Business - Written by Denis Hancock on Monday, November 12, 2007 0:30 - 2 Comments
An interesting take on privacy
The following quote is from Dr. Donald Kerr, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and it was given at the 2007 GEOINT Symposium (the full transcript of his speech can be found here). Whatever your feelings are on this topic (any time “National Intelligence” and “privacy” are anywhere near the same sentence, tempers can flare) it’s certainly an interesting read, and is a stark reminder of how the Net Generation – among other forces – is changing society in interesting ways…
And that leads you directly into the concern for privacy. Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it’s an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Long Ranger wore a mask but Tonto didn’t seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You’d think he would probably need one even more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity – or the appearance of anonymity – is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
Anonymity results from a lack of identifying features. Nowadays, when so much correlated data is collected and available – and I’m just talking about profiles on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube here – the set of identifiable features has grown beyond where most of us can comprehend. We need to move beyond the construct that equates anonymity with privacy and focus more on how we can protect essential privacy in this interconnected environment.
Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.
I think people here, at least people close to my age, recognize that those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it’s not for us to inflict one size fits all. It’s a need to have it be adjustable to the needs of local societies as they evolve in our country. Eventually, we can only hope that people’s perceptions – in Hollywood and elsewhere – will catch up.
2 Comments
Denis Hancock
Thanks for the comment Colin – I hope you didn’t take this post to mean I was implying that the Net Gen was at the centre of the entire privacy debate… I just found his point about the different perspectives on privacy across generations interesting and similar to what I’ve been seeing a lot of lately.
Business - Oct 5, 2010 12:00 - 0 Comments
DRM and us
More In Business
- Facebook, Facebook, Facebook
- Survey: How are you using Facebook, Twitter, smart phones, and other technology platforms?
- Will Facebook be your CRM provider?
- Wiki Banking
- The importance of being competent
Entertainment - Aug 3, 2010 13:14 - 2 Comments
Want to see the future? Look to the games
More In Entertainment
- Lessons in collaboration from B.B. King’s
- CL!CK – LEGO’s fun social product development platform
- Peer Pressure 2.0: Farmville
- Online gaming more than just fun
- The NFL – The most protective league, attempting to control the uncontrollable
Society - Aug 6, 2010 8:19 - 4 Comments
The Empire strikes a light
More In Society
- Balance: customer receptivity vs. customer revulsion
- The Net Gen: Too plugged-in for parenting?
- Are you addicted to social media?
- The privacy discussion we need to have
- “The Data-Driven Life”: Who’s not interested in discovery?

Coming soon in paperback! Help rename the paperback version of Macrowikinomics and win a one-hour webinar for you and your colleagues with Don Tapscott. Ends 5:00pm ET, August 31.
Hmm.. I think it’s stretching the point to note that the privacy vs. security debate is being framed, if only in part, by the Net Generation.
Rather, this debate is gaining volume because of vastly increased computing and collection power. At its heart, however, is the continuing belief that the all matter of evil or plague can be cured, if only the government was allowed unfettered access to data.
This isn’t about feeding contextually appropriate ads to teenagers: it’s about government access to your phone records, your health records, your travel plans ….
Privacy advocates, and a lot of private citizens, tend to have a problem with that approach.
Colin McKay
Director of Communications
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
blog.privcom.gc.ca