Surely this
is a simple issue, a clear and easy question to answer, and an item that all of
us can get our minds around and be together on. Of course that will require all
of us to see this question in the same light and come to the same understanding
of what it means to be on one side or the other. So maybe to begin some thoughtful
contemplation on this question would not be a bad idea; perhaps there might be
a payoff in the end from knowing what we are choosing to do or not do. Given
the simple nature of the issue this shouldn’t be a problem. We all agree to the
answers to these easy questions, right? Or properly put, you believe that
everyone else agrees with what you think the right answer is?
When you select
what your correct answers to the following questions are then you’ll also be
sure that we all share those same answers. However, if when you’re finished you
are also sure that there are a lot of folks that won’t agree with your correct
answer then that’s a likely indication that this is a question that requires a
great deal of thought by even those who are sure they are right.
Question
1: To invade your privacy is there a
requirement for the government to know who you are? Must they have an actual
interest in you as a specific individual?
Yes No
Question
2: If a legitimate subject of a
government investigation were to become connected to your path thorough life,
is it an invasion of your privacy should for the government to collect information
about them that by default contains information about you? Yes No
Question
3: If someone were to follow the garbage
trunk that picked up your garbage, follow the truck to the dump and sort
through the trash to pick out information including data about you; would that
be an invasion of your privacy rights? Yes
or No
What if they did this every week? Yes or No
What if they did this every week? Yes or No
Question
4: The government has an enormous
amount of data about everyone already (not like the phone records folks are in
an uproar about). Currently this data is not used to seek out any indicators
that would be useful in identifying ‘persons of interest’ who may be engaging
in suspicious behavior. Is the possession of this information an invasion of
your privacy? Remember to consider that there was a reasonable justification
for the government to have the data for its original purpose; the question is
whether just having it with no effort being made to use it constitutes a
violation of privacy? Yes
or No
Question
5: The government engages in an analysis
of a massive collection of data to determine if there is a connection between a
known group of terrorists and an unidentified contact in the US who is
assisting them in coordinating an attack. The records searched include every
phone call made into or out of the US. Thus every call that you made is by
definition included, but no connection was established.
A.
Was
your privacy violated? Yes
or No
B.
Since
a computer did this, did it violate your privacy? Yes or No
C.
Is
it the existence of your records that invades your privacy? Yes or No
D.
Does
it matter who holds the records, and as long as it isn’t
the government then it’s not a violation? Yes or No
the government then it’s not a violation? Yes or No
E.
If
I looked at every record of every person in the US and except
for one person (not you) didn’t know who the records represented
have I violated everyone’s privacy? Yes or No
for one person (not you) didn’t know who the records represented
have I violated everyone’s privacy? Yes or No
The Critical
Question “X”: If the collection is impersonal,
detached from anyone in general, and not used in connection with a
pre-identified individual without a court approved warrant is that an invasion
of privacy? Yes or No
So given the
clarity of the issue the answers are obvious, correct?
You are done,
and you can now decide if you think we will have a collective public agreement.
If it helps, here are what I think the reasonable answers would be.
Answers for
all questions are No.
The dimension
of this issue that needs to be factored in is whether possession of data is a
violation? The 4th Amendment is a protection against unreasonable
searches. While Madison would have some serious concerns about the government indiscriminately
searching information to see if the government can find something to use
against you when you are a pre-defined target that they are “after”, I can’t
say that he would see searching for data that is not about you but about
everyone. In this context, you are not relevant. You are nothing more than a
fleeting non-match in a computer program; just another binary field that has no
meaning or interest to the machine.
The issue of
privacy isn’t the data here. The privacy issue is the intentions of those who
have chosen to do a search. If they have the intention to invade your privacy
then using the data is a violation. But without that intention is it?
Now I am not
asking you to trust government. I would hope you wouldn’t trust the technology
companies to the same degree. Certainly don’t trust politicians. But since we
have to decide what our society is to permit and what it is to protect, don’t
we have to be “eternally vigilant in the protection of our liberties”? So we
have to deal with the complexity of the world. Don’t make this a simple problem
to answer. It isn’t. And we don’t have an answer yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment