Posted October 06, 2018 07:50:38A lot of people seem to believe that privacy is a thing that must be protected.
This is the same mindset that is currently driving many decisions in this country regarding data collection and how we use it.
A lot more is needed, I think, if we are to see the kind of change that we need to see to stop this kind of abuse of power and abuse of the trust in the future.
The article in question, written by Information Liberation Institute (ILI) researcher and privacy expert, Miss Information, is titled ‘When Information is used as a tool to destroy Privacy’ and is part of a series of articles she is conducting on the topic.
In the piece, Miss Info writes that ‘We should be asking ourselves what exactly does information do, and what is its purpose and value.
We need to ask whether the right to privacy is the right of the individual to decide what information she is going to share, or whether it is the power that the government has over people to control what information they share, and if so, how they control it.’
According to Miss Info, ‘There are many legitimate uses of information, but they are not always useful and are often used to abuse and control.
Information is a tool for power, but it is also a tool that enables individuals to have a meaningful life.
Information should be used to empower people, not destroy them.’
This is the kind.
In a recent essay in the New York Times, MissInfo points out that ‘the government has a powerful tool, but only with the consent of a majority of the population.
When people don’t want to be spied on, it is not a good thing.’
She adds: ‘The privacy and freedom of all are threatened when the government attempts to use information to undermine individual privacy.
Privacy is not something we must be afraid of, but a right that should be protected.’
In her piece, the ILI researcher argues that the use of information in a manner that is detrimental to individuals is not ‘the same as destroying privacy, it’s simply different’.
In her essay, MissInformation asks if the use, or the use that is being used, of information for information purposes is in the public interest, and therefore, does not violate privacy rights.
She then argues that it is an example of ‘the misuse of information to control people and to exploit them in their own interests’.
The question of what information is ‘used’ in a particular way is not limited to just what is collected.
Miss Info goes on to explain how ‘the use of a data source is not just a matter of using data for the purposes of identifying or tracking an individual, it also depends on what the individual wants to know, what information he/she is seeking, and how the data is used.’
It is clear that the article Miss Info is referring to does not specifically address the question of whether or not information can be used as ‘a tool to undermine privacy’, but rather, ‘the right to control information’.
She then asks, ‘Is the right that individuals have to control their data, and to have the information that they collect be used in ways that are harmful to them not just justified?
Or is it just a question of who is empowered to decide which information to share and to how much?’
While Miss Info argues that information that is collected by the state is a ‘tool’ to ‘control people’, her article fails to mention that ‘government data is being collected by private entities for purposes that include: monitoring, policing, prosecuting, controlling, or otherwise processing information’.
According to the ILIS research, ‘Information collected for policing purposes is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
It is collected without any due process, subject to minimal privacy protections and with no access to any relevant records.
The Fourth Amendment is not meant to prohibit private entities from using their information for purposes of enforcing the law.
The privacy rights of individuals are not affected by data collected by government entities.’
The data that is used for policing, prosecution, or control is also subject to the Privacy Act and Privacy Impact Assessment Guidelines, which can also be used for purposes unrelated to law enforcement, such as assessing the quality of police services and other relevant purposes.’
In some instances, the data that government entities use for these purposes may not even be subject to any privacy safeguards.’
In short, information that may be used by a private entity to protect the interests of the state may also be subject, in some cases, to the privacy and data protection laws that govern the data collection.
The argument that information is not used in a way that is harmful to privacy does not end there.
Miss Info goes to explain that there are many other examples of ‘information being used for legitimate purposes’ as a ‘tools for the state to control and manipulate’.
These examples include, for example, the government using data gathered from social media platforms, to