Technology brings about transformation. Individual and institutional possibilities are altered. It changes our politics, economy, and culture. Our civilization is changing as a result of the new communications technology, advancing the Information Age. And as we rush into this new period, we run into brand-new issues as well as ones from the past that have taken on strange new forms. Information privacy is one of these issues that the developing cyberspace poses.
Essentially, the goal of this entire work has been to define a new, "acceptable," standard for privacy for the rapidly changing techno-cultural system presaged by the development of the new information infrastructure. It is possible to view the distinctions I have made along the way—cyberspace versus physical space, data collection versus processing and distribution, and functionally unnecessary versus functionally necessary—as increasingly precise assessments of where to draw the line denoting an acceptable amount of privacy. The applicability and persuasiveness of these distinctions—for instance, my assessments of what constitutes surveillance and what qualifies as casual observation—are influenced by technology and societal factors. One may easily envision a society with a different history and technological capabilities coming to dramatically different conclusions. Nonetheless, the fact that these conclusions are highly speculative does not justify inaction. We as a society cannot avoid taking a stance because the status quo is a stance in and of itself. Furthermore, the decisions we make today based on our current values will alter what those values are in the future.
To start a focused conversation on the privacy decisions we must make, the proposed Act is a solid starting point. We can improve it by looking into its ambiguities and unexpected repercussions in order to find the best solutions under the political restrictions that exist right now. Although some people will claim that the Act goes too far, in reality, its goals and scope are modest. In fact, there are compelling grounds to question whether a market solution that adopts a disclosure system will be completely capable of handling the problem, as privacy activists will undoubtedly point out. Because of the complex ways that information moves across internet, notices might not be clear enough for people to read and comprehend. People might routinely undervalue the actual costs of gradually advancing towards a surveillance marketplace. Who knows if we will look back on our consent to the processing of online transactional data in thirty years and regret it. Due of these factors, some privacy activists have proposed a federal regulatory system that would be in charge of an impartial privacy commission. Although starting with more modest goals is pragmatic, such a regime may ultimately be required. A privacy commission is a strong medication in today's privacy politics, but it won't be politically feasible until weaker remedies have been tried first. Most of us could agree that academics and governments alike should seek to increase public awareness of online privacy in the interim.
As we continue the privacy discussion, we must acknowledge how difficult it will be to uphold a vision that protects information privacy in cyberspace. Processing information in ways and at rates that were unthinkable only a few years ago is at the core of cyberspace. To slow down this information processing machine in the name of privacy seems counter-technological, if not downright backwards. It contradicts the tired internet cliche that information wants to be free. Yet, I think it is justified to intentionally introduce friction into the flow of personal information. Individuals shouldn't be criticised for instigating the same conflict in the sake of privacy if profit-driven companies are already doing so in the name of intellectual property. Privacy concerns have typically been an afterthought. Technology moves us forward, and we only begin to address the societal repercussions later. But, to use a metaphor that is decidedly low-tech, the level of privacy we maintain is a one-way ratchet. It will be very challenging to regain privacy after we turn it down. More disturbingly, after a while, we might not mind so much. It may dawn on us too late that privacy should have been saved along the way.
You must be logged in to post a comment.