Is Privacy Still Privacy?
Donald Kerr, the U.S. deputy director of national intelligence, is being reported as calling into question the tradition definition of information privacy. In this age of terrorism, Kerr said that individual privacy can no longer can mean anonymity, but should instead mean that government and businesses will properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.
This redefinition, if one can call it that, has been a long time in the making. Both businesses and governments often seen no difference between privacy their holding close their customer's or citizen's personal information. Of course, the corporate circle has a tendency to expand, to include affiliates, third party affiliates, third parties who are also customers, third parties who really, really need the information, to third parties who promise to keep the information private. Until, of course, someone else needs it.
In the case of HIPAA, sharing medical information with other doctors, within a hospital, with laboratories and even family members and friends makes sense. Sharing financial information, or buying habits with advertisers, less so.
In the business world, it is easy to convince one's self that sharing information is always in the customer's interest, (as is easy access one's credit report). The government, too, no doubt, views itself as having only benign motives. This is the dilemma of privacy. Possession, and even use of, information can often be nearly harmless.
But it is surely a stretch to redefine privacy as every organization merely safeguarding personal information from every other organization, or at least make them promise to safeguard it - until they need to share it.
This redefinition, if one can call it that, has been a long time in the making. Both businesses and governments often seen no difference between privacy their holding close their customer's or citizen's personal information. Of course, the corporate circle has a tendency to expand, to include affiliates, third party affiliates, third parties who are also customers, third parties who really, really need the information, to third parties who promise to keep the information private. Until, of course, someone else needs it.
In the case of HIPAA, sharing medical information with other doctors, within a hospital, with laboratories and even family members and friends makes sense. Sharing financial information, or buying habits with advertisers, less so.
In the business world, it is easy to convince one's self that sharing information is always in the customer's interest, (as is easy access one's credit report). The government, too, no doubt, views itself as having only benign motives. This is the dilemma of privacy. Possession, and even use of, information can often be nearly harmless.
But it is surely a stretch to redefine privacy as every organization merely safeguarding personal information from every other organization, or at least make them promise to safeguard it - until they need to share it.