The limits of privacy
14/04/16 05:26
I was an early adopter of personal digital devices. Before there were smart phones, I had a palm pilot in which I had my address book and calendar. I had a palm device with a cell phone almost as soon as they became available. I even owned a blackberry device for a couple of years before obtaining my first iPhone. Now on my second iPhone I realize how dependent upon the device I have become when occasionally I forget it at home or it needs a quick charge in the late afternoon before heading into evening meetings.
What surprises me is how much of my personal life I now keep on my phone. Of course I still have my address book and calendar, along with several alarms set for various meetings and other events in my life. I have my email accounts, which are synched with my computer, so there is a fair amount of email history available to a hacker. I also have an Internet browser that has the same favorites and browsing history as my computer. Then there is the text message session, which has both business and personal exchanges. Some of the messages in that section contain pictures of our grandchildren, but there are also images of family history documents my sister has sent me as well as a few legal documents exchanged by photographing them and sending the photographs via text message. In the message area are more intimate conversations with my wife and children as well as the types of everyday messages exchanged with colleagues and peers.
I now keep a lot of my medical records on my phone including all of my medical appointments, my medication logs, my blood pressure log, and ECG records. There is a way to access my bank records and as many of the customer loyalty cards as have the application to be carried on my phone instead of having to have a physical card in my wallet.
From my smart phone you could see which news sources I frequent and check out how many friends I have on Facebook. My twitter feed is on my phone as well. It has my grocery shopping list and notes I write to myself about things I want to remember and things I need to do.
There are a lot of things on that phone.
I was thinking about that as controversy ranges over the decision by Apple to no longer offer assistance to law enforcement to unlock phones, tablets and other devices as a part of criminal investigations. Like most disagreements, there are two sides to the story and I am sure that there are good arguments to be made both for and against providing unlock software to law enforcement. In general, I’m in favor of enforcing laws and am a supporter of law enforcement agencies. I understand the argument that if you aren’t engaged in illegal activities, you shouldn’t have anything to hide. However, as I look through my phone, I am aware that the request of law enforcement to have full access to our electronic devices is different from other requests.
If a judge grants a search warrant and criminal investigators gain access to a vehicle or a residence, they can search for physical evidence. There are many different kinds of evidence that can be gained through such a search, some of it important for keeping our communities safe. For example, child pornography destroys the lives of its victims. Locating those who buy and sell such destructive items can have a measurable effect on reducing the victimization of children. A search for physical evidence can increase the safety and livability of our communities. The same can be said for illegal drugs or weapons. There are good reasons for granting search warrants.
But searching a home or a car doesn’t allow the searchers access to the private thoughts and conversations of the home or car owner. Those being investigated for evidence of crimes still retain rights including the right to be silent to avoid self incrimination. Searching a personal digital assistant gives access to personal messages and conversations. Such devices keep items that are legitimate for the use as evidence, such as photographs and criminal communications right next to personal information such as health history and family conversation. Theoretically, granting law enforcement access to a phone to search for criminal evidence also grants access to privileged information that would not be allowed into evidence.
Apple’s claim is that their software is written to protect the privacy of their customers and therefor it is impossible for Apple to gain access to the personal data of their customers. It isn’t just that Apple won’t turn over the keys to the phones, it is that they can’t access the data any more than can law enforcement.
At the same time, the same device is reporting my shopping habits to amazon.com. There are all kinds of applications on our devices that we willingly install that have the effect of giving us less, rather than more privacy.
It is a whole new area of information. It is almost as if the old tools of search warrants and the like don’t quite fit the new technologies.
We all acknowledge that freedom comes with responsibility and that a society without restrictions and regulations would quickly become dangerous and ruthless. We all agree to a certain level of government in order to assure safety and protect the common good. In this era of new technologies, and plenty more technologies that are just emerging, there are a lot of unanswered questions about how we can use those technologies to promote the common good and how they can be abused to commit crimes that victimize the innocent.
This ends up as yet another blog post that doesn’t yield answers. I’m not sure what the right answers are. I am aware that there are complex issues and challenges for society as we go forward. I hope that conversations about these issues will help us to make wise decisions as a society.
What surprises me is how much of my personal life I now keep on my phone. Of course I still have my address book and calendar, along with several alarms set for various meetings and other events in my life. I have my email accounts, which are synched with my computer, so there is a fair amount of email history available to a hacker. I also have an Internet browser that has the same favorites and browsing history as my computer. Then there is the text message session, which has both business and personal exchanges. Some of the messages in that section contain pictures of our grandchildren, but there are also images of family history documents my sister has sent me as well as a few legal documents exchanged by photographing them and sending the photographs via text message. In the message area are more intimate conversations with my wife and children as well as the types of everyday messages exchanged with colleagues and peers.
I now keep a lot of my medical records on my phone including all of my medical appointments, my medication logs, my blood pressure log, and ECG records. There is a way to access my bank records and as many of the customer loyalty cards as have the application to be carried on my phone instead of having to have a physical card in my wallet.
From my smart phone you could see which news sources I frequent and check out how many friends I have on Facebook. My twitter feed is on my phone as well. It has my grocery shopping list and notes I write to myself about things I want to remember and things I need to do.
There are a lot of things on that phone.
I was thinking about that as controversy ranges over the decision by Apple to no longer offer assistance to law enforcement to unlock phones, tablets and other devices as a part of criminal investigations. Like most disagreements, there are two sides to the story and I am sure that there are good arguments to be made both for and against providing unlock software to law enforcement. In general, I’m in favor of enforcing laws and am a supporter of law enforcement agencies. I understand the argument that if you aren’t engaged in illegal activities, you shouldn’t have anything to hide. However, as I look through my phone, I am aware that the request of law enforcement to have full access to our electronic devices is different from other requests.
If a judge grants a search warrant and criminal investigators gain access to a vehicle or a residence, they can search for physical evidence. There are many different kinds of evidence that can be gained through such a search, some of it important for keeping our communities safe. For example, child pornography destroys the lives of its victims. Locating those who buy and sell such destructive items can have a measurable effect on reducing the victimization of children. A search for physical evidence can increase the safety and livability of our communities. The same can be said for illegal drugs or weapons. There are good reasons for granting search warrants.
But searching a home or a car doesn’t allow the searchers access to the private thoughts and conversations of the home or car owner. Those being investigated for evidence of crimes still retain rights including the right to be silent to avoid self incrimination. Searching a personal digital assistant gives access to personal messages and conversations. Such devices keep items that are legitimate for the use as evidence, such as photographs and criminal communications right next to personal information such as health history and family conversation. Theoretically, granting law enforcement access to a phone to search for criminal evidence also grants access to privileged information that would not be allowed into evidence.
Apple’s claim is that their software is written to protect the privacy of their customers and therefor it is impossible for Apple to gain access to the personal data of their customers. It isn’t just that Apple won’t turn over the keys to the phones, it is that they can’t access the data any more than can law enforcement.
At the same time, the same device is reporting my shopping habits to amazon.com. There are all kinds of applications on our devices that we willingly install that have the effect of giving us less, rather than more privacy.
It is a whole new area of information. It is almost as if the old tools of search warrants and the like don’t quite fit the new technologies.
We all acknowledge that freedom comes with responsibility and that a society without restrictions and regulations would quickly become dangerous and ruthless. We all agree to a certain level of government in order to assure safety and protect the common good. In this era of new technologies, and plenty more technologies that are just emerging, there are a lot of unanswered questions about how we can use those technologies to promote the common good and how they can be abused to commit crimes that victimize the innocent.
This ends up as yet another blog post that doesn’t yield answers. I’m not sure what the right answers are. I am aware that there are complex issues and challenges for society as we go forward. I hope that conversations about these issues will help us to make wise decisions as a society.