The right to privacy?

The issue of privacy and ones right to it has been in the news lately. The second in command at the Director of Intelligence, Donald Kerr, made the startling proclamation that anonymity is gone and privacy is perhaps best understood as the rules and restrictions over what the government can do with information about you. The assumption here is that by going on-line you are consciously sharing information and therefore you should not (at least in his mind) find monitoring by intelligence agencies objectionable. Much of our “private” information is available through the Internet some now feel that anonymity, and therefore privacy, are already obsolete concepts.

Some may find it surprising that there is no specific “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional scholars have argued whether or not the omission is problematic. It is obvious that the Constitution does have an interest in maintaining certain aspects of privacy. For instance, the First Amendment is protection of private beliefs. The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home from being used to garrison troops. The Fourth Amendment is protection from unreasonable searches. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination, the closest to an actual right to privacy. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." While none actually comes out and states a right to privacy, it is seems the U.S. Constitution was framed with many protections that were simply unheard of in European monarchies.

Why the deputy Director of Intelligence would risk making such a statement that seems to be unsupported by the U.S. Constitution seemed like a mystery until today. A story appearing on the National Terror Alert website concerns a woman who worked for both the FBI and CIA yet was in the country illegally. She admitted to using fraudulent documents to obtain her U.S. citizenship before going to work for the agencies. The case could spark a renewed call for increasing oversight of workers by U.S. spy agencies (whether they currently work for the federal government or not is irrelevant, they MIGHT become federal employees some day). The story goes on to mention how the woman conducted at least two illegal computer searches while a federal agent. Despite urges for caution, I can see where federal agencies will begin a renewed call demanding increased surveillance authority over individuals of interest.

A hurried approach to implementing additional authorities granting less restrictive surveillance has implications beyond just the federal government. Contractors providing services to the federal government may have to spend additional money screening their workers for background checks. Workers who previously had access to federal information may be subject to restraining orders similar to what intelligence analysts have to sign swearing to never, ever share any information. The costs associated with tracking and monitoring all of these individuals and their information could become quite high. The potential scrutiny of any individual at any time with no-notice could be quite alarming.

People now share personal information with amazing alacrity (sometimes this alacrity backfires when their files get sent to other than the intended recipient). A small lapse in judgment, an alcohol induced impulse, or a sudden bout of spite could result in information being posted that catches the interest of a particular agency. If the equipment used happens to belong to a company or corporation, the employers may find themselves equally culpable. Companies could end-up spending large amounts of their operating budgets screening and monitoring their employees behaviors even more in the future. In a related manner, the Scotts Company recently fired an employee who tested positive for tobacco. Scotts has a strict no tobacco use policy in place at its offices and manufacturing plants. However this individual claims he only used tobacco when he went home and never on the job. Scotts has maintained that its policy is in effect regardless. The case is still being reviewed at this time but shows how employers are now beginning to hold employees accountable for behavior outside of the workplace.

The potential for the monitoring of employees personal time poses a slippery slope. Governing behavior when an employee is not on the clock could damage a company’s ability to recruit a viable workforce. Inappropriately sharing such information with future employers or law enforcement agencies could jeopardize a company’s standing in the community and thus bottom line. Failure to share information about a potential risk could be equally disastrous to a company’s bottom line. The recent incidents involving toys containing harmful substances could shed some very harsh light if companies were aware of unsafe practices but chose to ignore them for whatever reason.

New York wants to give illegal immigrants the ability to apply for driver’s licenses. The rationale is it will make the streets safer as people here illegally will now have to pass a driver’s exam. I just don’t see how that is going to make the streets safer. A few years ago, we had a drunk driver arrested for the 19th time! He had long ago had his driver’s license suspended yet he still found ways to get access to a car. He was not deterred by not having a driver’s license. While I don’t see the New York initiative impacting safety, I do see the initiative tempting some officials or agencies with using that information to monitor individuals they may suspect of being potential terrorists. The potential for abuse is great and the return on investment miniscule.

Access to greater amounts of information does not lead to better decisions. At times, the expectation of having so much information can lead to a paralysis when there gaps in the information. We don’t need additional data sets to predict behavior. We need better trained analysts allowed to think outside the box without regard to convention or political expediency.