FPF Advisory Board Members Take the Stage at Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference to discuss: “Frontiers in Privacy"
Wednesday, June 15 at Computers Freedom and Privacy (CFP), three Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) Advisory Board members took the stage during a discussion about “Frontiers in Privacy.” Advisory Board member Professor Annie Anton moderated a discussion between Professors Peter Swire and Daniel Solove. The discussion was fast-paced and covered six topics–each getting a lightning-round type of discussion which elicited discussion by the panelists.
The topics included:
First, the all or nothing fallacy in privacy and security. The professors debated whether there is false tradeoff between the concepts of privacy and security. Professor Solove chimed in that he believes these concepts are not all-or-nothing, but rather are “different sides of the same coin.” Professor Swire commented similarly that the debate is not really between privacy versus security, but rather security versus security.
Second, encryption and globalization in India and China. Professor Swire discussed his recent trip to India and his growing concerns over the maximum 40-bit encryption key limit in the country. Professor Solove agreed with Professor Swire’s commentary, and both find the trends abroad alarming and distressing. Specifically both pointed to the similar debate that occurred in the US’ recent past, and believe that the default internationally should similarly shift to “good encryption.”
Third, the concept of having nothing to hide. Both professors disagree with the sentiment that if you have “nothing to hide” there should be no concern over privacy. The “nothing to hide” concept was labeled as too narrow because it does not account for those who want privacy rights related to things such as access to view and correct information retained about them online, or even the right to prevent aggregation of profiles about them. Along the lines of aggregation and profiling, the professors voiced concerns about having to deal with judgments and inferences, often wrong, that arise from ones online actions.
Fourth, social networks, freedom of association, and privacy. The discussion engaged the panelists about the growth of social networks and the benefits and drawbacks associated therein. Professor Swire succinctly stated that we as consumers are torn between the wonderful ability of sharing and networks but at the same time, fear. The professors also debated the social value derived from these networks and discussed potential regulatory limitations that could be placed on them as well.
Fifth, the future of the Fourth Amendment. The discussion focused on the Fourth Amendment’s reasonable expectation of privacy test. Professor Solove emphasized his view that the test is drawn too narrowly today. Professor Swire indicated a gradual shift that seems to be occurring in the Federal bench, specifically citing to recent cases that limit the scope of the Fourth Amendment as it relates to e-mail and computer searches.
Finally, the panel discussed data minimization versus data drench. There is a significant focus on data minimization both in the EU and US (FTC; McCain/Kerry Bill). However, both panelists emphasized that this concept of minimization is contradictory to the data infusion that is actually occurring in the real world. Professor Solove aptly compared asking entities to limit their use of data to the example of a tiger in a cage with a huge amount of meat—could you really request the tiger to only eat the data in small chunks?
