Each of us has a duty to both defend our own privacy and to act against these intrusions.
When a store asks for a 'loyalty' card, remember that the cheaper price you get is only on the cash, you pay again with your data, which will be sold to make up the difference.
When an employer asks for a SS number on a job application, state that it will be provided when hired.
When asked for an e-mail to get a price quote, use a dummy or a temporary one, and dump them as needed.
Some of these will require critical mass. Employers will protest. Even the NY Times protests.
If you use Ad blocking, data blocking, and tracking protection, be ready to pay more for the NY Times, and groceries, but you'll get something else for free: Privacy, dignity, and control over your own life. There's no such thing as "free shipping". There's no free lunch. Freedom isn't free, but it's the best deal out there.
12
Nice article. I feel the only people that feel "outraged" regarding privacy is the generation that grew up in the 70s and earlier. Today's kids are quite comfortable with data collection and rather complacent about how it could be used--this is the world they were born into--and for some it was digital from the get-go. Their opinions can be bought and companies need fewer salesforce to sell products--see the plethora of blogs that very poorly describe a product other than in glowing terms. (Sorry for the stereotype-there are exceptions I'm sure). Where does one go from here?
3
This phenomenon, the modern age of snooping on each other and selling the dirt gathered has made me ponder, "Why does white-collar crime exist when it is so easily traced? Are white-collar criminals really unusually clever or are they easily found by agents who suspect crimes are being funneled through computer communications?
The computer never forgets.
But, then, there exist nefarious characters who believe they have the tools to beat the system--to cover fraud, money-laundering, drug distribution, market manipulation, and all other activities that enrich themselves illegally. I want my government to notice and shut down these criminals.
Millions of us lead decent lives and are not fearful of others "knowing" about us; but I don't want my whereabouts and identity discovered by advertisers, bots, and street criminals.
Yes, I do welcome street and retail shop surveillance cameras. If I'm doing nothing wrong, I'm happy they protect us. It's the intrusion from advertisers that gets me. I open a merchant's website and am bombarded for three months by pics of items I perused and considered buying. I didn't buy on impulse, and I'm not going to buy later, either......hahahaha.......
Advertisers--- LOL Do they really think we notice the ads?
1
W-a-y back in the early 90s I had occasion to be in the square in Arcata, California, watching and listening to a gentleman pontificate while he sold mix tapes (cassettes) out of a cardboard box he had sitting on a TV tray (Google it) on the sidewalk.
Arbitrarily directing some of his spiel toward me, he said "Privacy? You don't have any privacy! You got a recent CA driver's license? Run that magnetic strip at the ATM at any bank and see what happens. The NSA knows where you live, man!"
I took him up on that, and was genuinely shocked, amazed, and dismayed to find that I could check my balance with my driver's license.
These days I gleefully join up, allow access to my bank account, and check the "remember my mother's maiden name" at every opportunity.
I guess they finally wore me down . . .
2
When we lose our privacy, we lose our autonomy. A life without autonomy isn't a life worth living.
Ever since I've been in the working world, I've seen how once data is collected, it absolutely, definitely will get used at some point. So the only way to keep your personal information from being used is to keep it off the computer forever. Very hard to do. Very worth it.
So basically, we have Congress to thank for the fact that rather than the logical and sensible assumption - in a country that prizes and reveres privacy and personal freedom - that if a technology company wants to share or sell your personal information they need to ask your permission...instead, they can just share and sell your information freely with no responsibility or recourse?
Just wanted to make sure I am clear. Seems like there was a point at which...we stopped using our heads.
As I like to say...money is the new God, and marketing is the new Jesus.
1
Thank you for a very enlightening historic perspective of privacy . We should note that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but it was found for the first time in the "penumbra" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in the Roe v. Wade case, one of a series of cases which included Griswold v. Connecticut and others in the 60's and 70's where the courts struggled to find such rights. The legislative branch has been somewhat more helpful as you correctly note, but we were at the time dealing with a different issue altogether and back then most of us could note really appreciate the power of computers and how these may be used for purposes which at the time had unforeseen consequences. Most of use who were born prior to the sixties could appreciate these issues more so than newer generations who have always had access to computers and who do not seem to have such appreciation for their privacy until such time as they are personally impacted and many have learned that then it is too late. That is why I have avoided entering the world of social media, and my accountant, who is older, does not even have his computes connected to the web.
Of course, even the idea that there is a right to privacy has been under debate for some time now. I have actually grown used to receiving letters from banks, brokerages, credit card companies, and even hospitals explicating "revisions to our (lack of) privacy policy," containing several pages of very small print, and ending with a series of boxes showing where they are liable to share data. One column of boxes is headed: "can you limit this sharing?" The next box mostly says "no." What you can tell them not to do is share your data with unaffiliated companies that are not paying a lot for it. I have also become used to hearing about massive breaches of databases from companies like Equifax and Mariott (to name just two) while at the same time seeing my credit cards routinely accepted everywhere with no security precautions.
I don't think this toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Our need for getting things done faster is at war with our desire for privacy. As long as faster keeps selling, I don't see any end insight. I expect someone will come up with a way of selling privacy, and make a fortune.
What differentiates corporate & NSA assess to our citizen's information. Both time & time again have disregarded legal and ethical standards without reprimand. While elected officials now shrill about other countries' disruption of our privacy and democratic process, the US has led the way even against our allies. And the corruption seems to be a norm protected by elected officials.
The big question at this point is, does the US have the capacity to be a democracy ruled by law.
1
Privacy is like armaments. Instead of making sure everybody gets some because others have some why not make sure nobody has any? Bring on the public panopticon, cameras everywhere and everybody can tune in to any of them.
I disagree with the Prof. In the 1960's, "privacy" meant birth control and Griswold v. Conn. We had no idea where the computer age was bringing us.
The ancient English torts of "misappropriation of image and likeness" and "trespass" were so fundamental that no one questioned them, tho in the young country called USA, the Constitution assigned them to the States ... not the Feds.
Lawmakers who rely on contributions and jobs in their districts have been selling out the country ever since, pretending that nonsense such as "a whole new information highway that brings people together" was not in fact a wholesale turnover of personal privacy to both business and to the government.
Every click you take
Every post you make
Every link you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
3
Google needs to be broken up. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
Google has the power to shut down our government, disrupt Commerce, crush the economy, mine are data for other purposes, and there is no other alternative.
the above is too much power for one company to have.
4
I'm sorry but Tech Giants are just not the threat that say ExxonMobile is. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. And if enough people make that choice it will go away. It's not integral to your life even if you're a business. It doesn't get you to work or pay your bills or put food on your table if you are a user.
All of this spinning over these useless things like Facebook and Twitter is just absurd. If we weren't so neurotic we wouldn't use either of them.
1
We have always been here to be used and abused by whoever makes money and connects to our elected officials beyond public view. The issues with privacy are simply a new data point in a trend that has been ever present and ongoing. However, I see the issues surrounding the internet and companies like facebook as being similarly related to data privacy as Trump is to the GOP. The obvious and egregious nature of the internet companies and Trump combined with their babyish mentality simply exposes both data miners in general and the GOP for the giant frauds that they are. It may not matter however, since the people of this country may be beyond redemption when it comes to living in reality. Sure, they have always been in some kind of cult, but now the tools of mind warping are far more effective given the new and powerful tools available to the manipulators.
I doubt there will be any real change. I suspect we will see much posturing and "indignation" but little action. One of the new techniques is to parade CEOs in front of congress, berate them, and then publish articles in papers and hold discussions on cable news talking about the scathing opinions expressed by our leaders, as if opinion were action. Any subsequent action is then token at best. The combination of the public flogging and weak legislation placate the masses but effectively allow the companies to continue abusing people for profit. It's SOP.
I support the GDPR and all regulatory efforts to limit privacy abuse. Specifically, we need a GDPR-like law addressed at the shady data brokers in the US who offer egregious services, like ones to enable customers to know everything about a person with just one or two data points -- e.g., name or email address.
But I am certain that regulatory actions alone will never suffice. We need a basic rewiring of the internet to put people in control of their personal data. Fortunately this is underway now, with the decentralized web and the Solid project, led by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the original World Wide Web.
Here's my take on it: "A better internet is coming. Here's how it will look."
https://medium.com/@arthurfontaine/a-better-internet-11de1f0577a2
I encourage the nytimes to continue historically instructive articles about social mores and values surrounding our choices as a nation .
We just can’t blame Congress alone in the matter.It is actually our blind belief in the alleged miracles of the new technology.The tech giant have only exploited that craze.Similar is the opioid menace that resulted from the pharmaceutical geniuses assuring us their painkillers are not addictive.
1
What was conspicuously left out of the last paragraph was: "The computer never forgets, even erroneous data."
Take heart, and have faith that, eventually, we'll have a Congress that works for the people, and not for the benefit of their corporate doors. Look at the history of the telephone and search warrants. Back in the 1920's and 30's, no one had any expectation that their phone conversations would be private- phones were rare, and conversations were shouted at the end of the bar or near the counter of the corner grocery store. Our Supreme Court held that there was no expectation of privacy in who was calling, where they were calling, or what was said. Then telephones became ubiquitous, and the telephone booth was invented, along with the party line. Then, our Court ruled that the contents of the conversation was private, requiring a warrant for government interception, but the location of the callers were a matter of public record. Now, with cell phones, cell phone towers, and Stryker abilities by law enforcement, the data on where calls are placed may now be a matter of privacy, too. Look to our Supreme Court to protect us from private corporations. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court can right a wrong only after it has occurred.
the Supremes can also do the opposite: look what they did to voting rights and the power of big money in politics.
I wholeheartedly endorse laws to protect privacy but is that even possible in this day and age? I would love to see a follow-up column on some practical laws that could be enacted and even more importantly, ways that these laws could be enforced.
1
Thank You, Ms. O'Mara, for this illuminating article about the de-evolution of privacy in America.
I agree when you say, "But industry and lawmakers need to take a hard look at the data that companies are allowed to collect in the first place."
WE THE PEOPLE must also demand that the information we decide to give to a business may only be used for that businesss - not their associates or the highest bidder.
Things have gotten so out-of-hand that it will take great courage for the lawmakers WE THE PEOPLE hire/elect to take the needed steps to protect our private information. I believe they are up to the task.
We enjoyed full privacy with landline telephones until a few years ago. There was even a do-not-call federal database one could sign up for. Of course, it excluded "political' use and use by companies one had done business with. Robo calls were outlawed for a time in Washington state. I guess those protections have fallen by the wayside as has much of our social safety net with Robber Barons getting laws changed to serve them.
It must stop and NOW is the time.
1
Thank you for this article. Who could have dreamed, that for the seductions of Amazon & pornography & cat videos, people would surrender their rights and freedoms to powers more totalitarian than Orwell's Big Brother? The rights and institutions that are under attack from technology & private interests are much broader than what most people now understand as "privacy," and we have done a poor job of thinking them through--perhaps because we're too distracted.
A couple of observations: when someone takes your words--or your clicks or your purchases or your forwards--and uses them for purposes you did not intend, they are being dishonest. When we create technologies that treat the whole of human communication & interaction as a resource for profiteering, we are also, inevitably, enabling manipulations that undermine the purposes of communication, as evidenced by our grotesque politics. None of this will be fixed by firing a few people or by hiring CEOs with better values. This can only be fixed by rethinking web technology and the laws that govern it.
1
Back in the 50’s my grandmother would tell me the end of privacy was Social Security where everyone was designated a number.
2
This is about as accurate, and as inaccurate, as saying privacy ended with Hollerith's adaptation of the powerloom's punch cards to make the growing nation's census possible in the 1800s.
Most computers of the 1960s were either very very expensive behemoths carrying current-dollar prices of trillions, just for a lease, or almost powerless mini-computers that, as of 1965, could even sit on your desktop, if your desk could support 300 lbs and was large enough to hold a DEC PDP-8 and a Teletype, a beautiful invention, but really not suitable for the work done by Univac and IBM mainframs.
Nobody considered unloosed unscrupulous capitalists, Googles and Facebooks, would steal and market data.
In the 1960s, integrated circuits held 2 transistors, not billions. It was long before Moore predicted the exponential growth of computer power; a "network" consisted of moving data over the best, phone lines at less than a millionth the speed of today's fiber optics. The idea of on-line files of terawords of data was inconceivable.
In the 1970s, author John Brunner was predicting the government's control of our records and its horrible results.
Only Science Fiction his critics said, dismissing his dystopias.
Changes in 1960s laws were made by men who had no idea what a roomful of linked computers would eventually be able to do.
They opened the door for later law, but figured they had no "possible effect" on our lives-there could be no amoral Capitalists at Facebook or Google selling them.
This article mentions that the government's gathering of information was checked by Congress.
It does not then discuss that they're baaack. Congress was lied to about illegal government spying and data collection on Americans. When caught in the lies, Congress accepted the excuse that, "We had to lie to you." And then let it go right on happening, despite being illegal.
The article mentions abuse of "J. Edgar Hoover’s use of his electronic arsenal." It does not mention that is happening again, and that the FBI and those who lied to cover up are all heroes today as part of the Resistance to the Other party; that partisan alignment excuses all.
Private data collection is not even really private. They've got deals with the government now, ours and China's, and no doubt others.
This article's legitimate concerns barely touch on the larger questions. We are in so much trouble.
8
Prior to 1980 it was technically difficult and incredibly expensive to "combine databases". IBM had IMS, and Univac had CODASYL, both hierarchical database structures; which are virtually impossible (financially, unless you are the Federal government) to combine.
Then in 1970, E. F. Codd, a mathematician working for IBM, invented the SQL query language and the RDBMS (relational database management system) data structure. His main goal was to make data structures in a DBMS easily changeable but within a few years of deployment IT saw the possibility of
easily and cheaply merging different RDMS databases.
The big internet companies we all know and hate are built on top of RDBMS, and the data broker companies like Axciom, also. The "takeoff point" of commercial RDBMS dates to about 1984. Ironically.
6
Hand-in-hand with privacy of data is privacy of action and a corollary issue that should be addressed is surveillance and where the results of all of that end up. The late actor Patrick McGoohan did a cautionary and somewhat prescient TV series in the 1960's called "The Prisoner." Surveillance and lack of privacy are taken to extremes in an environment designed to extract social compliance and information from individuals deemed necessary by whatever powers are running "The Village" where most of the action takes place.
It is the perennial struggle of the individual to be individual, rather than just a number in a computer or any database system. Yes, the F/X are period, the computer in your cell phone is probably more powerful than those shown in the series, but the ideas McGoohan explored are still very much with us, as this opinion piece attests. Be seeing you.
1
Very interesting history. Thanks for the perspective. As for your final paragraph, of course we need to carefully construct laws that protect us from the corporations that are vacuuming up our data, but that does not preclude beating up on the companies that are abusing the current system. Looking at you, Mark.
2
A very interesting article. In fact, the civil liberties organizations have also been asleep at the wheel. In recent times, Congress has been more concerned about retaining power than actually doing anything useful, but that may change. In fact, after Snowden, we know both government and private industry have been collecting massive amounts of private information about citizens. We need government to protect our privacy from industry.
3
We have to have a new concept of privacy. The new threat isn't so much invasion of our personal privacy, as with wire taps and informers. The new big data manipulation is more impersonal, more sociological. And yet the results meet the individual, when you encounter one political ad targeted to your personal history, and your neighbors all see different ads, all narrowly targeted to their anxieties and aspirations, determined by their purchasing and search histories. None of it involves a person knowing anything about you, it's all algorithms. it's not the privacy of who we meet for drinks after work to talk about politics, it's the privacy of our age and what kind of cereal we buy and where we go on our vacations -- things we might not have felt defensive about, but which turn out to reveal more than we thought.
1
Unless we hold our politicians accountable for failing to pass a universal privacy law, the collection and sharing of unwarranted surveillance data will likely continue.
1
The US could learn a lot from European privacy laws. It's past time we actually do so.
7
There is something very basic about the need for privacy and the way it is related to survival. For example, animals in the forest do not want every other animal to know their location...that would be a recipe for being eaten.
For the Human animal, privacy issues become extremely complex. In certain places and times knowing a persons sexual orientation or political views could lead to loss of job, imprisonment or death. Also, corporations can take unfair advantage of customers when they know everything about you.
Personal data is valuable, when you are forced to hand it over in order to make routine purchases...It then becomes theft!
For so many reasons personal data should only be given to entities that you can completely trust, like family or close friends.
Modern corporations certainly can not be trusted.
1
Thanks Dr. O. What hasn't changed is the Fourth Amendment. What does change, from time to time, though, are the five people (sometimes more) who decide what "Reasonable" means.
5
Having grown up in the 60s, I wholeheartedly agree that protecting privacy is important and protected by the constitution, going back to our protections from unreasonable search and seizure. I was horrified by the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans, and I thought Edward Snowden was a hero for exposing the government's illegal invasion of our privacy. The majority of Americans, including Hillary, thought Snowden should be prosecuted for exposing our government's spying. I was dumbfounded.
Whenever I express these opinions to friends or family, I mostly get blank stares, comments about "if it will keep us safe from terrorism," or questions about whether I have "something to hide." It seems like most Americans today are perfectly fine with the government, and major corporations, collecting all varieties of data about them. What's the harm?
Unfortunately, despite being an intelligent person, I'm left a bit flummoxed. If people don't feel hurt by invasion of privacy, how do I convince them that privacy matters? If Americans don't care any more about privacy, it's no wonder the corporations and government have become so data-powerful. It seems like 9/11 and the War on Terror have left this legacy. Who will champion our rights to privacy now? Definitely not Republicans, certainly not Hillary, and probably not the rest of the Dem establishment who have bought into the national security argument that privacy is outmoded in an era of terrorism.
13
"Proposals for greater transparency — such as labeling bots so people know when they are interacting with a machine, and providing access for [people, NOT "consumers"] to the data that companies obtain about them — are important first steps. But industry and lawmakers need to take a hard look at the data that companies are allowed to collect in the first place."
That's the big problem: WHY the hell does Marriott need passports? Are they ICE or TSA contractors, or child- or immigrant-prison magnates like Juan Sanchez? If not, then let the customers spend the night and the cops sort the ensuing messes. They have detectives.
Speaking of cops and hotels, don't even get me started on FOSTA-SESTA, or the prudification of tumblr, or the war on sex work in general. All are far more related to this than first glance tells you: a direct attack on privacy and freedom.
"First they came for the Social Security numbers, and I did not speak out, 'cause I already had to give mine to even use that other website anyway..." —definitely not Niemöller, but just play along...
3
The democrats were in charge of everything back them...just sayin'!
1
I have no use for Facebook and Twitter, never have, never will.
Possibly this is because I don’t keep “data” about myself or my friends, whatever that is.
Stuff I want to keep track of, I write down in black and white notebooks, the same kind I used back in the third grade. I must have 20 or 30 of them now. The old ones I store up in the attic.
The U.S. government already has or can easily secure access to my bank, tax, health, credit card, driving, library, school and juvenile court records. The only thing they don't have and never will get are my old love letters, and that is because they are safely stored away under my bed in Macanudo cigar boxes which are guarded night and day by Kota, my Wonder Dog.
Macanudos are world-renowned for their savory flavor, consistency and smoothness. If you are looking for top-level security protection for your most important secrets which no Russian or Chinese agent will ever be able to penetrate -- together with a great smoke rolled by hand in the Dominican Republic incorporating tobacco from the rich farmlands of the San Andres Tuxtla Valley of Mexico -- I heartily recommend their cigar boxes.
7
@A. Stanton what makes you think that the government wants your love letters?
This is utter nonsense...
Under the banners of “privacy” and “inherent complexity”, electronic health care records in this country are an arcane and fragmented and proprietary willfully-obfuscated mess – with the smallest-data annotations and other text-entry tails wagging the biggest-data imaging and genomic database dogs...
Like any other technology, mastering it vs its challenges and the competition is generally necessary for nation-scale survival...For instance, knowing how to build thermonuclear bombs and knowing when their use – which might be waving a couple of thousands of them at foes – is absolutely unavoidable, are two separate things...
The absurd irony – many of the needed software components already exist and are in use, in things like Google Streetview...
Just add this to the growing list of arenas where the Chinese are going to blow past us like we’re standing still...
PS
All our Progressive politicians are absolute clinical experts on how to make health care free...
Would venture they don’t have the slightest clue about things that could make office-visit diagnostic internal imaging as free as a look through an otoscope is, today...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2018/10/02/healthcare-startups-raised-2-8-billion-last-month
“...Butterfly Network, a startup that makes a handheld ultrasound device, had one of the largest fundraises of the sector last month...
I imagine the NYT uses may data as well.
5
"Democrats are vowing to turn up the heat on tech companies..."
I can hardly wait. Americans are about to remember why we doesn't trust Democrats to micromanage our private lives.
2
@Ed L.: Contrary to your assertion, the Democrats have never attempted to micromanage our private lives. Most of their proposed regulation has to do with how our private lives and the public sphere, be it business or government, interact.
The Republicans, by contrast, are willing to insert themselves into my bedroom, prevent me from getting an abortion were I to want one, violate my religious liberty by making Christian principles the only principles, and are happy to second guess any family's end-of-life decisions when they don't match the party orthodoxy. And they've done each of the above repeatedly from a legislative angle and with some really exceptional case-by-case intrusions.
As for me and my house, we'll take the Democrats when it comes to regulation to protect individuals. At least they propose some that have protection of the individual as their intent.
13
As usual the threat people tend to focus on is an overreaching government, when the one we should really worry about is the corporation who sees us not as citizens with rights but as sources of profit to be exploited.
95
@Richard: Theses corporations now have complete control over name recognition in politics.
8
Hopefully this article will help to make it very clear that the sneaky policies like Judicial stacking that Republicans have been implementing will have significant LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES to our freedoms and protections.
Trump's toilet-paper signings that destroy environmental, banking and consumer protections will put all Americans in jeopardy in the years to come. Those who endorse him, without fully understanding the significance of his pay back to the rich, will be left to answer to the people for their deeds. I hope we still have a government that is capable of holding them accountable and digging us out of the hole that they are creating.
"Republicans" - the Party of fiscal conservatism. HA!
1
This is the culmination of treating Americans as “consumers” and “conspirators” first and “citizens” last. This history is important to be aware of and I thank the journalist for presenting it. Much of it I was unaware of. Democracy and Free-Market Capitalism are proving to be challenging ideas to reconcile. Do we have the civic mettle to explore, debate, craft and push for the necessary policies to renew and strengthen our political foundation? We need to ask more of ourselves, our government and our corporations
The reality is that Europe will continue to lead the way in forcing multinational corporations to restrain their data collection and abuse of private citizens. In the United States, the lobbyists for these corporate entities stuff the cash into the pockets of both Democrats and Republicans, perpetuating the theft of our private data. In Sen. Schumer's case it was a $50K donation and a job for his daughter from Facebook. The price? Your identity, bought and sold in the marketplace for which you received nothing.
13
"enabled today’s tech giants to become as large and powerful as they are." This writer has no idea of what the issues are. The power that tech companies comes from making software open source, meaning anyone can own and use these programs and software; in other words, they made ideas owned by the public, so average folks like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg could build their programs and business. It is what made newspapers like Huff Post possible, and a real competitor to the NY Times. Huffington did not need the very expensive structures like the Times to succeed. It was done with free open source software that anyone can own. Open source software changed the definition of property from private to public. To believe that tech now is just another technological revolution is to seriously misunderstand the computer revolution; it was a cognitive revolution that freed us from power being concentrated in the hands of a few. It is time to get clear about this before we start regulating the very thing that can free us.
@timothy holmes
Your topic sentence is too long. All that's necessary is:
"The power that tech companies comes from making software."
Whether they use someone else's or write their own, the data manipulation that software allows hardware to store and disperse is a "'nuf said" declaration.
1
The end of privacy began with a nation founded by white Anglo- Saxon Protestant men who so feared democracy that they created a divided limited power constitutional republic of united states where they only intended that white men like themselves were divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Neither women nor enslaved Africans nor any white man without property nor any free brown Native nor any free person of color had any expectations of any rights to privacy. Privacy was the privilege of the white male powerful majority.
But even those white men could not vote for and elect their Article III judges nor directly elect their Article I Senator nor our Article II President. The Constitution was amended to take election of our Senators away from state legislatures and give it to us. After the Supreme Court the Senate is the least democratic branch of our government. Followed by the President.
While the House is the most democratic branch due to the current limitations on its size it substantially cuts the democratic power of the more populous states.
Moreover, clever legal interpretations and opinions regarding any Constitutional right to privacy rests in scientific ignorance and stupidity plus a corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch bias. Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.
3
The greatest generation with their parents created the 'Permanent Record'.
It's how they controlled.
and now it's worldwide
history is written by the victor
Margaret:
Privacy is a "city phenomenon"; in the small towns of yesteryears everybody knew everybody to the third and some generations more, the likes and dislikes and vicies ad virtues, "if any."
1
@Dr. Ricardo Garres Valdez yes and priests in the confessional, dating back to almost the beginning of the Catholic faith knew the secrets too. there was not much privacy in the bad old days either.
The concern has always been about government collecting and disseminating personal information. It was up to Congress to assure that government didn't collect private information about its citizens. Private enterprises were left alone - privacy issues were between corporations and their clients.
That was all fine until two things happened - social media and Citizens United. Social media giants are private enterprises that collect and disseminate private information. Citizens United blurred the line between corporations and government, which are now very close to being one and the same.
It is my view that a few things must happen to address privacy issues, and these are regulation for media companies, breakdown of monopolies and striking down Citizens United. Until such time, privacy is an illusion.
44
@BWCA Good insight putting Citizens United and Social Media in the same bundle. We have already seen how this combination can highjack an election. And there seems to be no end in sight. Those in Congress seem to have very little insight into this brave new world. Can the pillars of democracy withstand this??
11
@BWCA: You wrote "That was all fine until two things happened - social media and Citizens United."
I'll add a third - government started outsourcing its functions to private corporations.
8
@BWCA
I agree, except for one thing. Citizens United is only one decision out of many for over 130 years that have slowly made corporations into pseudo citizens with the rights of humans.
Not only will this Supreme Court not overturn Citizens United, or these other decisions, but it is likely to keep giving corporations more rights and taking rights from humans by making more exceptions to the Bill of Rights.
It is not likely that the Republican majority on he Court will be reversed for decades. The only way we can reverse Citizens United and other related decisions is an Amendment to the Constitution that makes clear to the Supreme Court that
Corporations are Not People and Money is Not Speech.
See MoveToAmend.org, for example.
4
In May 2018, Europe implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law that sets high standards of personal data privacy across Europe for collecting, storing or processing user information belonging to EU nationals.
Every company that has European users must comply with GDPR standards.
Facebook responded by moving more than 1.5 billion non-European Facebook users users out of reach of the European privacy law, despite a (fake) promise from Mark Zuckerberg to apply the “spirit” of the legislation globally.
Facebook shifted the terms of responsibility for all users in the US, Canada and outside the EU from its international HQ in Ireland to its main offices in California.
Those users will now be governed by weaker US law rather than the stronger EU privacy law.
Once again, America's government defers to shameless, amoral grifters rather than the citizens it should be protecting.
And to add insult to injury, America's right-wing government, which already has all the data in the world about its citizens, refuses to automatically register its citizens to vote - like other countries do - while simultaneously handing the free keys to the citizens' data kingdom to any fly-by-night grifting corporation that wants to make mincemeat out of American citizens' data.
America's government is backward and corrupt behind description.
Delete Facebook today.
Demand that Congress enact Europe's privacy laws and automatic voter registration and represent American citizens.
124
@Socrates -- Well said! Now, where do we find a political party that will commit to this? The GOP? That was joke. The Dems? They love Silicon Valley money too much and fear them too little.
This will be a long slog back from the edge, I'm afraid. We let this go for far too long, and now there is no one left to speak for us.
12
@Socrates
Fully agreed (@PT, see below). And while we are at it, push for strong gun safety laws -- which most of the world has figured out, but our corrupt govt keeps dodging.
10
@Socrates -- you sir, do a public service every day to US citizens and NYT readers with your insights and well informed commentary, thanks.
9
While I generally agree with the author's main thrust of the article, I think that the real underlying cause (of data accumulation and privacy) was not Congress or any one company but the Internet. That changed the ability of data collection way beyond what was available before the Internet.
In the 1960s and 1970s we could build databases but were limited mostly by technology and most of all the ability to get it into a database (remember keypunches?). I know I tried during that time as I wrote my first program in 1966. Later in the 1980s I was a part of teams that collected data on people and built analytical engines for advertising needs. Again while we had lots of data, Big Data then would be tiny compared to today's databases.
Then the Internet came along and that changed data acquisition by large orders of magnitudes. No longer was data hard to acquire, hard to compile and even more so hard to analyze. Data exploded and so did the lack of privacy. There is no turning back, only limiting the damage a bit.
As for breaking up the now giants of technology would be fool hardly. Once broken up that would spawn even more companies doing the same thing. Look at how many companies the breakup of AT&T created and thrived at doing the same thing as AT&T. I think the best approach is to work hard at building laws that punish data breaches, laws like HIPPA that specify how and to whom data can be released.
30
@Charleston Yank Is it even possible to make a law like HIPPA for the internet?
2
@Charleston Yank -- I admire your thinking, but fail to see how it's possible. You can't oppose massive wealthy and powerful entities with rules they will simply avoid through legal, or quasi-legal means.
1
@Charleston Yank
HIPPA is a joke! Hospitals still sell patient info as we discovered when we suddenly began receiving info/adverts from outside sources related to the cause for the medical intervention.
Until one can truly “opt out” of accepting the excruciatingly long impossible to read acceptance forms that accompany one’s use of every website, we will have no path to privacy or control over out information. I find it ironic that telephone & internet companies, FB and others won’t help the police “unlock” a phone etc, but they blithely leave us open to hackers.
Until, we, the customers, the citizens of America, demand avenues of recourse to complain about corporations such as ATT with their rapidly diminishing quality of service, as well as our elected officials who tolerate &/ or partake of deceitful behavior, we, who always pay the bill, will continue to be cogs in the machine of our so-called society.
1
Thank you Professor O’Mara for this interesting background. I fear there is so much money to be made that our paid for Congress will never do enough to protect individual privacy. The libertarian viewpoint that trusts private businesses more than elected governments has contributed to the sorry state we are in where your most basic interactions are driven by contracts of adhesion to the benefit of data gathering behemoths. There is very little real choice anymore about how and with whom to do business.
56
Imagine how much more frightening this would be if the companies collecting our data were headquartered in a bankrupt country that disrespects freedom of the press, free and fair elections, science, and where the politicians were in the pockets of the ultra rich?
58
@MJC
And imagine if the Slouching Vulgarian in the oval office makes our country a satellite of a bankrupt country (Poof!) that suppresses freedom of our press and freedom of speech--and all the rest of our Constitution.
I don't want to be tracked through my phone, I'm old enough (not that old :-) that I spent a good portion of my life without a cell/smart phone. I noticed it was tracking me at the mall the other day and I'm considering getting rid of it all together in favor of a cheap throw away emergency cell phone that does nothing but place a call. I hate the fact that we are photographed constantly without our permission. There needs to be a law or someone needs to come up with a line of clothing that can't be photographed (my idea, someone else can invent and get rich :-) Don't get me started on drones... Place limits, or those of us who value our privacy will find a work around.
4
Though it can be debated as to when the assault on privacy began, it is not in doubt as to where we will end up. Through the confluence of private industry, our continuing societal digitization and our governments' incessant desire to know and gather information, we are heading towards a cashless society. And when that day ruefully comes, everyone from the IRS to ad agencies will see our electronic footprint from the minute we leave the house to the minute we get back, never mind what we already do on the computer. We are all worldwide sleepwalking into being a part of one mass algorithm of predictive behaviour. And that day may be already upon us, as the Times reported a week or so ago, Sweden is now experimenting with microchips in the hands of consumers only too willing to comply. Just pass your fingers over a point of sale machine and presto, another record of where you've been, what you've purchased, and another piece of the puzzle that is the pattern of your life. Our future is now here. Cheers.
5
As a society, we are all struggling with the consequences of using the new technologies available to us now. I wouldn't give any of this up, to be honest - it changed my life for the better in so many ways.
Bemoaning tech companies have become powerful and trying to apply the laws & rules of industrial technologies of the past will prove futile. We should focus on what the new rules should be and stop trying to adopt the antiquated posture that these folks are robber barons interested in profit only.
The amount of abuses that are opened up to those who have information on any one individual has certainly grown to insane proportions; just as mind boggling as the great number of human souls currently living on this planet has come to be.
We need to strictly monitor and restrict those who do the monitoring. A cold war is indeed the only hope we have as a "free society".
3
The privacy of wealthy individuals has been maintained by their ability to hide behind the wizard's curtains of corporations of numerous sorts (profit and "non-profit". Our systems of politics, justice and communications have become corrupt. Lawyers,even though they know their clients are guilty are required to be loyal to their clients and defend them . Winning is the goal, not justice. Individuals in such cultures that claim superior morality, opportunity, equality and justice for all develop feelings of betrayal and hopelessness. Injustice, addiction and violence result. Welcome to the US. It is heartening to see that the problem is being recognized and meaningful corrective action is being taken.
4
@David
"Lawyers,even though they know their clients are guilty are required to be loyal to their clients and defend them ."
SERIOUSLY off-topic....
Lawyers, even those who know their clients are "guilty" (at whatever level that implies) are required to make sure that the government, police, and prosecution dot all the i's and cross all the t's and abide by the rules to make sure the "guilt" is demonstrated to "beyond a resaonable doubt."
The use of a photo of the FBI’s NCIC system is misleading at best. NCIC contained information on wanted felons, stolen vehicles, stolen property, and similar information that was based on either court records or information the public voluntarily reported to police agencies, e.g., a stolen car. When a police officer stopped a speeding vehicle, for example, the officer would run an NCIC check to determine if the vehicle was stolen or if the driver was a wanted felon. Whatever inappropriate invasions of privacy the FBI may have engaged in, NCIC was not related to that behavior.
@Jerry Dowling: This raises a really interesting point. I think the concern isn't just about inappropriate invasions of privacy, in the sense of the FBI spying on your personal life, but it's about the huge databases of every sort of information. The records of what kind of cereal you buy aren't of personal interest to the snoops, but they can be put together with your age and vacation plans and so on (and your criminal record if any) and produce amazingly useful information to marketers and possibly political campaigns. It's that "big data" world that seems to be new and strange, not so much the old personal spying. It's curious, because it feels like "losing our privacy", but it isn't exactly the same kind of loss of privacy that used to involve wire taps and informers. This is more impersonal and sociological, and the information involved seems to be mostly perfectly legitimate, in a way, as you describe. But the end results of having it all so readily available are new and troubling.
"But industry and lawmakers need to take a hard look at the data that companies are allowed to collect in the first place."
Sorry, but this amounts to restricting free speech. If you're uncomfortable with sharing information with a private company, then you have the right not to deal with that company. You can also tell the company that you're not interested in sharing certain information and ask if it's required. I often do this when my SSN is asked for on an application at a dentist or health care provider when I'm paying with cash. I just tell the dentist office that I'm not comfortable with providing my SSN because I've had my identity stolen in the past. They always say it's not required. If a businesses or doctor doesn't want your money because you didn't give them private information, then you should really question if doing business or being a patient of theirs is a good idea.
1
No big deal.
1
The 'end of privacy is well laid out in Rachelle Goldstein's book:"The end of Reticence", where it details the same arguments of today, only from the 1890's on.
Ms. O'Mara is a bit off, either in her sense of history of privacy, or in her language surrounding that history. The 1960s represented another level of privacy invasion, but loss of privacy goes back much further. In terms of government intrusion, I cannot imagine she did not acknowledge its first great collection of personal data - the Social Security Act (or Board) of 1935; this was the biggest attempt at data gathering in our history...and it was unbelievably successful given it was all manually conducted, and overwhelmingly well-received, outside of the usual complainers - one of the great "advertising" campaigns in our history as well. Then there was of course the enhanced Census Act.
I would encourage Ms. O'Mara, or anyone interested in the topic, to refer to the excellent book, "The Known Citizen - A History of Privacy in Modern America" by Sarah E. Igo, for a great look at how our privacy became so transparent; even little nuggets such as the invention of the Kodak camera and large living room windows in suburbia are fascinating indicators of our willingness to forego privacy, until now when it's too late. No wonder we have the awful attacks on abortion rights, when we allowed government interference in our lives.
We have no privacy and haven't for decades. Apply online for a job and some sites are not content with having a resume. They want our SSN's, the year we graduated from college, from high school, where we've lived for the past however many years, to get us to sign up for an account or we can't apply (this so that they can send us lists of jobs and ask us to tell our friends), consent to drug testing before they ever call us, etc.
Then there are the requests when we purchase items from places like Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, K-Mart, for our zip codes or requirements to have the store card (not a credit card) to be able to buy at the sales price. And online it's even worse. The NY Times is becoming another offender with its ads, the way they are placed to break up the story online, and the constant exhortation to let them show us the ads.
I can understand the government wanting to collect certain kinds of data on us to help decide funding levels, where certain monies should be going, if there is bias against some groups in terms of housing, educational and employment opportunities. But when businesses force us to accept them vacuuming up our data in return for using their online site, using their bank, or whatever, it should be regulated or stopped. I don't know about anyone else but I do know that I resent receiving emails, snail mail, and phone calls based upon what they think my interests and needs are.
39
The next step in the process is when the same corporations flip the script, and start selling us our privacy back. Opt out strategies are just the beginning, getting people conditioned to the idea that facts about their lives are not their own. Now that they have our data, they will hold it hostage until we pay them, subjugating citizens with information, not chains.
In spite of all the advanced technologies, nothing has changed in human nature.
16
@Jeffrey Schantz
This is already happening in a way — there’s a protection racket taking place as companies, after data is hacked, push customers to pay for Life Lock or similar services. They may offer free credit reporting protections for a year, but after that customers are on their own, and the only way is to pay a fee every year. The behavior of Marriott offering no compensation for customers having to replace passports is appalling. And, of course, we can’t replace SS#s, which are required at every turn. I appreciated Dr. O’Mara’s article. She also might look at how universities started to require more and more personal financial information, SS#s, etc. from the 1960s onwards, even from full-paying students and parents. In the 1980s, there was a significant uptick in the amount of personal info required. In the last twenty years, the tracking of student behavior, use of campus platforms, etc. is rationalized as a means to improve graduation and retention; however, the collection of student data, often by third parties outside the university, also puts another nail in the privacy coffin.
The experience of forfeiting your privacy at age 18 in order to go to college prepared the last two generations to accept Scott McNealy’s famous quote that we have no privacy, “get over it.”
2
"and start selling us our privacy back"
They already are.
(1) I've already caught a couple stories in which people demanded the megacorp that let their data leak give the customary free year of id-theft protection. That obviously implies (a) that year usually ain't free, and (b) datahoarders aren't even bothering to get affected users that free year until they get caught not doing so.
(2) b'AdChoices. If the banner-ad creeps won't honor the basic and obvious intent of Do Not Track, what makes you think they'll quit hoarding your data and snooping your web trail once they've set their cookie?
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_privacy
1
I'm afraid the assault on our privacy began well before the 1960s. By then, the U.S. military establishment and the federal government (at least) had years of data collected during personal background checks for both military and civilian security clearances. Add in criminal records, insurance policy investigation, health records, etc, and it's clear that any real claim of privacy vanished long ago.
Then as now, the takeaway is clear: If you don't want anyone to know what you've done, don't do it.
4
@David C. Murray: I hate to burst your bubble about the "don't do it" concept - invasion of privacy by software and product developers and marketers is rampant, you will have your privacy stolen without any overt acts on your part, and especially without your knowledge or prior approval. I work in the "privacy industry", and it is beyond scary in terms of the blatant theft of personal data by anyone who wishes to monetize it. Anyone who is foolish enough to use Facebook is already so deeply compromised they will never recover their privacy; Facebook is a criminal operation that has yet to be properly held to account.
9
I have wondered whether the Supreme Court’s reliance on a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade undermines political will to protect privacy, especially among conservatives who might otherwise have championed it.
8
@David Excellent question. In light of other actions I think that the conservatives value privacy for themselves but not the rest of us if we don't share their opinions on other topics.
14
@hen3ry: Griswold v. Connecticut was the first Supreme Court decision to directly address privacy, and the conservative political class attempts to commit to reversing our fundamental privacy right - the right to privacy "at the doorstep", in other words, in our home. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote "The Right to Privacy" in 1890, and conservatives have fought the concept ever since...except when it has pertained to them.
7
The concern with the National Data Bank was government accumulation of records which is and was more threatening to individual liberty and the noted restrictions were enacted. Today privacy problems are more rooted in and primarily related to advertising and marketing. Since selling folks services and things is the basis of a capitalist society privacy rules will probably always be weak.
Oh for the good old days when your Social Security card had printed on it the phrase "Not to be used for Identification"
6
@kennethgday: That disclaimer on the Social Security card was never honored, anyway. There was a time when the state I'm living in, Virginia, used SSN with a letter stuck on the front for driver's license numbers because they were known to be unique and easy to "link" with other data banks.
SSN is still used as ID, which is why virtually all potential employers ask for it on applications and virtually all credit and other services (phone, electricity, gas, etc.) require it, too.
The printed phrase was a joke (and still is).
5
@guyslp
The point was that the card itself was never expected to be a verifiable ID. No picture, no other biomarkers, and a signature from maybe a 16 year old (who got the card because he got his first retial clerk job) whose handwriting has most certainly changed over the years.
@tomP: Had the card "never [been] expected to be a verifiable ID," then that disclaimer would have been unnecessary. At the time Social Security came into existence photo IDs were exceedingly rare. I'm in my mid-50s and my first driver's license did not have a photograph on it. The folks who came up with the SSN scheme knew full well it would be incredibly attractive as an identification number "that can be used anywhere" and track back to one and only one living person. That's why that phrase was on the card.
Excuse me for believing this will fall on the tin ears of both Congress and the public. A clothing store asked me why I wasn't signed up for their rewards account. When I said privacy they said that horse has already left the barn. I had that conversation a lot over the Black Friday shopping season.
20
@acblack: Sadly, the store employees are right. That ship sailed decades ago. The only way we'll get any vestige of what was once considered "typical privacy" back is through regulatory action. That's simply not going to occur in the foreseeable future.
3
@acblack
I've heard people refer to the extra money that you have to pay for not giving up your personal information as a "privacy tax".
6
@Mickey: And if anyone believes that extra money they pay actually improves their privacy in any way I have some oceanfront property in Omaha I'd like to offer them.
It's akin to thinking you can hold back Niagara Falls by dipping your index finger in the river upstream.
3
A very interesting article. In fact, the civil liberties organizations have also been asleep at the wheel. In recent times, Congress has been more concerned about retaining power than actually doing anything useful, but that may change. In fact, after Snowden, we know both government and private industry have been collecting massive amounts of private information about citizens. We need government to protect our privacy from industry, and the ACLU to protect us against government overreach.
44