurd because companies like Samsung need to warn us that our televisions are listening to and recording us. Kafkaesque because, illogically, trying to be private alerts the security forces since they think you must have something to hide. Orwellian because all our searches and thoughts are recorded and kept on line indefinitely. Orwellian as well because business and government mine all this data with barely a regard for the side effects, while searching for the cures.
Security agencies say ‘we have to protect you”. Google says “Don’t be Evil” and Facebook says privacy is an outdated concept through the smiling face of privacy theft. We may note that Mark Zuckerberg, bought the four houses adjacent to him presumably because he wanted privacy. Yes I’ve heard that Facebook really cares about our privacy. 97% of Google’s revenue comes from selling ads and Facebook is not far behind.
We, you and I are the commodities being sold. We, you and I have been reduced to the pennies that can be gleaned from advertisers. These pennies add up to billions of dollars. In exchange we get a forum to search and share. A poor Faustian bargain to watch your privacy erode. Selling your privacy amounts essentially to diminishing your value and allowing yourself to become pornographied. And by the way there is a file on you even if you don’t use Google or Facebook.
“ we know from the Snowden disclosures and other sources that Tor users are automatically regarded with suspicion by the NSA et al on the grounds that people who do not wish to leave a digital trail are obviously up to no good. The same goes for people who encrypt their emails.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/anonymous-web-nsa-trail-janet-vertesi
Not everyone cares. What is there to hide? What is the big deal? If I am not doing anything wrong why would I care if I’m recorded and or monitored? In fact you may like that advertisers know you and can target you with meaningful and directed advertisements. I’m not so sure the ads are actually all that targeted or effective…certainly I have never been persuaded by an Amazon ad to buy anything. They always come after the fact.
The question I want to discuss is essentially the topic of the importance of privacy. Is privacy important and what are the impacts of watching it erode?
There are of course many views on this but in the end I have landed here:
“Privacy is not necessarily an end, but rather a means to an end. Instead, the end is greater liberty.”
Privacy-Invading Technologies and Privacy by Design: Safeguarding Privacy, Liberty and Security in the 21st Century
by Demetrius Klitou (Author)
Absurd, Kafkaesque, Orwellian and let me now add corrosive to Liberty and Democracy
“The reason that we must care about privacy, especially in a democracy, is that it’s about human agency. To systematically undermine people’s privacy – or allow others to do so – is to deprive people of freedom and liberty. “
Denial of Agency, (defined not simply as an element of personal control or an awareness of personal control, but as a foundational block of self and valuable in and of itself, as a fundamental quality of being human) by denying privacy, erodes our ability to be human at least as defined by our western cultural heritages.
The notion of Liberty is a hallowed concept enshrined in all the great western democratic political documents of our age, and I list only a few:
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Constitution of the United States
- The 4th amendment to the Constitution
- The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe
- The Magna Carta references “free men”
- The Gettysburg Address
- Many others
I include a transcript of the Gettysburg Address because I feel it addresses not only the desire for liberty and the need to fight for liberty but it also touches on the poignancy of liberty as Lincoln, in his pain over the suffering he helped wrought, so eloquently expressed.
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
I would ask people to well remember these lines. “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” Privacy may not seem “civil war” worthy but it is such a foundational concept that its erosion will, not so slowly, lead to a devolution to the dignity and freedom of humankind.
Our natural reference points are being obliterated: Privacy, Agency, Liberty, Security as well as our basic human right to be left alone. All of these concepts are closely related, almost interchangeable and all were/are hard fought for. They are definitional concepts about how we in the west and elsewhere define what it is to be human, and how we decide to govern ourselves. Big data mining, Social media and security agencies while of course useful are also undermining these concepts.
If I have not made my point on the inherent value of liberty ergo privacy then let me try from a different but equally valuable perspective and refer you to David Brooks in a recent article in the New York Times:
“Let’s start with the basics.
Privacy is important to the development of full individuals because there has to be an interior zone within each person that other people don’t see. There has to be a zone where half-formed thoughts and delicate emotions can grow and evolve, without being exposed to the harsh glare of public judgment. There has to be a place where you can be free to develop ideas and convictions away from the pressure to conform. There has to be a spot where you are only yourself and can define yourself.
Privacy is important to families and friendships because there has to be a zone where you can be fully known. There has to be a private space where you can share your doubts and secrets and expose your weaknesses with the expectation that you will still be loved and forgiven and supported.
Privacy is important for communities because there has to be a space where people with common affiliations can develop bonds of affection and trust. There has to be a boundary between us and them. Within that boundary, you look out for each other; you rally to support each other; you cut each other some slack; you share fierce common loyalties.
All these concentric circles of privacy depend on some level of shrouding. They depend on some level of secrecy and awareness of the distinction between the inner privileged space and the outer exposed space. They depend on the understanding that what happens between us stays between us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html?_r=0
We are not a “hive” species. We are individuals within a hive.
Once humanity is relegated to a status where privacy is not revered it can quickly spiral into disrespect, and worthlessness. Frankly it opens itself to McCarthyist demonization. Demonization (ie if you are private then you must have something to hide) of humanity cannot be a fundamental principle upon which to build systems of government. Disrespect for the privacy of individuals cannot be the fundamental premise to offer people a forum to share or research.
“…the web was buzzing with commentary about Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s dangerous, dismissive response to concerns about search engine users’ privacy. When asked during an interview for CNBC’s recent “Inside the Mind of Google” special about whether users should be sharing information with Google as if it were a “trusted friend,” Schmidt responded, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.””
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy
Thank goodness there are other points of view.
The Canada Supreme Court Justice (retired) Hon. Gérard V. La Forest, in R. v. Dyment, prominently judged that “privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state” and “[t]he restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic state”.
The Closing Communiqué of the 28th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners (London, 2006) declared that the “protection of citizens’ privacy and personal data is vital for any democratic society, on the same level as freedom of the press or the freedom of movement”. The Communiqué further added: “Privacy and data protection may, in fact, be as precious as the air we breathe: both are invisible, but when they are no longer available, the effects may be equally disastrous”. As the Madrid Privacy Declaration also warns, “the failure to safeguard privacy jeopardizes associated freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of access to information,
non-discrimination and ultimately the stability of constitutional democracies”.
Privacy-Invading Technologies and Privacy by Design: Safeguarding Privacy, Liberty and Security in the 21st Century
by Demetrius Klitou (Author)
Conclusion
I am arguing that privacy is a fundamental requirement for human dignity, liberty and democracy. I am also arguing that we are too easily allowing these to erode. I am sure Mark Zuckerberg (CEO: Facebook) and Eric Schmidt (Executive Chairman: Google) are fine people with good intentions and spectacular business sense, but I cannot exclaim more loudly that I do not want to take advice or direction from them on privacy. Their companies have a huge following and that worries me. A billion people playing footloose with their unprotected and commoditized privacy while at the same time we are faced with the Snowden revelations can only be worrisome.
While I am sure that security agencies are necessary and mean well I cannot exclaim more loudly that I do not want to take advice or direction from them on privacy, again especially given the Snowden revelations.
Privacy ergo Liberty is being attacked both socially and institutionally, promoting a view that privacy is a secondary consideration. It is not. It is a primary consideration.
So what can we do?
Be aware of privacy assaults in general.
Be aware of how your data is being used and how it can be abused.
Insist on better opt in versus opt out requirements in the tools and applications you use.
Consider the concept and value of “Green Data” collected with permission and a clear understanding of how it will be used.
Insist that companies you give credit card and personal information to have state of the art system security and that their systems are regulated to stay current. Insist on huge fines for breaches where the current security standards have not been met.
“Big fines for big breaches: The only way to stop shoddy security”
Also in Canada we are currently in discussions over Bill C-51, which is the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act. This act deals with, among other things, information sharing. Naturally discussions revolve around what information to share, whom to share it with and under what circumstances it gets shared.
Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has made 5 recommendations and these recommendations, I feel, form a good basis around which to discuss the issue of privacy. These recommendations are:
Recommendation 1: Only information which meets the necessity standard, rather than the relevance standard, should be shared with the 17 agencies listed in the Schedule. Alternatively, a recipient department should be required to conduct an assessment of the reasonableness and proportionality of the collection in achieving their mandated national security objective.
Recommendation 2: The definition of “activities undermining the security of Canada” should be reviewed to ensure that it is not overly broad and includes only real threats to security. In the case of conflict between that definition and the jurisdiction of recipient institutions, it should be clarified that the former is not intended to expand the latter.
Recommendation 3: Bill C-51 should be amended to include as a statutory requirement that personal information that does not meet the recipient institution’s legal collection standards should be discarded without delay. SCISA (Security of Canada Information Sharing Act) should also require that information, once collected, is retained only as long as necessary. Reviews should be held at regular intervals, prescribed by regulations, to ensure that this principle is respected and that the retention of information is justified. Finally, SCISA should require that proper documentation of all collection and retention decisions be maintained.
Recommendation 4: Bill C-51 should be amended to include an explicit requirement for written information agreements. More detailed elements of what should be in the agreements could be set out in Regulations. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner should be consulted in the development of these agreements.
Recommendation 5: Bill C-51 should be amended to ensure that all 17 agencies in Schedule 3 are subject to independent and effective review, by an expert body and by Parliamentarians; to remove impediments for information exchange between existing review bodies; and to amend the Privacy Act to allow for judicial recourse in cases involving collection, use or disclosure of personal information. The Bill should also include a mandatory period of review after three years.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/parl/2015/parl_sub_150305_e.asp
Again to re-iterate from my opening: we live, I believe, in a world where social media and the commoditization of the data it creates, along with uses of this data for business and security requirements, recklessly and carelessly assault privacy continuously in a perfect storm. Ostensibly for good reason, and of course the difficulties lie in the fact that there can be many good reasons for doing so. But there is also a downside and that downside is the devaluation of privacy, which I fear over time, will result in a loss of liberty. I worry that today we are on the wrong side of caution. There is insufficient debate. The enthusiasm for “social”, business and security trumps at the cost of liberty and human dignity.