IP: Economist on privacy: "People are voluntarily relinquishing it"

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

[Again, as I've written many times, people are making their own
cost-benefit decisions in each one of these transactions... --Declan]

---

From: "Alana Lowe-Petraske" <lowe_petraske () hotmail com>
To: declan () well com
Cc: prodigalgrrl () hotmail com
Subject: economist surveillance coverage
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:02:51 +0000

Hello Declan-- I am an avid reader of politech )and thought i might point
out these two articles in today's economist on surveillance. I don't know
if this is out of the ordinary, it just seemed like abundant coverage.
ps-your list has helped me beyond measure in my research on the 'war on
internet piracy' in the music industry -- thanks!
kind regards, alana

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1280806
"Surveillance and privacy:Go on, watch me
Aug 15th 2002
 From The Economist print edition
People are voluntarily surrendering their privacy
GEORGE ORWELL got it wrong—thank goodness. In the developed world, it is
not the state that has ushered in a “Big Brother” society but society
itself. Every day, people are adopting new technologies that trade a small
amount of their privacy for greater convenience and security: credit cards,
smart cards in electronic tollbooths, customer loyalty cards,
cash-withdrawal machines, and “cookies” on computers. As for surveillance
cameras, they have become so widely accepted that they have bred a genre of
mass entertainment in the form of so-called reality TV, some even using
Orwell's phrase. In all these respects, it is individuals that are deciding
to sacrifice privacy in exchange for something they want more. But are
there hidden costs, that society as a whole ought to worry about? After
all, if governments were to suggest the use of some of these technologies,
there would be a public outcry.
Where the public wants security, the willingness to give up privacy is
powerful. That bodes well for the companies hoping to sell personal
location technology to people who want to monitor the movement of their
pets and loved ones (see article). Worries about child abductions, for
example, mean that people are likely to welcome such devices. Here, the
loss of privacy is fairly clear, although they may raise tricky policy
questions in future—such as, at what age does your unruly teenager have the
right to remove her tracking chip?
But the loss of privacy may be less obvious where people trade privacy for
convenience. For example, later this year, a smart card will be introduced
to bring about cashless travel on London's underground, buses and train
services. Few of the 20m who use the capital's underground will realise
that the card, which will work from inside a wallet or bag, will record
their daily movements for billing purposes. Mobile-phone companies hold
data on an individual's calls and movements. Shops hold details of
purchases. Such companies frequently bleat that personal data is secure and
inviolable. Yet the police, tax authorities and security services can
usually gain access to such data to pursue an investigation or prosecution.
I know what you did last night
At the very least, data needs better protection from outside hackers and
from those insiders with access to it. The Federation of American
Scientists reasonably argues that potential abuses of data-collection
systems can and should be anticipated and prevented. All data banks should
have big penalties for unauthorised uses, as well as an oversight system
such as an ombudsman or public review board.
(......)

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=1280634
Surveillance:Something to watch over you
Aug 15th 2002
 From The Economist print edition
GlobeXplorer
It is easier than ever for individuals to track their possessions, pets and
loved ones
HILLARY CLINTON is supposed to have said of her husband that he was a “hard
dog to keep on the porch”. She is not alone. All over the world, dogs,
husbands, children and even inanimate objects are liable to stray from the
home—whether willingly or otherwise. Now, though, the technology exists to
keep track of them.
In fact, the new generation of tracking devices combines two existing
technologies. One is a global-positioning-system (GPS) chip, which uses
radio signals from a network of satellites to work out where it is on the
earth's surface to within a few metres. The other is a mobile-telephone
chip, which broadcasts that location to whoever needs to know it. The
result is a pocket-sized, or even wrist-sized, personal locator.
Track to the future
Applied Digital Solutions (ADS), of Palm Beach, Florida, calls its version
of the technology a “digital angel”. The angel comes in two versions.
People get a pager-like device that clips on to their clothing. Animals get
a collar.
The angel is intended to look after old people who have become forgetful
and young children who have become too adventurous, as well as dogs who are
too interested in the bitch next door. The wearer's guardians define a
perimeter beyond which they feel their charge should not wander, and
receive alerts via mobile phone or pager when he has gone beyond these
boundaries.
The digital angel can also issue an alert when its wearer has fallen down,
or when there has been an unexpected change in local temperature of the
sort that might be caused, say, by someone falling into a pond. For that to
happen, the wearer needs to sport a specially modified wristwatch which has
suitable sensors and a wireless link to the pager. Moreover, ADS claims to
be on the verge of introducing a version of the watch that can collect and
broadcast medical data such as pulse rate, blood pressure, body
temperature, electrocardiogram readings and even blood chemistry.
........)
*******
Alana Lowe-Petraske
PhD Candidate
Cardiff University
33 Corbett Road
Cardiff CF10 3EB
Tel:02920.876626 Fax:0292087.6004


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/