RSS 2.0 FeedIntelligence Official: Time To Redefine Privacy
by Doug MataconisThe chief Deputy Director of National Intelligence says that Americans need to redefine privacy and must learn to trust the government with their private information:
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States change their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.
In justifying this new definition of privacy, Kerr cites the growth of the Internet, and especially of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace:
Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio, Texas, that he finds it odd that some would be concerned that the government may be listening in when people are “perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an [Internet service provider] who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data.”
He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
Millions of people in this country — particularly young people — already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.
“Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it’s not for us to inflict one size fits all,” said Kerr, 68. “Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that.”
Kerr’s analogy is flawed, of course, because of the fundamental difference between government monitoring and most private transactions on the Internet. For the most part, the information that’s available about individuals online is there for one of two reasons; either it’s something that’s publicly available (like a newspaper article), or it’s information that people have voluntarily given up in exchange for a service. If I setup a Facebook page that others can access it’s not the same as the government being able to monitor my private conversations and transactions.
And that, it seems, may be exactly what’s going on:
The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco, California.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit, claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
That’s fundamentally different from what Kerr is talking about. And, as a lawyer for the EFF notes, his arguments against anonymity ignore the importance that it has played in American history:
“Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms,” Opsahl said. “The government has tremendous power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it together.”
Publius would not have survived under the regime that that Kerr is proposing and that alone should be reasons to second-guess him.
The interesting thing about this story is that the Fourth Amendment (we’ll leave aside the Ninth and Fourteenth for now) is the only place in the Bill of Rights that expressly defines (limits?) a personal right to objective rather than absolute standards — no UNREASONABLE searches or seizures. (Compare to the First Amendment: “no law” — period!)
Now, in the rest of the law (e.g., the law of negligence), “reasonable” and “unreasonable” are determined by a hypothetical “typical” or “median” layperson, not by politicians, bureaucrats or even judges. Therefore, the statement by this official (i.e., we need to redefine “reasonable”) is, on its face, hardly absurd.
The problem is that this administration has itself acted so unreasonably in this area of law that we simply cannot trust it to define, or even to abide by others’ definitions, of “the new reasonableness.”
Comment by KipEsquire — November 12, 2007 @ 7:48 amI think I have a solution for Kerr’s problem. As soon as he lets me stop paying taxes and voluntarily stop giving them information, I will gladly allow them to act like a corporation with the info I do provide. As part of this, I should also add as soon as the government is held to the same standard as corporations, including mandatory financial and control audits, the right of consumers to choose another company, and the right for consumers to sue the corporation, I will gladly see the government as a corporation and consider allowing them to have my info as on Facebook and MySpace. I have a feeling I shouldn’t hold my breath on this one though.
Comment by trumpetbob15 — November 12, 2007 @ 10:07 amTrumpetbob,
Here’s my thought…..if the government is really nice to me, maybe I’ll let it become a Facebook friend.
Otherwise, leave me alone
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 12, 2007 @ 10:24 amDoug, that is awesome. I fully agree.
Comment by trumpetbob15 — November 12, 2007 @ 10:50 amAhhh,
Redefine “reasonable” just like they want to redefine “torture,” redefine “constitutional,” or redefine “checks and balances.” The problem with all these “do-gooders” is that the original definition Constitution is too inflexible for them to bend it to its will.
When the government fully abides by the unyielding letter and spirit of the Constitution, I’ll consider it less of a threat.
Comment by TanGeng — November 12, 2007 @ 11:36 am“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
– George Orwell
Comment by Akston — November 12, 2007 @ 3:48 pm