Privacy and the right to know

Does a right to privacy still exist?
By Will Collette
Privacy is a scarce and precious commodity. The US Supreme Court in its famous 1973 Roe v. Wade case asserted the right to privacy is protected under the due process clause of the Constitution's 14^th Amendment. The Roe decision was not a surprise because the Supreme Court had ruled on the right to privacy before, such as in the 1967 Katz v. United States decision that forbade warrantless wiretaps.

Yet, since we have entered the age the internet, and more specifically the age of Google, any person with a computer and an internet hook-up can find out an amazing amount of information on just about any subject, including their neighbors. I have worked as a strategic researcher and used these tools to access public records, much to the dismay of many of the subjects of that research.

And then there's the Patriot Act....

Corporations, associations and government agencies also use our ever-expanding information technology and they know a lot more about you than you could ever imagine. It is not an accident that so much advertising that comes at you in your mailbox, on the phone or whenever you are on the computer, seems to be just a bit too familiar with your interests or buying habits. That’s because they really do know a whole lot about you.

Low-tech information gathering is still a big part of the privacy debate. For examples, you need look no further than two current legal actions right here in Charlestown that resulted from eavesdropping. One is Council member Lisa DiBello's charges - and soon to be lawsuit - against the town and numerous present and former officials that started with her listening in to a conversation between two co-workers. The second is a charge of unfair labor practices against that town that features an overheard conversation.

Privacy issues have been a concern at Town Hall for quite a while. The Town adopted a written policy that no town employee is allowed to tape another person in Town Hall or on town property. Reliable sources told me this policy arose from allegations that then Parks & Rec director Lisa DiBello was taping her co-workers and Council members.. Under Rhode Island's wiretap law, it is not illegal for a person in a face-to-face conversation to secretly tape another person. So it was up to the town to make it a personnel rule.

There is an overarching question: How is it possible that we have a Constitutional right to privacy yet have so little of it?

To a large degree, we gave it up.

Most Americans gladly, though unwittingly, forfeited many of their rights to privacy through many simple, innocent-seeming acts – like using a credit card, or getting a supermarket discount card, or being quoted in a newspaper, or being listed in an obituary or wedding notice, or buying a house or car, taking out a loan, getting a license or getting a permit.

If you are involved in a lawsuit, you may be required to disclose a lot of your personal financial information and that information could easily become a public record. If you have gone through a divorce, unless you made sure the record was sealed, you probably left behind a lot of personal and financial information.

There are lots of other ways you give up information – answering a survey, withdrawing money from an ATM, driving on the roads, walking into a bank or another business that uses surveillance cameras, writing a letter to a public official or government agency, we leave traces of ourselves with every one of those, and many other, normal daily activities.

Going off the grid

If you want to stop leaving traces, you have to work at it. Actually, you have to do more than that. You essentially have to go someplace and disappear and, whatever you do, deal only in cash and stay off the grid.

I don’t intend to make anyone feel paranoid. I’m just stating the facts. The right of privacy does not exist unless you assert it. And when we engage in public activities in the normal course of being part of this culture, the price of admission is paid in privacy. And a matter of thoughtful choice.

It’s up to the courts and to the legislatures to decide where to draw the line.

During this current session of the US Supreme Court, the court will make a decision in Jones v. United States.

In this case, the court will decide whether the government has the right to attach a GPS tracking device and track the movements of a person without a judge’s warrant.

From the bench, Justice Stephen Breyer commented that if the court grants the government this authority, it would have Orwellian consequences.

This decision becomes even more important as people embrace technology that makes their privacy even more vulnerable. Everybody wants a smart phone, yet by owning a smart phone, you are constantly transmitting your location via GPS. The only way to stop these phones from transmitting such information is to remove the battery. 

As for me, I will continue to use public information databases and sources to look for facts and to search for truth as I have done throughout my adult life through my work. Believe me, I think – and marvel – at the extent to which people’s lives are laid bare by today’s technology.

Just in the past 10 years, I have seen rapid expansion in the technology to find information, while at the same time, I have seen more restrictions added. For example, I used to have public access to databases with Social Security numbers and used to be able to access license tag information. Access to that information is now very restricted.

Any person who chooses to go into public life, runs a business or assumes some role in life that merits attention creates a record that can, and probably will, be examined. I was given advice many years ago by a mentor that I find to be the best way to deal with the prospect of public scrutiny: “Never do something that you couldn’t explain to your mother if she read it in tomorrow’s newspaper.” Though I cannot claim I have always met it, it is the standard I strive to meet.