Did the Internet kill privacy?

That's the question asked by CBS. To emphasize the public nature of the internet they talk about the case of Ashley Payne. I blogged about her in a previous blog that has disappeared from the face of the internet, but her story is not unusual. She was a teacher who took a vacation in Europe and posted the pictures on Facebook. One of them had her holding a glass of wine and a beer. Someone complained in an anonymous email, and she was giving the option resigning or being suspended. She chose to resign, but is fighting to get her job back.

So has the internet killed privacy? Is the plight of Ashley Payne and others who have found their lives radically changed by information they thought was secret being exposed online the fault of the internet? Is it the nature of the internet to expose everything? Is our choice to live with our every secret potentially exposed or remove ourselves from modern society?

I don't think the internet has killed privacy. But the people who use the internet have dealt privacy some serious wounds. Between companies gathering all the data they can get their hands on and the government doing the same (admit it or not) it is almost impossible to maintain any level of privacy. Even if you never go online you leave an unbelievable trail with information on your spending habits, medical conditions, and general interests. If you don't have a credit card or checking account you might keep your spending habits under wraps.

If you don't have a credit card or checking account I'm not to sure you have a computer to read this on, so the privacy perils of the internet may not concern you. Some perils are understood by most people. Virus' and spyware are easy to understand. But the bigger problem - or less guarded against - is human nature. Everyone has, to a greater or lesser degree, a desire to be noticed or recognized, a desire to know secrets, and once we know them, a desire to tell them. The internet makes it possible to do all three. And do them while having the illusion of being secret about it.

It's that last part that is the biggest problem. We place things online, whether it's on Facebook, on a blog, or on a personal web server we think is private because we only give friends access. The fact is, if it's connected to the internet then the possibility someone else will get the information and spread it is there. If it's on a site like Facebook it's a lot more likely. If it's on Facebook and you have more than 2 or 3 friends it becomes almost a certainty. It makes us our own worst enemy. We want to share information, but we also want to control what happens to it after we share it. Unfortunately you can't require signing a nondisclosure agreement before friending someone on Facebook or your personal website. Well, you could, but you wouldn't very popular.

For someone like a teacher it becomes almost inevitable. If you share things online and some of those things might be considered objectionable they will come back to haunt you. All it takes is someone to share them and someone with a gripe to decide to use it against you. It may seem like a stretch, but Ashley Payne can tell you it's a short one.

Crazy few weeks in privacy, security, human rights

The past several weeks have seen a little crazy when it comes to privacy and human rights. Facebook became a privacy hero (although Facebook called it a security issue), went back to it's privacy invading roots, and regained a little face by making https connections an option for users. Of course, these seeming contradictions resolve into logical actions when you realize the point of view Facebooks has toward them. Facebook doesn't worry about users privacy. It worries about security. That's why it stomped on Tunisia's attempt to steal all of the Tunisian users login credentials - a security breach - but is willing to let third parties access Facebook users data without their consent.

The internet has been a great tool for activists and protestors. The last few weeks have seen it used as a tool for oppressive governments. Tunisia tried to steal the Facebook credentials of the entire population of the country. Egypt is trying to block the internet to prevent the spread of dissident ideas and information. While they haven't been able to silence everyone, they have had surprising success blocking the internet.

It has been suggested that the President should have an internet "kill switch." It has also been said that such a thing would be almost impossible to implement. I tend to agree. but with Tunisia's near success at stealing their citizens Facebook credentials and Egypt's blocking of the internet in their country, I have to wonder if that belief isn't misguided. We have reached the point that whoever controls the internet controls the chief source of information for many people. Can we trust that power to the government?

UN wants to take over internet

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

So opens an article by John Hilvert at ITNews. I think Mr. Hilvert must moonlight as a lawyer.

The upshot is that the UN is seeking to coordinate the control of the internet. But not to "takeover". Good idea, take control without taking over, if you can figure out how to do it. Not that I believe the UN is actually trying.

Apparently this push is inspired Wikileaks, but it was made possible by a resolution last July:

The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."

I'm not sure, but I think just about anything governments do to regarding public policy and the internet will impact the day-to-day technical and operational matters. Especially since any UN group will probably support - if not push - many of the provisions of the ACTA treaty (I blogged here). Many of those provisions will directly affect both individual citizen and ISP's.

Fortunately there are people who see beyond the immediate gut reactions and see the wider picture. Defeating Napster actually had the opposite effect the RIAA had hoped for. The MPAA is in the process of learning that lesson, and the UN and other governments will likely learn the same thing. Data Control on the internet is like fighting the hydra. Once the beast is free, cutting one head off sees two more rise from the stump of the old. The time to control data is before it gets out, not after.

FTC recommending privacy options for Internet users

Edward Wyatt and Tanzina Vega at the NY Times report that the FTC is recommending internet users be allowed to decide whether or not their surfing and buying habits tracked. Groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) are encouraged, but don't see a "do not track" option as the perfect solution to online privacy concerns. Online advertising groups are not happy about the proposal, saying that if "Do not track" saw the same rate of adoption as "do not call" it would cause the industry "significant harm."

There is no doubt an opt-out of tracking option would require radical changes in the way online ads are targeted. But I should have the option not to be tracked. Just like I can choose whether or not to take part in CVS's data gathering ExtraCare reward card, I should be able to choose whether or not the sites I visit gather data on me. I should be able to see what type of data is being gathered and I should be able to have that data purged. Or I should be paid for the information. It is my information, after all.