Daniel Solove, Professor of Law at George Washington University School of Law and blogger at Concurring Opinions has a great piece at The Chronicle of Higher Education on why we should guard our privacy and why privacy matters in a free society even if “we have nothing to hide”. Go read the entire thing…
Legal and policy solutions focus too much on the problems under the Orwellian metaphor—those of surveillance—and aren’t adequately addressing the Kafkaesque problems—those of information processing. The difficulty is that commentators are trying to conceive of the problems caused by databases in terms of surveillance when, in fact, those problems are different.
Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty “premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.” Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.
The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it myopically views privacy as a form of secrecy. In contrast, understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures. To return to my discussion of literary metaphors, the problems are not just Orwellian but Kafkaesque. Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. In The Trial, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system’s use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are bureaucratic ones—indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency and accountability.
One such harm, for example, which I call aggregation, emerges from the fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data. When combined, the information becomes much more telling. By joining pieces of information we might not take pains to guard, the government can glean information about us that we might indeed wish to conceal. For example, suppose you bought a book about cancer. This purchase isn’t very revealing on its own, for it indicates just an interest in the disease. Suppose you bought a wig. The purchase of a wig, by itself, could be for a number of reasons. But combine those two pieces of information, and now the inference can be made that you have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy. That might be a fact you wouldn’t mind sharing, but you’d certainly want to have the choice.
The article is a preview of his latest book on privacy entitled Nothing to Hide where he refutes the common argument people make in response to worries about government encroachment into our affairs in exchange for security.
UPDATE: Today May 26, 2011) I was Tweeted by Professor Ann Bartow of University of South Carolina School of Law who accuses Professor Solove of misquoting her in his article (and presumably in is book). She sets the record straight here. It appears to me that she’s correct though why Solove would do such a things is beyond me — but I don’t claim to have all the backstory so whether it was intentional or unintentional I will nto express an opinion.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
An interesting article. I grew up with the “if you have nothing to hide, don’t worry about it” advice from my parents. Thing is, the concept of what’s wrong and what’s right, as we have seen since the mid-60s, is now subject to interpretation by whoever holds political office.
I endeavor to live as peacefully with the government as I’m able. Still, it gives me chills to think of all the surveillance that’s going on in Britain, and is now coming here. And, remember, surveillance is not about protecting the electorate. It’s about protecting the elected.
And the dynamic is different with parent/child. In my home I am a dictator of sorts… my home is not a constitutional republic — at least not until the kids move out and pay their own kit.
I’ve always been under the impression that a kid under 18 has no constitutional rights, to certain degrees, at least, when under his parents authority. This assumes, of course, that the parental units don’t starve the child, or beat them within an inch of their lives on a daily basis.
… or make them listen to Hall and Oates. (I know that’s what you were thinking…)
I try not to hate, Rufus! We’re all brothers under our
underwearskin here at 3D!Dr. Solove makes good points but to me it is as fundamental as personal property rights. The Constitution is obviously laid out to limit the power of government, not the rights of the citizenry. Private citizens are sovereign. If the government has a need of something privately held; property, information, labor…, government has to ask. It doesn’t matter why I may choose to keep something private. What matters is that it is mine.
but property rights don’t apply to publicly available information… you choose to get or not get the grocery store’s frequent shopper card… but after that the aggregated info is out there…
that’s one argument to be sure, but people need to know why something is dangerous because on its surface it seems innocuous. I may agree that privacy is important but what do I care about people knowing what kind of milk I buy? That’s the reason for this. Once I give Kroger or Albertson’s my information — it becomes theirs to do with what they will… and they can sell the info. I’m not sure what the solution is other than to pass laws that prevent such data collection as a precaution
Errrrr… I’m not too keen on passing laws to prevent data collection if the citizen is a voluntary participant. I can choose not to get the discount.
I’m talking about laws preventing the government from collecting… not the company. I wouldn’t want to get too far between the citizen and private transaction with a business, but we can prevent the gov’t from collecting and collating that info.
When the government gets involved, I presume to the point of citizen data collection, for the purpose of chastising one for buying too many Twinkies if under government healthcare, and the like; that government has taken on a “supernanny” role, which is not it’s job!
Amen.
I recall about 10 years ago there was a controversy over some states selling their drivers license data, including pictures, to a private company that then merged it with other personal information gathered by businesses for target marketing purposes. I found this unsettling.
Around the same time there was a pharmaceutical company that was partnering with pharmacies (can’t remember which chains)to send their customers targeted invitations to try new drugs. Something along the lines of “Hey, you were taking Zoloft a while back & and you might be interested in this new drug….” Even though the marketing co. supposedly never saw the personal info (they just prepared the letters that were sent in the pharmacy’s name), it was terrible invasion of ones private medical history.
This was one of my biggest concerns with ObamaCare: the government, made up of an unknown numbers of nameless, faceless bureaucrats, will have access to personal medical information. There are an infinite number of ways they can then use this information – for our benefit, of course – to harass us about our health, or worse, to apply to non-medical government areas (such as issuing gun licenses, etc.).
Right on the money. This is the worst part of government healthcare…not the monetary, or poor service part…it’s the BIG BRO part!
Yeah, and as we saw with “Joe the Plumber”, bureaucrats can’t resist taking a peek at someone’s info in government databases and leaking it to the press, when advantageous. I have no doubt that if ObamaCare were already in place that Palin’s medical records would have been leaked.
I’ve got those cards, and have never, ever given them any info about me. You can be anonymous. (Unless they match that card to the ATM or credit card I use…)
For the last couple of months, I’ve been choosing to pay by cash (my first choice), or check. It takes some getting used to; but, for a feeling of empowerment, paying with cash is hard to beat.
me too… but I’m not anonymous and Ralph’s sends us great coupons on the stuff we buy all the time… I don’t mind that necessarily because I’m strong enough of mind to resist a stupid sales ploy (for example — the items not covered by coupon are often cheaper of course), but the gov’t having it all might possibly be used for nefarious purposes — especially if they’re running health care.
But, back to my earlier point, the nefarious part is meaningless. Even if the government always only uses the data for our benefit, it’s still our own, private property to share with whomever we choose.
I have always worn a seatbelt in a car. I started driving before seat belt laws were in place, and most of my teen-aged friends teased me for wearing one, but I always have. However, I do not agree with the fact that a police officer can look into my vehicle and ticket me regarding seat belt use. It is none of his business. Even though I agree with the practice, and always wear one, society has no right to pry, even when it is for our own benefit.
And right on cue: Next month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to declare that all vehicles must contain an event data recorder, known more commonly as a “black box.”….
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/05/automotive-black-boxes/
All cars built since 2004 already have one.
Wow – I had no idea!
What I’m really against are the little boxes they’re thinking of installing on all cars in order to charge a per mile tax. It’s one thing if it’s voluntary to speed up going through toll booths, it’s another when it’s required. It’s none of their business where/how much I travel.
I have the same attitude toward seatbelts. I feel naked when I move my vehicle without one on. On the other hand, I refuse to wear a bike helmet when I only ride on a couple of bike trails and never in traffic. My “choice”, a word the Progressive Left believes applies solely to reproductive systems.
As for the data recorder, notice how something useful and designed for personal private use (diagnosing engine problems and such) is being co-opted by the gov’t to do things it was never intended to do. Like seatbelts, just because it’s a smart thing to do doesn’t mean we need it to legislated and become mandatory.
That’s the reason I will never buy a car with On-Star or similar device. If they can locate your stolen car by GPS and kill the engine via satellite, they can do the same if they perceive you speeding, and start using it to issue tickets, etc. Plus if they choose to make you a person of interest for any reason, real or perceived, that’s too much BIG BRO!
While I may “have nothing to hide”, I’m also a believer in “it’s none of your damn business”, and that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
One of the problems we currently have is the desire by too many different groups to criminalize “bad” behaviors, and privacy is a way to fight back against those busy-bodies (most of whom can’t run their own lives, won’t admit it, but are willing to let someone else run it if everyone else is forced to also.)
Another problem is trickle down celebrity culture, where the idea that letting everyone know everything about your life is good, and the way to gain status, and that everyone else cares about all that useless trivia. There are a lot of people want you to know everything about them, especially the stuff that should stay private. Look at the popularity of Twitter and “social sites” and how often people get into trouble because of them when little things there escape into the real world.