Privacy Matters
by Will Hazlitt (@f4speedmaster)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
First and foremost, allow me the liberty of saying that this article is intended for the privacy concerned layman, such as myself. I make no claim to particular or special knowledge with regard to privacy, absolute or otherwise, on the Internet or in life. My interest in writing this piece is to provide a bit of information on why privacy matters and fairly simple, if sometimes slightly inconvenient, ways to effect such.
As an individual, writer, and journalist, I have always taken pains over the years to protect my privacy inasmuch as is possible in this, in my opinion, over-connected society.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, part of the broader Bill of Rights, even upon a quick read is fairly straightforward and simple to grasp. As such, in our modern era and bearing in mind the historical context in which the whole of the United States Constitution was drafted, this amendment has held up considerably well over time. The clarity of the text (in and of itself masterful) should, no matter the interpretive reading, be readily applicable in today's world.
The words "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is phrased so concisely it is as if the writers foresaw every possible future in which this amendment would be applied. To be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not seem to require much intellectual exertion (or any at all, in fact) to be considered relevant and germane today. "Persons" is self-explanatory, "houses," same again, and "papers, and effects" stand in for today's emails, smartphones, tablets, general communications, and the U.S. Mail, et al.
And yet, many act as if there need be some update to not only the Fourth Amendment but to privacy related laws in general to maintain at least a semblance of privacy for the individual. Now, of course, this amendment, as do the others, regulate what government can - or more accurately cannot - do to the individual. They were not, at least, at their inception, designed or intended to proscribe the actions of businesses. Which would, putting it mildly, be difficult in our hyper, rapaciously, capitalistic environment. Nonetheless, they are an important waypoint as a guide towards more vigorous privacy.
I disagree with the premise that more laws are needed. The reason for my disagreement is a simple one. The Fourth Amendment already exists. It is and should be our shield against the privacy intrusiveness we all bemoan. As it is appalling that a law was needed for the public to be able to access public documents (FOIA), which by right are in the public domain to begin with, it is similarly nonsensical that further laws (always subject to easy revision, as it were - unlike constitutional amendments) are required to safeguard people's privacy in private space. One might even make the argument quite cogently that since corporations are people under the law (which they are), and people are governed by laws, that in the same way the rights of corporate entities cannot be infringed upon, corporate bodies may not contravene the rights of other individuals. While to some this may seem a bit of a stretch, it is worth remembering that corporate people exist only at the sufferance of the State.
Also, and in decidedly nontrivial fashion, one should always look with a jaundiced weather-eye upon the machinations of our supposed betters and their efforts to protect us and our privacy from the very people they themselves rely on for their position and financial succor.
The public-at-large needs to stand firmly in opposition to efforts, well-intentioned though they may be, by our elected representatives to create new laws and regulations to protect our privacy, if for no other reason than those assisting in crafting these rules already benefit and stand to do so ever further from these efforts. If this were not the case, they wouldn't be bothered with helping to write new laws.
Additionally, there needs to be more of a proactive stance on the part of the public towards the body politic as a whole demanding that privacy be respected. While this may be a lot to ask, given the myriad problems faced by society, it is nevertheless an important point of reference. We lose nothing in requiring that privacy be respected by both government and business. We do, however, lose and have already lost much in not demanding this respect.
It is, to a certain degree, understandable that infringements on individual privacy are not necessarily in the forefront of most people's minds. Quite a large number of people want free things: donuts, discounts, and assorted other goods and services. But people should consider that every choice comes at a cost. Convenience requires a tradeoff. In this day and age, the cost of that free cookie is usually one's email address, phone number, etc. In other words, information and data. About us. All for a free candy bar. There are many examples of the aforementioned bargain, but the gist is conveyed. That data has value. So much so that the very existence of complete business models, companies, and entire industries are and have been predicated on the availability of that type of information and the willingness of people to surrender it with nary a complaint or request for compensation of some sort.
Which brings me to the crux of the matter. Don't be an (oftentimes willing) unpaid employee of a food company, social media purveyor, or other entity that seeks to profit off of your personal choices and preferences.
With regard to government, in most cases there is very little choice given in the information we are required to provide in exchange for exercising a right or privilege afforded by same. It is possible to ensure, to the best of one's ability and by remaining vigilant, for lack of a better word, that government does not share our information with those who are not entitled to have it.
As concerns corporate America, here, people have some leverage. And, that leverage should be used. It may require sacrificing some of life's freebies, if you will, but most things in life that are "free" are probably not worth having anyway, particularly if obtaining that gratis balloon requires one to provide their home address.
When originally contemplating this piece for 2600, and at the top of this piece, in addition to expressing my opinion on the import of privacy, it was thought to include some information regarding apps, programs, etc., that one could use to assist in maintaining and reaffirming one's right to privacy. However, upon further reflection, I thought better of it. As readers of 2600, I'm fairly certain that you all are well versed in how to protect your privacy. And, especially considering my minor efforts on behalf of myself, it would be the height of presumption to offer any prescriptions.
In conclusion, I'll finish with the following thought:
Whether you're discussing artichokes or zebras, it's no one's business but your own.