Whatever it is, deputy director of national intelligence Donald Kerr says that the freedom to be anonymous is not part of the package. Not any more.
Kerr aired his thoughts a week ago during a speech, and it was largely ignored for several days until the Associated Press story showed up on the Internet and caught the attention of a few bloggers.
"Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity," Kerr said. "It's an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Lone Ranger wore a mask but Tonto didn't seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You'd think he'd need one more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity -- or the appearance of anonymity -- is quickly becoming a thing of the past."
The proliferation of social networking sites -- MySpace, Facebook, and others -- are examples Kerr cited as evidence of our eroding sense of privacy.
Protecting anonymity is a losing cause, Kerr added. "Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
Insuring privacy, Kerr said, starts with "a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community is based and measured.
In other words, trust the government with your privacy. Thanks but no thanks.
There are several reasons why this story bothers me. One's pretty obvious, me being the freedom-loving type that I am. The more intrusive a government is, the less I like it, and all governments by their very nature tend to be intrusive to some degree. A fact of life. Even so-called "good government" is highly suspect. The framers of the Constitution had a huge task in front of them; they were basically putting together the least-intrusive government possible. Over the years, though, with each new crisis, civil liberties have eroded here and there, and with the hysterical aftermath of 9/11 this erosion is happening faster and faster. The public is not raising holy hell about it because, well, Americans have proven their willingness to trade off a few liberties for a safer world, even if that "safer world" is all mirage and no substance.
Another thing about this speech that bothers me has largely been ignored. It's almost like, if you can't win the game, change the rules to fit your style of play. Change the very definitions. You used to have to go into a courtroom to see this dynamic in effect (it all depends on how you define "is..."), but this kind of thinking has escaped the legal world and implanted itself into our own thinking.
James Pinkerton, a columnist with Newsday and former Reagan/Bush I staffer, also believes the post-911 world is making anonymity into a thing of the past. "The old equation, privacy equals anonymity, is being buzz-sawed six ways," he wrote. "First and most obviously, terrorism concerns. If you're walking through Times Square carrying a backpack and acting strangely, inquiring minds will want to know why."
Pinkerton offers that the need for deeper information for health insurance and medical treatment, the proliferation of cameras, and the Internet are all putting people on the radar screen like never before.
"If you've ever wondered why the Googlers can give you search engines -- and Gmail and everything else for free, it's not because they are necessarily nice guys," Pinkerton wrote. "In fact, they've built a $200-billion company by studying you closely."
Some of the online response to Pinkerton's article was downright interesting. From Gainesville, Florida: "Proposed years ago by some smart kids at cal tech... at the bottom of every email... include jihad, terrorist, bomb, explode, president, c4, ammonium... and then the govt will have TOO much information. Info overload is a large part of the answer."
Uhh, while this could very well cause the central computer system to blow a fuse, I don't think I want to be the first to try that. Any takers here?
When I go on the Internet, several things about me are automatically announced. Things like an IP address, a hostname, and an Internet Service Provider. From these a halfway savvy computer operator can figure out which city I'm surfing from. OK, that may or may not be of any great consequence to you. Also, one can tell a lot of things about the computer I'm using. Things like how fast my connection is, which operating system I'm using (Linux), which browser (Firefox), and even what my screen resolution is. Again, this may or may not be important, even if it's a little creepy to see local ads on a national page. Like, how do they know?
Just another couple of little things to think about here:
These graphics, courtesy of danasoft.com, kind of freaked me out the first time I saw them, too.
I use Gmail for most of my communication. When I saw how Google uses keywords from my mail to match me up with certain ads, it really creeped me out. It took me a long time to get used to having my mail scanned like this, but face it. It's done anyway, no matter who your email carrier is. If you want total privacy, forget email, forget the Internet. Arrange to meet your person in a subterranean parking garage somewhere, exchange a few verbal passwords ("the boat will sail at midnight"), then exchange the information.
To see how this works, I sent a short email from one of my Gmail boxes to the other. Just as a test. The subject of the email was "Advice from your legal counsel," and the text read, "Get thee to a nunnery ... and become a Thelonious monk."
The ads that showed up in the email sidebar? These, at last look, though they change with each viewing:
Medtronic Lead Lawsuits
Defective Medtronic Lead Lawyer. Lawsuits Commencing Now!
jrobertdavis.com/Medtronic
Defense Base Act Law Firm
Freedman & Lorry handles overseas non-military injury claims
freedmanlorry.com
Michael Pohl-Trial Lawyer
Over 30 years of experience helping injured people across the nation
www.pohlattorney.com
Costa Rica Legal
Bufete Echeverria InterLex a General Practice Law Firm
www.bufeteecheverria.com
General Counsel Attorney
Firm Profiles, General Counsel Law Job Listings, Salary Surveys, More!
www.Vault.com/Law
Kind of interesting. Maybe the contents of the missive were a little too cryptic for Google to come up with some good ads. Lots of legal services, but nothing about religious orders or out-there jazz pianists.
And yeah, I do a lot of other communicating on line, and control several social networking sites. Being thoroughly modern, of course I have a MySpace page and Facebook site. I also have several blogs and keep many of my Web bookmarks online through del.icio.us (including background pieces for blog articles). I'm not foolish about it, though. I'm a private person and like to keep it that way, so I'm real picky about what information goes online.
Perhaps privacy is eroding. Well, if there's a call to redefine it, you know it's already eroded. Perhaps beyond all recognition.
No comments:
Post a Comment