Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cyrnel
That goes without saying, no?
That gathering, storing, and analysis methods are improving does not mean we want to let it run unchecked. The erosion of "implied" anonymity is more due to improvements in technology than any policy. Current policy is coincidental. (Though I believe they feed each other.) Mankind hasn't had to contend with systematic privacy intrusions on these scales before, and it's not likely to slow. Business and government benefit while people get creeped out and abuses climb. Who'll win? I'm putting a cautious $5 on big legislation in the next 10yrs. (assuming we see a significant congressional cleanup first)
|
I disagree because there is no "implied" anonymity in this case I would argue the opposite is true. Let use an example:
Lets say Joe talks to Bill at Ma Bells house. Joe knows it happened, Bill knows and Ma knows about the conversation.
Who has the privacy right? In my view, nobody. Joe can tell the world what happened. Bill can tell the world and Ma can tell the world. If Joe and Bill wanted absolute privacy they shouldn't have gone to Ma's house.
If the government goes to Ma and says give me the names, dates and times of the people who came to your house to talk, Ma can do it if she wants. If she says no, the government is obligated to get a court order.
In the NSA controversy the phone companies voluntarily gave the information. Perhaps the beef should be with the phone company.