by: Jaap van Till, draft version 1.1, February 7, 1999, with thanks for the writings of the late Dean Gengle [1].
1. Introduction
Internet makes borders, boundaries and walls transparent. Through the Net you can now trespass into boardrooms and cityhalls. But beware, IP packtets flow in both directions, so many eyes can peek into your home, what you are doing, or follow the digital traces you leave wherever you go. Should some rooms be left unopened? Some information kept private, not shared with others? Is there a case for Privacy, or what is left of it? What is it, anyway ?
The most simple description of Privacy is: "The right to be not bothered",
as defined by Frank Kuitenbrouwer. In other words a Privatespace where
the outside world has no business.
From all sides this possible Privatespace is under attack from probes
and invading information- and communication systems. Most citizens do not
even bother to uphold their right to defend it for themselves. On the contrary,
some people volunteer to tell their most intimate feelings to dating agencies
or even spill out their lives in TV shows to exhibit it unto others. So
it seems difficult to defend the case for Privacy.
Public servants have asked me often, when I raised some privacy issues,
to explain what I was talking about. The concept did not seem even to fit
into their mental framework. The fact that I had to explain it and give
examples, is alarming in itself to me. I hope it is to you too!
In many close-knit communities in the world the very notion of individual
privacy is unknown. In other societies Privacy is such an obvious function
that it goes without saying. Well, in that case it DOES go without saying.
It evaporates without any resistance, because people have forgotten the
struggle to obtain the right and how to defend it.
So, between boths extremes of the scale < unknown issue <--->
obvious, non-issue > lies something that may be worthy to uphold, I hope.
There is interest indeed.
A recent survey [2] of over 10,000 web users in
the world stated that Privacy is the number one issue (30.49%) facing the
Internet before censorship (24.18%) and navigation (16.65%). Most respondents
agreed that there should be new laws to protect privacy on the Internet.
So, this paper tries to compile some basic material about what Privacy
is, a bit deeper and in a wider context than for the Internet community
only.
2. The situation
A- Individual citizens
This paper (see below) states that a healthy Citizen of this world can not function without some form of "personal mental enclosure, free from unwanted intrusions" AND a number of good external communication channels. I suggest to use the model of an "object" in the sense of 'object orientated software programming', for Privacy. If we recognize the significance of it, it can be used to cope with the complexity of Reality. The internal functioning and -context (how it works) of an 'object' is made invisible from "what it does" or what you can ask it, externaly. The same applies to individuals. They will (or will not!) respond to calls or questions. It is not in the interest of society to know what goes on inside the Privatespace of its citizens. But, as stated above, the Private space is intruded into by other citizens, state officials and commercial interests, facilitated by electronic means and communication networks.
B- The State
In most nation-states the demand of public officials for information that citizens and companies have to answer to, like for example for taxation or in criminal investigations, is increasing daily in volume, content and detail. And in kind of info-relationships, like phone call records or email links between persons. Who-talked-to-whom seems te be more relevant than what they said! It seems to be a law of nature, that "the need to know in the interest of the community" can only grow, like entropy in closed thermodynamic systems. There are islands of exeption to this trend, like the Netherlands municipal council records which stopped to record religious beliefs or church membership of its citizens, because it was decided that that is of no concern to the state.
C- Commercial Enterprises
Companies exhibit a mixed message about Privacy. On the one side they usually are fierce champions of their right to keep their own internal corporate knowledge secret from their competitors. Examples are: production recipies, R&D findings and all kinds of information which is owned by the company and is used to gain an unique advantage in risky new ventures. Nevertheless by doing business together companies get to know a lot about eachother. In their legitimate wish for commercial confidentiality companies ally with citizens organisations to get privacy laws establised and maintained. On the other side marketing departments of companies gather information about their clients in a lot of ways that not always respect the privacy of their clients. Also commercials can invade the privacy of citizens when they are broadcasted or exhibited in such ways that it is impossible to avoid them: push media. Interesting parts of web pages tend to become smaller and smaller because adds fill more and more of your screen. Another intrusion into information flows is when advertisers influence the content of the broadcasted programs. A lot of TV programs are made so un-offensive and at the same time attractive to attention to ever lager numbers of viewers (for the commercial) that the content quality loses most of its meaning. Will Internet suffer the same fate: a zillion Web pages and nothing on?
3. Definitions
The following text is taken, with minor transnational modifications, from the excellent book [1] " The Netweaver's Sourcebook : A Guide to Micro Networking and Communication" by the late Dean Gengle, 1984. Since this title is out of print, I took the liberty to show an exerpt of it here.
---------- start of quote, page 98 ------------
Privacy
At the individual level, we can talk about four states of Privacy:
The functions and requirements served by privacy must be an integral part of any network design. This may include data protection, encryption, and system access regulation.
The "right to privacy" is essentially and fundamentally an individual right. It can only partially and incompletely be extended to groups, government bodies and corporations. This is because the requirements of accountability and the public "right to know" reduce, in absolute terms, the demands of privacy by multiperson institutions.
Along with a universal individual need for privacy, there is also seemingly
a universal tendency on the part of individuals and groups to invade the
privacy of others and to engage in Big Brother tactics to enforce norms,
whatever those norms may be. Curiosity, gossip, the quest for "explanations",
and the thrill of vicarious experience become, at higher systems levels,
dossiers in data banks, credit reports, industrial espionage, and "law
enforcement." Obtaining any information about people against their
wishes constitutes an invasion of privacy. This includes "derived" and/or
inferential information derived from legitimately collected data, such
as psychological profiles created from an individual's buying patterns
as reflected in economic transactions, say in a credit card data bank or
in bank checking account records.
The protection of privacy on all levels requires, in the Information
Age, that we employ both technological design solutions (embodied in hardware
and software) and social/legal protections. Above all, we must become
more sensitive to the potential uses as well as the stated, actual
uses of collected data.
The ways in which privacy can be abused are legion. They include, but may not be limited to:
Libel and Slander
Of course you want to protect your own privacy. But what about your
neighbors' privacy? For that matter, what responsibilities does a netweaver
incur along with new communications abilities? U.S. laws covering defamation
of one's neighbors go back to common law inherited from England.
Defamation includes slander, which is anything you say with
your mouth channel, and libel, which is anything you say in print,
on a broadcast medium, or on a ((personal))computer telecommunications
system. Netweavers should arm themselves with a knowledge of what they
can and cannot say in print or on videotext ((Internet)) media. A libel
is any false statement about a person that tends to bring him into public
hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure the person in his business
or occupation. Those who sponsor computer conferencing systems (system
operators, network facilitators, ((ISP's)) ) can take steps to ensure that
libel suits don't happen as a result of the use of their communications
facilities.
That there are human rights is a contemporary form of the doctrine of
natural rights, first clearly formulated by the philosopher John Locke
and later expressed in terms of "The Rights of Man."
Natural or human rights are rights people have just because they are
human and they are on the planet, not because of government fiat, law,
or convention. Such rights have frequently been invoked in criticisms of
laws and social arrangements.
In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration formulated in detail a number
of rights: political, cultural, and economic. This became a standard by
which nations are measured.
Of course, this was not a legally binding instrument, but it was followed
by a number of international covenants and conventions, including the European
Convention for the Protection of Freedoms, which have influenced national
legislation and provided some machinery for international enforcement.
The defense of human rights on a planetary scale must include defense of
civil liberty and human liberty. Guaranteed rights would include the right
to good nutrition and health, the right to know the truth about any given
subject(s) or to seek the truth if it is unknown, sexual intimacy, leisure
and relaxation, beauty and travel, the right to be unique. Human beings
are not "civilized" in any sense of that word without the right to be whole.
Above all, the right of each individual to control her own body and Central
Nervous System, including the mature right to alter one's consciousness
according to one's own needs and desires, must be paramount. All these
rights can be further enhanced and protected by a right to be protected
from ignorance, one's own or someone else's. Information systems and information
exchange networks can help bring these rights to humankind. Neurological
autonomy is the cornerstone of a Planetary Bill of Rights.
Transforming the ((USA)) Bill of Rights
Amendment I
((The US)) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
As more and more human transactions are mediated through ((personal)) computers and terminals connected to the phone lines, freedom of speech and freedom of the press begin to merge. The citizen's right to secure channels of communication, free from prior restraint, censorship, eavesdropping, or machine monitoring should be built into the various layers of the electronic systems involved. The ability to organize politically, via computer conferencing and networks, would be safeguarded thereby, in conformance with Article I of the Bill of Rights. Here, the right to assemble peaceably is broadened to include people "assembling" in electronic softspaces with others on the network. ((This is also stated in Art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the free flow of information and the right to communicate between individuals))
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
Authorities should have to get a search warrant in order to enter private or public data bases for purposes of copying information that belongs to a citizen or is about that citizen. The specific kind of information sought, and the reason for the intrusion, should have to be spelled out under oath. Being "secure in one's effects" should include portions of memory maintained by someone else but being rented by an individual. It should also cover personal hardware, software, and peripheral support material, such as disks and tapes. "Effects," in other words, should be broadened to include information as well as physical artifacts.
Amendment V (partial)
No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
This should cover such things as banking records, personally generated encryption codes, records of transactions with data bases outside the home or office, and so on. The concept of "private property" should be expanded to include the contents of one's mainframe data files, ((local or elsewhere)). In addition, it should be applied to prevent "fishing expeditions" by agencies such as the IRS and NSA, who have computers large enough to "raid" and correlate information from many different computer sources on private citizens. Such unauthorized information raids and correlating activities should be hemmed severely by both technical and legal fences.
Amendment VI (partial)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him. . . .
Amendment VI has obvious implications in the credit data field. Where livelihoods and the ability to participate fully in a computerized society depend on accurate information, an individual should have the right to see any dossier or file created on or about him or her. Further, we should have the right to challenge the veracity or accuracy of such information, and to get it changed in court if need be. The ((USA))Freedom of Information Act and the ((USA))Privacy Act are steps in the direction of such safeguards.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"Retained by the people" implies the use of computer technology by private individuals, and the creation and use of high-security encryption techniques by anyone who wishes. One should not require a license from the state for either.
Recommendations
Netweavers can help in the development and protection of ((a Planetary))
Bill of Rights for the information age by adopting the following ethical
guidelines and practices:
My personal recommendation is that bureaucrats recognize and understand that to respect the Privacy of citizens and of corporations is in their OWN best interest too. The demand often expressed by them "that everything must be known (in realtime) about all of Reality, otherwise they can do nothing" is untrue, unjustified and leads to catastrophies of human suffering. Controlaholics is a harmful disease which must be restrained. The control theory law of Ross Ashby shows that :
The only possible direction to a solution of coping with complexity is in my opinion:
b. to segment [3] the chosen part of Reality into components, each with their internal context and circumstances which should be of no concern to other components. What does cross the boundaries can be accompanied by information (example: EDI) which is stripped of all info which is irrelevant in time or context.
ADDENDUM
Feel free to forward this Draft to interested
citizens.
Constructive suggestions for improvement of the
text of the new human right or for its background ideas are most wellcome
at jaap.vantill@stratix.nl
mentioning "privacy".
1. Reason
One of sources of intrusions to the Private sphere
of individuals is the rising amount and ever
more demanding nature of incoming Email messages.
This threatens the privacy of citizens.
To preserve privacy
each of us must be able to limit and protect our communications,
as is further explained in my short tutorial
on Privacy:
In other words, it is up to us if we choose to
answer to calls, messages or questions. In
my opinion this constitutes a natural human right, which can
be asserted. Silence or in effect "No Reply" to a Email message
should not mean we agree or disagree with the proposal
or question stated in the message. To abstain
should not have any effects on the receiver
of the message in case of no reply.
2. Draft text for discussion
therefore I offer for discussion as a draft text
to be added to the UN Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) and to be added to the Constitutions of
nation states (like the USA: Bill of Rights Amendment IV) (the
UK has no written one).
The proposal is not about restricting or
filtering speech. It is about promoting choice
by the end-user. The complement to "Free Speech" could
be called "The right to Freedom of Reception", which may be
worded by:
Freedom of Reception, draft
art 19 A, version 3
"The right of individuals to not pay attention to and/or react to received messages in any form through Internet, that are not resulting from prior willful communication, without causing any penalty or cost to that individual." end of draft, Oct 14, 1988. JvT |
3. Background ideas
Article 19 of the Declaration is about "free flow of information" and
the right to communicate, for instance to publish or be heard by others.
The Internet adds a number of possibilities to information dissemination,
and especially to 'communication' between people. However, until now the
compliment of sending: receiving messages, has not been given much attention.
Free speech in my opinion implies the right to hear, but then to choose
freely whether or not to listen, respond/reply!
To be forced in any way to respond or react is an intrusion on our
personal freedom.
Being forced to listen to, for instance, propaganda or advertisements
is the mirror image of censorship. Therefore the 'right to remain silent
to messages' is the mirror image to the right to obtain and discuss relevant
information, equally worthy to uphold and defend.
Let me stress the point that I am not only suggesting rules about spam.
I propose that the citizen is not forced in any way to ANSWER, like
for instance:
My suggestion resembles the ruling in Dutch Law (Burgerlijk Wetboek)
that unwanted or unordered GOODS packages (which you must pay for or return)
if not returned cause no obligation to pay by the receiver or RETURN the
stuff; since a prior "wilsovereenstemming" (willful agreement/communication
??) is lacking.
Since then Dutch citizens are no longer bothered with unrequested products
in their snailmailbox and can keep what is received.
In effect my proposal tries to give the citizens more power over their
emailbox.
Unrequested incoming SERVICE offerings (ads!) can then be ignored (or
consumed) without penalty for the receiver.
Jaap van Till
The Netherlands
Europe
-----------------------
[1] Dean Gengle, "The Netweaver's Sourcebook : A Guide to Micro Networking and Communication"; Published by Addison-Wesley Pub. Co; Publication date: July 1984 ISBN: 0201052083 (Amazon.com states that it is 'out of print')
[2] The GVU (Graphics, Visualization, and Usability) Center. Its Eighth Survey is available from: http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1997-10/ and was published in December 1997. The GVU's Survey Team can be reached at www-survey@cc.gatech.edu.
[3] David Andrews, "The IRG Solution" (info routing groups), Souvenir Press Ltd., 1984.