The Louisville Cheerleader thread got me thinking about the issue of privacy and trust in the information age and to me is why we should be leery of the greater invasions of our privacy by both the government and commercial organizations. For those who haven't seen that thread a cheerleader for the University of Louisville took some pornographic pictures for her boyfriend who posted them online. Now she's been kicked off the squad, possibly out of school, and her reputation ruined. Many consider this to be her own fault since in the information age digital pictures and other information can be easily transmitted so we should all be wary of even taking pictures of ourselves that our potentially embarrassing. That may be so but at the same time shouldn't we also be able to trust loved ones to not take advantage of such things? This brings me to why I find the surveillance society so troubling. From the standpoint of the government the argument is that a surveillance society is needed to protect us from terrorists and others threats hiding in out midst. The argument goes that the government doesn't care about our own personal foibles and those concerns aren't as weighty as the threat of terrorism. Underlying this assumption though is trust. Its the trust that the government won't abuse that power and will only act in our own interests. The problem with that is that this is a government composed of the people and collectively as a people though we are far from trustworthy when it comes to matter of sex and lurid details of peoples live. We live in an age of reality TV, paparazzi, and amateur webcams where voyeurism is both accepted and widespread. The argument that the cheerleader should've known better that pornographic pics for her boyfriend would end up on the internet just shows how much we take it as a given that private trust in such matters will be violated. The potential problem comes though when we trust our government to surveil us with the understanding that any lurid details of our private life won't be used against us. Again though if we take it as a given that individuals will violate such trust what guarantee is there that the individuals who run the surveillance operation won't abuse that trust? We already know that previously the government has used such information to embarrass and discredit people such as exposing Daniel Ellsberg's psychological reports, leaking rumors about MLK's infidelities. What's to prevent the government as a matter of policy or individuals in it from taking advantage of embarrassing details gleaned from wiretaps, hidden cameras and other surveillance? There's nothing other than our own trust, a trust that hasn't always been deserved. On the commercial side things are even worse and business takes it as a given that the price of doing business is surveillance. So with cookies and tracking software our moves online are monitored, we are monitored while we are shopping and dining, and our spending habits tracked. The only difference separating commercial surveillance is that we make a voluntary choice to engage in commerce that leads to surveillance but at the same time shouldn't businesses consider their customers' privacy? Sadly though privacy is no more a business ethic than it is in the government or society as a whole. So other than completely dropping out of the modern economy and culture we have to accept that there is very little privacy. I don't really have any solutions to any of this but just feel sad that we should have an ethic of privacy in the information age and that trust should be expected with our government, our businesses, and among our friends and families to safeguard our privacy.
