Phasma ex Machina

Last week I had the pleasure of discussing my viewpoints about privacy with one of my house mates. One particular remark of her remained stuck in the back of my head, leaving me wondering about the validity and consequences of it: 'We will lose eventually, and there is nothing we can do about it. So why should we even resist?'.

I would like to state that I am fiercely in favour of privacy and anonymity. Not only in real life ('would you stop filming me, please' and 'no, I am not interested in a discount card'), but also in my digital ways. Also, I am absolutely aware that I might be a little bit extreme in this regard and therefore I can imagine people not caring as much as I am. But at times I am surprised that people actually do not care at all, especially in regard of digital privacy.

Defining the problem
In my last days at the university, I got an assignment to write an essay about a particular risk and its basic fundamentals. Eagerly I jumped on this opportunity to discuss the risk of giving up parts of your anonymity on-line. It did not take long before the numerous ways someone can divulge personal sensitive information began to crop up. But that was not the most interesting part: it became apparent people tend to be oblivious to the amount of data they give up.

The AOL-incident a few years ago and its consequences for the people affected clearly illustrate how many data can be extracted from something relatively mundane as internet searches. Ordinary (and with that I mean non-computer-savvy) people apparently do not have any clue about the implications of simply entering their own name in a search engine.

But what really took the cake, as the British put it, was an exposé I found about Windows Vista's data harvesting habits. If you consider Microsoft's market share, it is not unthinkable most of the desktop computers will be running this operating system by the end of next year. An operating system that by default sends statistical information back to its creator. The only way for people to find out about this behaviour is wading through the lengthy EULA that is bundled with the software.

This is only a start. As applications become web-aware or even web-based like the Google Docs-initiative, the allure of harvesting information gets stronger and stronger. Some ISP's in the United Kingdom and the United States have already fallen for the sirens song of a company called Phorm, a marketing company that analyses the requests and responses of the customers of the ISP-partner.

Is it that bad?
This is only one particular view on the problem. Neither ISPs nor Microsoft or any other company is evil enough to silently eavesdrop on its customers. With a little bit of effort people can find out what is happening with their data and the ways to prevent it. People still have a choice, although that choice might be limited to either use the software and be spied on or not using the software at all.

But herein lies another issue: the people themselves. They do not make an effort to understand what is happening. Perhaps it is because the computer or legal lingo is too hard to understand. Perhaps people are put off by the long license agreements they should read before installing the software. Or, as my house mate put it, eventually they will agree to it anyway, whether they will read it or not.

Bottom line is, people can choose and can know about their digital anonymity, but more often than not they simply don't.

Losing battle
Eventually it all boils down to this: organisations and governments want to know as much as possible about their target group of people and the digital route is the one with the least resistance. The majority of people do not care or do not put an effort to care. So the ways of getting information are getting more and more aggressive, even to the point ISP traffic is analysed and processed.

So I am wondering: why should privacy nutters like me even care? Why do we keep on telling people about the importance of knowing what their computer is doing with the information stored on it?

I think it is better to go down fighting with a chance to actually make a difference. Yes, we might lose, especially considering the things that are happening right now. But there are also a possibility we spark a change. I can imagine that when people are confronted with the large amounts of harvested data about them, they are outraged. Perhaps by showing the proper people the proper information, there could be a difference.

Still... I cannot help but wondering if digital privacy is on the brink of extinction. Perhaps I am just part of some digital incarnation of Greenpeace, fighting for a cause without realising that this is simply the course of a virtual evolution? I wonder...