News Fingerprint ID and tracking retail sales

[Pengwuino]

I don't think you have to know cameras are posted. I don't remember seeing signs in casinos...

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think you have to know cameras are posted. I don't remember seeing signs in casinos...

You can see the cameras in a casino. And no, I've never seen signs either, but I haven't exactly looked - if they're there, they probably don't need to be too conspicuous.

 

[loseyourname]

It generally says on the door of an establishment, or on a window, that you'll be monitored by closed circuit cameras. There's a little red sticker.

 

[hypatia]

The reason people put up notices about cameras, is to scare theifs away. I know several places who have security notices all over the place, yet have no cameras.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You would likely get more discussion on your points if you stopped stubbornly calling it a violation of your right to privacy. As russ has pointed out, you don't have a right to privacy, and as I've pointed out, there is nothing private at stake anyways. When you insist on calling it a privacy rights issue, you distract people from the points you seem to want to be making.

First of all, we do have a right to privacy.

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:[continued]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/privacy.html

Next, there are a plethora of laws protecting privacy; for one, the Privacy Act of 1974; which acts to protect the privacy of individuals. Laws like this set precedence for related legal arguments.

Agency requirements

Each agency that maintains a system of records shall--

(1) maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or by Executive order of the President;

(2) collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under Federal programs;

(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual--

http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm

Also, there is no end to the legal issues of privacy in the workplace, at school, at home, as it pertains to medical records, and even DNA information. Such as:

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) - a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.

Not to mention the tremendous discussion about medical information privacy; a continually growing and hot topic among legal scholars. In fact, to tell you the truth, IMO, the very notion that this is not a concern is naivety taken to absurd limits. Information is power, and power corrupts. Never, never, never trust a system to give you rights; or to protect the rights that you already have. You can be sure that at every turn, if it benefits someone else, someone is going to try and take your rights away.

BUT, the most glaring offense of all here, IMO: Even if we had no right to privacy we can define new rights. We can if we say so. We don't need anyone's permission. Why do you suppose it is that some people never want to consider this fact?

Finally, there is one unique feature of a fingerprint over any other forms of legal identification: It is the first application of a universal ID. It was a condition of the SS# that they would never be used as a form of ID. So even though its not significant in and of itself, it is a landmark on the road to Big Brother.

Some related reading:

Can We Protect Our Privacy Through Legal Solutions? Or Is Technology Now Beyond Our Control?
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20050415_barr.html

"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts."

Edmund Burke

 

[Hurkyl]

Case in point. This last post doesn't inspire me to rally behind a cause, nor to engage in a discussion about, say, the way medical information is used.

What it does do is irritate me into writing a reply chastising you for putting words in people's mouths. You know, sometimes the reason people don't talk about something is because they're talking about something else.

 

[Moonbear]

It generally says on the door of an establishment, or on a window, that you'll be monitored by closed circuit cameras. There's a little red sticker.

There seem to be tiny little signs most people would overlook entirely, hidden among the stickers for the credit cards they accept and the hours of business. On the other hand, I noticed a number of buildings in NYC when I was there over the holidays with HUGE signs stating things like, "Notice: This building uses video surveillance, you will be monitored by as many as 14 cameras." I don't know if they have city regulations about visibility of the signs or if those signs were just put up as a deterrent to theft and break-ins. The buildings I noticed it on were all office buildings with card key entries.

 

[loseyourname]

Buildings like that want you to know that you're being monitored, heavily, to deter you from doing anything you shouldn't be doing. Casinos probably don't bother because they already have 300 pound men in sunglasses standing all over the place with earpieces acting as deterrents, plus you know you're being monitored heavily anyway.

 

[Kerrie]

Case in point. This last post doesn't inspire me to rally behind a cause, nor to engage in a discussion about, say, the way medical information is used.

What it does do is irritate me into writing a reply chastising you for putting words in people's mouths. You know, sometimes the reason people don't talk about something is because they're talking about something else.

can you elaborate a little more? i guess i am a little confused by your reply to Ivan's post. i think he did a great job at establishing why he is expressing his opinion about the situation. not everyone may agree with his opinion, but at least his opinion is an informed one, which i respect. he does bring up a good point about how the social security number was never "intended" to be used as a means of ID, however, it sure seems that way. :shy:

i still think that by using our choices as wisely as we can instead of being sheeple (people + sheep), we are excercising our rights as best as we can.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm looking at quotes like these:

In fact, to tell you the truth, IMO, the very notion that this is not a concern is naivety taken to absurd limits.

BUT, the most glaring offense of all here, IMO: Even if we had no right to privacy we can define new rights. We can if we say so. We don't need anyone's permission. Why do you suppose it is that some people never want to consider this fact?

Ivan is making what appears to me to be obvious implication that those involved in the discussion have no conerns about medical information privacy, and entirely neglect that laws can be enacted that grant additional rights.

I'm presuming this is because there has been a distinct lack of discussion on these points. I find it very irritating when people assume that because I don't say one thing that I believe its opposite.

Or, to reinterpret my irritation, it seems he's accusing us of not having any worries or concern about something because we haven't bothered to talk about that thing, and instead are talking about another thing.

Maybe, because it is a pet peeve of mine, I am reading too much into these comments. *shrug*

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan is making what appears to me to be obvious implication that those involved in the discussion have no conerns about medical information privacy, and entirely neglect that laws can be enacted that grant additional rights.

I'm presuming this is because there has been a distinct lack of discussion on these points. I find it very irritating when people assume that because I don't say one thing that I believe its opposite.

Or, to reinterpret my irritation, it seems he's accusing us of not having any worries or concern about something because we haven't bothered to talk about that thing, and instead are talking about another thing.

Maybe, because it is a pet peeve of mine, I am reading too much into these comments. *shrug*

You and Russ made the explicit statement several times that we have no right to privacy. In fact, you had no idea. I also made it clear in the original post that privacy issues in general are the topic of discussion.

I also wonder about the logic of behavior control and where that may lead in all of this. For example, taking things to the next logical step, will we begin to regulate the sugar, fat, or salt intake of potential or known food offenders. After all, like cigarettes, consumption of low quality foods accounts for many health problems and costs to the public - obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. The logic is no different than that used to justify taxes on smoking, or the seat belt or helmet laws. Also, if citizen X buys a snow board, should he be assigned as high risk and penalized somehow? He is much more likely to cost the system money than someone less daring. A unified database could, hence probably will allow various institutions to monitor personal behavior through purchases and other trackable activities. Computing power makes the data management and interpretation possible.

But instead of addressing the obvious point, you chose to worry about whether the guy in line behind me could track my purchases. Do you suppose that someone is going to follow me around with a camera to record my activities? Of course not. This is about how information is gathered and used; for one, by retailers, and generally, by all of those mentioned thus far.

Also, you, Russ, and all of those people who don't understand my thesis are in fact the living proof of it. You don't even know what your privacy rights are so you argue that you don't have any. And of course, since you don't know your rights, you obviously can't know why they're important, or if they're being threatened, or if you've lost them. This is exactly what makes Big Brother possible in the first place.

 

[The_Professional]

Fingerprint ID accounts are being introduced here in Oregon, right now. A couple of retail grocery stores, Safeway is one I think, are introducing private, member based systems that automatically charge your account with a simple fingerprint scan.

Although no different in principle that credit card use, or a private card account, this is getting a bit big brotherish [sic], as expected. For now this is all private information, but soon it may be possible, for example, for your employer to track your purchases. One example given: Bob buys two six packs of beer at the store. Analysis of Bob's purchasing history indicates that Bob may have a drinking problem. Contact Bob's employer and doctor, and communicate the potential for a problem.

Costco is able to track members purchases' through their membership cards. Are you saying that somehow the employer would gain this information from Costco, look through their purchases of beer for let's say the entire year and decide he may be a high risk based on how much beer he bought...what if he has his own business? what if he has a large family whose individual members celebrate a birthday each month which require him to buy beer often? these would need to be factored in as well.

Somehow I don't think the employers are going to waste much time, valuable resources and money trying to figure out what their individual employees lifestyles are based on the food and drinks they purchase.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Costco is able to track members purchases' through their membership cards. Are you saying that somehow the employer would gain this information from Costco, look through their purchases of beer for let's say the entire year and decide he may be a high risk based on how much beer he bought...what if he has his own business? what if he has a large family whose individual members celebrate a birthday each month which require him to buy beer often? these would need to be factored in as well.

Somehow I don't think the employers are going to waste much time, valuable resources and money trying to figure out what their individual employees lifestyles are based on the food and drinks they purchase.

If you read the very quote that you posted, this isn't what I said. Next, employers already test for illegal drugs, and even some for alcohol and cigarettes. I think your point is already moot. And the power of computing is the key.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, a prime conduit for a lot of this rationale has been, and I think will continue to be the insurance companies. They are the ones most interested in personal behavior and how that might affect the bottom line. And, as already mentioned, the cost to the public has already been used as the justification for seat belt and helmet laws.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes,

Ivan is making what appears to me to be obvious implication that those involved in the discussion have no conerns about medical information privacy, and entirely neglect that laws can be enacted that grant additional rights.

I didn't mean only as it applies to medical privacy. And I find that a surprising number of people seem to think, or at least nearly so, that we should have no rights. Whether this applies to you or not is your call. I was communicating to you, not about you. But I do think that you and most young people are very naive. Statements of human nature and power are treated as conspiracy paranoia, and facts and lessons from history are almost always ignored. And I think that this and future generations will throw out with the garbage that which so many have died to gain and preserve.

 

[The_Professional]

If you read the very quote that you posted, this isn't what I said. Next, employers already test for illegal drugs, and even some for alcohol and cigarettes. I think your point is already moot. And the power of computing is the key.

Whatever

I was giving a similar example.

 

[loseyourname]

Also, a prime conduit for a lot of this rationale has been, and I think will continue to be the insurance companies. They are the ones most interested in personal behavior and how that might affect the bottom line.

What's wrong with this, Ivan? It is a healthy bottom line that allows insurance companies to provide insurance in the first place. The money they pay out doesn't come out of thin air. If being an insurance provider wasn't profitable, no one would do it. The actuarial predictions they are able to make based on what they know of their customers is the very key to being an insurance provider. Whatever additional information they can obtain allows them to do their jobs that much better. In this case, you should not have any right to privacy. When you're asking someone to potentially pay you a great sum of money, they have every right to know how likely it is that they will actually have to pay it. Imagine a man that finds out he has brain cancer, then promptly goes out and buys a huge life insurance policy. Would you approve of this? Of course not, and that is why life insurance companies have every right to know your medical history. Now imagine a heavy drinker and smoker that eats terribly. Shouldn't a medical insurance provider have a right to know his habits and charge him a higher premium? We already do the same with car insurance. If you're a bad driver, you pay more.

 

[russ_watters]

You and Russ made the explicit statement several times that we have no right to privacy. In fact, you had no idea. I also made it clear in the original post that privacy issues in general are the topic of discussion.

Not quite. I will concede to what that Cornell link says, since it says it so explicitly, but with a massive caveat (and the link also mentions the caveat):

edit: two caveats actually. The second caveat is that the issue in the OP has nothing to do with privacy - and you state explicitly that it is in principle no different than what is already in place. It doesn't change anything. So When Hurkyl said he objects to you harping on it, that still applies.

There has been, recently granted, a right to privacy, but to call the things they call "privacy" requires an expansion of the definition of the word "privacy" and of the word "right". On every page of the link, it discusses just how limited the "right" is. Quite frankly, that's backwards: rights start out as absolutes and you apply reasonable limitations to them. Consider freedom of speech: the Constitution (or the US Code) doesn't enumerate the limited instances in which you have free speech, it enumerates the limited instances in which you don't have free speech (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for example). So if I concede that privacy is a right, it must also be conceded that it is unlike any other right.

And Penguino said:

We have a lot of laws protecting specific aspects of our privacy but there is no actual "right to privacy". Those laws could be taken off teh books at any time and people can't say anything because its not in the Constitution and very few justices think there is that follow the wording of the Constitution.

Exactly. Can you name another right that doesn't require a constitutional amendment to remove? Actually, because of that, I really think Cornell is confusing "right" with liberty or even priveledge. According to the political theory on which the US was founded, rights just Are. A right that can be given or taken away by act of Congress can't really be called "inalienable". But hey - Cornell is Cornell. I'd like to discuss that with a Cornell Poly Sci professor, but for now I must concede they are the experts.

Most of the things mentioned in the Cornell link are about disclosure of privacy policy, not about privacy itself. For example:

In matters of privacy, the FTC's role is one of enforcing privacy promises made in the marketplace...

However, despite the rights described above, other participants in the marketplace are not bound by law to develop similar protections and disclosure practices. Rather, in the remainder of the marketplace, the FTC encourages a voluntary regime of protecting consumer privacy. [emphasis added]

Read it very carefully: The government is not enforcing the protection of your privacy, but rather is enforcing that people have a policy in place that discloses how information is to be used. For an analogy, imagine that "right to life" meant everyone needed a "murder policy": murder is ok as long as I disclose ahead of time that I might kill you.

The other major policy issue mentioned is with medical, financial, and other traditionally confidential records. But that's a similar issue (though slightly stronger): medical records especially are goverened by the tradition of doctor-patient confidentiality. All the law does is make that tradition a law. And again, its only privacy insofar as your doctor can't share the information - it doesn't have anything to say about what questions the doctor can ask you (since, obviously, that would hinder the doctor's ability to do his job).

So, I will both stand by my earlier statement and concede Cornell's point, with the caveat. Please don't say I had no idea: I knew exactly what I meant. You made an assumption (like Hurkyl said), that I (we) didn't.

But instead of addressing the obvious point...

This is about how information is gathered and used; for one, by retailers, and generally, by all of those mentioned thus far.

And as the Cornell link says (and we've pointed out), calling that "privacy" is a very loose use of the word. You choose whether or not to give the information. You choose to agree to the privacy terms outlined by the retailer. Once you've agreed to the terms, you have no further claim to privacy. All the subject of the OP does is slightly (and really - very slightly) change the terms.

"Obvious point"? What you see as an obvious point looks to me like belly-aching over an irrelevancy: You can't choose to give something and then claim you have lost it. You can't have it both ways.

Also, you, Russ, and all of those people who don't understand my thesis are in fact the living proof of it.

Maybe you should reiterate and boil down the thesis for us. Quite frankly, when I see "1984" rhetoric, its tough to get past it. What, specifically, is the problem with fingerprint ID? Is it just the "national ID" thing? (I'll get to that...)

You don't even know what your privacy rights are so you argue that you don't have any.

Semantics as discussed above: I absolutely understand what rights I do have and don't have. You call it "Bill" and I'll call it "Bob", but functionally, I absolutely understand that my basic right is simply the right to know how information will be used.

And of course, since you don't know your rights, you obviously can't know why they're important, or if they're being threatened, or if you've lost them. This is exactly what makes Big Brother possible in the first place.

I'll bite: tell us. Tell us exactly how the issue in the OP is an infringement on our rights and a move toward Big Brother.

Some missed issues:

BUT, the most glaring offense of all here, IMO: Even if we had no right to privacy we can define new rights. We can if we say so. We don't need anyone's permission. Why do you suppose it is that some people never want to consider this fact?

Why don't I consider it? Well, you tell me: Why is it relevant? If the discussion is about what rights we now have, then the fact that we can get more is irrelevant. It doesn't change what we now have. Quite frankly, this looks to me like the old hippie idea that if you're rights aren't increasing, they are decreasing. And maybe that's the point of the thread: Ivan, apparently, you think this is a decrease in rights. I discussed before how this doesn't affect our rights, but does increase our security. Can you explain how, exactly, this decreases our rights?

Finally, there is one unique feature of a fingerprint over any other forms of legal identification: It is the first application of a universal ID. It was a condition of the SS# that they would never be used as a form of ID. So even though its not significant in and of itself, it is a landmark on the road to Big Brother.

I am a big Orwell fan, but the slippery slope theory just doesn't fly, Ivan. Either this specific issue decreases our rights or it doesn't. The OP says nothing about this being a "universal ID". You said yourself: "Although no different in principle that credit card use, or a private card account..." But heck, I'll take it a step further: how is a Universal ID (even if this issue were it, which it isn't) "a landmark on the road to Big Brother"? I already have an ID with my signature and photo, two absolutely unique identifiers (and btw, the SSN/card is a FORM OF ID).

You said it yourself, Ivan: "...but soon it may be possible..." So it isn't currently. Fine: I'll certainly concede that "Big Brother" is possible in the future (afterall, "anything is possible"...) if you concede that this isn't a step on the road there.