From: Alexander van der Wolk <av2139@columbia.edu>
  To  : <CPC@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:42:58 -0500

[CPC] the Dutch sold themselves easily

Following up on today's discussion regarding the distinction between  
person monitoring and computer monitoring, the following came to my  
mind. Ever since taking Eben's Law and the Internet Society class in  
the fall, I have found myself far more than once in live debate with  
my friends over such services as Gmail and Amazon.com, and the  
privacy issues involved.

During those debates, it struck me that virtually nobody saw any  
reason for concern, as they didn't see why anybody would be  
particularly interested in them in the first place. In addition,  
should the government be interested, they had nothing to hide? Should  
commercial services be interested, then trading a little information  
about themselves would be fair in return for the ease or benefit  
conferred.

After today's class, I'm not sure whether this is particularly a  
Dutch stance (all of my debatees were). Whichever is the case, I'm  
making this point in a more general perspective (based more on the  
debates I had), rather than in response to any remarks today. But I  
do think that it outlines what seems to be an (increasing?) notion.

What I find alerting is that the lack of insight as to the potential  
value of one's information to someone else seems to warrant the  
security of that information. The kind of "I can't see it, so it's  
not there" principle.

My main concern with all of this is that once information has been  
submitted, it can't be undone. What you give up is not a valueless  
bit of information, but you're giving up the control to what happens  
to it. Whether you're giving up that control to a machine, randomly  
processing millions of bits of information of any number of people,  
or to a specific person or business, it ends up out there. It's like  
the lighter you lent to your friend in NYC, which comes back to your  
posession after 3 years when you ask a complete stranger in Warsaw  
for a light; who knows what meanwhile happened to it.

Technology is a great thing, but it can also be a mindnumbing thing.  
Ease, comfort, service, luxury, necessity, security; they're often  
used to take away a little bit of autonomy, in return for any of  
these. I've asked some of my friends who couldn't imagine anyone's  
interest in their e-mails to have all their messages posted on my  
website; they declined. Or those who didn't mind their monitoring as  
part of a greater group to consent to keystroke surveillance - also  
as part of a greater group; they declined. It's interesting to see  
how if 'someone could be doing it' doesn't raise any alarms, where if  
I 'would be doing it', would. Perhaps the ostrich-effect is true  
then. Or perhaps I should have offered them more.

Alex

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list