As expected Garfinkel brings it all together in this last chapter. Pretty much his view of the future can be summarized in this statement
"...today, our right to be free from intrusions is threatened both by terrorists with weapons ofmass destruction, and by our government, seeking to find and eliminate these terrorists. Our right to have private thoughts or conversations is threatened by governments, marketers, and the relentless instrumentation of our planet. Our personal histories are being laid open by insurance companies. [And]Our thoughts may one day be simulated, or at least stolen, by advanced computers. "
He really tries to bring home the argument that our privacy is on the line in this last chapter and calls for a Federal Privacy organization to regulate these areas of the economy in the United States.
Although Garfinkel does state that a Federal organization could be created for merely 5 million dollars; I think that it would be fairly useless unless the government would change the way it views privacy law and start enacting more laws that favor the individual. Otherwise it seems that the only thing this Federal organization would have to worry about is the fair credit reporting
Lastly, while I support a good number of ideas in this chapter I would like to discuss further his section on "Technology is Not Neutral" .
I believe that technology by itself is neutral. The developers behind the technology however are not. There is always a "back door" to computers or another way to get past the firewalls or passwords. This is probably because, unlike other areas, the development of technology is not really regulated. It is vastly driven by competition to get the newest, fastest, smallest, most efficient device to market and turn a profit fast and in this process corners are cut at the loss of the consumer. I do not think that the best way to control technologies "non-neutrality" is to regulate how software is programed or how technology is made but instead develop an agency that would certify organization or products on if they are truly consumer privacy enabled. This would be similar to the Energy Star rating or ISO 9000 certification. It would be an added step that consumers would have as protection without creating/adding to the bureaucracy of the American Government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think Garfinkel’s point is that it IS necessary for the government to change the way it views privacy laws and it should initiate more legislation to protect personal information and individual privacy. His Federal regulation organization would oversee new national data protection regulations as well as advanced fair credit reporting practices.
I agree business privacy practices could earn something similar to the ISO 9000 certifications, however, Garfinkel mentions that Canada tried to get similar codes into the CSA code and this was blocked by U.S. businesses. These businesses will continue to do what is in their best personal interests until they are regulated to do something different. Just like the debate over SOX and whether it is worth the cost, I believe privacy regulation is necessary. Yes, sometimes businesses must foot additional costs of regulations to protect consumers but they will receive it back as consumers’ confidence in security and privacy increases sales and overall profits.
Post a Comment