wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
c y : A N
e w U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i n
g
data-mining project called Total Information Awareness under the
leadership of Admiral John Poindexter. T he program involved col
lecting extensive information about people, such as financial, educa
tional, health, and other data. T he information would then be analyzed
for behavior patterns to identify terrorists. According to Poindexter,
“The only way to detect. . . terrorists is to look for patterns of activity
that are based on observations from past terrorist attacks as well as es
timates about how terrorists will adapt to our measures to avoid detec
tion.”45 W hen the program came to light, a public outcry erupted that
led to the demise of the program when the U.S. Senate voted to deny it
funding. Nevertheless, many components of Total Information Aware
ness continue in various government agencies in a less systematic and
more clandestine fashion.46
Beyond Total Information Awareness, the government engages in a
number of data-mining programs—about 200 according to a 2004
government report.47 One example is the M ulti-State Anti-Terrorism
Information Exchange (MATRIX), a database of personal informa
tion used by various states.48 Another is the National Security Ad
ministration (NSA) data-mining program on telephone records.
After September 11, the NSA obtained customer records from sev
eral major phone companies and analyzed them to identify potential
terrorists.49 The telephone-call database was reported to be the
“largest database ever assembled in the world.”50 T he government
has also been devising a series of data-mining programs for airline
passenger screening.51
Some scholars argue that data mining does not pose a significant
threat to privacy. Much of the information involves relatively in
nocuous daily transactions and is not particularly sensitive or revealing.
Moreover, Richard Posner argues:
T he collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts
of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection
and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of
their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search
for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelli
gence value. This initial shifting, far from invading privacy (a
computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from
being read by any intelligence officer.52
Privacy: A New Understanding
193
Posner’s argument is one commonly made about the privacy of per
sonal information in large databases. The data is stored and analyzed
by computers. N o human might actually see the information. The pri
mary concern with data mining, according to Posner, is that the infor
mation might be used to blackmail people or leaked in order to “ridi
cule or embarrass.”53
Posner focuses only on problems of information dissemination (dis
closure and blackmail), but data mining also implicates several prob
lems of information collection and information processing. Data
mining often begins with the collection of personal information, usu
ally from various third parties that possess people’s data. Under cur
rent Supreme C ourt Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, when the
government gathers data from third parties, there is no Fourth
Amendment protection because people lack a “reasonable expectation
of privacy” in information exposed to others) As I argued extensively
in my book The Digital Person, the lack of Fourth Amendment protec
tion of third-party records results in the government’s ability to access
an extensive amount of personal information with minimal limitation
or oversight.54 Many scholars have referred to the collection of infor
mation as a form of surveillance. “Dataveillance,” a term coined by
Roger Clarke, refers to the “systemic use of personal data systems in
the investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of
one or more persons.”55 Christopher Slobogin has referred to the
gathering of personal information in business records as “transac
tional surveillance.”56 Surveillance can create chilling effects on im
portant activities, especially ones essential for democracy, such as free
speech and free association.57
Surveillance, however, like disclosure, is just one of the problems
created by data mining. Far too often, discussions of government data
mining define the problem solely in terms of surveillance or disclo
sure. I have argued that this way of understanding the problem has
been embodied by the metaphor of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen
Eighty-four. 58 In Orwell’s novel, a totalitarian government known as
Big Brother engages in repressive surveillance of its citizens.59 The
problem, as understood by Orwell’s metaphor, is one of surveillance,
which chills people’s behavior. Privacy is violated when people can no
longer conceal information they want to hide. But data mining is
problematic even if no information we want to hide is uncovered. An
194
P
r
i v a
c y : A N
e w U
n
d
e
r

c y : A N

e w U

n

d

e

r

s

t

a

n

d

i n

g

data-mining project called Total Information Awareness under the

leadership of Admiral John Poindexter. T he program involved col

lecting extensive information about people, such as financial, educa

tional, health, and other data. T he information would then be analyzed

for behavior patterns to identify terrorists. According to Poindexter,

“The only way to detect. . . terrorists is to look for patterns of activity

that are based on observations from past terrorist attacks as well as es

timates about how terrorists will adapt to our measures to avoid detec

tion.”45 W hen the program came to light, a public outcry erupted that

led to the demise of the program when the U.S. Senate voted to deny it

funding. Nevertheless, many components of Total Information Aware

ness continue in various government agencies in a less systematic and

more clandestine fashion.46

Beyond Total Information Awareness, the government engages in a

number of data-mining programs—about 200 according to a 2004

government report.47 One example is the M ulti-State Anti-Terrorism

Information Exchange (MATRIX), a database of personal informa

tion used by various states.48 Another is the National Security Ad

ministration (NSA) data-mining program on telephone records.

After September 11, the NSA obtained customer records from sev

eral major phone companies and analyzed them to identify potential

terrorists.49 The telephone-call database was reported to be the

“largest database ever assembled in the world.”50 T he government

has also been devising a series of data-mining programs for airline

passenger screening.51

Some scholars argue that data mining does not pose a significant

threat to privacy. Much of the information involves relatively in

nocuous daily transactions and is not particularly sensitive or revealing.

Moreover, Richard Posner argues:

T he collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts

of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection

and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of

their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search

for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelli

gence value. This initial shifting, far from invading privacy (a

computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from

being read by any intelligence officer.52

Privacy: A New Understanding

193

Posner’s argument is one commonly made about the privacy of per

sonal information in large databases. The data is stored and analyzed

by computers. N o human might actually see the information. The pri

mary concern with data mining, according to Posner, is that the infor

mation might be used to blackmail people or leaked in order to “ridi

cule or embarrass.”53

Posner focuses only on problems of information dissemination (dis

closure and blackmail), but data mining also implicates several prob

lems of information collection and information processing. Data

mining often begins with the collection of personal information, usu

ally from various third parties that possess people’s data. Under cur

rent Supreme C ourt Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, when the

government gathers data from third parties, there is no Fourth

Amendment protection because people lack a “reasonable expectation

of privacy” in information exposed to others) As I argued extensively

in my book The Digital Person, the lack of Fourth Amendment protec

tion of third-party records results in the government’s ability to access

an extensive amount of personal information with minimal limitation

or oversight.54 Many scholars have referred to the collection of infor

mation as a form of surveillance. “Dataveillance,” a term coined by

Roger Clarke, refers to the “systemic use of personal data systems in

the investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of

one or more persons.”55 Christopher Slobogin has referred to the

gathering of personal information in business records as “transac

tional surveillance.”56 Surveillance can create chilling effects on im

portant activities, especially ones essential for democracy, such as free

speech and free association.57

Surveillance, however, like disclosure, is just one of the problems

created by data mining. Far too often, discussions of government data

mining define the problem solely in terms of surveillance or disclo

sure. I have argued that this way of understanding the problem has

been embodied by the metaphor of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen

Eighty-four. 58 In Orwell’s novel, a totalitarian government known as

Big Brother engages in repressive surveillance of its citizens.59 The

problem, as understood by Orwell’s metaphor, is one of surveillance,

which chills people’s behavior. Privacy is violated when people can no

longer conceal information they want to hide. But data mining is

problematic even if no information we want to hide is uncovered. An

194

P

r

i v a

c y : A N

e w U

n

d

e

r