The problem with baselines is there is who decides the universal "yardstick" to measure? As a society we can create what we believe to be that universal "baseline" or minimum. Do we make it a line that is immoveable by individuals who disagree with it? And if so, do those individuals who "change" the baseline to their liking eventually erode it for the rest of the community?
It gets interesting here doesn't it?
The one factor that no one can deny is that once I share ANY information with ANY source, I lose control over it. We can create all sorts of laws and penalties to keep sources from further dissemenating that information - that's all good. My point is that once you share that information with any entity (individual, corporation or govt), it's not private by definition any longer. This is a simple fact we tend to overlook. Do we redefine privacy in terms of "reasonable privacy"? I am not sure.
Once I leave the confines of my home, my actions are no longer "private". We believe that since people don't know information that identifies us (such as name or SS#) we are anonymous. That's true from a perspective and yet it's not absolute is it. Think about it next time you venture from your home and see people on the street. How hard would it be to discover their identit? Surprisingly, not hard at all.
Well, let me get to my point - I believe there is technology available that will allow us to have more control over the information we share with the world. More over, once that information is shared, mechanisms can be in place that will track how that information is used. If one decides they no longer want an entity to have that information, they can "revoke it". Again, we can fall back to "laws and penalties" to ensure the revocation is adhered to.
There are ways in which to make transactions "nearly anonymous" from certain perspectives. I could detail a sample to you if you wish. Again, the system I will explain merely fragments the information so that no one party can truly know all your information.
The best way to keep any sembelence of privacy in cyberspace is to "get lost in a crowd". I believe that people naturally congregate (we are social beings) and in that sense, online communities will sprout up where people can participate. At that time, the community will manage the interaction of marketeers and information hounds by masking the individual identities of the community members.
For instance, I'm an an investor and I have signed up with SI to participate in the discussions of investing (and other topics). My membership in this community is an aspect that identifies who I am. Because of certain shared aspects of all members of SI, there are companies/individuals who are interested in reaching us (marketing-wise). So, SI can decide to leverage that into gain (sell our information which is the current rage) or they can elect to allow the influence of outside forces to SI members as a whole.
For example, a company wants to market to SI members because of the demographics. Instead of targeting each member, they pay a fee to SI to advertise to the entire community. We as members have the ability to "see" these advertisements or reject all advertisments. Perhaps we can check off those we wish to see....
Or as members we can decide to leverage our "power of influence" through our demographic to institute programs that directly benefit us (for instance, imaging approaching an online brokerage company and working a deal for favorable service fees for SI members?). It would be by the members for the members, SI (the entity) would not be involved.
Hmm...makes a real case for a true democracy. Then again, this is merely one aspect of my life. I may be a member in multiple communities that offer me different benefits through the same process.
I could write a book here so I'll leave my position at this point. Please understand, I am not declaring your position as wrong only offering a different perspective.
Regards,
Peter J Strifas |
