Does protecting privacy equal protecting freedom?
This certainly would be an interesting way to define what freedom is for the average American. Or put another way, does a reduction in privacy reduce the level of freedom an individual enjoys?
Let's start with what is (or should be) private:
1) Personal information (phone numbers, SSN, marriages, income, house $$)
2) Medical information (present/past illnesses, prescriptions)
3) Personal activities
- Gun ownership
- Church attendance
- Diet/beverage consumption
- Consumer purchases
- Phone calls
- Social activities, clubs/hobbies
Perhaps one of the biggest threats to privacy is the fact that access to private information makes money for someone. The more private information a data mining company can collect, the more money they can make.
The impact of reduced privacy seems to be dependent on who uses the information and for what purpose.
* Does a pharmaceutical company track your med usage to forecast production volume and sales; or can your employer or prospective employer buy a list from some data miner to see what health issues you may have?
* Does a gun manufacturer track your ammunition purchases to offer you discounts to retain you as a customer; or can the police obtain this information to see who has a stock-pile of ammunition?
* Does the grocery store track your purchases to forecast brand preference; or can your health insurance company buy your grocery list to see if you need to be charged a higher premium because of your diet?
* Does your internet service provider track website traffic to optimize network performance; or can a political operative purchase your surfing history to distort your views?
* Does the GPS in your cell phone allow parents to check-up on their children; or allow your car insurance company to know how fast you are driving?
* Does that discount card at the drug store earn you coupons; or does it send your contraception choices to your church leaders?
From recent press reports on government snooping, the goal seems to be to collect as much private information as they can get away with to keep an eye on `terrorists'. But the reality is that in some cases they need to collect information on everyone to be able to pick out the `terrorists'.
The Bush Administration proclaims to be protecting our freedom on one hand, while eroding privacy on the other. But they are actually eroding both and interested in protecting neither. They are interested in furthering their agenda and minimizing the political damage that would result from another terrorist attack. This is further evidenced by all of the things they are not doing to prevent another attack.
This leads to another question for another time: what/who ARE they protecting?
Of course, contrast this with the workings of the Executive Branch: information seems to be on a need-to-know basis, and clearly they don't think the American people need to know anything. Worse than that, they target individuals who try to tell the American people what we should know, but reward those to peddle false information and half-truths. It seems we do not need to be `in the loop' on things. More secrets means there is less explaining to do. In other words, public disclosure of their plans and actions would unnecessarily slow down what it is that they are trying to accomplish. They were elected, and that is all the oversight they need.
What a wonderful tool data mining could be for a power-hungry Executive or political party:
* Who talked to what reporter and was that conversation `authorized' (ie was it given the proper spin)?
* What political ad ideas for next month are the Democrats emailing around?
* What is the Democratic strategy for the upcoming judicial nominees? (Oops, I guess they already did that)
* What lobbyists visited the Democrats so they can be blacklisted for working with the enemy?
This is not the way it is supposed to work, nor can it be allowed to continue. Freedom demands following laws, not exempting one from them. Freedom requires accountability, not excuses. Freedom is based on a government for the people, not for the few to carry out personal agendas cloaked in secrecy. Government should serve the people to promote the general welfare, not feed the power hungry.
But in the Information Age, information is power. Restricting power means either restricting information, providing extensive checks and balances, or both.
The only way to really protect privacy and freedom is the independent oversight of government actions by the Judicial and Legislative branches. It is the only way to prevent abuses of power; the only way to ensure our privacy is maintained; the only way to preserve our freedoms. History has taught us this much.
Protecting your privacy does equal protecting your freedom, and you must demand that protection. You are the only thing that can prevent the more nefarious uses of your information.
Update [2006-6-15 13:25:39 by tln41]: It seems I was not too far off. According to a new [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402063.html Washington Post article]:
At the federal level, 52 government agencies had launched, or planned to begin, at least 199 data-mining projects as far back as 2004, according to a Government Accountability Office study. Most of the programs are used to improve services, such as detecting Medicare fraud and improving customer relations. But a growing number of agencies are exploring the technology to analyze intelligence and assist in the hunt for terrorists.
Companies keep an increasing amount of data about everyone -- tracking their buying, travel, bank transactions and bill-paying habits. Data mining uses mathematical formulas to look for patterns in those behaviors. The results could enable the grocery store to send out targeted coupons, or, in theory, help the government decide how likely it may be that someone is linked to terrorist groups.
...or certain political groups, social groups (gay/lesbian), did someone call Planned Parenthood?
Privacy does equal freedom. It seems the Government, under the Bush administration, is interested in protecting neither.