Fending Off Goliath

Myth or fact? Both the Internet and the World Wide Web (hereinafter jointly referred as the “Net”) constitute a powerful tool of freedom and expression: fact. Whether for the greater good of a selected few or the demise of the remaining ‘others’, the Net does constitute a powerful tool of freedom and expression. But if we were to strike the words “freedom” and “expression” out of that phrase, we would be left with just “a powerful tool”. And as a powerful tool, it can be used for good or evil. Some evils we can control, others we cannot. Or can we?

As previously stated, the Net is not without caveats. First off, it is now generally accepted that the way the Net is being commercially used constitutes a threat to privacy. Now, more than ever, the concept of privacy has been eroded to the point where it admits no precise definition. For quite sometime, for example, browser cookies have been used by companies, among other purposes, to monitor customer-browsing habits, to conduct target advertising and pinpoint consumer preferences; popular websites are now requiring users to use their real names, under the threat of being blocked, for so-called security purposes; GPS technology is now being used to monitor public movements; and instant messaging applications are, by default, transcribing their users’ conversations. Moreover, the manner in which certain types of technology are evolving, such as Image Processing Software, do not seem too promising or focused for safeguarding our privacy interests.

Second, this eroding of privacy represents a potential chilling effect on expression. Individuals, especially those who have become dependent of online social networks, which come to feel that they cannot communicate or conduct themselves over the Net without leaving their digital footprint, might censor their online speech all together. Also, by not being able to knowingly protect or somewhat conceal their identity, users will certainly be more reluctant to freely read, “speak” and browse through the Internet without fear of repercussions.

A large part of the problem rests on the level of computer illiteracy in our society. We know how to use the tools, but do not understand how they operate. Most importantly, we do not know what is required to learn their operation. This can be seen translated as an example in the period of time it took society for becoming aware of the eroding of their privacy. And somehow, it feels like we have no choice. The general public perceives the terms and benefits of the Net akin to a contract of adhesion.

Another part of the problem rests on the amount and type of data that is in control of the companies that provide the services to which we are commercially tied to (e.g. cell phone carriers, search engines). Much of the data that these companies have in their possession could be used to identify the “who”, “when”, “where”, “what” and for “what purposes” of each individual customer. One of the most striking examples can be found in a cell phone history, which can be used to identify all of the whereabouts of its owner throughout its billing cycle.

Of course, the best way to solve this problem would be to educate the illiterates. But, in order to educate, people need to want to be educated. Understand the need for said education. Besides, a major obstacle is that the existing technology is not only easy to use, but also commercially controlled. Meaning that, in order to enjoy the benefits of e-commerce, users need to relinquish their personal information. Hence, this solution seems extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Another solution rests in the development or adoption of existing “easy to use” technology/software that will allow the public to control who has access to their personal information. However, it seems that no technology can solve this problem altogether. Certainly, examples such as “Tor” software could allow for more secure chatting and browsing over the Net, but users cannot use the same if they want to engage in e-commerce.

Finally, legal approaches such as creating a U.S. Privacy Commissioner to be in charge of overseeing the handling of individuals’ personal information by both the government and private sector could be adopted. Nonetheless, a Privacy Commissioner will be completely useless unless we resolve our privacy framework, which rests upon a patchwork of laws that have been enacted to address issues as they arise piecemeal.