The Gradual Erosion of the Right To Privacy

PeteV writes "There is an interesting article on the BBC's website based around research carried out by Dr. Kieron O'Hara of Southampton University. He points out that under British law, an individual's right to privacy is being eroded by the behavior of those who have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online (via social networking sites) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' I think his request 'for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online' is likely to fall on deaf ears, but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon English law and how it is interpreted. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook)."

Comments

There will always be privacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, there will always be privacy. It will just be solely reserved for corporations.

Re:There will always be privacy.

[ibsteve2u]

It is bizarre that corporations are "persons" because of the timing of a SCOTUS clerk's stenography.

But the fact people are losing rights as the corporate "person" is gaining them is hazardous to human health.

Logic fail

[girlintraining]

If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is. But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?!

The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know. Our friends, family, and acquaintances. But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange. The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well. It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data, that doesn't mean you gave permission to the next guy.

How f***ing hard is it to understand this? This isn't about privacy -- this is about permissions and how we construct social spaces online. The government's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant, so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one?

Answer: Because they're taking advantage of the fact that it can't be seen and nobody understands how it works. It's that simple. No complex intellectual arguments required -- they're doing it because nobody's going to stop them.

Re:Logic fail

[maeka]

If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is. But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Theft is clearly defined in law.
Privacy invasion's definition hinges upon "reasonableness" in many places.

So, no, that doesn't apply.

Re:Logic fail

[girlintraining]

Theft is clearly defined in law. Privacy invasion's definition hinges upon "reasonableness" in many places.

If we're going to say that theft of a person's physical property and theft of a person's intellectual property are equivalent (as the law leans towards), then it's no small leap to say a person's privacy is nothing more than a license to that intellectual property. And as such, entitled to the same protections as physical property. Thus, theft and privacy violations are roughly equivalent.

Re:Logic fail

[maeka]

If we're going to say that theft of a person's physical property and theft of a person's intellectual property are equivalent (as the law leans towards)

It does?
Or are you comparing severity of punishment while ignoring the difference between criminal and civil statues?

then it's no small leap to say a person's privacy is nothing more than a license to that intellectual property.

You're right, it's a large leap.

And as such, entitled to the same protections as physical property. Thus, theft and privacy violations are roughly equivalent.

Your arguments (at least those I witness on Slashdot) normally do not rely on such acrobatics. I'll assume you have a better argument which doesn't build upon so much shifting semantical sand, but were rushed and didn't have a chance to elaborate fully?

Re:Logic fail

[poopdeville]

Except that the law explicitly does not work how you seem to think it does.

If you do something in public, you have no right to privacy with regards to that act.

You only have the right to privacy where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasonable expectation bit is the relevant one here, since "reasonable" changes over time.

You will also note that the "intellectual property" you seem to be conflating here doesn't even exist as a licensable type of property. Are your personal details copyrightable? Nope. Patentable? Nope. A trademark? Perhaps, but it's not exactly private. Trade secrets? Plausibly, but trade secrets don't get any protection from law.

Re:Logic fail

[girlintraining]

I'll assume you have a better argument which doesn't build upon so much shifting semantical sand, but were rushed and didn't have a chance to elaborate fully?

Sorry, I got nothin'. Running these websites isn't free, and once they get big and popular (which increases their usefulness), some company swoops in and turns it into a profit center. In the process, anything that doesn't have a value (your privacy, artistic merit, etc.) is destroyed. This model epitomizes the history of the internet at both the micro and macro level -- all this wonderful diversity and innovation eventually reduces to profit-oriented behavior. The thing that gives the internet its strength -- lack of a central governing authority, is also its biggest weakness because it results in lowest-common denominator value systems becoming the dominant force.

There isn't really an ethical mandate to prevent this behavior, and certainly not a legal one. It's hard to argue for privacy rights because it is a complex issue; It is difficult to come up with simple arguments, and evoke an emotional response from people. As a result, while everyone agrees privacy rights should exist, nobody can define them or present a unified front in advocating them -- what little effort is directed towards the problem is entirely and swiftly dissipated by economic considerations.

I have no easy answers -- I just have a strong feeling that this behavior should be opposed. That feeling is based on my life experience that unbridled economic exploitation results in the destruction of public resources. In this case, the internet is the public resource.

Re:Logic fail

[girlintraining]

What expectation of privacy does one reasonably have for information they have shared publicly?

That question is improperly phrased -- of course, nobody would have an expectation of privacy when the information was intentionally and willfully shared with the world. It's like setting 0644 permissions: Anyone with access can see it. The problem is, a lot of people seem to think that what's 0640 is really 0644, to frame it in a way slashdot readers can understand.

When I post something on Facebook as an average user, my expectation is that the information posted there is only visible to people I have approved as a friend. In this regard, the information is private: Only those people should be able to see what I post, my pictures, etc. The only thing most people want available to the world at large is their name, picture, and e-mail so other people they may have known can find them. Unfortunately, much more than that is usually available -- and sometimes the re-release of that information isn't even within their control. The company can also access that information, aggregate it, and re-sell it to a third party. People don't expect that, but it's right there in the fine print of they care to look.

In an age where everything you install pops up several warning boxes, license agreements, etc., there's a real loss of impact. So you either have users afraid to do anything with their computers out of fear of breaking it, or users who disregard all warnings because there's so many and they've tuned it out. Privacy notices and the like are the same way.

It's like driving without your seatbelt -- you can do it for years and years and never think anything of it... Until the moment before impact when you realize how stupid it was to have ignored it up until now. Privacy is like this too -- nobody pays attention until something surfaces that has a real, tangible impact on their lives. Like being outed to your family because your netflix queue data was shared in some contest and was insufficiently anonymized. Or an employer asking about those photos some guy posted of you at that party where everyone else was drinking. Nobody, security expert or joe average, sees these kinds of things happen until they hit you right in the face. By then, it's too late. But what's the alternative? Exclude yourself from society -- live under a rock? Never post anything online, never buy anything online, just passively watch it like TV behind layers of anonymization proxies?

The problem is that people's "reasonable expectation" is that they won't be hurt -- and that they're in control. Neither of those things are true. What would you have them do? Live under a rock... or twist in the wind, hopeful that the next privacy catastrophe happens to somebody else, hiding behind statistical probabilities?

Re:Logic fail

[selven]

1) The law leans toward physical property infringement and intellectual property infringement being equivalent? Really?

2) The point of IP law is to encourage people to release works to the public. Using IP to protect information you never intend to release is a corruption of that purpose and IP should most definitely not be used that way.

Ha! You leave me out of this.

[ScrewMaster]

. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American

That's probably true, but I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet. Mainly that's because, as an adult, I have an awareness of consequence (having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity.) Nevertheless, that Facebook/MySpace phenomenon is largely an expression of childlike behavior on the part of many of those users. Eventually, they'll grow up and wonder "what the Hell was I thinking?!". Or maybe they won't: some people are just stupid after all.

Isn't it contextual?

[RightSaidFred99]

I think it's obviously true that if you post online _you_ have no reasonable expectation for privacy concerning what you post online. But even if I post my most lurid secrets online but I intentionally keep other data protected on my machine, I implicitly have a reasonable expectation that that _other_ data is secret.

His line of reasoning reminds me of claiming that a rape victim who is promiscuous in her personal life therefore wasn't "raped" because she "wanted it". She can screw every Tom, Dick, and Harry around the block but if she tells Duane "no" and he rapes her it's still rape in every sense of the word.

A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't mean certain types of information are deemed to be not worthy of privacy protection because everyone else releases the data, it means that by the situations I put myself in and the actions I take can I expect MY data to be private.

Re:Good Morning.

[naeone]

Fuck Myspace. Fuck Facebook. Fuck Twitter. And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.

this the most reasoned argument I have EVER heard.

Re:Good Morning.

[Kral_Blbec]

I've always wondered why that is considered both a grave insult and goal of the highest order. To many it is even their life ambition.

That being considered, I don't think it is so much an insult as it is well-wishes, somewhat like "good luck" or "have a nice day".

Don't see what the big deal is

[ModernGeek]

The things I post on facebook are things I would show to any stranger. I think of facebook as a PR tool, when I post to it, I imagine showing everybody in the world. I would never use it to share anything "secret". If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see, I wouldn't use facebook to share them. How hard can this be?

Apples and ornages

[DerekLyons]

This really has nothing to do with 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'. That principle applies to things you intend to do privately that you wish to keep hidden from a second or third party, not to things you do publicly.
 
If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Period. If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.

Re:Apples and ornages

[phantomfive]

I think the distinction they are getting at here is somewhat more subtle than the distinction between facebook at peeping toms. No one is arguing that because facebook exists now you can look in people's windows.

A crucial point here is that this is in England, which has an entirely different set of priorities than America, I think some people don't realize it. This is why they call it 'American Behavior.' In America, we tend to favor things like freedom, truth, and independence, whereas in England they tend to favor propriety, respect, and order. I am not trying to say either system is better, but each side has made laws that reflect their ideals.

Thus in England laws are arranged so the truth is no defense against slander, and in America individual freedom is so valued that gun rights are protected, with often deadly results. This has been an arrangement England has been happy with for many years, but with the closer international integration being felt everywhere, England is having to confront the changes in society that come along with that.

Reversal of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

[WebManWalking]

In the 1960s, police tapped a pay phone in New York City because a suspect was apparently using it for criminal activity. At trial, the prosecution argued that he was in public, so therefore constitutional privacy protections didn't apply, and they didn't need a warrant for the wiretap. But the wiretap evidence was thrown out by the US Supreme Court, on the grounds that, although he was in public, he had a reasonable expectation that the conversation was private. In other words, the criterion of "reasonable expectation of privacy" was used by the court to extend privacy protections into the public realm, not to contract them.

This was apparently treated by the Executive Branch as a loophole, that if they could give the public no expectation of privacy whatsoever, they could wiretap without warrant at will.

Just a little history...

Re:Good Morning.

[Antiocheian]

Translation of Translation:

"I have no real friends so I am relying on Facebook to cover the deficit."

Re:Good Morning.

[thetoadwarrior]

To be fair people shared all sorts of aspects of their life. The only difference now is places like Facebook (not myspace) add some visually appealing consistency rather than people going nuts on some Tripod/GeoCities WYSIWYG editor to create something awful.

Those products are only a by-product of the attention seekers. If we could put an end to this idea that you can be famous just for being famous (big thanks to reality TV for that) then perhaps we'd have less people doing anything for attention.

Don't get me wrong. I do think anyone should be able to voice their opinion and post what they want rather than everything being filtered through corporations but I think people would be more reasonable if there wasn't a slight chance (and really it is only a slight chance) of fame for doing something retarded.

Re:Good Morning.

[thetoadwarrior]

We need to add the mod option "creepy".

Re:Good Morning.

[digitig]

All predicted (or observe?) in Ben Elton's "Blind Faith", of course. "Only perverts do things in private."

about you, but not --by-- you

[Onymous Coward]

... I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.

I think the point is not what you reveal, but what is revealed about you.

If the norm is everyone posts private details about their lives which includes their private interactions with you... Then your reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't include your puking Friday night. Maybe not even what happened with that person on your friend's couch at 3 AM. What becomes public about your life is not only what you report, but what others report about you.

If at some time law (specifically interpretation, but maybe also legislation) starts obviously including the ramifications of our increasingly visible intimate lives, there might be some backlash. I'm having a hard time seeing the particular form such a law or interpretation would take. Maybe something like a precedent that it's okay for employers to use services that link together all references to you from friends' social site posts... ::shrug::

The point is that what is considered "private" is changing because all your friends are posting your and their lives publicly. It's not about what you post. If you want a non-public life, you'll have to spend time only with people who won't post your life.

I might recommend more "me" time. Perhaps alone in the basement. If you want social interaction, online chatting is good. But use a pseudonym. And maybe Tor. And you should probably make up a different identity or two that's hard to link with the real you. Like you're a 15-year-old female elf or something.

Re:Good Morning.

[BlackSabbath]

And it's less than 140 characters.

Just saying...

Re:Good Morning.

[ascari]

have a nice day

Let's establish some ground rules: I'll have any kind of day I want, ok?

Privacy is a myth

[nortonmansfield]

In small communities, there is no privacy. Privacy emerged with the advent of large cities, at the price of Marxian alienation. As we move toward the hive mind, mankind is rediscovering a need to connect that only seems frightening because it follows a quarter century of one way mass media. Our present society is technically advanced, but culturally naive.

Re:A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em...

[cayenne8]

Take a look into becoming a S Corporation...that way is a great way to go, especially as a one person corporation.

You avoid the double taxation or a normal corp.....income falls through to personal tax after all write-offs.

Nice thing too..you can save tax money from SS and medicare. You pay yourself a reasonable salary according to IRS definitions...and you only have to pay SS and medicare on that portion of your income. Example, you bring in $100K billed in. You pay yourself $40K salary....you only pay SS and medicare on that $40K. The remaining $60K...you just pay state and federal taxes on. Of course you write off purchases, mileage, etc...from that $60K before it falls through on your personal taxes...so, it is less than that..etc.

Definitely worth looking into, especially if you are a contractor...hey, it is about the only way to keep your hard earned money from U. Sam these days, and I gotta think that SS and medicare taxation is gonna skyrocket soon if congress has its way.....