Slashdot Mirror
Cash Value 1/10 of a Cent
goombah99 writes "It happens all-too-often that the govenment and companies negligently reveal citizen's private information on their websites. When collection of this information is something required by law there is an obligation to protect it. But is privacy a 'property' and does its loss require compensation? Wired news reports 'The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven. At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is.'"
Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals... You can find out information about the location of a federal prisoner through the Freedom of Information Act; neighbors must be notified when some sex offenders move into an area - thus limiting their privacy...
I think the wording is odd in that statement. It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property. Privacy is a means to protect that information, and failing to protect personal "property" that someone is required to provide is my issue here. Just as if the government required a key to your house and then made then available for duplication.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Is good for the Gander... If companies can make money by selling private information, then they can lose it by releasing it publicy if they are not authorized.
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
It shouldn't really matter if no damage can be proven to the people... I would think the Court should award punative damages to punish for the illegal disclosure, and hopefully 'encourage' them not to do such a thing again.
what the hell? so, what it sounds like is that unless your a paris hilton or michael jackson, they don't really give a shit about you because you're not worth enough to sue anyone.
privacy is privacy and it should apply to all equally. who determines what the cost was? for famous person it's pretty easy to prove lose, but for the average joe, we're just fucked. fuck that noise
disclaimer: I did not RTFA
It should be fairly easy to place a dollar value on privacy. First we can geta value by looking at what marketers (or marketeers) are charging companies for your information. A list of 10,000 names and phone numbers can cost a mortgage company's telemarketing department tens of thousands of dollars. So, it's rather simple to place a dollar amount on the value on an individuals information. Compound that value with the multiple of times that the information was disclosed and throw in a percentage for damages and you find that privacy has a rather high cost.
And yes, they should reimburse people for breaches. Stupidity should definitely be painful.
then why is it the death penalty flies in the face of our constitutional rights?
(your rights can be taken away too ya know)
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Absolutely, unequivocally "YES" on both counts.
We live in an increasingly Corporate culture, where it's always "the economy stupid." We have become global Corporate citizens instead of citizens of any one particular country. Privacy is not respected by the machinery of business, and those of you out there who have ever worked with or in a Marketing department know what I'm talking about.
It took a law to put the brakes on telemarketers, and God knows what it will take to stop spam, if that's even possible. But by making privacy a "property" that has monetary value, we can finally put it on the radar screens of Big Business.
even if no harm can be proven.
How can you disprove harm in this case?
A social security number is an American's entire life and worth, as far as law and government are concerned.
Without it, you arent even a vote.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's article IX or the U.S. COnstitution. The fact that trroubling issues of privacy and technology didn't arise until 220 years later doesn't mean jack shit to me. Article IX makes it quite clear that the notion of a "Right to Privacy" must certainly exist. How dare anyone disparage my beleif that it is my right? The time is drawing near when politicians who ignore the Constitution and the judges who are bought right along with them, will have to account for their actions. And I'm not talking about violence here. I'm talking about a second Constitutional Convention. Something that strikes fear into the heart of every politician and every greed head in the land.
A Second Constitutional Convention would do us a world of good. And possibly a world of hurt as well, but the medicine must be strong for what we've allowed this nation to mutate into. All it would take is a two-thirds vote of the states. The day is coming. It might not be right around the corner, but it is coming.
The amazing thing about this whole debate is that there is no clear constitutional right for privacy (at least in the U.S.).
... usually State's Rights (10th) is involved) ... or when a particular phrasing in the Constitution is deemed "ambiguous" (1st Amendment ... what is "speech") ... but neither is the case for privacy.
... or do we require Congressional action?
Consequently, it is not clear what the basis will be for any Supreme Court judgement in this case. Usually the Supreme Court rules when two or more Constitutional rights are at odds with each other (e.g. 10th vs. 16th
So a key question is whether the Supreme Court, through its judgement(s), can establish such an expliit right
Personally, I think we need more federal legislation and/or Constitional Amendments safe-guarding our privacy rights. In recent years, we've seen a piece-meal movement toward achieving such a goal (most notably, rights protecting student/criminal records) but it should be a concerted agenda. This will become a much more pressing need as the availability of sophisticated, cost-effective information technology increases. Can you imagine *physical* stores creating databases based on security camera recordings? It's not far-fetched (Vegas casinos already do it)
not trying to sound like a troll, but to all the people saying that privacy is a right, i ask you this: a right granted by whom?
fyi, the united states bill of rights says absolutely nothing about privacy. neither does the constitution. a bit scary, but its true. look it up.
the 4th amendment to the bill of rights sorta hints at privacy, but its obvious that our forefathers could not even begin forsee the type of privacy issues we deal with today.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
So what you're saying with the tree metaphor is that if a crime has been committed, and no one is affected by it, why is it a crime in the first place?
If private information is released, and no one is affected by it, then why is it a problem to release private information in the first place?
This creates its own self-serving logic... which logically (and it doe smake sense) gives right to let the supreme court release what they want.
However, if it is a problem to release private inforamtion... then let's step back: why should government have this private information to begin with? Do they actually *need* these certain things? Control for the sake of control? Is technology and thirst for statistics driving the need for more and more details... which inherently run into the problems or corruption and misuse that we seeing arise in such cases as this article?
What damages are shown in cases of rape? What if, for example, I raped someone but was careful not to do any physical damage? I know that doesn't seem possible but just indulge me for a moment. Let's just assume such a thing was accomplished.
Now then, if no "damage" was done, was there a crime? You're damned right!! Something was done against an unwilling individual that made them feel quite uncomfortable and would rather you hadn't done it. It was without consent, immoral and while no "damage" was done, it was still a violation of that other person's will. In fact, asside from degrees of severity, I see no difference between the crime of rape and the crime of stealing, selling or otherwise abusing my personal information. When there is so much about a person that defines a personality, I have realized that anything as simple as a [portable cell] phone number is actually a part of a person's identity... as much as a person's address, place of work, the car he drives or the people he knows. It's a part of the definition of a person. Using and abusing that person constitutes an abuse of that person.
Is this an extreme opinion? Maybe... I don't know... it's a question of where you want to draw the line. But consider how uncomfortable you might feel about life if you knew something about yourself was out there somewhere being abused.
It is about time that we all started to think about the question of compensation/damages. Far too many people seem to think it is a bit like winning the Lotto. That guy bumped me so I claim whiplash and a $1m settlement.
People should receive fair damages or reimbursement of losses sustained through the negligence or incompetence of others. It is not right that they culprit is "fined" and the proceeds passed to the victim.
If a Government causes damage by revealing private information it should compensate the victim even if it is only a token amount for embarrassment. If the misbehavior is so bad that it deserves a punitive settlement I see no reason for that to be paid to the victim. There are many better ways of distributing these windfalls.
If a department loses a chunk of its budget through malicious or arrogant disclosure of personal information it might start asking who was responsible and trying to prevent future abuses. There is no need to turn it into a get rich scheme and a honeypot for ambulance chasing lawyers.
ZB
If my personal information can be sold, it has value and I should always be paid for its use- the price is up to me, not the company doing the selling. (Imagine if you gave your car to a dealer to have it serviced, and when you got it back, they had installed a tracking device which delivered targetted advertising to you 24/7. Don't you need to agree to things like that before-hand? They can't just say "We've decided that the irritation you may feel is worth ten dollars, so here")
If my information has value, no offer should be allowed to use the term "free!" if your personal information will be sold by the company. If they sell it, it has cash value to them, and so the deal is not "free".
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
because it is so hard to put a price on an abstract concept such as privacy or to prove damages in absence of others' misuse of that data.
What about Intellectual Property and Copyright?
The RIAA bills you $150.000 a song by distribution via Kazza
SCO belives that they have such an abstract thing as Intellectual Property of the Linux kernel because they granted some companies (IBM) access to source code...
As mentioned above about my private data: If it can be sold, it has value!
NoSuchGuy
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/