Privacy: U.S. Government Taking the Gloves Off

In a previous job, Donald Kerr said he was concerned about

the "hollowing out" of U.S. manufacturing of satellite components. Although he said the design capability for the vehicles has remained in this country, "so much production has moved offshore that potentially has left us weaker."

— Reconnaissance Office Role to Be Reviewed, Satellite Agency's Place Is Uncertain, By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, September 2, 2005; Page A27

In his current job as deputy director of national intelligence, what he's recommending will drive more production offshore, because fewer qualified people will want to work in the U.S. Plus a government that wants to know everything about everyone online is not a government that will facilitate competition among ISPs, so the U.S. will continue to fall farther behind in Internet access, speed, and applications.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

— Intel official: Expect less privacy By Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer, Updated: 11/11/07 11:47 PM

The article is full of bad arguments by Kerr. I suppose real arguments don't matter when you're taking the gloves off and revealing the true hand of government intervention in private matters.

Millions of people in this country - particularly young people - already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

Millions of people choose to shop at Wal-Mart, too, despite the way Wal-Mart drives jobs overseas and pays wages too low for its employees to afford health insurance. That doesn't make it good, or right, or permanent.

Plus just becuause you're not anonymous on one site doesn't mean you can't be anonymous somewhere else, especially if you want to post something politically sensitive. There are countries that don't permit anonymity for public posts; they tend to be theocratic states or to be run by juntas of generals. Burma, for example, which recently cracked down on demonstrators and bloggers posting criticisms of the regime.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68.

Those two generations also are fond of the concepts of screen name and avatar, i.e., names by which they are known in forums and games that aren't their own names.

"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

Anyone who's read history understands that the government knowing what everyone does is a really bad idea.

I wonder when we'll start hearing publicly from Homeland Security the sorts of things I heard several years ago from them in a less public setting about in a real crisis we'll just turn off the Internet at the borders of CONUS (Continental United States). They do that in theocratic and military-ruled states, too, like Burma.

-jsq

PS: As an earlier anonymous author wrote:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

— James Madison, Federalist No. 51, 6 February 1788