From: Matt Helton <mch2117@columbia.edu>
  To  : <CPC@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:45:59 -0400

[CPC] Paper 1: Public Apathy Losing the War for Privacy and a Free Internet Part I

Public Apathy Losing the War for Privacy and A Free Internet – Part I –
“This is not my fight”

	The struggle to protect the internet from governmental, corporate or
any other third party monitoring (infringement of privacy) or censorship
(infringement on free speech) is currently being fought by many academics, a
few politicians and a number of technology and privacy interests groups.  Of
those fighting for net neutrality, privacy and due process rights, the lack
of success is staggering.  Those hoping to protect net privacy rights either
politically or through congressional legislation are facing a political
machine captured and paralyzed by private interests.  As an example, not
only is net neutrality missing from the new Congressional Telecom bill^fn1,
but the Markey Net-Neutrality Amendment to the Telecoms legislation being
written by Congress was voted down^fn2.  To name a few interests: on the one
hand, there is the mainstream media and those like Rupert Murdoch seeking to
retain control of near monopolies on broadcast rights and information
control; there are the large players in the nascent broadband market such as
AT&T and Verizon seeking to prevent free-riding on ‘their’ internet
[infrastructure]^fn3; there are corporations seeking to acquire total
information about the population, both individually and in the aggregate in
order to facilitate marketing and consumer manipulation; and the those like
the Government seeking to use private information about individuals,
seemingly to protect, but in reality to control.  Notably absent as either a
net privacy advocate or opponent is the public as a collective body.
	As Professor Ed Felton points out, this is not our parents’
wiretapping debate^fn4, nor is it the same debate which faced the drafters
of the constitution.  Of course the technological differences in scope, kind
and scale of invasive surveillance practices are obvious, but the debate
about privacy itself should resonate just as strongly as it has in centuries
past.  The most notable difference, setting apart the current ongoing debate
regarding net privacy and neutrality, is the lack of a general public
outcry, typically present when privacy rights are violated, and instead
replaced by both public apathy, and misdirected concerns.  This lack of
public concern is the single greatest factor facing technology rights
advocates.
	The two principle reasons why the public is absent from this debate
are (1) Public apathy based on a lack of knowledge of either the practices
used or consequences presented and (2) Acknowledgement of some potential
consequences, but misdirected concerns as to the source and character of the
problem.  A major factor fueling public apathy and misconceptions is the
strong players mentioned above, who are interested in maintaining the status
quo and who have large political and economic arsenals to pit against the
public at large (to be explored in part 2 of this essay).
Public apathy is manifested in two ways: first, a general lack of
understanding of the ways in which privacy rights are violated and secondly,
a naïve underestimation of the breadth of those who are targets.  The first
is exemplified by a internet user who is unaware that his instant messages,
emails or web activity can be monitored and who then ‘willing’ gives up many
aspects of privacy (and more importantly personal identity) in exchange for
frequent shopper rewards, or the perks of using Google to manage every
aspect of your life (gmail, google calendar, messaging, desktop, searchbar).
The second (and arguably more common) is demonstrated by the average
internet user who knows such surveillance occurs, but does not object
because of the mistaken belief that invasion of privacy only happens to
criminals/terrorists (“those who deserve it and not me”) or is necessary to
protect the country (or as Britney Spears would say: “I think we should just
trust our President in every decision he makes”^fn5).  Thus, the second
manifestation of public apathy has been long regarded as more threatening to
liberty and privacy rights.  Certainly, the oft-cited (but incorrectly
attributed to Ben Franklin) quote still applies today: “Those who would give
up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety.”^fn6.
	In addition to general apathy, a large portion of the public
acknowledges that net privacy concerns exist, but mistakenly believe that
individual personal identity theft is the only concern.  This leads people
to protect credit card numbers, screen names and passwords but remain
apathetic towards general privacy concerns mentioned above.  Because this
misdirected concern is largely a product of the interested strong players
mentioned above it will be explored in part II of this essay. 
	When this course began, I was skeptical.  I, like most Americans,
enjoy the perks of frequent buyer cards and recommendations of amazon.com
(although I have tired of the recommended civil procedure books) with nary a
thought about whether the information collected was being used ‘for other
purposes’.  Although moderately tech savvy, admittedly, I was a card
carrying member of the apathetic public, finding many of the concerns
presented in class to be either outlandish or extreme.  As I foresaw no
likely ‘personal’ effect, my concern was limited.  However, following our in
class discussions about inadequate (totally lacking) encryption of public
email and data transfers over wireless networks, for me, the rest of the
iceberg of seemingly unapparent yet extremely invasive privacy/liberty
implications, began to become visible and significant.  The realization
(that the public lacks), that every Instant Message I send, email I type or
web page I visit while on a wireless network, like those in our classrooms,
could be logged, stored and later viewed, by a data miner, the school
administration, or perhaps even the professor teaching the class, is
particularly galvanizing.   Recognizing that my communications and online
activity is not my own (merely the tip of the iceberg of liberty
implications), was just the jolt I needed and the public at large needs to
overcome short-sighted apathy and realize that the internet privacy debate
need not and cannot be left to the academics, or interest groups, but
requires the interest of the public.
	What is needed is a jolt in public perception to be able to perceive
what is at stake (the submerged iceberg of liberty/privacy violations).  In
class, we discussed how the public at large was frightened and distraught
when telemarketers knew their names simply by using caller ID (of course, a
person’s name is only the tip of the iceberg of private information that may
automatically be displayed on a customer service representative’s computer
terminal based entirely on a telephone number).  If a stranger knowing a
person’s name is this frightening, imagine the effect of true disclosure of
the amount of personal information available to individuals, corporations,
and the government, in inciting collective public outrage and hopefully
action.  Certainly individuals can be scared out of silence in more ways
than one and hopefully it will happen, thus part II of this essay will
examine how the private interests are doing just the opposite, and keeping
America apathetic.



Fn1 – McCullagh, Declan and Broache, Anne.  “Net Neutrality Missing from
Sweeping Telecom Bill,” May 1 2006,
http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+missing+from+sweeping+telecom+bill/2100-1
028 3-6067153.html?tag=nefd.lede

Fn2 – Anderson, Nate. “Net Neutrality Amendment Shot Down,” Apr. 27 2006,
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060427-6689.html

Fn3 – As Jax Russo mentioned in her recent piece entitled: “Net Neutrality:
The Markey Amendment and the Search for a Solution”

Fn4 – Felton, Ed. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1012 last visited May
10, 2006

Fn5 – “Say What? Pop Stars’ Most Infamous Quotes” last visited May 10, 2006,
http://music.aol.com/feature/famous-quote-britney-spears

Fn6 - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin Franklin - Historians now
believe the quote to be from another diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list