* The threat of third-party misuse of private information
Last week, we discussed the potential for an identity device that would guarantee our persona so that we would not have to undergo intrusive searches at airport checkpoints. Responses from you, dear reader, have ranged all over the map from “great idea” to “worthless tripe.” Not surprisingly, those who guard their privacy were most outspoken against the idea while those who value their security were most in favor.
I was also pointed to large quantities of material studying a movement in the mid 1980s to establish what would have been a national identity card system in Australia but which was ultimately defeated politically by privacy advocates. It remains, to this day, their biggest triumph. (If you Google search the words “Australia, National, ID, card” you’ll turn up most of the references.)
Some readers were quick to point out that even if the voluntary scheme I outlined were to be instituted it would still be necessary to screen everyone. That’s true, but my point was that those who had submitted to the voluntary background checks and were identified by the “not a security risk” cards would have to undergo less intrusive checks. It’s not the security checkpoint itself that I object to; it’s the disrobing and unpacking at that checkpoint that I object to. Nonintrusive searches don’t encumber me, so I don’t object.
Other readers objected to the loss of privacy involved as well as the very real possibility that any information uncovered could be abused and misused. I still contend that, at least for airline travelers, the myth of privacy is just that – a myth. You need to identify yourself, you need to lay open all of your belongings and you need to provide information that enables the government to locate even more details about you. The abuse issue, though, is a possibility.
Throughout history, new technologies are often opposed because they invite abuse or make abuse of privilege easier. Stationing police officers at the entrances to a football stadium to observe people coming in and arrest wanted criminals is accepted. Replace the police officers with cameras, though, and people object. “The technology could be abused,” they say, “the government will track everyone’s movements.” That’s possible, but not very likely. Just as it is possible that Microsoft’s Update technology sends lists of all of your software to the huge data farm “just outside Seattle” (there isn’t one). But it isn’t the technology that’s wrong, just the abuse of it.
We should handle the abuse of identity technology exactly the same as we handle any other abuse – it should be criminalized. Collecting information isn’t right or wrong. Using it properly is right, using it improperly is wrong. Having the ability and tools to use it improperly is not wrong in and of itself. You can carry that argument to ridiculous conclusions to show how wrong it is. Automobile accidents would be a thing of the past if we stopped allowing people to drive automobiles. But we don’t criminalize cars, we criminalize their misuse. Do the same with secure identity systems and everyone comes out ahead.
