I’m all for privacy.
To be honest, privacy is a relatively new phenomenon sociologically and absent issues like identity theft and stealing from other simply by having their private data and knowing how to misuse it privacy shouldn’t really be that big a deal; just don’t do anything you’re ashamed of. But in the Internet / electronic age there’s a need to protect information. Privacy matters.
But as anyone who knows anything about the technological practicalities of privacy will tell you, there’s really no such thing; data systems will always get breached, and the best path to privacy isn’t about technology so much as knowing how technology you create will get used, and by whom.
Yeah, yeah . . . stop using Facebook right now. And with the US Library of Congress having just decided to start archiving the entire stream of everything that goes through Twitter, you’d better be really careful what you slap up there unless you don’t care about privacy.
Of course, you’re not going to stop tweeting, friending people, or anything like that, and from a business perspective you can’t. So you move on, hopefully at least a little bit aware of the potential consequences of your actions.
Here’s a new one to watch out for: the United State Congress is trying to pass a law that makes it illegal to send out fake information about your phone.
Constitutionality/free speech issues notwithstanding (and speaking as a non-attorney I suspect that most legal scholars would discount free speech as not applying to this issue), this is a law that looks like one more ineffectual band-aid. Simple reason: it doesn’t apply in a way that couldn’t be easily circumnavigated by any second-year law student.
The legislation would only outlaw the use of spoofing technology when the intent is to deceive and harm the recipient of the call
<Sigh>
All those who believe they have the definition of “deceive and harm”, please step forward.
As is the case with so many laws and rules, there’s a tremendous amount left open to interpretation. But data by definition needs to be tightly defined, and all this or any law that attempts to regulate the use of data without specifically outlining what’s acceptable for its use (as opposed to what isn’t) is going to do is create new loopholes that exploitative types will happily step through in defense of their own actions.
So, please: watch your data carefully (we can help). Don’t (for example) mask your caller ID information or change it to something else just because you can; it’s wrong.
Most important, be sure that when you create business process you’ve actually created process. Otherwise, like Congress’ new data spoofing law on privacy, you’re just being counterproductive.
Repost This Article
[...] recently made the point that privacy as a construct is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, and that quite a bit of the hew and cry over the privacy “issues” don’t really [...]
[...] The folks who previously started archiving the entire stream of drivel scrolling through Twitter have ruled (umm . . . overridden law) that certain portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act just don’t count. What was illegal is now . . . not [...]
[...] I’ve taken a pragmatic approach: nothing is private. Don’t expect privacy. Period. Laws are nearly meaningless. And court rulings mean even [...]
[...] Amazon.com’s initial stance as defenders of free speech was wrong. It isn’t their place to defend free speech. They’re a business; Amazon’s place is to make money for their shareholders and employees. Lawyer and judges can’t even agree on what free speech is when it comes up for debate or const…. [...]
[...] applies to the Craigslist-as-arbiter-of-sex-ads debateThe whole thing is a ridiculous conversation. Data is going to be distributed. Good luck legislating (against) that.I hope Craigslist changes their mind on this one. Whether or not they do, when you encounter them I [...]
[...] a few times, and the more I think about the subject the more I believe that privacy was a fad. Privacy didn’t even exists until recently, and it’s going away again; the whole world is our new town square, and nobody has curtains [...]
[...] did privacy become a factor in the question of the realism of honesty and fidelity? Oppenheimer seems to be [...]
[...] any sort of control over your online presence all but impossible. I’ve mentioned before that privacy as an idea might have run its very limited course, that defining privacy is all but impossible anyway, and that if you think you can cover your [...]
[...] let’s be clear: there’s no such thing as privacy. Privacy is a fairly new idea, really, and one that may have run its course. As I pointed out when Facebook’s Timeline [...]
[...] Data Privacy is a Mess That Can’t Be Cleaned Up. But Facebook’s newest “feature” takes the problem to too uncomfortable a level. [...]
[...] to write about privacy, I always cringe a little. As I’ve said more than a couple of times, privacy is a relatively new idea, has never really existed, and is impossible to legislate. The very idea of privacy is so complicated it makes my head [...]
[...] Privacy is a New Idea, and Data Ends it Permanently [...]
[...] some of this as a “the sky is falling” rant, it’s nothing of the sort. Fact is, there’s no real security on the Internet, and the issue isn’t that you’re being watched so much as it is that you need to [...]
[...] I say all the time that you probably want to be careful about what you put “out there”. For all of our railing about it, privacy isn’t a universal, and is a relatively new concept anyway, complicated by the sea of d…. [...]
[...] have created, I start this discussion by repeating a point I first made here a couple of years ago: privacy is a new idea and you can’t really control yours . Thrash about indignently as much as you like, but no law will grant you privacy, any more than [...]
[...] secure. I have absolutely no reason to believe that Google Drive will be discontinued by The Big G. As as for privacy issues, I’m pragmatic on the topic. Unless you go completely “off the grid” (and you’re reading this, so, never mind [...]
[...] people our goal needs to be staying out of the snare of the legal system whenever possible. Lawyers and judges can’t even agree on what free speech is, courts pass laws at lower levels that are overturned on appeal, and some pretty egregious behavior [...]
[...] Second, whatever you think “privacy” is, the sad reality is that there’s really no such thing as private information. [...]
[...] In the USA, we have a long history of government “protection” of our “privacy”. I put both of those words in quotes very much on purpose; despite growing efforts, our government is less and less capable of protecting us from much of anything, let alone information-based transgressions, and as for privacy, well, there is no privacy. [...]
[...] Sky is Falling” over I Dream of Jeannie and the lovely Ms. Eden being co-opted in this way. Privacy is actually a relatively new construct, it’s hard to even define what privacy is, and I’m pretty sure that most of us have [...]
[...] tweaks are getting better and smarter. I’ve mentioned before that privacy, a relatively new construct, is something you probably shouldn’t spend too much time worrying about; the Googles of the [...]