{"id":69,"date":"2013-10-26T16:43:36","date_gmt":"2013-10-26T23:43:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/colinschimmelfing.com\/blog\/?p=69"},"modified":"2013-11-11T23:56:09","modified_gmt":"2013-11-12T07:56:09","slug":"change-the-narrative-privacy-should-be-considered-as-a-type-of-property-to-protect-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/colinschimmelfing.com\/blog\/change-the-narrative-privacy-should-be-considered-as-a-type-of-property-to-protect-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Change the narrative: privacy should be considered as a type of property to protect it"},"content":{"rendered":"
Thinking about the recent Verizon\/PRISM\/Muscular releases, the StopWatchingUs protest, and seeing the same “I’ve got nothing to hide” argument come up again, I’ve been thinking that perhaps the way to solve this from a public image perspective is to change the narrative in society. Instead of fighting for privacy arguing about privacy’s intrinsic value, we can discuss privacy as a form of personal property and gain some of property’s protections for privacy.\u00a0That idea may have some cons, but perhaps could be useful to deflect the “nothing to hide” argument and to get moderates to join the fight for privacy online.\u00a0I would apologize to my law school friends for the bending of legal frameworks for my own ends, but after\u00a0Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0I don’t feel so bad doing it…<\/p>\n Let’s think about the units we’d be talking about. I’ll define privacy as the ability to control who knows certain things about you, whether it is basic information like your address, or who you talk to (NSA-Verizon-ATT, Chevron and email<\/a>), or exactly what you look like naked (TSA scanners), to your inner beliefs and thoughts (unease with behavioral targeting).<\/p>\n In our idea of a ‘privacy property’, each receipt of this information by a new individual or organization would be a new property transaction. You should have control over your own ‘privacy property’, regardless of who is communicating your information. For instance, if Google is handing over your data to an advertiser or the NSA, you would have control over whether that transaction is allowed. Similar to property, the government could appropriate your privacy in an emergency or a war situation, but everyday privacy violations would be illegitimate takings by the government.<\/p>\n Now, let’s be clear, this regime would be very difficult to implement technically, but we are discussing how to change the public’s perception<\/em> of the issue, not necessarily advocating that this framework should be implemented.<\/p>\n While I was thinking about this, I came across this ten-year-old article from Lessig<\/a> trying to outline a viable framework.<\/p>\n In the article, Lessig talks about Amazon changing the terms of service retroactively to be able to sell information about their customers, even if those customers had indicated that Amazon should not sell their information:<\/p>\n If it were taken for granted that privacy was a form of property, then Amazon simply could not get away with announcing that this personal information was now theirs. That would be “theft,” and this is my point: “theft” is positively un-American.<\/p>\n Property talk would give privacy rhetoric added support within American culture. If you could get people (in America, at this point in history) to see a certain resource as property, then you are 90 percent to your protective goal. If people see a resource as property, it will take a great deal of converting to convince them that companies like Amazon should be free to take it. Likewise, it will be hard for companies like Amazon to escape the label of thief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lessig talks a lot about\u00a0what\u00a0a property system would look like for privacy, but I think this is\u00a0unnecessary and for the short term, distracting. If instead we change the public perception about privacy, we can gain the cultural protections of associating privacy with property\u00a0and\u00a0change the discourse amongst moderates. We can change\u00a0the\u00a0discussion from “I’ve got nothing to hide, the NSA can see who I’m talking to” to “I don’t think the NSA should be allowed to\u00a0commandeer\u00a0so much property for so little benefit to America. If they can’t justify the benefits with specific examples of thwarted plots, etc, my ‘privacy property’ should not be taken. The NSA is an un-American\u00a0institution\u00a0if they continue this spying.”<\/p>\n I think we\u00a0can even go further to gain the protection of not only the fourth amendment, which is somewhat confusing and endlessly debatable, but with the third amendment, probably the least\u00a0controversial\u00a0amendment in the bill of rights:<\/p>\n No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a time of relative peace, the NSA is stealing some of our ‘privacy property’ every day with no compensation. Their justification for stealing is for defense of\u00a0the\u00a0country, however this defense is against undefined, undefeatable\u00a0foes with no end time table. Thus, if privacy is considered property<\/strong>, it can be argued that the NSA is committing the exact<\/strong> crime that inspired the 3rd amendment.<\/p>\n While I don’t think a case\u00a0could\u00a0be successfully argued in\u00a0the\u00a0supreme\u00a0court right now, we only need to win in the court of public opinion.<\/p>\n Yet, as a friend points out, the NSA reading your email does not feel like the British government posting a soldier in your spare room. However, if there is a mental shift to each new recipient of your personal information counting as a property transaction, it may very well start to feel like that.<\/p>\n There is the final complication that it seems as though the argument is very similar to the argument record companies failed to ‘win’ with during the 2000s, that data online is property and must be treated as such. While everyone seems to take it for granted that the record companies lost this battle:<\/p>\n Quick note on that Rasmussen poll I linked to- yes, this is\u00a0likely voters<\/em> who were reached by\u00a0land-line telephone.<\/em> Nate Silver has written a ton on how Rasmussen polls are biased<\/a>\u00a0but this is bias is actually a boon for us. Generally the younger generation has been less receptive to the security argument<\/a>, and to expand the fight against spying we need the support of the older, less urban generation which Rasmussen is biased towards. These polls suggest that this older group is more likely to respond well to the “privacy is property” narrative, and could be allies in the struggle against government surveillance. Let’s go out in the world (and on the internet) and try to emphasize that:<\/strong><\/p>\n Especially as\u00a0the\u00a0holidays come up, let’s see if our currently-less-concerned relatives can be swayed by this argument. If the connection to\u00a0the\u00a0third amendment is a stretch, at least that privacy\u00a0should\u00a0be afforded some of the protections of property.<\/p>\n “Doesn’t matter to me, I have nothing to hide”<\/em><\/p>\n Neither do I, but it should be my choice to provide information to the government, as private information is my ‘privacy property’. Without the ability to give consent to spying, the government is stealing from you, whether you\u00a0support the\u00a0program\u00a0or not.<\/p>\n “But the government needs to protect us from terrorists”<\/em><\/p>\n Yes, but at what cost? Your privacy is your property,\u00a0and\u00a0while we accept that the government sometimes needs to take property to protect the country, our country’s founders specifically rejected\u00a0the equivalent of the NSA’s spying. The British used to post soldiers in\u00a0houses\u00a0(quartering) without paying the owners of the house,\u00a0effectively appropriating the house’s private property. The NSA is stealing your\u00a0private property day-in, day-out just like the British stole our forefathers’ spare rooms. It goes against the ideals of America to support this spying program.<\/p>\n “What\u00a0about child predators, hackers, etc?”<\/em><\/p>\n These are police matters and should be handled through the regular justice system. Just because\u00a0something\u00a0is online does not mean it is up for grabs, and the constitutional protections\u00a0given\u00a0to you in real life should follow you onto the internet. As it is, we are spending more and more time on the internet so we need to ensure we protect our rights online as well as offline.<\/p>\n “But you give data to Facebook, don’t they own that information now, and could give it to the government if they wanted?”<\/em><\/p>\n Perhaps, but just like you can’t go and print off copies of Harry Potter and sell them on the street, institutions who I’ve\u00a0given my data to\u00a0should\u00a0not be allowed to resell my information without my consent. Just as you would go to jail for stealing from JK Rowling, Facebook should be liable if it passes on my\u00a0information\u00a0to anyone<\/em>, not just the NSA. Start thinking about each time a new organization receives your information as a transaction that\u00a0you\u00a0<\/em>should have to authorize – it is\u00a0your<\/em> data!<\/p>\nQuick Brainstorm of Pros and Cons:<\/h3>\n
Pros:<\/h4>\n
\n
Cons:<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n
Example Interactions from the thanksgiving table:<\/h3>\n
Share this, if you like it:<\/h3>