The Tangibility of Privacy

-- By KevinHoung - 06 Mar 2015

Introduction

The intangibility of privacy in modern society has led to a generation of apathy and placid acceptance towards the intrusion of personal privacy. Though privacy has always been an abstract concept, the act of protecting one’s privacy has traditionally been that of a tangible act. The Fourth Amendment protects against the intrusion into one’s home and in certain circumstances against the unreasonable search and seizure of one’s automobile. A person’s home has long been considered a personal space protected from government or private spying as opposed to public space, where one no longer enjoys the same notions of privacy. Thus traditionally, the notion of privacy has always entailed a protection of some form of physical space or tangible object. However in cyberspace, there is no longer a tangible form of privacy that individuals can exert some sort of physical dominion over. It is extremely difficult to define what is one’s home or personal space on the internet. To protect the sacred value of personal privacy though, it is necessary that society be able to delineate the line between where one’s privacy on cyberspace begins and where one’s public persona is available to everyone.

Big Data

Debates concerning Internet privacy often revolves around the dissemination of metadata. Most, if not all, would find that reading another person’s email without consent is a breach of privacy. However, arguments become less clear when metadata is involved. Yet my argument is that whether you are collecting information regarding the content of an email or the location from which that email was sent, the intrusion of privacy is the same. If I can use metadata taken from your Instagram account to construct a picture of your daily movements throughout your day, the result is the same as if I directly placed a tracking device on your body. If a random stranger walked up to you on the street and asked for your iCloud password so that they could track your daily GPS movements, you would most certainly dismiss their request. However, companies collect data everyday through which they possess the potential to retrace one’s physical steps throughout the day. Malte Spitz, an executive member of the German Green Party, went to court and requested his cell phone carrier, Deutsche Telekom, turn over the information it gathered and stored on his cell phone activity. As a result, Deutsche Telekom turned over 35,830 lines of code essentially documenting the last six months of Spitz’s life almost down to the minute. In addition to retracing one’s physical steps, American companies now possess the capability to and do engage in collecting information on their customers’ electronic footsteps in cyberspace. Companies claim this may be for the betterment of the user experience, however in the end, this data is used to generate business and ultimately revenue for the company.

Matchback Programs

Silently, Big Pharma and Internet companies are targeting customers through a process known as matchback. Matchback allows third parties to assign patients unique numerical codes based on their prescription records. Then websites use the same process to assign codes to registered users. According to Big Pharma, this form of marketing complies with medical privacy laws because the name of the patient is always hidden, instead replacing the name with the unique code. Replacing a patient’s name with a unique code does not completely eliminate the privacy concerns though. Whether or not you are identified by your given name or a unique number is irrelevant. Everyone is given a social security code, yet no reasonable person would likely place this number on a public forum whether in cyberspace or by taking out an ad in the newspaper. Just as your bank accounts, personal records, and consumption habits are linked to your name, bank statements, credit card statements, and job applications may be linked to your social security number.

Data firms that perform these matchbacks claim such marketing tools enhance the user experience and that the goal is to personalize ads without ever revealing patient’s names. However, these firms are still building extensive and comprehensive information databases and profiles of thousands of patients often without their knowledge. GlaxoSmithKline? , the world’s six largest pharmaceutical manufacturer with yearly revenues of approximately $24 billion euros, stopped using matchbacks after concerns that websites may not be informing its users about the collection of such information. Sara Alspach, a GlaxoSmithKline? spokesperson said that websites must “uphold appropriate privacy standards” and be transparent about the way data is used.

Conclusion

Privacy concerns over metadata and user initiated platforms such as Facebook and Instagram often draw little concern from its users. Perhaps this is due to the high cost of switch, or at the very least the “perceived” cost of switching. There is no alternative to Facebook as broad or far reaching. Convenience is now overtaking privacy as Internet users’ chief concern.

Convenience however should never alleviate society’s concerns over privacy. Matchback programs should raise startling privacy concerns. Trading information concerning one’s commercial purchasing habits is arguably harmless. However, there is hardly ever a circumstance where an individual will freely and publicly disseminate one’s medical purchasing history to a company let alone one’s close friends. The matchback process essentially eliminates the protections Congress passed in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

There is no privacy protection in replacing one’s name with a number, as long as that number identifies yourself and your medical and purchasing history. Companies have long held a veil of convenience over their customers’ eyes, however medical privacy requires the utmost protection. Medical conditions are those of the most intimate nature and there is no claim of convenience that can overcome the duty to protect such intimate information.

Word Count: 947

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KevinHoung
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.