When privacy no longer counts

I read a couple of stories in the past few days that seemingly have no connection, but that collectively demonstrate how the world we live in has changed.

Article #1: Intelligence magazine reports on a new security system that is being put in place in airports in the United States. The system pre-vets travellers and issues “safe” travellers with ID cards that let them fast-track through security systems and X-ray machines.

It’s a good system –- and frequent flyers will probably fork out the R700 or so annual fee that relieves them of having to undress and unpack their belongings on their weekly visit to the airport.

But there’s a catch. Obviously. To get one of these magic cards, you have to send in scans of all 10 fingerprints, and do a scan of your iris. That data, together with a detailed form you fill in, is sent off to the US government to check and, if you pass the test, you get sent your little microchipped piece of plastic and life in the airport fast lane begins.

Article #2: Yahoo! gave in to a Chinese court this week that subpoenaed the emails and logon details of a suspected government dissident. It meekly handed over the documents, the dissident stood trial and was found guilty of “incitement to subvert state power” and duly sentenced to a decade in prison.

Article #3: Stats SA has suspended an employee who logged on to Wikipedia and changed the online encyclopedia’s “HIV/Aids in South Africa” page. It used the Wikipedia Scanner to get the IP address of the guilty party, traced the person concerned and that was that.

It seems from all these stories that we live in a world with a shifting sense of what is private and what is public. The airport security story has privacy activists in the US up in arms over what they see as an infringement of individual rights. I don’t totally buy that argument –- if you don’t want the government to know the pattern of your iris, then don’t apply for the card and stand in the long queue like all the other neurotic dorks.

And don’t give me the “this is the thin end of the wedge” argument –- we heard that when we were Fica’d here in South Africa and I have yet to discover spy cams in my house or a Russian satellite bearing down on the nude tea parties in my garden. Oops, have I revealed too much? So what if the government manages to get my fingerprints on file? Why does it matter? I know where my fingers have been and don’t mind who else knows it. Their paranoia is hilarious.

Less funny is the Chinese story. There’s a whole debate raging about whether Yahoo! should have released the information, or withheld it and jeopardised its Chinese business. Imagine for a second that instead of China the story had taken place in apartheid South Africa. An underground ANC operative uses an online mail service to plot against the regime. He gets caught, and the courts demand access to the mail service’s data. I think that, given the relative size of the South African market and the pressure of economic sanctions, Yahoo! in that case would have closed up shop and abandoned its local operation. (Is there a Yahoo! Zimbabwe? Hmm…)

Would we have objected to the handing over of the data? Probably. Would there have been a massive global boycott of Yahoo!’s services for colluding with the South African government? Almost certainly. Have we seen that today as a result of the Chinese story? Nope. What’s the difference? Money. The sheer scale, size and potential profits American businesses see in the future in China. The only thing that would tip them over the edge further is if oil were discovered off the coast of Dalian.

It’s an interesting debate. For our purposes, though, all users of online email services such as Gmail, Yahoo! or Hotmail needs to realise that –- potentially –- every word they type, every search they conduct while logged on, every document they store on the server could be used against them. Again, I’m not too fussed about that. If some low-level bureaucrat somewhere wants to sift through the millions of Viagra and porn spam emails I get, be my guest. In fact, hey, guy, please delete them while you’re at it. Saves me having to bother.

And as for the Stats SA guy? Well, he was just being dof. If you want to be a Wiki-vandal, then find an internet café and do it from there. Your inane scribblings won’t last long, thanks to Wikipedia’s self-regulating editing process. If you want to jeopardise your job and integrity by indulging a childish whim, that’s your baby. I think the fact that he used his employer’s resources and vandalised the site from within Stats SA’s network, and given the nature of the work of Stats SA, the employee’s actions were more than just plain dumb -– they were insane.

But I guess there is a serious side to all this. As exciting as the rapid pace of new technology has become and as glorious a place as the internet now is, the lines between what is for me and my eyes only and what is there for the world to see have not just blurred -– they’ve disappeared.

We may have lost something along the way, but look what we’ve gained … these three stories alone tell of things that would have been utterly foreign to us a couple of years back: massive, free, online storage for our emails; quick, more secure and efficient airport security; and an awesome online encyclopedia built on the spirit of free knowledge. In short, a more convenient and hassle-free world. I don’t mind if someone wants my fingerprints in exchange for that.