The Boston Herald posted a story over the weekend about testimony to Congress from Principal Deputy Directory of National Intelligence, Donald Kerr. In the testimony Mr. Kerr informs Congress that the American people are asking for far too much:
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people’s private communications and financial information.
This is a pretty simple argument really. It's impossible for the average American citizen to have no information about themselves stored within the databases of the government and businesses. Shopping habits are tracked by grocery stores, credit card companies, banks, etc. Searching habits are tracked by the search engines we use. The American people already trust the government and businesses with information that they expect to be properly safeguarded.
The problem is that it isn't.
Everyone can agree that they want their data to be "properly" safeguarded, but what does that mean? Who determines what constitutes the proper level of safety for my data? Is it businesses like TJMaxx who just lost 45 million credit card numbers? Or AT&T who may be forwarding phone call and Internet traffic information without a warrant? Or is it the organization that requested the data be forwarded in the first place?
The problem with the suggestion that the American people should give up the notion of anonymity as part of privacy is that it boils down to "We know what's best for you, just let us handle it". Why should the American people, as a whole, give up some of their privacy to businesses, or anyone, that has shown that they cannot be trusted to protect the data in the first place?
Comments