Skip to content

omidyar.net

Sections
Personal tools
Help
Help index
Help on this page

Thomas Kriese (CCAL30) (2314)

Subsections
Actions

Comment by Thomas Kriese (CCAL30)

Author: Thomas Kriese (CCAL30) (2314)
Date posted: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:12:05 PDT
Comment on: Blogging from Identity Mashup in Boston (50)
Feedback score: 0

Panel 3: Privacy and Civil Liberties in Benign and Hostile Environments

billed as:This panel will address the questions: What roles do code and law play in protecting civil liberties and privacy? How can civil liberties and privacy be protected in hostile environments? What are the balances between legitimate security interests and civil liberties? Are technologies outstripping the capacity of the legal process to keep up?
speakers:
  • William McGeveran, Berkman Center (moderator)
  • Ira Rubinstein, Microsoft
  • Christine Varney, Hogan & Hartsen
  • Roger Dingledine, MIT/TOR
  • Marc Rotenberg, EPIC
Rubinstein:What's been missing for several years in the United States is comprehensive privacy legislation, but that's changing with recently introduced legislation.
Rotenberg:

sees two very big challenges at this time. Was somewhat optimistic meeting them 10 years ago, but is less opt today.

  1. The security compromise challenge: have to think seriously about what happens if things don't work, if your system breaks.
  2. The "collapse" of the lawful access premise: It used to be we felt comfortable that there was accountability when accessing citizen's data. As recent events have shown, there's much behind-the-scenes access happening.
Varney:Who do I trust less to safeguard privacy: business or government? Legislation is a blunt instrument that's rarely effective, has copious unintended consequences and is usually inspired by big companies.
Rotenberg:

The American public's attention to privacy matters has been on the increase since Sept 11, especially as their privacy has been invaded more and more on behalf of "making their country safer."

Instead of the VA suggesting that the veterans (whose data was compromised by the recent laptop theft) go out and get their "free credit report" to watch to see if anything untoward has happened, the VA should be required to pay for the monitoring service to proactively watch these veterans' records. Why's the cost not borne by the agency responsible?
Interesting note from Kaliya in the audience:
 The issues not being talked about is the way the courts have interpreted the 4th amendment as not applying to third party storage of information/data. Addressing this must be done legally/socially, not through technical protocols.
top back to top of page