Caution isn’t always paranoia

It’s a time-honored tactic. If you want to put something over on people, the best way to do it is to denigrate those who are trying to stop you. So, corporate polluters invented the term “tree hugger” to belittle and trivialize those who are concerned about the environment. Later, someone began to use the phrase “politically correct” to do the same to those who argue in favor of civility and courteous discourse.

Now, anyone who starts talking about the threat to privacy in the Internet age is often referred to as a “privacy paranoid” or, as one online columnist put it last week, “privacy nut.” Actually, he managed to work both terms into a single paragraph, thus raising the vilification campaign to an entirely new level.

The clinical definition of “paranoid” rests on the fact that a person so described has irrational fears. Therefore, calling someone “paranoid” has a double effect. It not only belittles the person, but also belittles his or her fears by relegating them to the dust heap of irrationality.

This is easy to do with privacy, as with many other things, because the assaults aren’t often frontal and a single act can often be looked at as trivial. But when taken in the aggregate, the results of a breach of privacy can be far-reaching. This falls into the area of imperceptible effects, in which individual acts might not be seen as dangerous, but the set of acts can be disastrous.

An example I always used with my students was the idea of sitting in a hot tub that was lukewarm. Some kind person comes by and cranks up the heat by one degree. The effect of that would be imperceptible, and a person doing so would be seen as harmless. But once 50 or 60 people have passed by and done the same thing, the results can be quite painful or possibly fatal. You could be quite dead, but which of those “kind” persons would have killed you?

It’s hard to say. Even at the higher temperatures, a single degree wouldn’t have that effect, but we would all know that the 60-degree increase was the cause.

With privacy, we’re seeing the same kind of aggregation of seemingly trivial acts. A snippet of information here, a snippet there, and soon we find that our entire person is exposed. But privacy is a case in which the assault is relentless and unless you are vigilant — which I prefer to “paranoid” — you may someday find yourself far down the road to having no privacy at all and that it’s impossible to turn back.

Just after I wrote last week’s column on privacy, I received my monthly bill from Verizon for my local telephone service. I suspect my bill paying process is pretty much like that of most other people. I take out the bill and ignore all the little flyers that clutter the inside of the envelope. Many of them are trying to sell me something — often unrelated to the service for which I’m being billed.

But this bill contained a special notice. Verizon, it said, has taken it upon itself to share my “Customer Proprietary Network Information” (CPNI) with others. And it could do this, it said, “without further authorization.” As if it were doing me a favor, Verizon was going to start deluging me with special offers and, to add insult to injury, it would give to others such details as what information is contained in my phone bill, including the numbers dialed.

Of course, I could opt out. If I called a special number (866-483-9700) and was lucky enough to get through (some people have had trouble; I didn’t), I would be excluded from the marketing scheme. Or at least I would be until the next “opt-out” opportunity came along. Maybe I won’t be so lucky the next time and will miss the notice, thereby treating myself to having my telephone habits — who I call, when, and for how long — traded like pork bellies or corn futures.

That Verizon is willing to both use and trade my personal information to make a quick buck is disturbing enough. To put the burden on me to have to first notice the proposed scheme and then take the time to opt out is even more disturbing. If you multiply this threat by all the people with whom I do business, just trying to keep track of the privacy threats and dealing with them could become a full time job. And this doesn’t even take into consideration some of the things going within government.

It is refreshing to note that Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., recently introduced legislation that would amend the Communications Act to require opt-in permission from subscribers for companies to share CPNI with others. Senate Bill 1928 has been sent to committee.

Am I cautious? Yes. Am I vigilant? Sure. Am I suspicious? You bet. Does this make me paranoid? Well, that depends on your definition of paranoid, but I’m willing to accept the label if it will help preserve my privacy.

There are some things you just can’t undo — no matter how hard you try. Failing to protect your right to privacy is one of them. If you don’t believe me, just spend some time surfing the Internet and look at all the pictures you’ll find of people who either already wish, or someday will wish, that they could turn back the clock and keep those images under their control. Too bad they can’t.

Don’t be paranoid. Join our ethics forum at www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics or write to me at ethics_matters@infoworld.com.