Takeaways for Week No. 2

 There is a trade off between  privacy and security. More security always requires a reduction in privacy. 

Top Stories:

• VTech, a Hong Kong manufacturer of children's toys had a data breach. Information on children location and approximate age were taken. Settled with the US government for $650,000.
• The US House extends FISA for 6 years allowing communication data for foreign nationals that are under investigation and US citizens they contact to be collected without a warrant.

1. "I have nothing to hide" argument.

• From the reading by Daniel Solove what it means when someone makes the argument “I have nothing to hide.”

 "You are saying that it’s OK for the government to infringe on the rights of potentially millions of your fellow Americans, possibly ruining their lives in the process. To me, the “I have nothing to hide” argument basically equates to “I don’t care what happens, so long as it doesn’t happen to me.” [33]"

• One main problem discussed in class about the "I have nothing to hide" argument stems from how information collected on an individual is used. The individual may be 'OK' with information being collected on them when they have a preconceived notion as to how the information will be used. In many cases an individual might be unaware of the extent to which information may be used or third parties to which it might be sold. 
• Stemming  from this notion it was noted that Privacy has two parts.
• How information is collected
• How information is used

2. Q of the Week

• It was noted that many of the responses to the Q of the Week used the 'home' and 'intimate' when describing common core characteristics of the right of privacy. 
• It was discussed whether the notion of 'home' should protect the privacy of any and all activity within the home, only sexual activities within the home, or only legal activities within the home. Although no definitive conclusion was reached, general consensus was that the home itself is private along with any activities therein; the only time this should ever be breached is by 'probable cause'. 
• It was discussed what activities/information should be considered 'intimate'. Some options given were sexual activity, medical history, finances, whether someone looks at pornography, as well as to which organizations someone belongs. The first two options,
  sexual activity and medical history, were decided to be intimate. It was noted that ones bank records/finances would generally be considered by those in the class to be 'intimate' information, however they aren't private in a legal sense as there is a 3rd party involved. When considering the final two options, whether someone looks at pornography and to which organizations someone belongs, although there were no definitive conclusions made general consensus was that an individual would need to decide for them self whether the information is 'intimate'. Someone who is only part of a chess club would not consider which organizations they are a part of to be 'intimate' information where as someone who is part of Alcoholics Anonymous might consider that 'intimate' information. The same logic can be extended to whether someone looks at  pornography. If someone does not look at  pornography, then this information might not be 'intimate' information to them and vice versa. 
• What is or is not 'intimate' information can also change with social perceptions. An example of this given in class was sexual orientation. At the present time with more liberal social perceptions, a person's sexual orientation would not be considered 'intimate' information and may often times be given out freely in a social situation or on college application essays. This is far different than in the mid-late 20th century where in social perceptions, sexual orientation was often viewed more cynically.

3. Who is best suited to decide whether an individual's right of exists and how it should be protected? Does it depend on context?

• Options given for who best to decide were: the individual, congress, the courts, or the collector of the information. 
• Conclusion: It depends on the context. 
• Examples given: The individual is not best suited to decide if they have a right to privacy regarding their health/travel. If the individual has been to a country with an Ebola outbreak, it is best for this information to be disclosed so the individual can be properly screened/processed. 
• The collector of the information, maybe google, should not decide what should or should not be protected or private, profit can too big of a deciding factor. It would be best if the individual had more control in this situation. 
• It was noted that Congress in their present state should not be trusted with such responsibility.