Some have suggested that total transparency is a good thing. But that would also say that revealing your weaknesses to people that would hurt you is a good thing. We have all made mistakes, and they tend to be used against us.

Case in point, any of the above: Your business failed, you were ill, you got a divorce, your company laid you off in lean times, you were financially taken advantage of. You know what all these things do? Make it harder to get a job because your employer can now look at your credit rating. Therefore, it actually worsens the small mistake you made in the first place.

Also, lets suppose you contracted a serious disease during a forced lapse in health insurance. In order to have any medical care you need a job, except that that lack of health insurance crushed your finances, so you can't get a professional level job. And even if you became gainfully self-employed you have a "preexisting condition".

Most successful people have had failures--in fact more failures than unsuccessful people--and if every one of their failures had been transparent it could keep them from pursuing their dreams, much less gainful, productive service.

To answer your questions: Privacy is voluntarily and involuntarily going to the wayside. We will both have to be more forgiving and more careful, and we will have to continually make laws to smooth the ride. Look how long congress takes to change any laws. Younger people seem to be more open to this shift.

Were we heading along this line all along? Probably. We are probably headed to a group mind of sorts, and a world we have only imagined. Probably one of the most important social issues of this time is to imagine these challenges before they happen so we aren't surprised by them.

Information is power, and those in power will want information on us without us having information on them. I guess more and more we will be asking for forgiveness and understanding, and promptly addressing our mistakes. The Bush administration is one example. Hide from us, get our information to "protect us", or rather their power. This subject is worthy of books and think-tanks. 1984 is already here, but I don't have any more time to discuss this, the latest info on Paris Hilton is on the news and I think her dog has a new collar...

posted June 10, 2008

My *personal* thoughts...:

-- Were we heading down this road all along? --

More and more information is being digitized, categorized, and archived. More and more computational power is available to process this information. Extracting meaningful statistical relationships is possible - not just for the basic marketing guy, but even in ways that can financially reward you back. For example, consider the safeway card program, which gives you discounts as your go through the checkout line if you are willing to give them a phone number. Presumably this information is used to help them better stock their shelves and make sure they are carrying the right products. Safeway would be at a disadvantage to their competitors without this information, and this is only the surface. The same goes for the bank which wants to do a credit check, or the employer who wants to validate you are eligible to work. These types of services are clearly demanded by our society and there is clear value to both sides.

Many of your quotes seem to be focused around the government. While I beileve many people are distrustful of the government and it's probable intentions with TIA type systems, I personally believe they could be used as indicators of where to look for *real world* evidence. I believe that systems like this are just as useful a tool as when a tipster calls in and says something about a particular crime. It is a lead, it is worth investigating. I personally don't believe the "government is out to get everyone", but it seems to be a frequently recurring theme. The fact is that many of the local law enforcement agencies don't even talk to each other and are therefore at a severe disadvantage to the criminals when it comes to tracking them down. Seeing as though you appear in be in Canada, which has stricter privacy laws than the US does, I'm not sure how much this would actually affect you in particular; It's probable that based on your google searches and activity, they probably know you more well than the government does.

-- What is the state of privacy today? --

It's getting better. People are being given more visibility into the types of facts about them in circulation, as well as systems for enhancing (or correcting) these data. People are beginning to realize that information about them is not "their information", but rather factual bits of information "about them". The ability to protect oneself and their family is improving.

-- With the rise of social networks have we redefined privacy? -- How does age factor into it? --

Social Networks offer a weird twist to the cries of the "make everything private" advocate. In particular, there are enormous numbers of peopel providing all sorts of information about themselves to the world at large. We've all heard of the chap who lost the interview because of what he had on his favorite interview etc. The more interesting things will start coming up with peopel who allege false things on social networking sites to try and build up some sort of credibility, when in fact there is some fraudster behind it all. For example, consider the sexual predator posing as some righteous fellow wanting to meet young children for illicit reasons. Or consider the person on a dating site with various claims on their marriage status or financial position. Clearly there is a need and a tremendous value associated with the ability to validate claims made by pseudo-anonymous people.

-- What are the key issues and consequences? --

Privacy is one of those things where once it's been giving up, it can be hard if not impossible to reclaim. How much control should an individual be able to exert? What about corporations? The government? Are there certain fields where people are more open vs. private (for example, most people are interested to know there are no sex offenders living near them, vs. financial, or even medical records)?

Links:

• http://www.eff.org
• http://www.epic.org

posted June 10, 2008

When everyone lives in a glass house, who will be first to throw stones?

Growing up in a small community in a rural area, I can tell you unequivocally that a lack of privacy is not a new thing. Everyone knows everyone else and all their personal business.

Technology's just making the world a kind of "global village". Sure, that gives you access to information, experts and the ability to network with people at a distance to solve problems and take advantage of new opportunities. It also means that you're putting yourself out there for the world to see, warts and all; otherwise you'd be a virtual hermit.

Can individuals or government misuse this information? Like the village gossip that likes to go around sticking their nose into everyone's business and causing trauma or the small town sheriff who keeps an eye on a kid because he doesn't like the way he talks or walks, sure they can.

posted June 11, 2008

Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively. The boundaries and content of what is considered private differ among cultures and individuals, but share basic common themes. Privacy is sometimes related to anonymity, the wish to remain unnoticed or unidentified in the public realm. When something is private to a person, it usually means there is something within them that is considered inherently special or personally sensitive. The degree to which private information is exposed therefore depends on how the public will receive this information, which differs between places and over time. Privacy can be seen as an aspect of security — one in which trade-offs between the interests of one group and another can become particularly clear.

The right against unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions. Almost all countries have laws which in some way limit privacy; an example of this would be law concerning taxation, which normally require the sharing of information about personal income or earnings. In some countries individual privacy may conflict with freedom of speech laws and some laws may require public disclosure of information which would be considered private in other countries and cultures.

Privacy may be voluntarily sacrificed, normally in exchange for perceived benefits and very often with specific dangers and losses, although this is a very strategic view of human relationships. Academics who are economists, evolutionary theorists, and research psychologists describe revealing privacy as a 'voluntary sacrifice', where sweepstakes or competitions are involved. In the business world, a person may give personal details (often for advertising purposes) in order to enter a gamble of winning a prize. Information which is voluntarily shared and is later stolen or misused can lead to identity theft.

Data privacy refers to the evolving relationship between technology and the legal right to, or public expectation of privacy in the collection and sharing of data about ones self. Privacy concerns exist wherever uniquely identifiable data relating to a person or persons are collected and stored, in digital form or otherwise. In some cases these concerns refer to how data is collected, stored, and associated. In other cases the issue is who is given access to information. Other issues includes whether an individual has any ownership rights to data about them, and/or the right to view, verify, and challenge that information.

Internet privacy is the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over the Internet, and to control who can access that information. These concerns include whether email can be stored or read by third parties without consent, or whether third parties can track the web sites someone has visited. Another concern is whether web sites which are visited collect, store, and possibly share personally identifiable information about users.

The state of privacy today?
Biometrics Technologies
Video Surveillance
Online Privacy and E-commerce
Workplace Monitoring
Wireless Communications and Location Tracking
Data Profiling
Criminal Identity Theft
Background Checks
Information Broker Industry
Public Records on the Internet
Financial Privacy
Medical Records Confidentiality and Genetic Privacy
Wiretapping and Electronic Communications
Youth Privacy Issues
Digital Rights Management
Digital Television and Broadband Cable TV
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Real ID
Absence of Federal-Level Privacy Protection Law
Behavioral Targeting

Links:

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/

posted June 11, 2008

Privacy, with regards to social behavior, will need to be redefined, as it will soon be offered as a packaged deal with some other offering. The New Economy will soon be offering privacy as it's newest commodity.

Transparency isn't the issue, authenticity; is.

Links:

• http://uniqueepitome.blogspot.com/2008/05/im-watching-you-watch-me-watch-yo...

posted June 11, 2008

IT has eroded privacy, as directed by the market mechanism. At the same time there is evidence of market failure via piecemeal legislation popping up in the US around privacy. In the EU there has been legislation not because of market failure arguments (although privacy rights can be argued with some conviction to be property rights under some legal frameworks) but because of rights attached to individuals by nature of their personhood - they're inalienable. These protections are not going away, they're only going to become stronger in a personal data intensive future. Peoples attitudes to all of this vary tremendously based upon socio-economic-demographic-cultural factors. Read more about this stuff in my quarterly privacy bulletin - you can subscribe for free at: www.kpmg.com/privacyinstitute

posted June 12, 2008

Since social networks are a global phenomenon and privacy is a very subjective and, usually, local phenomenon, a more useful question to ask could be "What is Privacy and how can social networks affect privacy positively or negatively?" The first link referred by this answer is a good resource for gaining such an understanding. The perceived struggle between personal preferences and social conformances may be the root cause for the need for privacy. And such a struggle may be as old as human societies.

Privacy is an individual choice. A system that accommodates a wide array of individual preferences while still providing the service that the system is meant to provide may be the best privacy-sympathetic system. Since it is an individual choice, privacy is also an individual's responsibility.

Compulsory participation in social networks would be breach of privacy. Voluntary participation is a first step towards building a privacy-sympathetic systems. Privacy-sympathetic systems are by design and not otherwise. The following parameters are required for consciously designing privacy-sympathetic systems. There may be more.
1) Increased number of mandatory fields for participation in a social network would result in less privacy-sympathetic systems.
2) Increased control on personal (or individual) data would result in more privacy-sympathetic systems. This is where information security measures are useful.

Finally, the right to relinquish privacy by an individual is an aspect of behavioral privacy. At the same time, the right to be in total isolation is also an aspect of behavioral privacy. The best privacy-sympathetic system would be one that recognizes such basic rights of people. Compulsory participation or isolation would be detrimental to privacy.

Links:

• http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=15723
• https://www.prime-project.eu/

posted June 17, 2008

What is the state of privacy today?

Well it's not that great - too many tracks and traces that can be data-mined to create profiles and interfere in our private lives.

Security of this data has to come under question - it just comes down to the use that the party with access to the data has in mind for what is gathered.

With the rise of social networks have we redefined privacy?
Little effect in light of other methods of data gathering and mining. Although posting - such as this one adds to the mass of data for analysis.

How does age factor into it?
My children do not seem to value privacy... neither do their friends.. everything is there to be shared. It seems to be a sort of broadcast version of the self-centredness of youth. "Nobody understands me... let me tell you how things are.."
I can only assume this is going to grow.

Were we heading down this road all along?
The sorry thing about it is that the privacy has been voluntarily given away.

We sold it.

A few points to collect for "rewards" that are priced into our purchases has led us to give away all of our private information to all and sundry. The "loyalty schemes" have meant that we've basically allowed ourselves to be profiled, and these profiles to be sold to the highest bidder. How can we expect anything to be different.

What are the key issues and consequences?
Tongue "firmly-in-cheek" I can only suggest that you look at the Ben Elton book "Blind Faith" as that is where we seem to be headed..

posted June 18, 2008

If you've to care about security you have to neglect privacy.
As Romans said "ubi maior minor cessat".

posted June 11, 2008

some of the issue has been confusing authentication and identification.

in most situations where to verify that an entity is allowed to do something, it is possible to implement authentication (that doesn't require divulging personal information). however, because of the frequent confusion about the difference between authentication and identification ... there is a fall-back to requiring identification (rather than authentication) ... which involves divulging some level of personal information.

posted June 12, 2008

Privacy becomes what you define it as. Is your privacy hiding a criminal past or current activity of another felonious nature? When does privacy manipulate our behaviour? What we did not talk about ten or even twenty years ago is now part of some blog or web space. When do parts of our own timeline become of public knowledge? Big brother wants to know, but I have some belief in the ritual of our own protection from each other for without would be chaos. The very foundation of government anywhere establishes an organized set of rules. It is the people who set forth these rules in effort to be a better group overall have established the guidlines of privacy and set forth the guidlines of human endurance and freedom.

Ed

posted June 17, 2008

The meaning of privacy depends on how we evaluate it. If you can get more information about someone than he can get from you, then there's a problem of privacy: information is unbalanced. But nowadays everyone can know about everyone. In 1950, a curriculum was considered a private thing. In 2050 thoughts will be considered a private thing. In 2500 privacy would be a "strange" word hard to be explained by teachers at school... because if everything is public, privacy loses it's sense. The "problem" of privacy, exists when someone has more knowledge than others. This false sense of information insecurity has been there with humans and specially every time there has been a big innovation in the communications field: tam tam, smoke, telegraph, phone, radio, TV, Internet... The "Orwel" nightmare is thinking about a "Big Brother". There's not a unique "Big Brother". Every people with a decent IQ can go deep into the life of everyone. You can see the pictures of my family in Facebook but I can see your profile in Monster... and slowly personal information loses its "privacy value" and privacy word redefines itself, again, and again.

posted June 17, 2008

I don't like the loss of privacy, and I especially object to large corporations and the government doing it. The power disparity is too great.

Why is it Federal employees can rightfully demand all kinds of information about me, but as their theoretical boss (I pay their salaries), they can refuse to tell me what they know about which restaurants served salmonella-tainted tomatoes?

posted June 19, 2008