By Michael Torrice
The ACLU, as most everyone knows, is an organization focused on protecting
the rights of citizens in the U.S.. Their main page has a link to
all of their main issues and it is not surprising that the issue of
privacy is among them. On their privacy page they have links to current
stories involving privacy and legislation regarding privacy. They
also link to places where people can work to protect privacy rights
be it contacting congress persons or being kept up-to-date on all
new situations that arise. Besides these general links, the ACLU has
also set up a web-based campaign to insure privacy rights for all
citizens. The Defend Your Data site (www.ACLU.org/privacy/)
is intended to be a place where people can share their stories regarding
privacy and become more aware of the problem. A Data Defense kit is
also available for people to report privacy violations and learn how
to protect themselves into the future.
Despite all of these resources and suggestions, the ACLU's stance
on privacy rights is not entirely justifiable. Many times on the site,
the ACLU makes the statement that your personal information is yours
and you have the right to control its distribution. How does this
apply to real situations? You are driving home after work. You pull
into your driveway. The car behind you now knows where you live. Did
you give them permission to know that? You are in the junk food aisle
of the supermarket. You buy some Twinkies and Ring-Dings. The person
across the aisle now knows you like preservative-rich junk foods.
Did you say he could learn this information about your consumption
habits? These situations are intentionally absurd to make a point.
We are constantly gathering information about the people all around
us. This process is inherent in the way our minds function and can
not be stopped. So privacy is not a question of whether or not people
are gathering information about you, it is about in what context are
they gathering it.
The main problem with the ACLU's stance on privacy rights is that
it does not differentiate between the context of the private sector
and that of the government. Consider the situation of a person in
your house. A person walking around your house will immediately begin
to gather information about you from what he sees. But did you let
this person in or did they force themselves into your house? If they
are a friend, you let them in willingly. If they are the police with
a warrant, they came in whether or not you wanted them to. The difference
stems from the nature of government. In any society, the government
is the only legitimate source of force. It alone can legally force
you to do things. Fortunately, in a free society, the citizens are
not subjected to unwarranted force and the government's use of force
is therefore kept in check. All of the rights in the Constitution,
especially the fourth amendment (no unlawful search and seizure),
were made to be a check against the force of the government. So in
the case of the government, we have a right to privacy because the
government can not initiate force with out a reason.
On the other hand, the private sector constitutes an entirely different
context for privacy rights from the government. In the private sector,
no one may use force. All interactions must be done voluntarily. That
friend in your house is gathering information about you. But you let
him into your house voluntarily. If you did not want him to know information
about your house, you would choose not to let him inside. The same
scenario can be applied to private companies and marketing. If you
did not want a company to know what you like to eat, then you would
have to choose not to shop there. By the nature of the business transaction
the company you do business with will have to know something about
you. You must willingly give up that information to them. Now if you
do not want them to sell that information to other companies, you
have two choices: a) enter into a contract with them forbidding them
to sell the information or b) not do business with that company. (A
good example of choice (a) is the doctor-patient confidentiality clause.)
So, in the case of the private sector, there is no right to privacy
because one can willingly avoid exchanging information with certain
groups. In effect the right to privacy in the private sector is the
right to free association.
For these reasons, it would be suggested that instead of focusing
half of its time in the pursuit of regulations against private companies,
the ACLU should spend all of its time on regaining our true rights
to privacy. The fourth amendment, like most of the Bill of Rights,
has been compromised to fit whatever social agenda the government
thinks is important at the time (examples include legislation revolving
around the war on drugs and an initiative by former President Clinton
to begin a federal health database). Also, the judicial system is
notorious for making private citizens break their privacy contracts
in the name of convicting a felon. All of these situations show a
true perversion of the right to privacy and should be stopped.