Is definition of privacy outdated?

Eavesdrop Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, thinks our concept of privacy needs to be updated. He said that privacy no longer can mean anonymity, given the reality of Google and online businesses, but should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information, Associated Press reported.
But Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says there’s a difference between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service. “There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties,” he said. “We shouldn’t have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

13 Comments

  1. writerdog
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 2:59 am | Permalink

    There should be a reasonable expectation to privacy when buying things, the concept that if one buys something on-line or off. Your name should not then be sold by the company to be put on a list for use by others selling the same type of product. Nor should the U.S. Government be able to get private information without just cause. Recently there has been a big brawl about someone personal information being posted to this blog. Though I am a firm believer in using only one screen name and not either arguing with one’s self or supporting one’s view by using different names to post agreeing comments either pro or con.It should be up to the person to “expose” themselves, just because some one can find real names, address or phone number does not give them license to post them.

  2. Kansas
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 4:31 am | Permalink

    Touche’ Brownlee!

    Now give me the real names,IP addresses, known nics and address of the bloggers harassing me , so I can go medieval on them. :D

  3. Kansas
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 4:34 am | Permalink

    The 0431 by me was a joke. Had to mention it was a joke or certain people would go chimpanzee insane on me and get even more paranoid than they are. :)

  4. thinkfirst
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    How like the Bush administration people. If you don’t like something…change the definition.

  5. Kev
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    My definition of privacy is this: while it might be NICE to have more, the fact is that we do not. Anything that goes out of the confines of the walls of your home should be considered “public” because it probably is. And when you go out of the walls of you home, you should assume you are being observed because you probably are.

  6. Fiore Buccieri
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Only an idiot thinks that the Government can be trusted to safeguard information about him.

    The concept of redefining privacy is to me Orwellian to say the least.

  7. GovIsWatching
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    I can say without out a doubt that the gov can not be trusted. I have had dealings with a gov agency and the internet. Dont ever give the Gov an inch or they will take 10 miles. I cant get into the details but if you are ever approached by the gov because of something on your PC or at your work, GET A ATTORNEY! You dont have to do anything for them unless they have a warrant, if they do, get an attorney and hire another IT consulting company to interpret.

  8. CF2K
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Got fascism?

  9. warmachine
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    This douche. Kerr wants me to trust my personal info, phone calls and email to a government that can’t get its foriegn policy to work, who can’t control its own borders, who gets to handle its own questionable activities under a cloak of secrecy?

    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 persons or things to be seized.

  10. Doug
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    I guess we can trust the same Bush regime who before 9/11 had warrantless wiretaps on millions of Americans and revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent. About the only privacy the administration believes in is who attends meetings with Cheney.

  11. Econ101
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    You liberals trust Hillary with FBI files, as long as she illegally goes through the FBI files of Republicans.

  12. Econ101
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Sung to the tune of…
    ”Santa Claus is Coming to Town”

    You better watch out,You better not cry,You better not pout,I’m telling you why,Hillary’s got FBI files.

    She’s bugging your room,She’s reading your mail,She’s keeping a fileAnd running a tailHillary’s got FBI files.

    She hears you in the bedroomSurveills you out of doorsAnd if that doesn’t get the goodsThen she’ll use provocateurs. (hey Sid)

    So you mustn’t assumeThat you are secureOn Christmas Eve She’ll kick in your doorHillary’s got FBI files.

  13. thinkfirst
    Posted November 13, 2007 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Hillar hell., Bush and Cheney REALLY do have those files.