Freedom & Privacy
My buddy Kevin was lamenting having to give his ID to get into LinuxWorld in San Francisco this week. Yes, the response from the LinuxWorld security was absurd (“it’s for security reasons”), but it’s interesting to note Kevin’s failure to grasp a key point: he didn’t have to go to LinuxWorld. Nobody was forcing him to reveal his identity – as long as LinuxWorld was up front with its requirements for entry (or offered a refund if Kevin refused to provide his ID) I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with what LinuxWorld did.
At the risk of infringing Bruce Schneier: privacy is a trade-off. It’s a free country – companies have a right to dictate the conditions under which they’re willing to sell to a consumer, and consumers have the right to decide whether or not they feel like accepting those terms. If you don’t like the terms, then there’s a simple solution: don’t buy the company’s product or service. It’s not like LinuxWorld security held Kevin down and went through his wallet – he could have just walked away.
It’s relatively easy to protect your privacy, as long as you’re willing to accept the inconvenience, cost, and lost opportunities. Don’t like companies tracking your purchasing habits? Fine – say good-bye to easy access to credit via credit cards, say good-bye to discount cards that “save” you money (the “save” is in quotes because the prices are usually inflated to encourage participation in discount schemes). Don’t want your movements to be traceable? Fine – get rid of your cell phone. Now, I’ll admit it’s effectively impossible to stand up to every company, all of the time, especially if you want to get anything done in life. But no one’s holding a gun to your head.
I think people overestimate the value of their freedom and privacy – they’ll scream bloody murder against laws that allow the government to collate data it already has on citizens, but sign away the same information in a heartbeat to save 10% on their groceries. It also appears people misunderstand the freedoms to which they think they’re entitled. Sure, you have a right to assemble – but only peacefully, without blocking free passage, and on public land. Sure, you have the right to free speech – but not to make threats, or spread libel. You can’t protest in the mall – it’s private property. And if you and a couple hundred friends are going to protest at the Democratic National Convention, don’t be surprised if the police put you in “free speech” cage. Those are the rules – any ideas of your own on the subject are merely creative works of fiction.
For those areas where you have a choice between preserving your privacy and buying into another product or service, it’s up to you to stick to your guns. If enough people had the courage to vote with their dollars, maybe companies would get the message. Until then, be prepared to present your “papers” along with your cash.
I call bullshit!
“…[People] scream bloody murder against laws that allow the government to collate data it already has on citizens, but sign away the same information in a heartbeat to save 10% on their groceries.”
I love the smell of a straw man in the morning. How do you know that the people who “scream bloody murder” about the government are the same ones who are signing away the information for cheap groceries? Both groups might be “people” but that doesn’t mean they’re the same people.
Part two!
“It’s a free country – companies have a right to dictate the conditions under which they’re willing to sell to a consumer… If you don’t like the terms, then there’s a simple solution: don’t buy the company’s product or service.”
Governments regulate the conditions of commerce all the time.
Ever seen a rental application form like this?
And yes, regulations to protect privacy exist as well. Have you ever noticed back up in Canada, when you’re filling out a form for cable TV, or phone service, or a credit card, and they ask you for your SIN? There’s usually a little asterisk, and way down at the bottom in fine print there’s a message saying “We will still give you a credit card even if you don’t give us your SIN”. That’s the Canadian government looking out for your privacy. Even down here in the States, you can usually leave the SSN spot on a form blank, and 9 times out of 10 they won’t call you on it. The difference is that the Canadian law says the company must inform you that some of your information is optional.
My point is that when it comes to interactions between corporations and people, it isn’t a free country, no matter which country you’re in. There are already regulations in place. So if you think that there should be more laws protecting citizen’s privacy, you aren’t trying to violate some fundamental principle of civil society – you’re merely looking for a different balance between corporate and personal rights.
Part three!
Just some rapid-fire suggestions.
On protesting and “free speech cages”: Check out a funny comic (you’ll need to watch an ad first), or read Mailer and Mailer for, among other things, a perspective on the public protests of the 60s versus the “free speech cages” of today.
On government collation of data: Canada tries really hard to avoid this. In theory, there is no “master database” of Canadian citizens; the voter registry is separate from the tax list, which is separate from the criminal justice system, etc. A few years ago the Privacy Commisioner of Canada had to smack down the Ministry of Human Resources for trying to build a master list to prevent welfare fraud.
And finally, although it might sound democratic to tell people to “vote with their dollars”, it’s pretty easy to see that means that people with more dollars get more votes. The reasons why this is bad should be obvious.
Vote with your dollars – the most influential voting class would be Middle American women. Women make the majority of buying decisions – estimates are anywhere from 60-80% and growing. Bill Gates and co. don’t go and buy laundry detergent, the groceries, clothes for the family, tell their teenaged kids with fully expendable incomes what they can and cannot buy, have the ears of their corporate or union husbands, and rally around a cause within an instant. It’s the reason why Kmart and Nike cringe every time someone mentions child labour. Mummy doesn’t want to buy something that evokes images of a sweatshop every time she picks it up. Now if you could correlate her lack of privacy with something emotional and is worth more to her than the 10% she saves on her grocery bill, then you might get somewhere in curbing the invasion of privacy perpetuated by corporations.
Preventing welfare fraud is a bad thing? The Canadian Privacy Commissioner you’re talking about is the same guy that was forced to resign for billing $400 2-person lunches to the Canadian taxpayers, and whose resignation letter stated that he was fired because he was too aggressive and effective in his job. Yes he was very good at enforcing the privacy laws in regards to private corporations. And I wish he was still in place because of that. However, if he had worked with the government agencies to find a way to share info rather than totally trash such an idea, then perhaps Canada’s welfare and social services wouldn’t be so drained. And don’t tell me you’ve never known anyone who was working and collecting EI at the same time.
It’s easy to see the benefits of a central citizen database. Preventing welfare fraud, deporting terrorists, reducing the number of black people who can vote… the list goes on and on!
(THAT WAS A JOKE)
Seriously though, what interests me about the Human Resources vs. Privacy Commissioner incident is that it shows how a government can decide to limit its own powers, losing a concrete benefit to prevent an abstract harm. Imagine the conversation:
HUMAN RESOURCES: We want to build a central database to prevent welfare fraud.
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER: We think you shouldn’t because central databases are a bad idea.
And yet the Privacy Commissioner won.
In both Canada and the U.S.A., the judicial system is a key part of the checks and balances protecting our rights. But the nature of information means that the courts aren’t such a good place to protect privacy. Once data has leaked, taking the issue to the Supreme Court won’t really help – that’s just closing the barn door once the horses are gone. In order to prevent the abuses before they occur, centralized information must be resisted internally and on principle.
How do you defend a principle within a government? How do you maintain a concept like that in a closed society of civil servants and politicians? Well, one way to do it is to create a position like the Privacy Commissioner, whose job is to advocate one specific position: that the privacy rights of citizens need to be protected against the good intentions of corporations and governments.
Baine
I realy enjoyed reading your blog, i needed some info on this subject for my new study economimy in the USA and your post helped me out a lot thank you for that