This is one of those instances where being an American, and having a Master of Science in IT and Privacy Law turns heads to bring forth an avalanche of questions and cascading commentary.
Americans are complacent. American companies give in too easily to government agencies. Why am I not outraged? Why do I let my government run rough shod over our supposed heralded Constitution? If it was to prevent terror why didn’t it stop the Boston Marathon bombings?
On. And on. And on…
First off, this is nothing new. The existence of such a program has been known, but it was tagged as a “conspiracy.” The media was fed the “safety” line, and gladly circulated it. The government must trample our rights in order to keep the public safe, and we being good citizens are OK with that.
I’ve long argued that the PATRIOT ACT overruled all but the Second Amendment. That got a good chuckle, some nods of agreement but little else. That’s changed and it is clear now, to many, that the government has not trampled over the Second Amendment. You’ll notice, too, that despite calls for “safer,” “better” gun laws after already well-publicized shootings, little progress has been made. The Second Amendment remains in tact.
During a conversation over drinks last night with a guy who spends his days neck deep in big data analysis, we discussed PRISM, the massive data centers the government would actually and how, in this day and age, the only way to avoid being tracked is to spend your life in a bunker.
He drew the analogy that one data point, say a name, doesn’t mean anything. Two data points, a name and phone number, means a little more but not much. It’s not until you start collecting more data points, drawing more connections, that it becomes useful. So we started drawing out data points of interactions that occur in the course of a day.
Traffic cameras. Transit security cameras. Credit card transactions. Social media posts. Website visits. Work ID or security card scans. Phone calls. Text messages.
If you consider every interaction a data point, that’s a lot of data!
That dovetails into a conversation about privacy, and what privacy means. He explained health care disclosure laws in Canada as an example. He’s a professor and a student asked for an extension due to surgery. He cannot ask specifically about the surgery, all he can do is ask for verification that the student was at the doctor’s office at the stated time and date. The student claimed the verification request was a privacy violation.
So, to one person, requesting verification is an invasion of privacy. To another, it is not just as posting something to Facebook and then having it shared outside Facebook is an invasion of privacy to one, but not to another.
One of the reasons I got my masters in IT and Privacy Law was because of both the changing definition of privacy, and the changing perception of privacy.
There are definite differences in perception of privacy in Canada v. the US, and this is most noticeable when it comes to mental health. Canadians are more open about discussing mental health. Americans still consider it a private matter, shameful and not to be discussed.