Bruce Schneier: Privacy in the Age of Persistence

"Data is the pollution of the information age. It's a natural byproduct of every computer-mediated interaction. It stays around forever, unless it's disposed of. It is valuable when reused, but it must be done carefully. Otherwise, its after effects are toxic."<p>I agree with this idea; that's why I prefer the regulation of data collection and storage, rather than use. Allowing companies and governments to collect massive amounts of data about people that they aren't allowed to use in certain ways today is a ticking time bomb. This data is attractive to criminals who aren't bound by laws anyway, and corporate mergers or changing laws can retroactively harm privacy based on data that was previously collected.

This is a serious issue to consider, but one way we're <i>not</i> going to solve it is by trying to restrict data collection, or simply trying to hide our own digital footprints. The latest facebook ToS episode tells us as much. To continue Schneier's automobile analogy, we're not solving pollution by un-inventing cars, but by coming up with even better clean technology. Similarly, reducing data collection doesn't seem to be a viable option; instead, we're going to have to come up with better technologies for access control &#38; data anonymization.

Arguments for the importance of privacy seem to invoke either corruption (eg. 1984, or the Cardinal Richelieu quote) or the risk of error (eg. misidentifying a suspect because they share attributes). These remind me of the arguments used against artificial intelligence research. I see them as problems that can be worked around, not as a basis for more privacy measures.<p>Instinctively I feel that privacy is important, but I can't find any solid justification for the instinct. It bothers me slightly to know that I can be tracked by cell phone signals or a public-transit swipe-card, but I couldn't win an argument for the importance of privacy.

Every time I read something by Schneier, I'm impressed with just how well he's able to put things. He's somehow able to impart the gravity of things without coming across like he's fear-mongering. I wonder how he's able to write so eloquently and accessibly on security, which is usually hard to do - I'd like to be able to write that well.

Imagine if they would have had the internet with Google, Internet Archive, etc., during the McCarthyism era in the US. That's the type of thing I am most concerned about.

Reading this, I had one of those -- hey! "I invented that first!" entrepreneur moments, since I had blogged on the same topic a week or two ago. <a href="http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/02/who-was-i-again.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/02/who-was-i-aga...</a><p>Of course, like all big ideas, this stuff is "in the air" at a certain point in time and lots of people are channeling it. I think of it as a process sort of like waking up: usually you'll have outliers who warn of problems years or decades ahead of time without any traction, then suddenly everybody's thinking and talking about it. E-commerce was like that, and so it social networking. Who knows? Maybe Twitter is the next big change.<p>This is a society-changing trend, no doubt, and worthy of all the attention we can give it. While my post was overly lyrical, historical, and elliptical -- Bruce drives a truck right through the reader with direct analysis. I hope to see more writers take this on.<p>If I had to put the problem into one semi-poetic line, it would be.<p>Every detail. Easily recorded. Rarely noticed. Never forgotten.<p>Our species has never existed in a world where nothing was forgotten. Not only is the ability to forget a key part of remaining sane, it may be a key part of a functioning society.<p>We don't know -- we're in uncharted territory. But I do know that the matter is credibly huge and will not go away simply by us ignoring it.<p>And no, this is not a privacy issue. To think of it as just privacy is to miss the point. Even if we were the only ones able to access the data about us, <i>is it healthy to have a life in which all the details are remembered forever?</i> I don't think so. This isn't about ownership of the data, it's much more encompassing than that: it's about whether or not people are machines or evolving organisms. Machines don't care for the past. Evolving organisms are always forgetting and remaking the past in order to emotionally move forward. We may be reaching a "wet-ware limit" where our information systems are simply operating at too high an efficiency level for the interface to work properly with us sloppy, emotional, forgetful, slow, and illogical hominids.