From: <cef2103@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Tue,  1 Mar 2005 13:37:02 -0500

Re: private versus government data collection

Jang, your email raised a very interesting and important point about
how the importance of size. The United States is big and spread out
and many people (especially those that don't live in cities where
they can count 17 video cameras between their house and school)
don't beleive that their lives are even being monitored much at
all.

The large size of America also appears to be a protection to many.
Even if they are being monitored, people figure that the government
will not focus on their lives because their lives cannot be
distinguished from those of millions of other normal Americans.
Until reading O'Harrow's book and realizing the incredible data
storage and data mining ability of the computer systems, I
sympathized with this perspective (although I was outraged at the
privacy invasion possible, I wasn't necessarily worried about it
affecting my individual life). However, the power exists to predict
patterns of behavior from details of individual lives that
individuals themselves are unaware of. What if the government
determines that patterns in my life seem to be those of an
extremist with the potential to commit some big crime? What kinds
of preventative measures could they take against me? Can the
government make preemptive strikes against individuals?

Current laws do not do too much to answer this question (I may be
missing something, so if anyone has more insight on this point,
please write). People see that the purpose of laws such as the
Patriot Act is to catch terrorists, and many do not look further to
see that there are inadequate limits to the power granted. Many do
not even see the need for a limit if the government will only use
information for stated purposes. This again raises the point of
ability/reliability - although most people recognize that
government has the legal ability to get information about them if
it wishes, they are relying on it following its stated purposes.

~Caitlin

Quoting jy2050@columbia.edu:

>
> Sze,
>
> While I do agree with you that Singapore is a country where
> people
> give absolute faith in the government and therefore they let the
> government get away with imposing all sorts of restrictions, I
> don't see how the US is in any less danger, especially in terms
> of
> public data mining.
>
> To be fair, at least in Singapore, the government has so much
> confidence in its regime, that it is very open in implementing
> new
> policies. In terms of transparency, the people are in a far
> better
> position to see what policy changes are being implemented.
>
> Awareness level is high because the people know that each policy
> that the government implement will affect the whole community. Do
> you really believe that the people in the US have the same level
> of
> awareness? It is my opinion that the majority of the population
> believe that the patriot act is a regulation that only affect
> terrorists. That it involves screening of Muslims and that it
> will
> not affect their lives, maybe only in airports.
>
> So I cannot say which is more dangerous, a government that openly
> regulates a city country where the citizen give outright faith
> but
> are usually aware of the changes or a country that can do so with
> the backing of the majority who are usually ignorant of the
> policy
> changes that are being carried out.
>
> In smaller countries, public outcry has a powerful effect on the
> government. In Korea, internet blogs and netizens can bring the
> government to its knees whenever it gains public support. In
> Korea,a march in Seoul is taken seriously by the regime. When the
> Chinese tried to implement stricter governance in HK, a public
> march forced the Chinese government to withdraw its new policing
> policies.
>
> I don't see that happening in the United States. Too many people,
> too diverse and too blissful of the plight of others. NIMBY
> carries
> the day and the government doesn't have to be a NANNY state in
> order
> to be autocratic.
>
> - Jang Yeo
>
> Quoting Sze Tan <st2206@columbia.edu>:
>
> >
> > Camden,
> >
> > >From your point of view, the problems associated with private
> > data
> > collection are more "tractable" because the voting public, via
> > governmental
> > machinery, can vote to snuff out abuses. There is a slight
> > contradiction in
> > your perspective, however, as it presupposes the inherent
> > reliability of the
> > government - something which you go on to doubt, at least in
> the
> > context of
> > public collection of data.
> >
> > I do appreciate your point about the over-extension of the
> > legitimacy in
> > public data mining, however. Fortunately, this is the United
> > States, and not
> > some paternalistic country like Singapore, where people simply
> > believe (and
> > obey) what their government tells them hook, line and sinker.
> > There's a long
> > way to go yet before the US turns into a nanny state - but that
> > means the
> > earlier we start taking precautions, the better.
> >
> > Sze
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Camden Hutchison" <crh2014@columbia.edu>
> > To: <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 4:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: private versus government data collection
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Points taken, but the problems with private data collection
> > still
> > > seem a little more... I don't know... tractable, maybe, than
> > the
> > > issue of increasing government surveillance of society.  For
> > > instance, I have a feeling that the worst abuses in private
> > data
> > > collection (like sloppy control of data) can actually be
> solved
> > > legally once the voting public becomes upset enough about
> them.
> > >
> > > Data mining by the government is more worrisome to me because
> I
> > fear
> > > that it is less likely to raise the public ire.  I am worried
> > that
> > > September 11 may have really caused the sort of cultural
> shift
> > > whereby ordinary people are willing to accept government
> > monitoring
> > > because they are afraid.  By the time that the threat of
> > terrorism
> > > fades from salience, the security apparatus will still be
> there
> > and
> > > Americans will have become accustomed to it.  The potential
> for
> > this
> > > type of change -- a paradigm shift in the conception and
> > reality of
> > > civil liberties -- is what concerns me most.
> > >
> > > -Camden
> > >
> > >> I would say this an oversimplification of things, and more
> > >> importantly the
> > >> issue is not only the use that the government can make of
> the
> > all
> > >> of this
> > >> information but also the misuse and defective protection of
> > the
> > >> private
> > >> data by private individuals. added to that is the use that
> > others
> > >> can make
> > >> of the data that readily available for stealing and for
> which
> > >> there is not
> > >> penalty under American privacy laws, which only bind the
> > >> government
> > >> -excerpt maybe for the fair credit reporting act.
> > >>
> > >> So its not really either or, and its not what is worse, its
> > the
> > >> combined
> > >> effect of it all.
> > >>
> > >> Alex
> > >>
> > >> --On Sunday, February 20, 2005 9:15 AM -0500 Camden
> Hutchison
> > >> <crh2014@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > The impression I am getting from reading Robert O'Harrow,
> > Jr.'s
> > >> book
> > >> > is that new data collection technologies raise two
> distinct
> > >> social
> > >> > issues.  One is that private businesses now have easy
> access
> > to
> > >> > detailed personal information about us.  The other is that
> > the
> > >> > federal government increasingly also has access to
> detailed
> > >> > personal information about us.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am curious as to which of these two issues other
> students
> > >> feel is
> > >> > the core problem we should be addressing in the class.  My
> > own
> > >> > feeling is that government use of our personal information
> > (at
> > >> > least when it is being used for national security
> purposes)
> > is
> > >> far
> > >> > more worrisome than private use of that information.  Like
> > Eben
> > >> > said in class, the worst that marketers can do is try to
> > >> convince
> > >> > us to go to Disneyworld.  The government can send men with
> > guns
> > >> to
> > >> > our homes.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Camden
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
>



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