I spent the day at the Internet Privacy Symposium, hosted by uOttawa's Law & Technology program and the Privacy Commisioner of Canada. All quite interesting, but we still managed to have some completely distracted fun, which I've received permission to blog (all anonymously, as usual, but anyone who actually knows who I am will be able to guess who the culprits are. I officially have to come up with blog names for all of my friends who appear).
So there was once session that talked about the PIPWatch toolbar. It's kind of a long story, but it's a Firefox extension that essentially has to do with rating the privacy policies of websites. And one of their symbols is - I'm not kidding - the privacy beaver. It shows green, yellow or red as a quick visual indicator of the "acceptability" of the privacy policy. So my small group friend Vimutra (he picked that name for himself, not me!) leans over to me and says, "I thought everyone's beaver was private." Except maybe Paris Hilton on the Internet, so I wonder what colour her privacy beaver rating would be? Ok, I apologize immediately for that, but I'm not retracting.
At some later point, during the post-lunch attention span lull, I'm sorry to say that we devolved into a bit of note passing. In our defence, this did honestly start out as academic discussion ("What about the potential privacy apps that are counter to corporate interests? Are they funding that?"), but it degenerated into a very short game of primary school check box and "Who would you do?" (listen, it's not that I engage in this kind of behaviour a lot, but we all do it so stop being so judgmental already). I did have a couple of good ones, but the only one I'll admit to is "The PIPWatch beaver or the Greyhound dog". Once again, I apologize, but I think this is maybe the kind of behaviour the emerges at conferences for short 10 min periods.
The rest of the time I was totally focused and learning really interesting things. For example: Some company called Citywatcher.com was requiring some employees to implant RFIDs in order to enter into a secure data centre. Did you all get that? Some job is requiring their employees to implant RFIDs in order to carry out their duties. As in your boss requiring you to implant a device into your body. Wow, I can't imagine I'm the only one who's a bit spooked by that. As I said to TF&C, "But can't you see how secure that data site is now? Someone would have to hack off their arm to get into that place." A real victory for secure data. [sarcasm]
Then there was this cool guy, Yves Poullet who spoke on the subject of third generation privacy laws. He's not a native English speaker (though, like many Europeans I've met, totally competent) and his Power Point slide had this sentence:
"Governments have lost the control"
To which TF&C immediately deadpanned:
"It's between the cushions of the couch."
Am I the only one who thinks that funny? TF&C also brought up the notion of being a data terrorist. The fact that I've written the word "terrorist" on my blog will probably have me indexed somewhere now, but anyway, I think it's kind of an interesting concept. What exactly would a data terrorist do, and would one be considered to work on the side of good or evil? (Good and evil being quite subjective notions in the realm of privacy. Please discuss.)
Also totally fantastic is the fact that Yves Poullet's bio says that, in addition to having a PhD, he holds a "License in Philosophy". Holy Christ! Some university (in Europe, I suppose) grants a license in philosophy. As TF&C said (ok, he's everywhere in this post, but we were sitting beside each other), it's harder to get than a license to kill. Oh my God! Could you imagine if it was a "License to Philosophy"? That would be the cat's meow. Then, afterwards, I actually chatted with Poullet for a minute and he said I could come see him in Belgium. I am SO into that.
Also on the subject of "Poullet" (and this will be my last point because this post is becoming unwieldy), at some point I had to notice that in English, you don't find anyone with the last name "Chicken". You don't even find anyone with the last name "Chiken". Why do you suppose that is???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Hmm. I hope the Godfather doesn't read this blog.
BTW - I think it would be the License to Philosiphize - which many many people THINK they have (present company inclusively included) but only dapper men from Belgium and France actually are granted.
I'll use this opportunity (and my Licence to Philosiphize) to reiterate my nagging doubts about the privacy advocacy industry. Although some of the larger importance of protecting privacy is coming home to me the more I look at this stuff, I still can't help worrying that this is a very privileged discourse and that in the grand scheme of things we should probably find more momentous things at which to direct our middle-class outrage and our highly-educated brains. Are we sure we want a RIGHT to privacy? Is there any way to think about this that talks about responsibilities rather than rights? What does privacy even mean to the 75% of people in the world who are unlikely ever to have their "private" information traded like penny stocks on the internet, because no one really gives a shit about where they shop because they don't consume enough to be economically interesting. Here's a thought: if you (and by you I include me) don't want your personal information collected by retailers and data munchers, don't buy so much crap and quit putting pictures of yourself on the internet.
I know, I know - that's not the main or the only point. I read Orwell when I was 10 - I've been looking over my shoulder ever since. And I know we're dealing with edge-of-the wedge issues here. But let's make sure we don't get too frothy about what LL Bean does with my phone number when I buy a $600 suede coat and how many cookies my $2500 disposable laptop collects when I visit www.victoriassecret.com
That said, if we have to worry about privacy, I'm glad we have someone as dedicated as Pippa Lawson and her Intern Army on the case.
BTW. WYRD: Dead Anna Nicole, or shaved-head Britney?
TF&C
If you look at the privacy advocacy "industry" (an interesting choice of word, in and of itself) and limit its scope to merely the middle class concern of not getting spammed out and basically "told on" to our corporate parents about our embarrassing and telling spending and surfing habits, then yeah, I could see why you'd be a little cynical.
But, as you alluded to, it's a little more complex than that. What happens to our dear Ms. Lawson when the "phychological profile" mentioned (but not entered for probably obvious reasons)in the Lawson v Privacy Commissioner judgment IS used by someone - an opponent, a bank, the University (I know, not this week, but it could happen) - to discredit her or prevent her from working? What happens when the information that's out there gets us relinquished to a third-party country for torture? When our medical/genetic information is used against to prevent us from being insured, employed, from procreating...
Part of the problem with the rights v responsibilities argument is that rights based in the rule of law are enforceable by governments (and in practical terms, their enforcing bodies) and responsibilities are really only enforceable by social outcry or social praise. This is not a bad strategy, as Lawson said in her presentation - she hopes the Privacy Commissioner will shame a few companies (à la dead-beat-dad, I wonder?), in the hopes that it will influence behaviour. One of the big problems with the responsibility theory is that corporations are pretty much in control in a lot of ways. As Poullet said, "Governments have lost the control" and the answer to that is not ONLY using social responsibility tactics. The way the government HAS control is through regulation and the rule of law, and then through offices like the Privacy Commisionner with real tiger teeth and enforcement powers.
Just because you (and by you, I mean everyone) think that we should be fighting AIDS in Africa, doesn't mean you don't fight clearcutting in BC. These "causes" (and I don't mean to trivialize them by using that term) are not mutually exclusive.
RE: Orwell when you were 10. For a minute I was tempted to think you were showing off a little, but then I remembered reading A Clockwork Orange when I was about the same age. Should I be the pot or the kettle?
RE: WYRD. If DAN might give me a shot at launching a paternity suit, I might do it. I kind of need the money. It's a long shot, but you never know until you try. On a sort-of-related-to-privacy note, does she deserve this in death? Does she deserve to rest in peace now when she never chose to be left in peace in life? My choice is horribly crass (yet satirical), but did she bring it on herself?
Ok, Trixie, indiglo(R).
Time for you to jump in. And tell your friends :)
Optimist: I take all your points, especially about the medical/genetic information. I was given to wonder, though, whether the evil scenarios you posit with respect to abuse of privacy arise not from the collection of personal information, but from the abuse of other rights like security of the person? After all, governments and other oppressors have never (when it comes right down to it) relied upon the "truth" about a person to sterilize them, or fire them, or, for that matter, deport them to Syria for some drive-through torture. OK, maybe they can use your medical record to target you, but isn't it the targeting itself, and the purpose behind it, that is the root problem? Surveillance is a tool of oppression and social regulation, but it's not the only or most insidious one.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do the "protect the privacy" thing, or that the problem doesn't metastacize into many areas of the body politic. But is it at all significant that virtually everyone in that symposium was white, hyper-educated, and (with the exception of our little self-interest group) gainfully employed?
(Self-editor's note: I wrote my MA thesis on the pressing and substantial problem of workplace surveillance and moral regulation of middle-class white girls in a nursing school. Guilty, guilty, and guilty.)
TF&C
PS. I was going to suggest that we keep our comments shorter. So much for that.
PPS. My word verification today was cwughz. It's my new favourite word.
wow. i'm in awe of the discourse that occurs on your blog; i should pay more attention. i'm also quite liking the word 'elucidate'. 'cause when the man tells you to research, it's nice knowing that you can elucidate your understanding on the whole copyright issue (i'm still playing with the word; give me a break).
in any case, my two cents say that the trend in Canadian law is to move towards a more rights-based approach. time and time again we are seeing the SCC say that while respecting the balance, it is necessary not to override users' rights (CCH in the case of copyright, which was about rich lawyers and judges who make up less than 2% - or similarly small % - of the N.A. population). works similarly for those accused of terrorism, gmo's - sorta/kinda, privacy???
Good points everyone. For what it's worth, I agree that this is a privileged discourse but that's no reason not to get on top of the privacy issue before it gets out of hand. Better to anticipate the problems than blah blah barn door cliche. Nothing wrong with fighting for our (privileged) rights a little.
Legally yours,
Trixie
Ha, my word verification is rctak, which is like my non-anon self putting on a NY accent and hosting a talk show.
Anyway, since we're given to taking each other's points, I agree with yours. The governments that have the power to regulate some of this also have significant power to abuse it (and often do, though more in some countries than others). But, as Trixie points out, even though our discourse is privileged, that's no reason not to get on top of the privacy issue (esp. if the privacy issue looks like Clive Owen. Did you see how handsome he was at the Oscars tonight? God I love him).
Riiiiight. It's kind of late now and I fear I am not making good sense, so I'm going to stop now.
tf&c --
godfather.... that's an interesting nickname!
i would posit that criticizing privacy advocacy as a "privileged discourse" is easier to do from the position of privilege than it is when you are living without it.
that said, i tend to agree that the overemphasis on data security seems less pressing than many other social problems. perhaps it should be understood as a symptom...
ian
I wonder if we are all "living without it" to the extent that our right to privacy seems to extend only to the degree that those with the ways and means to breach our privacy aren't interested in our information. Yet.
Recently a friend of mine found this out the hard way, when an email she wrote criticizing the privileged position of an ethics committee at her place of employment was unethically intercepted by her employer and illegally used to deny her a promotion.
I certainly fear for my self-determination in a society where everything I say or do can and will be used against me. And as I implied in an earlier comment, I recognize that the less anonymous one becomes, the more surface area becomes available upon which other techniques of regulation can be exercised.
But I also feel a little nervous about a scenario where the "right" to privacy is employed by power and privilege to further insulate itself (ourselves?) from accountability and/or awareness.
Perhaps someone can muse on this: how does the privacy rights discourse take up issues of human interconnectivity? Is is rooted in an ethic of justice, or is there room for an ethic of care?
TF&C
nerds.
big. nerds. all of you.
even the godfather.
What a relief - someone finally raises the level of discourse on this thread.
By the way, where's my comment prize? Isn't there a category for "Most Cantankerous Crank"? Or "Most Words"?
TF&C
TF&C:
What, my undying friendship isn't enough of a prize for you?
What, pray tell, would you like? Suggest and you may be rewarded.
I want an Anna Nicole Smith Nodder (to go with my Jesus Nodder) or a bumper sticker that says "WWJD?"
CNET sez:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6163679.html
Post a Comment