Privacy in the Information Age

15 March

• Back on the "here's looking at you kid" article, and anonymity. Superbowl face recognition. What's the goal of using the software?

  The data are collected under one set of premises, but they get used for other purposes. (Barry Bonds's voluntarily given samples were supposed to have been destroyed, but they were later subpoenaed-- involuntary production of fluids, essentially).

  Remember Kyllo: one of the things that made the search illegal was that the technology was not available to the public.

  If we let our subjective expectations of privacy lapse thanks to Facebook (e.g., but also other private corps.), maybe we can't say we don't expect the government also to be sifting through the data.

• When there has been a massive privacy invasion (i.e., warrantless wiretaps), what is the remedy? Note that social networking stuff is different from warrantless wiretapping: that was actually illegal at the time, whereas here there's a sort of opt-in. Perhaps not a well-informed opt-in, but nevertheless.

  There's always a tendency to use incidents as an excuse for a power grab. And once power is granted (as in USA PATRIOT), it's very hard to take it away again.

• Private corporations get protections (trademarks, patents, trade secrets) that the government doesn't necessarily get. If government starts buying private data, we lose transparency.
• Most people don't get charged with any crimes, but almost everyone has a credit score. Which is costing society the most, all told?
• Also, if private entities collect a bunch of data, it can still be gotten via subpoena.
• Interesting side effect: librarians stopped keeping records in order to not be forced to cough them up, but this meant they didn't have information about what people are reading, so they didn't know what to order. And it also meant that anyone who wanted something specific had to go and ask for it, thereby relinquishing anonymity.
• NAACP v. AL
  George Wallace was the governor, and this is 4 years after Brown. The court doesn't openly address the fact that Alabama is pretty much trying to get rid of the NAACP: the opinion is kind of understated in that respect. The court doesn't discuss why AL wants the membership information in the first place.

  The court does make this a solid 1A issue, though: no beating around the bush there.

• Under what circumstances should an organization be compelled to give its membership list? Consider RICO: it can penetrate conspiracies, companies, religious organizations, etc. Why should the activities of one member expose the identities of all members?
• Watchtower v. Stratton
  It's easier to deal with religious cases not using the free exercise clause, because that's a really dangerous murky zone.

  And note that not every adherent of any given faith complies with every doctrine identically in all situations.

• So: do you have a right to be anonymous as a member of a group?