My Security vs. Privacy Rant

The balance between security and personal privacy is an issue that has been raised innumerable times since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Some believe that even mentioning the 9/11 attacks in conjunction with security or privacy has become somewhat cliché, but the reality is that these issues have taken on a new light in years following the event. This issue may be seen as a spectrum, with absolute security on one end and complete, anonymous privacy on the other. Where we find ourselves along this spectrum, both individually and as a society, is the question at hand.

It is obvious that as a society we have given up some fairly large measures of security voluntarily, even prior to the 9/11 attacks. The era of the Internet, and all of its associated targeted marketing, spyware, and adware have eliminated the guarantee of absolute privacy online. Further, much of our privacy must be sacrificed in order to do even the most basic things: applying for credit, purchasing a car or home, seeking employment, and so forth all involve divulgences of vast amounts of personal information. While we have created an infrastructure that can largely handle this information without great fault, it is nonetheless a function of our modern times that privacy is perhaps only a shadow of what it once was.

When considering the impact of 9/11 and the global threat of terrorism, however, the security vs. privacy debate takes on a completely different flavor. Whereas our typical day-to-day invasions of privacy are either voluntary or routine (name, address, and phone number, for instance), the new privacy standards take the game several steps further. Background checks on employees and individuals have become more common, and workplace monitoring is a loathsome horror cum mundane reality (King, 2003).

But is this necessarily a bad thing? There are extremes, to be sure; the notion of implanting RFID chips in order to track individuals is a thought that makes most squeamish (Zalud, 2007). The national ID card program, an advancement of the current Social Security Number system, may also appear to many as a scheme to get “Big Brother” too involved in the lives of its citizens. Many will also point to the failure or underwhelming performance of such efforts and claim that these measures are overly invasive, unnecessary, unconstitutional, or morally reprehensible (Petersen, 2002).

And yet, despite these objections, one must take a look at the facts and understand that security is paramount in an era where terrorism and endangerment are at fairly high levels. Our current state of affairs is perhaps better than in eras past, where disease, famine, or incessant war could claim untold numbers. We are cleaner, more civilized, and arguably safer on a daily basis than ever before, and yet security remains a chief concern. Given that this is the case, might it be worth it to surrender some measure of privacy in return for enhanced security?

My opinion is as follows: we should be willing to give in order to take. In other words, we must be willing to sacrifice small measures of privacy in order to achieve greater security. Even with its myriad problems, I still feel safer flying today than I did even a few years ago. I don’t really mind if some database somewhere knows my name, my address, my birthday, or what color shoes I like to wear, so long as I get increased security in return. And while I understand that clear ties between the two (privacy and security) are sometimes difficult to draw, I genuinely believe that information is a powerful tool for the government and law enforcement officials. At the end of the day, the answer is this: the more they know about what is going on inside this country, the better equipped they are to understand and mitigate potential threats.

So the real question, then, is not if we should surrender some amount of privacy, but how much we should be willing to give. This is a matter of long and substantial debate, and the issue will not be solved here. I will say, however, that we as citizens should only have to give up privacy to a point somewhere beneath our tolerable threshold for releasing such information. That is, the government should never require that we provide more information than we feel reasonably comfortable with. This tolerance will likely shift, blur, or be removed completely in the coming years, but such a process should be progressive rather than abrupt. Indeed, at least as far as the workplace environment is concerned, it has been shown that productivity and honesty increase when workers feel that their rights and opinions are respected; this likely holds up for populations in other contexts (IOMA, 2007).

Again, I genuinely believe that I have nothing to hide and therefore have little to fear from those who ask me to surrender small measures of my personal privacy. Criminal intent notwithstanding, I think that the security we can gain far outweighs my fears over my pant size being made public, or pictures of my ugly mug existing in some colossal government database.

References

IOMA. (2007, July). Tightening security on technology devices without increasing worker resentment. IOMA Security Director’s Report, 7(7). Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.

King, N.J. (2003). Electronic monitoring to promote national security impacts workplace privacy. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 15(3). Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.

Petersen, S. (2002,April 22). Can security, privacy coexist? eWeek, p. 72. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.

Zalud, B. Chipping away at privacy? Security. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from Business Source Premier.

Microsoft Easing Up on IE7 Customers?

Is Microsoft letting down its guard? Or just realizing that piracy can actually spur adoption of its products in some areas of the world? Either way, it's changing its IE7 distribution policies to be more lenient on pirated Windows products. Read more here.

ITEC 610 - Week 3

So what are we talking about in Week 3? The big themes are the Internet, emerging technologies, and the "security vs. privacy" debate. Some thoughts:

• The future of the Internet is going to be a wild, wonderful, and sometimes scary place. The dominant theme in my mind will be social networking and interactivity. Virtual worlds and collaborative environments will be huge, but the question remains: will these virtual lives be more interesting for many people than their real lives? How will this impact the functioning of our physical society? I'm wondering if, in the future, mothers' pleas with children to "get outside" will fall on deaf ears as their kids play online kickball with friends from halfway around the world...
• I looked at some interesting articles on RFID this week, and was amazed at some of its applications. It's being used to track files, inventory, shipments, and even people. Some are especially troubled by the "people-monitoring" potential for RFID, and a small population even equates it with evil. For the most part, though, it seems to be an important technology in reducing supply chain inefficiencies and costs - its eerie social applications notwithstanding.
• Should we be secure, private, or both? Many would argue that privacy is paramount, security would be nice, and a mix of the two almost always disappoints someone. My thoughts are that I'd be willing to give up some privacy in exchange for a known level of security, especially since I'm not doing anything illicit or illegal. However, the age-old question of "how much is too much?" is especially salient here. In the end, people must have respect for others' privacy, but this will be increasingly difficult as technology facilitates virtual invasion. For now, I haven't seen any good answers to this issue.
  

Learning for Week 2 - ITEC610

Some additional thoughts:

• There seems to be a consensus that Linux, despite its current challenges and lack of support, may one day represent a legitimate challenge to the Windows domination. Here's to hoping that happens, as it will encourage better software development and technical progress.
• RAID is an extremely popular storage solution that sees increased usage with developing hardware support. As more and more data live exclusively in soft-copy, this built-in redundancy will be very important.
• Paper is still everywhere in offices around the world. Yes, we are reducing the amount produced every day. Yes, we are looking to digitize an increasing amount of content. No, paper isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
• Processor technology is moving at an incredible pace. With the number of cores increasing, and the size decreasing, the processor market is looking to heat up in the coming 12-24 months. Bring on Moore's Law!
  

Yup, this qualifies as "Kind of a Big Deal"

Excel 2007 performs some calculations incorrectly! This is bad news for businesses moving over to the Office 2007 suite. Also, if you're in ITEC620 concurrently with the 610 course, the discussion in the link has some binary/floating point references that are very timely. Wow... this is a big botch for the Microsoft camp!

Neat new Firefox extension

Quick download: Tab Effect for Firefox. Adds a spinning-cube aesthetic when you change tabs. Very fun, very slim, very chic. Download it here.

Letter to Microsoft

OK, so let's make the wild assumption that we don't all love Microsoft. Have you ever been so incensed with their mediocrity that you wanted to write a letter? What would you say? Here's what I would say (this also just so happens to be part of an ITEC610 assignment):

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a user of Microsoft products for more than a decade. During this period I have been, at times, both delighted and disgusted with your software offerings. There were certainly instances of total elation – such as that offered by the stability and utility of Windows XP SP2. Lately, however, I have encountered a series of difficult disappointments that summarily led me to write this letter. In contemplating potential ways to improve the quality of your software offerings, I have developed four broad suggestions: make your software products cheap, of high quality, competitive, and transparent.

First, you must continue to find cost efficiencies in your production methods so as to bring cost savings to the consumer. Your core products, including Office and Windows, are prohibitively expensive for some users. An operating system that costs more than $400 (in the case of Windows Vista Ultimate) borders on the ridiculous; so too does paying more than $300 for an office suite. With the availability of viable open-source options becoming increasingly common, it may behoove you to exercise better control over your software production and development – and then pass said savings onto those who depend on your products.

Second, I think it is vital that you improve the quality of your offerings. When Windows Vista was launched earlier in 2007, it arrived with a host of problems. From miscellaneous bugs to broken features and a dearth of drivers, Vista was provided to consumers as a half-baked package. The issue could not have been development time, as there was already a significant investment in this area. The new Office 2007 suite is another salient example, as the problems with its OOXML format compatibility are well-documented and continue to cause consumer frustration. The lesson here is simple: don’t release products that are not ready; don’t release products that require a service-pack update to be useful; and don’t release products that cause significant headaches for those for whom the software was designed.

Microsoft products used to dominate their respective software domains because they were superior to competitive products; the popularity of Word over WordPerfect is a good example. However, in recent times this has not been the case. As a third recommendation, I plead that you spend more development dollars to create competitive, first-class products. Internet Explorer, for instance, continues to see its market share dwindle because of superior open-source products such as Firefox or Opera. The Windows market is being threatened by various user-friendly versions of Linux, all of which run leaner than the resource-intensive Vista OS. Microsoft Office has suffered significant blows, most recently having its OOXML standard rejected by the ISO. Meanwhile, arguably equal or better products such as OpenOffice or Google Documents will erode market share. Microsoft, you must re-emphasize quality and competitiveness in your software designs, so that we consumers choose them because they are superior – not because they are the most widely available.

Finally, you must encourage transparency in your operations and software development. The most recent spat over Microsoft Windows Automatic Update, wherein the software would retrieve updates despite users’ settings to the contrary, brings this issue into sharp relief. Your market position allows you to do many things, one of which is the unfortunate ability to act in a monopolistic or autocratic manner. This behavior should be avoided, as it creates the sense that your software products are created without any genuine regard for the user. If an individual chooses not to invoke automatic updates, than he or she should have the right to instruct the software accordingly. This has happened in other cases, as evidenced by your recent loss in a European Union court over Windows Media Player. Apparently, your media software has gained an unfair market position due to its inclusion in Windows, and the difficulty users endure in disabling the software.

As a corporate entity, Microsoft, you are perhaps one of the great leaders. Your performance in the marketplace and ability to maintain a leadership position are certainly enviable. Your actual software offerings, however, have become somewhat lackluster while other corporate ambitions are satisfied (Xbox, the Zune player, etc). In considering the four measures suggested above - decreased cost, increased quality, enhanced competitiveness, and a focus on transparency – you may be able to regain the reputation and luster that your products once had. Your recent admission that OEM computer manufacturers may now voluntarily downgrade to XP signals that something is wrong with your current offerings. I implore you to consider these and other valuable suggestions, as they may help re-establish Microsoft as a credible, deserving industry leader rather than simply a leader in spite of itself.

Sincerely,

Terry G