|
Archives
Privacy versus Security by John J. Fanning
There is a lot of debate going on these days about the right of privacy versus
the need for security. Most would agree that our war on terrorism makes it
necessary to temporarily suspend some of the freedom of movement we Americans
once enjoyed.
Few of us have much sympathy for people who are complaining that they feel “humiliated” at
pat-down searches given at airports. Nothing is more humiliating than being
taken hostage by some terrorist group.
Most people would also agree that there are times when the government should
not divulge to the public what measures they are taking to protect citizens.
If release of the information would compromise an ongoing investigation or
put an American agent in danger, the information should be kept secret. On
the law
enforcement level, police sting operations and undercover pursuit of criminals
should also be kept concealed from the public until such operations are completed.
In such law enforcement actions however, once such an operation is completed,
regardless of the results, they should be made public. Citizens have a right
and the responsibility to oversee the actions of their police officers and
government officials. At the local and federal level, there can never be indefinite
concealment
of law enforcement tactics or operations.
As we move steadily into a more technological world, the use of high-tech
gear for surveillance and undercover operations is being put to work in cities
throughout
the United States. In Chicago, for example, some 2,000 cameras have been installed
throughout the city to provide surveillance capabilities to the police department.
This ongoing project will include the installation of microphones that will
automatically recognize the sound of gunshots and alert police at a central
station.
Some civil libertarians have denounced the installation of these cameras
in Chicago. But for the most part, Chicagoans don’t seem to mind. If you happen to
be one of the millions who are forced to walk alone down dark city streets, you
have a tendency to put personal safety concerns before any concern for privacy
rights. But the debate still rages on in Chicago and it looks as if it will ultimately
be settled in a U.S. court, as those seeking to protect the privacy rights of
citizens continue to battle the city’s plans.
I think such debates are a healthy thing. I feel it is important that the
people be made aware of any such plan for the implementation of technology,
which
may infringe upon privacy. I also believe that such tactics and information
should
be made public, even if it might alert criminals to the fact that they were
facing a risk of being caught. I make a distinction here in that if the police
have
knowledge of a crime having been committed, or which will likely be committed,
and secretly install video cameras in order to capture the alleged criminals
- that’s one thing. But when the police install a camera merely in the “hope” of
catching some criminal in the act, that’s something quite different. And
in the latter case, I feel the public should be informed of the law enforcement’s
intention, so that they may exercise their right and obligation to affirm or
reject the plan. I am not saying that it should not be done. What I am saying
is that it should not be done secretly.
As important as it is to make certain that our government officials and agencies
remain as open to public scrutiny as possible, it is now even more important
that private enterprise in the United States also allow public scrutiny of
technological devices that they employ, that could potentially compromise the
privacy of citizens.
While there are a number of civil liberty groups and watchdogs that pay close
attention to government, unfortunately there seems to be too few watching private
enterprise. One consequence of this is an open invitation for government agencies
to use private enterprise in order to bypass public scrutiny of their intentions.
Take for example the fact that today, most of the color laser printers and
color copiers that are purchased by Americans automatically encode a serial
number
onto every piece of paper that passes through that printer or copier. If you
are using a color printer or copier, chances are that this serial number encoding
is going onto every piece of correspondence that you produce. You can’t
see this serial number with the naked eye. It is printed with a color combination
of yellow-on-white, in millimeter-sized dots that appear at about every inch
on every page passing through the printer or copier. The only way to see this
encoding is to hold the paper up before a blue LED light and look through a
magnifying glass.
If you don’t recall reading about this in your Owner’s Manual when
you purchased the copier or printer, don’t waste your time looking for
it. The printer and copier manufacturers aren’t too forthcoming with
this information. It is kept quiet, which is a nice way of saying secret. Just
keep
in mind that everything that you print or copy can be traced back to the very
machine that printed or copied it.
Why did they do this? Well, the government was concerned about the quality
of printers and copiers and their ability to produce “passable” counterfeit
bills. Now if the down side of this is that some poor schmuck might write an
anonymous “I love you” letter and be found out, that might be a small
price to pay. Or if you were wondering why you seem to use as much yellow ink
toner as black in your printer, the $50 bucks you pay to replace that yellow
ink might be a small price to pay. But what about those whistleblowers that copy
or print the incriminating evidence that might expose criminal activity? What
about the anonymous “letter to the editor” that may further the
public good? What about that poor mope that gets fired for printing out a grocery
list
on company paper?
Xerox, who uses this technology in their laser printers, copiers and multifunction
workstations like the WorkCentre Pro series, never asked consumers if they
would mind having this feature in the product they were purchasing. Neither
did the
other printer or copier manufacturers who install the process. And there is
no law which says they have to.
New cell phones now come with the ability to identify the location of the
cell phone user. This sounds like a good idea in the event that an emergency
takes
place and the cell phone user doesn’t know their exact location when
speaking to a 911 center. But the Chicago Park District recently announced
plans to use
this feature to track the location of their workers.
If your company provides you with a cell phone, your boss, without your knowledge,
may already be tracking your travels. There is no law that says that your employer
must inform you of their use of the cell phone to trace your whereabouts. And
there is no law that requires the cell phone manufacturer to notify you that
the phone has such a feature installed.
If you look at the origins of this new cell phone technology, you will once
again see government in the background “suggesting” it to cell phone manufacturers.
And once again, private enterprise is allowed to bypass public scrutiny in their
technological deployment of devices that could compromise the public’s
right to privacy. Do you know if your cell phone has this tracing chip inside?
Probably not; there is no law that requires cell phone manufacturers or dealers
to inform you.
This unchecked alliance between government and private corporations is increasing
every day. One of the first creations of the Department of Homeland Security
was an “advisory council” that included 23 executives from major
U.S. corporations. Since then, billions of dollars have been given to private
U.S. corporations, many of them the parent companies of board advisors, for
vaguely specified research and development.
What are they researching and developing? Private enterprises are not required
to publicly divulge their research secrets. So I don’t know and neither
do you. How might this affect our right to privacy? Private enterprises are not
required to tell you if their products might compromise their privacy. So I don’t
know and neither do you.
With the use of private sector companies, new technology that can further
impact upon the privacy of Americans can proceed unchecked from the public
scrutiny
that government contracts would normally undergo.
And right now, there’s just no stopping this.
Archives
|
