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.'"
"If someone rummages through all your stuff, nothing's taken, but they find out information about you, (yet) you can't show actual damages.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise? Did some one ever come up with an answer to that age old parabole? If not, I don't think the Supreme Court any time soon will wrap its hands around an ancient Zen koan.
The Custom Mary
Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals...
You're so right, and then so wrong.
Privacy isn't a right per-se, but it certainly is more than a mere priviledge. Privacy is a presumption that is often necessary for a citizen to enjoy their most important right--that of quiet and safe enjoyment of their own life.
And criminals are a horrible example of "it's not like property." We violate oodes of a prisoner's rights--that's how we penalize folk who break the law.
It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property.
False, I believe. Mere information should be public domain--if I want to find out, oh, what your telephone number is, there shouldn't be any penalty whatsoever if someone tells it to me.
I think this is a wise move, since the companies and governments will probably take a more pro-active stance for security. If security was already an issue in the past at a given company/government, they will probably do even more work to secure it even better. And those who didn't care about security, really need to start looking for some security administrators. Remember: money makes the world go 'round.
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?
"At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is."
...make it clear to the Judges, Lawyers, and Representatives involved that their decision WILL apply to THEIR personal data! I really believe they forget that sometimes. There was a /. article, which I'm too lazy to look up now, about a District Atourney who ruled getting personal data from someone's trash was not actionable. His attitude changed when a group of activists raided HIS trash and published what they found.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
I believe that privacy is neither property or a privilege, but a right. Like many rights, it does have its limits. In the US, you have the right to free speech, but, if your free speech infringes on someone elses same right, then your right is then taken away.
And criminals are a horrible example of "it's not like property." We violate oodes of a prisoner's rights--that's how we penalize folk who break the law.
So true, the criminals gave up there privacy rights when they commited a crime. A sexual malester lost his rights the minute he commited a perverted act, because his right to privacy would infringe on others rights to safety.
This sig was generated by a barrel of trained kittens for SeXy_Red (550409).
Hrm...
I see your point, but I want to add some additional definition to muddy the waters...
Privacy isn't a natural right. I do consider it stronger than a generic privilege, so I would like to call it a governed right. That is, privacy may not be inherent to existence, but it should be to our government. Privacy is something I would rather not lose.
I concede on the criminals point. We do take away rights - governed or natural.
I still think that privacy is a method rather than an object. Some information should be free - indeed I can go to SuperPages and look up a phone number or a name from a number. I can go to Google, type in a phone number, and bring up a name and driving directions.
With the phone number as an example, I have the option to request a level of privacy - an unlisted number. Privacy becomes the mechanism by which you cannot find my phone number without having been granted certain privilege. The privilege to find an unlisted number comes with additional responsibility and, most importantly, accountability. This is where the government comes in.
The government knows your phone number. They know your social security number (hopefully), bank account numbers, your credit card numbers - all the pieces of information that you may wish to be private. If, then, we assume that privacy is a right - govered or natural - then the government must take steps to secure our information if we wish it so, and if privacy is a right, the presumption must be that we do wish it.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
since databases are now copyrighted, if a company collects the info don't they now own it?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
But if each individual has to prove harm this becomes prohibitive. Say if my SS is left exposed for a few months on a web site, and later my identity is stolen. Can I prove that one caused the other? Not likely.
It seems like certain information shoul dbe designated as must-be-kept-secure and its very exposure shifts the burden of proof that no harm was done to the government.
Of course as a practical matter this could get sticky if one day say a server containing all of the SSN numbers were hacked or a disgruntled employee posted them.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Two weeks ago a position opened at AT&T in my area, with a set of skill requirements that was rather hard to find in my area. Consequently I received calls from thirteen different recruiters over a three day span. I was flattered.
Each and every one of them told me that AT&T required my SSN along with my resume in order to apply for the job. I told every one of them that it wasn't going to happen. (I only had to hang up on one for not being willing to at least accept my choice.)
A company can, and will, demand anything they can get away with. It is up to us to take a stand and tell them that we have a right to refuse to do business with them as well.
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --