Bleak prospects for privacy

Governments the world over are moving toward a future of pervasive surveillance of its citizens

While Web surfing the other day I ran across a London Times story that described two shopping malls in England that individually track everyone who walks into their environs (as long as they have a mobile phone turned on).

This seems to me to be about the ideal example of modern society -- a society in which someone who thinks that some privacy might be nice is starting to be seen as quaint and more than a bit out of touch.

Many people wag their fingers at China's pervasive surveillance of its citizens (see, for example, "China's All-Seeing Eye" or "Chinese Internet censorship: An inside look), but that is hardly the only example of governments watching their people. Governments the world over are moving toward a future not only in which Mr. Charrington in his junk shop will be the norm -- but also one where Mr. Charrington will not have to guess what you have been up to.

Even where there is supposed to be a basic rule that government has to have a real reason before it can find out your every move (for example, the Fourth Amendment in the United States), people who work for government want badly to ignore it (see, for example "NSA Must Examine All Internet Traffic to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says" and "Report: Government's Cyber Security Plan Is Riddled With New Spying Programs"). Then there is the desire of some ostensibly well-meaning folk to figure out how to control the entire electronic world (see "Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers") without realizing that if they can do so it will only be proof to the bad guys that it can be done. It would not be long before the bad guys found the same security holes and the government computers would befall the same fate.

It's not only governments. As I've written before, Google -- or your own favorite search engine company -- already knows far more about you than even you do (see "Telling Google and others to do less evil"). Just last week there were stories about ISPs starting to use Web surfing monitors to better provide ads they might be interested in delivering to their customers -- ads that are more likely to get customers to buy something they likely did not need (see "US Reps. Markey, Barton Question Charter About Web Tracking").

The two companies producing the technology to do this that are showing up in news articles are NeubAd and Phorm. I wrote about NeubAd a while back. Both of these companies claim to not save anything that can identify specific users, but minor tweaks to their software would fit right into the future that National Security Agency Director Michael McConnell would like to see. They both also appear to use cookie-based opt-out mechanisms that do not work at all for people who are in a habit of regularly removing cookies.

Maybe we do not, or will not, have any privacy. But that does not mean that the world will actually be safer -- it will just be a lot colder (in spite of global warming)

For those who do not recall Mr. Charrington, try Google (and add a little to the search engine company's recording of your life).

Disclaimer: The above rant did not make me feel any better nor did Harvard join in it (or even know about it).

Join the newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

More about CNNGoogleNational Security AgencyNICENSA

Show Comments
[]