Transparent Privacy and the Anonymity Shuffle
Posted on
Thursday, January 18, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
I am an advocate of personal privacy. When I hear of things like warrantless wiretapping by the NSA in the name of national security, or the institution of a national ID system, or the use of RFID chips to track people's locations, I get defensive. While the types of information these searches would reveal would be mundane and uninteresting for the majority of citizens, they still feel like an invasion, a Soviet-style "Papers, please!" intrusion upon my personal freedoms. But in the same thought, I am cognizant of the dangers of rampant anonymity. After all, I've seen what demons the shroud of disguise can conjure forth in otherwise sane, rational people in MMOG communities. Something about the victim of irritating behavior not being able to choke the living shit out of the irritant personality brings out the inner asshole in more people than I would have imagined. Torn, I ponder the concept of the removal of my privacy for the protection of my person and society.
If there was a manner to keep track of all citizens' movements, plotting their daily activities either by scanning an RFID-enabled ID at their destinations or tracking such a device with GPS, would that be a good thing? In a murder investigation, having a log of where someone has been at all times would remove the need for alibis from the innocent, and shatter alibis for the guilty. Wouldn't that be a good thing, a slip of the blindfold for Lady Justice? Never mind the idea that such a thing would only be effective were the chip actually placed in someone's body and thus unable to be left behind when dirty deeds need doing. Divorce cases involving infidelity could be simplified, with less he said-she said and more stammering explanations of the need to stay in a seedy motel for two hours. What would trading those anonymous motions hurt the innocent?
Nothing. And yet...
There is a flaw in the concept, a fly in the ointment of such a plan, something beyond even the technical, technological or societal hurdles that would have to be overcome to make such a device workable. The device itself removes the innocent until proven guilty paradigm for one which requires the citizen to prove his innocence by having his movements tracked. But even that isn't the most aggravating part of this kind of concept.
No, the real stumbling block for this kind of transparent privacy comes from the people who would advocate such a thing. These people, the authoritarians among law enforcement, the intelligence community, or the political establishment would never want to submit to such scrutiny themselves. To turn a phrase, the watchmen would not allow watchers or at least not watchers who were not themselves watchmen. Intelligence operatives under deep cover could not allow themselves to be watched for fear of their cover being blown and the politicians who send them to do dirty deeds might not want their deeds aired, whether those deeds were for the good of the country or illegal acts like Iran-Contra. Politicians such as President's Nixon have hyperventilated over such surveillance as even having their recorded phone conversations available to Congress. How then would President Bush, Jr. act were his daily movements observed by any but his Secret Service detail? Would he be so quick to deny having met Jack Abramoff if the convicted influence-peddler's presence at the White House could be confirmed to the exact time? Would President Clinton have wanted hard proof of his being alone in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky?
And therein lies the Achilles Heel of such a program. The Watchmen can't be watched, but are more than happy to make sure YOU are watched as much and as often as they like. Anonymity is power, the power to act however you like without fear of reprisal. And such a system would only work with total transparency, from top to bottom and left to right. Perhaps those in our current administration who insist upon total freedom to observe any citizen they wish without warrants or accountability wouldn't mind if such a thing were done to them by any random citizen. But I do not believe such reciprocity would be forthcoming. And if even one can go unnoticed in such a system, all are in danger except those invisible few with the power of secrecy.
If there was a manner to keep track of all citizens' movements, plotting their daily activities either by scanning an RFID-enabled ID at their destinations or tracking such a device with GPS, would that be a good thing? In a murder investigation, having a log of where someone has been at all times would remove the need for alibis from the innocent, and shatter alibis for the guilty. Wouldn't that be a good thing, a slip of the blindfold for Lady Justice? Never mind the idea that such a thing would only be effective were the chip actually placed in someone's body and thus unable to be left behind when dirty deeds need doing. Divorce cases involving infidelity could be simplified, with less he said-she said and more stammering explanations of the need to stay in a seedy motel for two hours. What would trading those anonymous motions hurt the innocent?
Nothing. And yet...
There is a flaw in the concept, a fly in the ointment of such a plan, something beyond even the technical, technological or societal hurdles that would have to be overcome to make such a device workable. The device itself removes the innocent until proven guilty paradigm for one which requires the citizen to prove his innocence by having his movements tracked. But even that isn't the most aggravating part of this kind of concept.
No, the real stumbling block for this kind of transparent privacy comes from the people who would advocate such a thing. These people, the authoritarians among law enforcement, the intelligence community, or the political establishment would never want to submit to such scrutiny themselves. To turn a phrase, the watchmen would not allow watchers or at least not watchers who were not themselves watchmen. Intelligence operatives under deep cover could not allow themselves to be watched for fear of their cover being blown and the politicians who send them to do dirty deeds might not want their deeds aired, whether those deeds were for the good of the country or illegal acts like Iran-Contra. Politicians such as President's Nixon have hyperventilated over such surveillance as even having their recorded phone conversations available to Congress. How then would President Bush, Jr. act were his daily movements observed by any but his Secret Service detail? Would he be so quick to deny having met Jack Abramoff if the convicted influence-peddler's presence at the White House could be confirmed to the exact time? Would President Clinton have wanted hard proof of his being alone in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky?
And therein lies the Achilles Heel of such a program. The Watchmen can't be watched, but are more than happy to make sure YOU are watched as much and as often as they like. Anonymity is power, the power to act however you like without fear of reprisal. And such a system would only work with total transparency, from top to bottom and left to right. Perhaps those in our current administration who insist upon total freedom to observe any citizen they wish without warrants or accountability wouldn't mind if such a thing were done to them by any random citizen. But I do not believe such reciprocity would be forthcoming. And if even one can go unnoticed in such a system, all are in danger except those invisible few with the power of secrecy.
Labels: Politics
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:09 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
| 
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home