10.05.06 kulturnatib

Privacy

What I had read in the papers was still fresh in my mind. This was about some city councilors exercising their usual knee-jerk reaction to an issue that the say is an issue of morality, when the prosecuting lawyer said that it was an issue of privacy.

A security guard happened upon a couple having sex in their car. The guard, acting on the somewhat limited, though often exaggerated authority, hauled the couple in and charged them with public scandal.

Thankfully, the city prosecutor, standing upon the legacy of the Enlightenment enshrined in our constitution's bill of rights, disagreed and promptly threw the case out.

Some city councilors, always alert for non-issues that will ingratiate them to the unthinking sectors of the Catholic church protested. What about morals? they cry.

What about it? The city prosecutor stands on several hundred years of the struggle then the victory of the Enlightenment against a church with a long history of despotism and the temptation for those days is ever present, but grudgingly accepts that privacy is sacrosanct and that the last protection of persons is the inviolability of conscience.

Such where my thoughts when I received a call. There was a letter for me in the mailbox. It was marked personal and confidential. It was from the authorities. I gave my permission for it to be opened and read.

Here, again, issues of privacy. Without going into the details, the letter said that on the one hand under the freedom of information act they are compelled to provide information that is requested for, but on the other hand, the privacy law requires that such information can only be provided with the express permission of persons about whom the information is requested. In this case, the latter clearly has more weight than the former. In other cases, where the public has an overbearing interest, it could be the other way around.

The next day, again, on the phone with the same person bearing news about the previous day's letter. We were experiencing some difficulty with Skype, the free internet phone service, when a conference call was set up mainly to see if more heads can solve problems we were having over the quality of the voice reception.

The third party in the conference happened to be cyberloitering. As often happens, he was looking at some satellite maps available thorugh Google maps, which can be quite entertaining. But, this is a most useful feature, especially for places, mostly cities, where aside from satellite images, street maps are available. With such maps one is able to type in a street as a starting location and then another street as a destination location, a best route between the two is then generated. Also, a land based phone number can by typed in and the location of that phone is located.

The third party announced, "here is a satellite map of your city. I will send you the URL as an instant message". The URL appears on the screen, instantly. Yes, indeed, second party says, as the satellite image appears on her screen.

None appears on mine. My connection could be too slow or the image too big or both. In any case, with our original problem solved with some application of the trial and error method, as the second party was leading the first on a hunting trip for my house. "Is that the capitol building?" "That's not the big hotel near your place, is it?" "I think your house is under this big cloud cover." "Your privacy is safe. For now." And so on.

More and more privacy is under assault. With technology that allows the U.S. Air Force to bomb with precision using satellite maps, but, more often than not, kill people and obliterate neighborhoods who were not precisely the targets. But, more and more with people, people in authority for whom privacy is less important than the expediences of their political ambitions or simple lack of imagination.