Right to Privacy

People have an expectation of privacy. While many claim we have a Right to Privacy, the Constitution itself doesn't grant that, and the Bill of Rights only grants privacy in certain circumstances. The Ninth Amendment has a vague, open-ending statement that some interpret as protecting privacies not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. But, as a whole, the people have a certain expectation of privacy, and that is why governmental agencies must get warrants in order to breach that privacy.

Lately, I have been using application, websites, and utilities that take a different approach. Facebook, for example, has made numerous changes to its features, all of which have provided more of my data to either Facebook itself, to its partners, to the apps people/businesses create for Facebook, or to other members. The problem I have here is that Facebook a) didn't ask me if this was okay, b) didn't tell me they were doing it, c) didn't give me an option to opt out (or hid that option so deeply I had to do a web search in order to find out how to do it), and d) didn't tell me they were doing it until after it was already done. This led to people I didn't necessarily want to know I was on Facebook finding me, information I didn't necessarily want made public (I had used Facebook's own privacy settings to hide it from those I didn't want to have access to it) to get out, and an increase in my spam due to my private email settings being given to app designers without my permission.

I just read an article that OnStar, the vehicle navigation and assistance program championed by GM, is changing their privacy policy so that they have the right to sell your data to third party people if they see fit. The caveat is that they will maintain a two-way connection to your vehicle even if you cancel the subscription. Basically, if you have OnStar, you will be connected and they will track where your car goes and the speeds you drive. Wired.com wrote a nice article explaining this and the possible threats to your privacy. Once again, they assume you are "in" the program unless you contact them and opt out.

Credit cards have been using this tactic for years. Nearly every change is for them, gives them the right to email and snail mail you with in-house offers, and allows them to sell your name, credit worthiness, and personal info to third party vendors unless you go through the complicated system to opt out. Most of them, even in this internet age, still require you to send a postcard via the snail mail to opt out, rather than having a simply system online where you can click an account setting to say No.

The government in America went through a phase where they passed laws allowing them to do warrantless eavesdropping in order to ferret out terrorists. In Canada, the conservative government is currently trying to pass internet laws that would allow them to have warrantless access to every internet user's usage habits.

I propose that the government make a law that says, in effect, "The right to individual privacy is paramount to an individual's rights. No government, company, or individual shall infringe the right to an individual to hold their personal information private. Any request to do so must go through due process (gov't) and be done with the individual's full consent (companies and individuals)." Or something more "legal" to this effect.

Instead of hiding and/or making the process of opting out so difficult, the process should be obvious and should involve these companies/people/agencies having to ASK US for the information. Having something like this in place, form the get-go, would pretty much stop every one of the incidents I mention in this article before they even began. Facebook would have to program things in such a way that we, the users, have to opt in to the company giving away our data. OnStar would have to assume ever current or former member is opted out UNLESS the person gives permission otherwise. Credit Cards would have to build in better privacy policies. And the two governments in question would have to either attempt to repeal the law or get the people's buy-in to suspend it before trying to do something like this.

Proponents may argue, "But if you are not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be worried." What about those news reports of the Government, RIAA, and other groups attacking innocent older people who have wireless connections or unscrupulous family members who use their internet connection to illegally download, send threats, or hack? Mistakes happen all the time, and if those companies or agencies had to go through the proper channels in order to get the information, build a case, and then present it, they would most likely have discovered that the blue-haired old lady in question didn't do it.

What about some of the situations that Wired article brings up-- what if an eager police force decides it is cost-effective to buy data from OnStar and send tickets in bulk to all those who were reported as going over the speed limit on any given road? We all speed at some times and for various reasons; if a cop has to pull you over and finds out your wife is in labor, he's going to be much more willing to forgive you the infraction. But OnStar doesn't know that; it simply knows that on that day, on that street, you were going 74 in a 40 zone. Zing! Ticket!

Another false argument I hear all the time: "Oh, you're using Facebook? That's a social site, you can't have any expectations of privacy on a social site!" Well, when you go to your work site, do you announce each morning to all of your coworkers your name, age, height, weight, sexual orientation, marriage status, and the last 10 things you purchased, searched for, or viewed on the internet? That's a social site as well, but you would never think of doing that except to your closest, most valued friends. Same with online social sites-- I want to be free with some data and restrict other data based on how close I am to some people as opposed to others. This is reasonable and, in many cases, programmed in. It is when the application changes those settings, assumes I want to share everything and I have to opt out, or adds new features that change, ignore, or disable my privacy settings that I start having issues.

As you can see, there are a lot of gray areas.

In the end, my feeling is that the right to privacy should be better and more distinctly protected. This would have a snowball effect through the government, business, and individuals that would allow people to have the expectation of privacy in their dealings with one another and the world at large. It would also cut down on the headaches and battles we have to wage on a daily basis keeping our private lives private.