| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Comments from anyone are welcome and appreciated. |
>
> | REVISED--READY FOR REVIEW |
| | I. INTRODUCTION |
|
<
< | II. EXEMPLARY PRIVACY OPTIONS FOR GOVERNING USE OF INFORMATION |
>
> | II. EXEMPLARY PRIVACY OPTIONS FOR GOVERNING DATA MINING |
| | |
|
<
< | III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “OPT-IN” SYSTEM |
>
> | III. AN OPT-IN SYSTEM PROVIDES THE BEST ANALYTICAL PARADIGM |
| | |
|
<
< | IV. CONCLUSION |
>
> | IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “OPT-IN” SYSTEM
V. CONCLUSION |
| |
A Proposal for the Regulation of Internet Data Mining by Private Entities |
| | I. INTRODUCTION |
|
<
< | Internet data mining (referring to internet information that is not publicly available) touches on all three components of privacy discussed in class: (1) secrecy, (2) anonymity, and (3) autonomy.
- But that's an outcome of the definition, not the subject. Data that is publicly available and data that is legally available if you pay for it is not secret, and the activity of acquiring information that it's legal to acquire and using it to infer something valuable or interesting is called "learning."
Secrecy is affected because many people mistakenly believe that when they, for example, place an order online for a sexual oriented product, that communication is secret to those other than the vender and the purchaser.
- If they are promised it is, it is. If not, not. That's just like the rule in the rest of the world, right?
For the same reason anonymity is affected because people believe that the vender will not personally know them (and will not disclose the information to people who may personally know them). In fact, people apparently purchase sensitive items via the internet because they believe that such method of purchase protects their anonymity better than does physically walking into a store and making the purchase. In the context of internet searches and browsing of websites many people mistakenly believe they have complete anonymity. Finally, because data can be used unknowingly to the searcher/purchaser’s disadvantage autonomy is affected.
- So far the case rests entirely on people's mistaken impressions, which is not the strongest possible basis on which to contend that something other than education needs to be done.
All three components of privacy and in particular autonomy are intertwined with personal freedom. http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/03/freedom-and-autonomy.html. I begin with what seems axionomic
that freedom and autonomy is desirable. From that I follow with a proposal that true freedom requires meaningful choice: “Freedom means having control of your own life.” See Richard Stallman, Wikisource:Speeches, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_and_Beyond:_Human_Rights_in_the_Use_of_Software. |
>
> | Internet data mining touches on all three components of privacy discussed in class: (1) secrecy, (2) anonymity, and (3) autonomy, which in turn are intertwined with personal freedom. Freedom and autonomy are desirable and true freedom requires meaningful choice. The challenge and desire then is to determine and implement the legal paradigm that provides people with the best meaningful choice and freedom with respect to their privacy. |
| | |
|
<
< |
- But you're taking Richard out of context unless you explain that his thinking on this issue is not at all the same as yours, and leads to different conclusions.
|
>
> | Privacy issues arise in part because of reasonable expectations of privacy for certain activities. For example, when a woman posts photos to a Facebook profile and that site states that people can control who can see their profile and photos she has a reasonable expectation of privacy when those privacy options are exercised. Conversely, if a man uses an online username “BOYSRCH” along with his photograph, which is accessible by anyone, he should not be surprised if such is used against him by his employer with a policy that prohibits homosexuality. This type of activity does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and no legislative reform is necessary to protect such publically revealed information. |
| | |
|
<
< | The challenge and desire then is to determine which legal system actually provides people with the best meaningful choice and freedom with respect to their privacy and autonomy. |
>
> | Aside from the reasonable expectations of privacy, people should be entitled to maintain their privacy as a natural right in certain matters that they do not choose to disclose. For example, the identity of products that a person purchases over the internet should be protectable as a natural right—irrespective of any disclosures that would eliminate a reasonable expectation of privacy—should that person choose privacy. |
| | |
|
>
> | II. EXEMPLARY PRIVACY OPTIONS FOR GOVERNING DATA MINING |
| | |
|
>
> | Various privacy options, e.g., absolutely prohibiting data mining, unlimited data mining, opt-in, nakedness, and opt out systems have some difficulties either in theory and/or in practical administration. The current unlimited and unknown to many internet data mining violates fundamental human rights. See generally Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2486 (U.S. 1992) (“Throughout this century, this Court also has held that the fundamental right of privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion [into certain areas].”). |
| | |
|
<
< | II. EXEMPLARY PRIVACY OPTIONS FOR GOVERNING USE OF INFORMATION |
>
> | A per se outright ban on all data mining is also problematic. This is a more difficult issue than the former but with the ideal that true freedom means individual choice, one must recognize that people should be free to allow monitoring and use of information if after being fully informed they subjectively perceive that such monitoring benefits them more than it costs them. |
| | |
|
<
< | Each privacy option, e.g., absolutely prohibiting data mining, unlimited and unregulated data mining, opt-in, nakedness, and opt out systems, seem to have some difficulties either in theory and/or in practical administration. Initially, I reject the current unlimited internet data mining. That type of unknown and unregulated monitoring of human activity violates fundamental human rights. See generally Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2486 (U.S. 1992) (“Throughout this century, this Court also has held that the fundamental right of privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion [into certain areas].”). |
>
> | An “opt-out” system is undesirable for the basic reason that people are simply provided with too many complex (often probably intentionally so) adhesion form-contracts to be expected to carefully read and understand such, resulting in effectively no choice and nearly unlimited data mining in such a system. |
| | |
|
<
< | I also reject a per se outright ban on all data mining. This is a more difficult issue than the former, but again, with the ideal that true freedom means individual choice, one must recognize that people should be free to allow monitoring and use of information if after being fully informed they subjectively perceive that such monitoring benefits them more than it costs them. For example, at least one person in this class articulated in TWiki that he feels that he benefits from monitoring because of the convenience afforded him by such (although I do not believe he reached an ultimate conclusion whether the benefit outweighs the cost). |
>
> | Finally nakedness impermissibly negates personal choice to maintain privacy (although it would reduce incentives to gather the information). |
| | |
|
<
< | I further reject an “opt-out” system for the basic reason that people must be allowed to make a meaningful choice. People today are simply provided with too many complex (often probably intentionally so) adhesion form-contracts to be expected to carefully read and understand such, resulting in effectively no choice and nearly unlimited data mining in such a system. |
>
> | III. AN OPT-IN SYSTEM PROVIDES THE BEST ANALYTICAL PARADIGM |
| | |
|
<
< | I finally reject nakedness as negating personal choice to maintain privacy (although I understand it would reduce incentives to gather the information). |
>
> | An opt-in system provides the best internet privacy option. As a default starting position, people are entitled to privacy and they must take action before such privacy is relinquished. Of course there are legitimate reasons that persons would want to know certain information about a person—such as the credit history and ability of a prospective tenant to pay rent. Another example might include the political (and possibly even personal activities) of a public figure such as a U.S. Senator. In the former case, however, the tenant is choosing to disclose certain personal information to the landlord through contract. In the later case the U.S. Senator is voluntarily relinquishing certain privacy rights by becoming a public figure (the Senator’s formerly personal information becomes relevant to the public because the Senator’s behavior could directly affect the public). |
| | |
|
<
< | Consequently, I believe that an opt-in system provides the best chance for meaningful choice, freedom, and autonomy. As discussed in class, effectively conveying information sufficient for meaningful choice in a society that never forgets is a challenge of an opt-in system. |
>
> | An opt-in system for data mining provides the best opportunity for implementation of the potentially competing goals of obtaining relevant information while protecting privacy rights because the relinquishment of natural rights of privacy are based on the individual’s choice in exchange for something that he considers more valuable. |
| | |
|
<
< | III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “OPT-IN” SYSTEM |
>
> | IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “OPT-IN” SYSTEM |
| | |
|
<
< | I would propose legislation wherein the default rule provides that without consent in the form of “opting-in,” information gathered about a person over the internet may only be used as necessary to provide the service requested. The information gathered could not be disclosed or sold and it would need to be deleted within a reasonable amount of time. For example, if a person placed an order from Wal-Mart.com all information about the purchaser, including her personal information such as name, address, etc. and the product purchased, web pages visited, etc. would need to be deleted from Wal-Mart’s database within a reasonable time after the product is received by the customer. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/business/yourmoney/14wal.html?_r=1 (discussing Wal-Mart’s current use of personal information). Other entities, such as the Google search engine would not be able to store or disclose the information. See http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Firefox_s_Private_Browsing__AKA__Porn_Mode__Arrives (private browsing available from Firefox). In the context of banking, information such as expenditures would need to be retained for record-keeping purposes but kept confidential and not used for purposes other than record-keeping and such information could not be shared with other entities or other departments within the same institution (such as where investment banks are allowed to merge with commercial depository banks after repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act. |
>
> | Legislation should be adopted wherein the default rule provides that without consent in the form of “opting-in,” information gathered about a person over the internet may only be used as necessary to provide the service requested. The information gathered could not be disclosed or sold and it would need to be deleted within a reasonable amount of time. For example, if a person placed an order from Wal-Mart.com all information about the purchaser, including her personal information such as name, address, etc. and the product purchased, web pages visited, etc. would need to be deleted from Wal-Mart’s database within a reasonable time after the product is received by the customer (discussing Wal-Mart’s current use of personal information). Other entities, such as the Google search engine would not be able to store or disclose the information (private browsing available from Firefox). In the context of banking, information such as expenditures would need to be retained for record-keeping purposes but kept confidential and not used for purposes other than record-keeping and such information could not be shared with other entities or other departments within the same institution (such as where investment banks are allowed to merge with commercial depository banks after repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act). |
| | |
|
<
< | The legislation would, however, allow those private entities to mine data (purchase the ability to store, use, and sell the information) if after being fully informed a person believed that it was in her best interest to sell that information and opted-in. As previously mentioned, some people may desire to have special offers sent to them for future purchases of similar products. Other people may be persuaded by discounted prices or even cash payments for the information. The opt-in choice would perhaps require that to opt-in the person would be redirected to a federally maintained website that provided in understandable and brutally descriptive terms (drafted as part of the legislation) what the information could be collected, used for, by whom, and potential consequences thereof. Each entity that sought to mine data would need to obtain a consent from each person for which it gathered the information, based upon the user’s IP address. There would also be an option, each time referred to the “opt-in” website to register a single time to preclude all companies from making future offers to mine data from that IP address. See generally http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/cyber/commerce/07commerce.html. |
>
> | The legislation would, however, allow those private entities to mine data (purchase the ability to store, use, and sell the information) if after being fully informed a person believed that it was in her best interest to sell that information and opted-in. Some people may desire to have special offers sent to them for future purchases of similar products while others may be persuaded by discounted prices or even cash payments for the information. The opt-in choice would perhaps require that to opt-in the person would be redirected to a federally maintained website that provided in understandable and brutally descriptive terms (drafted as part of the legislation) what the information could be collected, used for, by whom, and potential consequences thereof. There could also be an option, each time referred to the “opt-in” website to register a single time to preclude all companies from making future offers to mine data from that IP address. |
| | |
|
<
< | IV. CONCLUSION |
>
> | V. CONCLUSION |
| | While not free of concerns, an opt-in system provides the best choice, freedom, and overall autonomy for individuals in society. |