Piracy, Privacy and Money, Money, Money - Part II

This is the second in a series.

PRIVACY

I have written here before about privacy and likely will again.  It has been an important area of  American constitutional law since the drafting of the Bill of Rights.  Since that day when Alexander Graham Bell summoned Watson with words spoken over his telephonic invention, we have becoming increasing concerned with protecting various forms of telephonic and electronic communication.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled United States v. Jones that the government needs to obtain a search warrant to track the public movements of a person by attaching a GPS device to the person's vehicle.  Antoine Jones was a suspected drug dealer who lived in DC.  Authorities had a warrant for Jones in the District of Columbia and attached a GPS device to his car to follow his movements.  Information on Jones' movements in Maryland was collected, however, and authorities had failed to get a warrant in Maryland. The Court split 5-4 on how the 4th Amendment applied in this situation.  Here is a link to a further discussion of the case at Marketplace Tech Report. 

The  Jones decision may become landmark of constitutional law.  It certainly will be important in understanding the current interface between technology and privacy.  We have seen societal situations that raise significant questions in this area. In recent political movements from the "Arab Spring" to the "Occupy" movement, electronic means of communication such as Twitter and Facebook have been used to organize protest. In response, Arab governments first tried to shut down these communications.  More recently, and more ominously, governments have been monitoring these communications in order to find dissidents and suppress protest.

The Jones case may begin to tell us where constitution protections attach in a world where we are revealing more and more about ourselves through electronic communications.  Consider, however, that we now reveal a great deal of information about ourselves willingly on Facebook and Twitter and other social networking services.  If Antonie Jones had been checking in on Facebook or FourSquare, would government monitoring of his postings and travels been protected?

One important question continues to be what expectation of privacy we have when we use such social networking services.  When people sign-up for these services, they must agree to contractual agreements that provide the terms under which the service is provided.  These terms of service agreement set out important legal rights to material posted and privacy policies.

Of note recently is that both Google and (yet again) Facebook have changed their privacy policies.  These changes have received wide publicity. As we provide more and more personal information on such services, including using such services to reach  or interact with others online destinations, these policies are very important to our online privacy.  These policies, however, are not really intended to protect our privacy as much as they are to govern what information Google or Facebook or other service providers can access and use for their own business purposes.

Remember that Google, Facebook and other online services are businesses looking to make a profit. 

These social networks want you to post personal information on their services.  Such sharing is fundamental to the business model on which such services are built.  The information that you share encourages your friends to join to see your posts and to share their own information.  This cycle brings more and more people onto the network.  Participants keep the treadmill of information spinning round and round by providing the product for the social network.  In one way or another, good Internet businesses use our information and usage history to make money.

Not only are the users the product, but they are also a potential customer. Let's take a look at a simple scenario.  You go to Google and search for information on the book, "The Devil and the White City".  You find links to various bookseller's sites and go to them.  Google now knows that you may be interested in books, even the type of book, and can place paid advertising for a booksellers on your search pages.  Or you go to Amazon and buy the book.  Amazon knows that you purchased this book and will recommend similar books to you in the future when you visit Amazon.

In one sense this is good for you.  You may get "better" search results or better service, because the search engine or the vendor knows something more about our preferences.  This is certainly a critical element that makes such services "smarter" and, thus, faster in getting us to the things we are trying to find.  What you may not realize, however, is that your activities are leaving behind a kind of electronic footprints or fingerprints, showing where you have been on the Internet and what you have been viewing.

Technologically, much of this deals with little pieces of code called "cookies" that you leave behind in your travels in cyberspace.  These markers allow sites to recognize you next time you visit and improve your use of sites, but they are digital signposts as to where you have been and what you have seen or done.

Do we want this kind of information available?  If we do, to whom -- Google? Facebook? Amazon? The government?  What limits are there?  Privacy policies and terms of service are designed to protect this information from general dissemination.

There is a conflict of interest, however, because most commercial sites want to use such information to target you for advertising or products when you use the sites.  Such sites do not want to give up the use of such information entirely, because it would mean cut off a significant source of their revenue and profit -- advertising or sales.  Once the site has the information, however, when should it be made available beyond the reach of the terms of service to which you agreed?

These are important societal questions deeply embedded in the technology that we use today.  It will not be easy to draw lines here, especially because of the money involved.  More on the money in the final post in this series.