Cash Value 1/10 of a Cent 183
goombah99 writes "It happens all-too-often that the govenment and companies negligently reveal citizen's private information on their websites. When collection of this information is something required by law there is an obligation to protect it. But is privacy a 'property' and does its loss require compensation? Wired news reports 'The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven. At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is.'"
Tree falls in the forest (Score:5, Interesting)
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise? Did some one ever come up with an answer to that age old parabole? If not, I don't think the Supreme Court any time soon will wrap its hands around an ancient Zen koan.
Re:The Issue (Score:5, Interesting)
You're so right, and then so wrong.
Privacy isn't a right per-se, but it certainly is more than a mere priviledge. Privacy is a presumption that is often necessary for a citizen to enjoy their most important right--that of quiet and safe enjoyment of their own life.
And criminals are a horrible example of "it's not like property." We violate oodes of a prisoner's rights--that's how we penalize folk who break the law.
It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property.
False, I believe. Mere information should be public domain--if I want to find out, oh, what your telephone number is, there shouldn't be any penalty whatsoever if someone tells it to me.
Gamming the system (Score:2, Interesting)
1. copyright all my personal data
2. put it in a database
3. ad a PGP signature to bring in the DMCA
4. Sue everybody and his dog who sells or distibutes said information
5. Profit?
Good for security (Score:4, Interesting)
Before they answer that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced.
Re:The Issue (Score:5, Interesting)
And criminals are a horrible example of "it's not like property." We violate oodes of a prisoner's rights--that's how we penalize folk who break the law.
So true, the criminals gave up there privacy rights when they commited a crime. A sexual malester lost his rights the minute he commited a perverted act, because his right to privacy would infringe on others rights to safety.
Re:The Issue (Score:5, Interesting)
I see your point, but I want to add some additional definition to muddy the waters...
Privacy isn't a natural right. I do consider it stronger than a generic privilege, so I would like to call it a governed right. That is, privacy may not be inherent to existence, but it should be to our government. Privacy is something I would rather not lose.
I concede on the criminals point. We do take away rights - governed or natural.
I still think that privacy is a method rather than an object. Some information should be free - indeed I can go to SuperPages [superpages.com] and look up a phone number or a name from a number. I can go to Google [google.com], type in a phone number, and bring up a name and driving directions.
With the phone number as an example, I have the option to request a level of privacy - an unlisted number. Privacy becomes the mechanism by which you cannot find my phone number without having been granted certain privilege. The privilege to find an unlisted number comes with additional responsibility and, most importantly, accountability. This is where the government comes in.
The government knows your phone number. They know your social security number (hopefully), bank account numbers, your credit card numbers - all the pieces of information that you may wish to be private. If, then, we assume that privacy is a right - govered or natural - then the government must take steps to secure our information if we wish it so, and if privacy is a right, the presumption must be that we do wish it.
Re:The Issue (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want, and I shold be able to prevent, anyone from _effecting_ my bank account.
If everyone and their brother knows exactly how much is in my bank account, but cannot do anything more then send me an offer for a short-term loan or a "special cash rate" for a purchase, then all of my rights remain intact.
Re:The Issue (Score:2, Interesting)
My phone number is just information, but calling me every 10 minutes would be an invasion of my privacy. My home address and work address are just information, but stalking me (because you know how to find me...) is and invasion of my privacy.
We all have personal information, but it's the abuse of that information that is the issue here. And if the government makes it easier to collect that information, and it leads to abuse of that information, then the government is liable.
But who owns the info (Score:3, Interesting)
Burden of proof and cost of recovery (Score:4, Interesting)
But if each individual has to prove harm this becomes prohibitive. Say if my SS is left exposed for a few months on a web site, and later my identity is stolen. Can I prove that one caused the other? Not likely.
It seems like certain information shoul dbe designated as must-be-kept-secure and its very exposure shifts the burden of proof that no harm was done to the government.
Of course as a practical matter this could get sticky if one day say a server containing all of the SSN numbers were hacked or a disgruntled employee posted them.
Re:Privacy Act only applies to use by the Governme (Score:4, Interesting)
Each and every one of them told me that AT&T required my SSN along with my resume in order to apply for the job. I told every one of them that it wasn't going to happen. (I only had to hang up on one for not being willing to at least accept my choice.)
A company can, and will, demand anything they can get away with. It is up to us to take a stand and tell them that we have a right to refuse to do business with them as well.
-Chris
Re:The Issue (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not a privilege, it's an inalienable right. It's granted to you by your existance. It can only be taken away by due process or your own abdication of it.
Makes it a rather alienable right, rather than an unalienable one. An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken away.
In Italy privacy is guararteed by law (Score:2, Interesting)
In Italy people can't collect, use, process, sell and give away your personal information without your explicit written consent collected in advance.
For some data, the state is exempt by default (those strictly needed for tax and justice work).
Sensitive information (sexual, religious, about health and politics, and so on) is protected by special regulation.
Violating this law could result in penalties or prison, depending on gravity of violation.
This is very useful for spam too: many italian spammers have been already fined 250EUR for each spam email they sent (this money has been given to spammed people) plus legal costs.
fast forward (Score:3, Interesting)
Michael Jackson's Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, so that means that if someone were to publish Michael Jackson's personal info, or Carmen Electra's home telephone number, or President Bush's cell phone, the most that any of those celebrities could get is $1000?
I think not.
So, *why* is Michael Jackson's right to privacy more valuable than mine? Or is this yet another issue where the rich are protected by law, but the common citizens are not protected by law?
I think there's a huge double standard going on here, particulary if the RIAA can claim millions of dollars of damages per song, but I can't claim millions of dollars of damages when TRW sells my credit history to a telemarketer.
I think there's a huge double standard going on here, if celebrities can sue for privacy, but the average joe cannot.