Excellent article, Caroline. I can't think of a more timely topic given the surging use of A.I. chatbots and what is being saved / recorded, and the numerous other ways that private or confidential information can be woven together that violate rights to privacy.
Any thoughts about Palantir and its use by the federal government?
I also highly recommend Sarah Hartman-Caverly's scholarship and work in this arena--e.g., Digital Shred Toolkit.
Shoshanna Zuboff's book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism has been around for a while. It's also more timely than ever.
Thanks, Craig! Re: Palantir I certainly have thoughts. Arguably the same mosaic logic that prosecutors used to build their case against Rinderknecht is what Palantir seamlessly does at scale, for government clients -- and therefore warrants greater scrutiny.
This raises important questions, but it omits a crucial fact: in Canada, every federal law — including authoritarian ones — can be challenged, suspended, or struck down by the courts. The Charter, the provinces, and judicial review make centralization structurally impossible. A law passed in Ottawa is not destiny.
Thanks for reading, and fair point that other democracies have developed different legal frameworks for these concerns. I intentionally focused on the American context for this essay, as that's the most familiar to me. A more comprehensive review of privacy frameworks would be a worthy topic.
Whenever someone trots out the old "I've got nothing to hide" concept, I think back to Nazi Germany. The fact that you were Jewish didn't mean much in the 1920s, but it got you killed 15 years later.
This is exactly the instinct Daniel Solove is working with when he deflates the "nothing to hide" argument (his rejoinder is to ask the person if he can see their credit-card bills for the last year). Privacy isn't about having secrets; it's about who gets to decide what information flows where, and under what circumstances. History has shown us those conditions are always in flux.
That's pretty mind-blowing! And sobering. It makes me wonder if a modern-day reboot of the classic TV show The Fugitive would see Dr. Kimble last much past the first 30 minutes.
One of the things that stuck me about the Idaho 4 case was how much has hinged on their texts, social media posts, Snapchats, door dash orders, public/ house camera surveillance, Uber rides, etc. It is a whole new world! Libraries seem like the last bastion of privacy.
Excellent article, Caroline. I can't think of a more timely topic given the surging use of A.I. chatbots and what is being saved / recorded, and the numerous other ways that private or confidential information can be woven together that violate rights to privacy.
Any thoughts about Palantir and its use by the federal government?
I also highly recommend Sarah Hartman-Caverly's scholarship and work in this arena--e.g., Digital Shred Toolkit.
Shoshanna Zuboff's book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism has been around for a while. It's also more timely than ever.
Thanks, Craig! Re: Palantir I certainly have thoughts. Arguably the same mosaic logic that prosecutors used to build their case against Rinderknecht is what Palantir seamlessly does at scale, for government clients -- and therefore warrants greater scrutiny.
And good call on the Zuboff book!
This raises important questions, but it omits a crucial fact: in Canada, every federal law — including authoritarian ones — can be challenged, suspended, or struck down by the courts. The Charter, the provinces, and judicial review make centralization structurally impossible. A law passed in Ottawa is not destiny.
Thanks for reading, and fair point that other democracies have developed different legal frameworks for these concerns. I intentionally focused on the American context for this essay, as that's the most familiar to me. A more comprehensive review of privacy frameworks would be a worthy topic.
Thanks!
https://mises.org/mises-wire/ruling-class-wants-you-think-central-planning-inevitable
Whenever someone trots out the old "I've got nothing to hide" concept, I think back to Nazi Germany. The fact that you were Jewish didn't mean much in the 1920s, but it got you killed 15 years later.
This is exactly the instinct Daniel Solove is working with when he deflates the "nothing to hide" argument (his rejoinder is to ask the person if he can see their credit-card bills for the last year). Privacy isn't about having secrets; it's about who gets to decide what information flows where, and under what circumstances. History has shown us those conditions are always in flux.
That's pretty mind-blowing! And sobering. It makes me wonder if a modern-day reboot of the classic TV show The Fugitive would see Dr. Kimble last much past the first 30 minutes.
Michael, I would watch this reboot!
One of the things that stuck me about the Idaho 4 case was how much has hinged on their texts, social media posts, Snapchats, door dash orders, public/ house camera surveillance, Uber rides, etc. It is a whole new world! Libraries seem like the last bastion of privacy.