Why All this Fuss About Privacy?
Does privacy really matter? In fact, do we all agree on what it actually is? As Paul Sieghart said in his 1975 book âPrivacy and Computersâ, privacy is neither simple nor well defined. âA full analysis of all its implications needs the skills of the psychologist, the anthropologist, the sociologist, the lawyer, the political scientist and ultimately the philosopher,â wrote Sieghart.
For our purposes weâll dispense with the committee necessary for this full analysis, and start with a summary of the definition which came out of the International Commission of Jurists in Stockholm in May 1967:
âThe right to privacy is the right to be let alone to live oneâs own life with the minimum degree of interference.â
That statement may be around 50 years old, but it still hits the right note. Then thereâs the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the UN a few years earlier in 1948:
âNo one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence.â
Privacy is also enshrined in national laws. Under US Constitutional law itâs considered to be the right to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters (defined as issues around faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death).
Under US Common Law (which is the law to come out of the courtroom â where legal precedents are routinely set and followed), privacy is defined as the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny, whether that scrutiny comes from a neighbor, an investigator, or a news photographerâs for instance.
Finally, under US statutory law, privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted drug testing and electronic surveillance.
In the UK the legal protection of privacy comes from the âPrivacy and the Human Rights Act 1998â, which basically corresponds to the rights conferred under the 1948 UN declaration. But the law is changing, and weâll explore how in chapter 7.
As we shall see, literally every aspect of these definitions of privacy is under attack from both public and private organizations today. Individualsâ privacy is being eroded at an alarming rate. In fact, some commentators are even beginning to ask if there can be such a thing as privacy in a world of cookies, government surveillance, big data and smart cities (to name just a handful of recent technology trends in part culpable for the situation).
And itâs not just commentators and experts who are fretting about the privacy-free world we appear to be unwittingly signing up to. The results of the Pew Research Internet Project of 2014 reveal that 91 per cent of Americans believe that consumers have lost control of their personal information. They trust the government only slightly more; 80 per cent agreed that Americans should be concerned about the governmentâs monitoring of their communications, which weâll explore in the next chapter.
A White House Big Data Survey from May 2014 shows that 55 per cent of respondents in the EU and 53 per cent in the US see the collection of big data (which can be used to identify individuals from supposedly anonymized data) as a negative.
Privacy is an aspect of our freedom. Itâs about being free to think and act with autonomy, and where desired, without those thoughts and actions being broadcast to others.
This book aims to explain how and why privacy is under threat, and give some basic recommendations for individuals, corporations and governments to follow in order to arrest this slide towards a world that is less free.
Hereâs My Cow, now Whereâs My Change?
Whatâs better than a great product at a reasonable price? What about a great product for free? It sounds too good to be true, and it is, and yet thatâs the lie thatâs repeatedly sold to all of us who use the internet or download apps to our tablets and smartphones. Itâs such an obvious duplicity that youâd think more of us would see through it. That we donât is a result of the way our brains are wired, but before we come to that, letâs have a brief look at the path humanity has taken in its history to bring us to this point.
Next time you pass a dairy farm, you could surprise and delight your friends by remarking that itâs an early form of bank (neither surprise nor delight guaranteed). Thatâs because the earliest form of currency is thought to be cattle. If you donât possess the ability to mint coins or at least make something thatâs easy and cheap to reproduce accurately yet hard to copy, a cow is a pretty good substitute. As something which produces milk and can be slaughtered for meat, leather and various other products, it has its own value. Despite small variances in size, one cow is pretty much as valuable as another. You can even get change from a cow â in many early economic systems it was considered to be worth two goats.
This worked well enough for many societies from about 9,000BC to 1,200BC, until they were replaced by Cowrie shells. After all, itâs great having a form of currency you can eat when times get tough, but itâs less good when your entire life savings gets wiped out by disease or is devoured by a pack of wolves or even hungry neighbors.
Cowrie shells â egg-shaped shells belonging to a species of sea snail common to the coastal waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans - were popular because they were almost impossible to forge, portable, and neither too rare to stymie trading, nor so common that even an egg was worth several wheelbarrow-loads (and if that was the exchange rate, how would anyone have transported enough shells to afford the wheelbarrow?). The classical Chinese character for money (
) originated as a stylized drawing of a cowrie shell, and they are still used today in Nepal in a popular gambling game.
Things became more recognizable to us in modern societies in 1,000BC when China first began to manufacture bronze and copper coins, originally designed to resemble Cowrie shells to help people grasp what they were for. Five hundred years later came electrum (an alloy of gold and silver) coins in Sardis, the capital city of ancient Lydia (an area which roughly corresponds to Turkey today).
Paper money first appeared in China in 806 AD, during the Tang dynasty. Itâs interesting to wonder what those financial pioneers would have made of the fact that their idea endures over 1,400 years later.
You might think your credit card is a relatively recent invention, but plastic money has been used in various forms since the late 19th century when celluloid âcharge coinsâ were used by some hotels and department stores to enable transactions to be charged to their clientsâ accounts.
Credit cards as we know them now however were first used in September 1958 when Bank of America launched the somewhat unimaginatively named âBankAmericardâ in Fresno, California. This eventually became the first successful recognizably modern credit card and nineteen years later changed its name to Visa.
Thatâs the past, but what of the future of money? Some believe it to be digital currency, the most recognizable example of which today is Bitcoin, an open-source, online software payment system unaffiliated to any central authority or bank. Anyone can download the software and use their computer to help verify and record payments into a public ledger, sometimes being rewarded with bitcoins themselves for their efforts.
Others see potential in the smartphone as a wallet, with its near-field communication capabilities enabling transactions at the push of a button or simple wave in the air. If youâve ever suffered the inconvenience of losing your smartphone, or worse having it stolen, then the prospect if it also being your wallet might leave you with a knotted feeling in your stomach and an empty feeling in your bank account, in which case you might prefer the idea of a chip embedded under your skin, or even a barcode branded onto your arm.
There are apps which claim to offer simpler ways of transacting money, and many mainstream services are now diversifying into cash transfers: Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat to name a few.
These would be free services, because nothing is precisely the amount modern online consumers expect to pay for anything. So how would these offerings make money? One way is serving advertising, and another is to sell the data they collect on their customers. Information like what size of transaction you tend to make, when you tend to make them, and what you tend to buy. Snapchat in particular has a sketchy recent history as a guardian of personal data. The popular app (and âpopularâ hardly does it justice, with over 700 million photos and videos shared each day) allows users to send data in the form of pictures, videos and written messages to one another. So far so pedestrian, but the supposed unique selling point is that the pictures are permanently deleted after a few seconds. Neither the receiver of the image, nor Snapchat itself can retrieve the picture once it has been deleted. Or at least, thatâs the idea. In practise itâs the work of moment for a savvy user to make a permanent record whatever appears on their screen â for example by activating the phoneâs screenshot mode, or by using a third party app specifically designed for the task (an example of which is SnapBox, an app designed to allow users to keep Snapchat images without the senderâs knowledge). And worse, in October 2014 a hacker published 12.6 gigabytes of images stolen from Snapchatâs users, none of which were ever supposed to have been recorded in the first place.
However in this instance Snapchat itself isnât to blame. The breach itself occurred when now defunct third party site Snapsaved.com - which contained archived photos and videos from some Snapchat users - was attacked. However, Snapchat itself is guilty of a failure to act when in August 2013 Australian security firm Gibson Security alerted it to a vulnerability. In December that same year Snapchat finally put what it called mitigating features in place to plug the hole, but a few days later a hacking group bypassed the security measures calling them âminor obstaclesâ, and then released 4.6 million Snapchat usernames and passwords in via a website called SnapchatDB.info. Snapchat apologized a week later.
But whichever economic system wins out, and the likelihood is that it will be some combination of all of the above, the one certainty seems to be that the illusion of a free lunch will continue.