Meta-data and Privacy
Tony E Dillon-Hansen
June 2013
Meta-data is data that
describes data without supposedly knowing the content of the data (describing the objects without actually telling you what the object
is). Information technology has been using meta-data for
years to determine things such things like buying habits, various
user systems, location of the user and more without even asking your
name. The question today becomes how good are the inferences based
upon that information and should the government be in the business of
scanning this. Then, we find that the government has been taking it
upon themselves to review similar type of data about phone calls,
emails, and other contact mechanisms. Further, they have been using a
secret court to gain justification and authorization for the
wiretapping where only the judge can challenge government suspicions.
A majority of people
polled do not feel threatened by the NSA surveillance program because
apparently this data “about data” is supposedly without content.
Also, people want to be safe from the growing terrorist threats.
Perhaps, people feel safer because they can stock up on AR-15s and
ammunition while Congress is willing to send young soldiers to die in
some foreign land in the “cause of freedom.” Yet, we want
government to stay out of our lives and out of our bedrooms, but we
are willing to give a blank license for them to collect and to survey
data about us without feeling spooked.
Let me give you an
example of what is conceivable. A spouse learns that the other spouse
has been spending time with a couple individuals in quiet
conversation. This spouse also learns the times and places of a
couple encounters and discussions upon learning this information, the
spouse may naturally approach the questionable nature of the actions
with a sense of betrayal, distrust, anger or fear. Then, this spouse
decides to confront the other person with an idea that the apparent
shenanigans need to stop. At the revelation, the other spouse is
horrified by an unexpected confrontation and subsequently reveals
that the encounters of question were to prepare a surprise vacation
for the couple as a gift to the offended spouse.
Now, one can question
or judge whether the one spouse was correct for planning a surprise
vacation or if the one spouse is correct in questioning or concluding
those plans. The point here is that this mistake may be resolved
between the couple as how to communicate between each other and the
levels of trust between them. Yet, the government, via the NSA and
law enforcement, is cataloging data about the “circumstances” of
discussions and encounters without supposedly listening to the actual
conversation. The government is, by definition, not trusting when it
is looking.
The question then
becomes whether the government will realize when they have made
errors of judgment and how will they correct them. For instance, if a
U.S. citizen gets accused of terrorism or plotting for a mass attack
by talking to friends in South Korea where the citizen was only
planning to meet with longtime associates for collaboration on
research and education. (South Korea is almost North Korea right?) Of
course, under current enemy combatant statutes, you, as the U.S.
Citizen, may find yourself exceptionally interested in the prison
conditions at Guantanamo Bay.
We know that some
government officials may decide to continue prosecutions regardless
of facts, and McCarthy's Red Scare can tell you exactly how that has
been done in the past and how wrongly that can be pursued.
People are too eager to
trade freedom and liberty away, and thus, they ignore an individual
responsibility of having freedom is to also ensure that freedom
endures despite external or internal attacks. We must ensure that
freedom is respected or we may find ourselves at the end of a baton
or rifle for some comedic remark. Expect no good will from
unwarranted seizures as they will find something to use. As
well, a good agent of the government may not want to waste the
taxpayer money on a misguided lead, and we have seen where those
people may be out to prove something that does not exist to save face
or some other false based story. They, the trusted government, may
even find a way to use a portion of code to justify smearing a group
of people.
Even more, people
around the world look to the United States as an example of liberty
and individual rights. When the U.S. government starts secretly
investigating the press, spying on citizens, or killing suspects
without trial, we, by example, provide legitimacy and authorization
for dictators in other countries to continue “crackdowns” on
their people. This cannot be the continued legacy of the United
States, that to teach the world's tyrants on how to ignore individual
rights.
Privacy
is a critical part of our freedoms and has been defended at length
before and by the U.S. courts. Privacy is part of the Bill of Rights.
To suddenly excuse an administration of circumventing privacy rules
for some apparent security reason is to be subject to unwarranted
search and seizures (even an unlawful intrusion) by the government at
any time and for any reason. Whether you “trust” the
administration (whether Bush, Obama, or even consider if Romney was
elected), what happens when an administration attempts to find and
then begins to jail opposing viewpoints using these same methods?
Will we know the difference from actual terrorism versus strong
political conversation based upon what the government is telling us?
Who guards the guards?
When such intrusion is
allowed to continue unchallenged, the whole of liberty in society is
rendered a myth. The future and the foundation of this republic is
at question.
