Seen on the AP wire:
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.
Yes, like they’re doing such a good job of it today.
It’s somewhat telling that some of the most important early writings supporting the Constitution were penned under the name “Publius”, I think.
However, my knee-jerk reaction aside, part of Kerr’s position isn’t entirely baseless:
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.
“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. “Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that.”
“Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety,” Kerr said. “I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn’t empty our bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere.”
It seems to me that, while the concept of privacy is shifting in the era of instant, indexed information, perhaps pro-privacy folks ought to engage in a bit of education as to why privacy, and the potential for anonymity (or at least pseudonymity), is important.