The above link is to an article in the New York Times discussing the pervasiveness of technological surveillance and lack of locational privacy. It gave me some more information about the variety of different technologies that can currently be used to track an individual's position and some solutions to reduce the danger while maintaining the convenience.
The first startling statement was blunt: "you may be able to be found (and perhaps picked up) at any hour of the day or night." Of course I was aware of cops using this method to track criminals in TV shows (like NCIS), however TV departs from reality so often that knowing "that the police have used the cards in criminal investigations" was a harsh reminder. If I went to a party, no matter if I left before things got out of hand, or if I was just there for a friend, it would still be possible for my presence there to be verified and perhaps punished. Even worse than imagining that the police would be able to access that information was "to think that your physical location might fall into the hands of people who mean you harm." Assassinations would no longer have to rely on weeks to months of observation, one click of a button and you know exactly where your target is. Maybe you even know who he's with and how he's feeling thanks to a facebook comment or twitter. In this aspect security is key, it's why the SS won't let Obama have an iPhone or blackberry. The user has to protect their personal privacy not only for it's own sake, but for their safety, your iPhone can't plead the 5th.
On the other hand, these gadgets are undeniably convenient: telling users where the nearest restaurants are, giving them driving direction, making it easier for them to pay tolls on commutes. Users like this convenience, and inventors are thrilled that they get paid to provide it. The profit off these new technologies is astronomical.
Governmental tracking of our location is done with the excuse of being "helpful", however there are a number of solutions this article offers to provide the service with minimal privacy infringement. First off, "data should be erased as soon as its main purpose is met." Quick, easy, both sides are happy. According to the stated purpose, the government isn't actually using this information after the fact anyway. So why not just erase it? Otherwise the accusation of over-watchfulness, Big Brother keeping tabs on your every move, rings more true. Advertising companies might enjoy being able to analyze your buying habits and travel schedule, if only to better sell you stuff, however that isn't a position they could convincingly argue to the anonymity-loving citizens of America.
Another option is removing personal identifiers from your GPS device. "To tell you about nearby coffee shops, a cellphone application needs to know where you are. It does not need to know who you are." This could work for a number of technologies, defending against a variety of abuses by both company and government. Unfortunately, this technique couldn't be used on EZPass and the like where your card is connected to an account with money in it. It's usefulness might be limited, but in its own sphere this method would be extremely convenient.
The final compromise is notification. Every time a company collects your position and records it in any matter, you should be notified. Whether it be a MetroPass or iPhone, by notifying the user and allowing them to opt out, the provider maintains their value of profit and efficiency while the user maintains their privacy. At the very least, the user knows their position is being collected and therefore has no reason to complain when it is used against them in the future, be it by the police or an advertiser.
The Stakeholders in GPS technologies are many, as are their variety of values, however the main ones are producer and consumer, and those can be reconciled by implementing the above compromises.
Thorough and thoughtful. A couple of things deserve more thought. You say "advertising companies might enjoy being able to analyze your buying habits and travel schedule, if only to better sell you stuff, however that isn't a position they could convincingly argue to the anonymity-loving citizens of America."
ReplyDeleteMy sense of the data is that people are generally very glad to trade off privacy for convenience and/or cost savings. When you use your grocery store club card, you are agreeing for them to track your purchases (and for that matter, which store you were in). When you use a credit card, they're tracking the same. It would be interesting to find discussions of the public's attitudes towards this - I think there is an anonymity-loving fringe, but it may not represent the majority.
The other is the idea of notification, which is nice in principle but hard in detail. IF I get ontified 500 times a day that some system has noted my location, will I read the notifications? How do I (the ordinary citizen) know how to filter them, understand their implications, etc.?
Lots more to find in this area!
I agree with Terry about ads and privacy. In fact, one of the justifications for monitoring web usage for targetted ads is that web users will benefit from ads, which relate to their interests, rather than a host of unrelated ads that they nor the marketers benefit from. In a way, location-based advertising is based upon the idea that both the consumers and companies will benefit from a more personalized marketing experience, as consumers can learn about products they care about and companies can get more revenue.
ReplyDeleteAs for notifications of usage of locational data, I think an explicit opt-in format would be the best option. So, users will have to explicitly give permission for any company to use his/her location and before the user can consent, the user should get a brief and comprehensible disclosure on how it will be used (e.g. solely for personalizing the search results). I suppose one question is how would the locational-information market be regulated (both for privacy and security violations)?