I found it interesting how Simson Garfinkle came back and wrote about how things are one year after he wrote the book, however, I feel that this was a way for him to toot his horn even more by saying, "hey, see... I was right!" Maybe I'm just cynical but that's what I thought about it.
How funny and naive is it for the government to think that voluntary privacy policies are sufficient? Come on, it hasn't worked in the past so why would it work in the future where technology is just going to continue expanding? I liked the example about the library where BC's Privacy Commissioner checked to see how he could improve the security cameras to not invade privacy but still deter theft. Why can't we just pass legislation that would allow for things like this to happen? This is a great example of how easy it would be to enhance the privacy of Americans while still keeping an eye on the bad guys. I think that the government needs to step up and admit that privacy is a huge concern and actually implement legislation ensuring the privacy of all Americans, not just some voluntary guidelines.
The MTA example was profound because it showed me how, because of the travel information of one criminal, New York thought it would be a good idea to track the movements of every person going through the subway "just in case". You don't have to actively track everyone all the time. It worked when it was a passive system so why intrude on people's lives anymore than has to be done? I guess that was the theme of the whole book though.
5 comments:
I agree with you that Garfinkle was motivated to update his book in the epilogue to "toot his horn". A lot of his predictions were accurate but I think his solutions to the presented problems were a little lacking.
Also, I agree with you that legislation needs to be implemented to protect citizens. A lot of other countries have already acted and have strict privacy standards. The companies operating there protested at first but comply.
I agree with you that Garfinkle was motivated to update his book in the epilogue to "toot his horn". A lot of his predictions were accurate but I think his solutions to the presented problems were a little lacking.
Also, I agree with you that legislation needs to be implemented to protect citizens. A lot of other countries have already acted and have strict privacy standards. The companies operating there protested at first but comply.
I also agree we need legislation and regulation to protect privacy because self-regulation does not work. This is similar to the self-regulation of business accounting practices before SOX was implemented.
Implementation of privacy regulations may cost businesses time and money, but overall it will improve consumer confidence and as we all know, they will simply pass the costs on. I would rather pay increased costs for goods and know my privacy is protected through legislation than to continue to pay the price through things like increased credit company charges due to non-prosecuted identity theft and fraud. It bothers me that we as a society are bearing the costs for those who steal our information, commit fraud and are not prosecuted because of the costs involved. In addition, we are allowing businesses to go unchecked with their use of our personal information which has enabled those who commit identity crimes easy access to theft of our personal information.
You make two good points...yes, the author was tooting his own horn, but we all do that every now and then and some more than others. The second point is in regards to the government involvement. It is absolutely necessary that the government regulate privacy in companies. Otherwise, we will never be protected. In general we are not socially responsible, it is sad to say, but true.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the TV de Plasma, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://tv-de-plasma.blogspot.com. A hug.
Post a Comment