When Privacy Doesn't Really Mean Privacy

Last week Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of US national intelligence, made a very disconcerting assertion.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information. - CNN

Trust the government - your information will be safe in their hands. Don't be even the slightest bit concerned that these are the people who have in the past taken private information and conducted witch hunts like the McCarthy hearings. Don't worry your little head over the fact that the government is also responsible for holding people in GITMO for years without access to an attorney, without a trial, and for some allegedly without even being apprised of the charges against them. It's all for national security. Doesn't matter that they were wrong in some cases (and with the McCarthy hearings in many cases), doesn't matter that we have this little thing call the Bill of Rights, doesn't matter that we have a mechanism in place called the Judicial System to deal with issues like this. We can't trust the Judicial System to do the right thing. We can only trust Big Brother. Big Brother and businesses.

Trust businesses. I think we all know that big business has one concern - big business. If we believe big business will protect our privacy to the detriment of their bottom line... oh come on. Sure they will. Think about how the oil companies don't engage in price gouging to the tune of billions and billions. Consider how insurance companies always pay out readily and easily for legitimate health care claims even though it means they won't make billions in profit each year. Above all, never worry that businesses will lose your very private information. It never happens. For that matter it never happens that the government loses private information either. I could go on and on listing the reasons we should trust businesses but I think we all know exactly how much we can trust them to always put us first.

Just in case you are one of those people who think you can't trust the government or big business, Kerr did offer another thought to consider.

Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio, Texas, that he finds it odd that some would be concerned that the government may be listening in when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an [Internet service provider] who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data." - CNN

Since illegal immigration is a hot button for a lot of people especially in the border states, I suppose he thought this might garner some support from the few people who heard that remark and didn't think, "huh??" Let's not even discuss the racial implications of his statement.

Still concerned in spite of Kerr's well reasoned remarks? Consider this:

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won," Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, said in a speech last month at an intelligence conference, the contents of which only now have come to light. "Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that." - LA Times

Try Googling yourself. Unless you're a relatively famous person, just how much stuff is there out there about you that you didn't put out there yourself? I write tons of things to post on the internet under this pseudonym, but there is nothing - not one thing - that shows up on a Google search of my real name except for the things I put there. I realize this isn't true for everyone, but how much information of concern can be Googled about you?

I will agree it is true that we have less privacy now than we did in the past, but at least we can rest assured that our private thoughts and private comments to others aren't out there for the world or the government to see unless we want them to see it.

The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit, claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S. - CNN

By now you may be wondering what has prompted Kerr's completely logical remarks.

As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy. Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails and listen to their phone calls without court oversight. - AP

I've discussed all this with several people now and I've been a little surprised at one of the more common responses. "I have nothing to hide so why should I care?"

We may feel we have nothing to hide today. How do we know that the things we do, the things we value, or the things we believe won't be something we have to hide in the future? What's "acceptable" changes. Additionally,

Privacy from government is the most important privacy of all. It's essential for a free society. - Atu XVIII

If we are to be truly free, we must feel safe in being nonconformists both politically and/or personally. If we can not be assured of privacy from the government then how can we be assured we won't be persecuted or prosecuted for our nonconformity? How would we ever be able to safely stand up to the government if we felt the government was getting out of control? Surely the government would never reach a point where it was out of control?

I believe anyone who lives or desires to live an alternative lifestyle should be concerned about this issue. How do we know that one day our behavior will not just be deemed "perverted" by some but deemed illegal by the government as well?

For those of us who are concerned about the erosion of our right to privacy, perhaps now - while the bill is being written - is the time to act by contacting our Congress Persons and sharing our thoughts on this issue.