Cell Phones and Privacy

While it is true that I associate prepaid cellphones with criminals, that is not their only purpose.  I don't think all these phones should be linked to their owners.  On one hand, this could help reduce crime, but on the other hand, who decides what "crime" is?  For example, political dissidents could use prepaid cellphones for more anonymity from the government they are in opposition to (the same government who has access to their cell phone records).  Also, parents who are divorcing and going through custody battles over their children may want to be more discreet.  An angry ex-wife may see that her ex-husband is in contact with a former girlfriend; this relationship may be perfectly innocent, but could still be used to slander him in a court of law.  A school teacher may want to keep her contact with an Alcoholics Anonymous Sponsor off-record, or a doctor may not want it exposed that he frequently calls a drug rehab facility to check on his child.

There is so little privacy left in this world, so I don't want the government to take away what little we have left.  This is especially important considering the direction government agencies are headed.  The NSA is building a huge internet surveillance storage facility in Bluffdale Utah.  The FBI and CIA can get access to all their targets' digital information under the Patriot Act umbrella.  Programs such as these already infringe on our privacy, where will the be in 10 years? How about 20?  We still hark back to laws and rights in the Constitution, which was written in 1787, over 200 years ago.  If a law mandating this phone-to-owner linkage is implemented, it isn't going away.  So what's more important: yet another avenue for "Big Brother" to track down criminals, or our personal liberties?

Location Tracking

I think parents do have the right to have trackers implanted in their children.  When you a minor (under the age of 18), your guardians are responsible for legal decisions concerning you.  If they decide that it is in your best interest to have you LoJacked, that's their call.  When you are 18, you can decide to have the chip removed.  I can't see any place in the law to differentiate young children from 17 year-olds.  The same holds true for mentally compromised seniors; their guardian ad litem is responsible for all their legal and medical matters.

This form of GPS tracking can be beneficial if one loses their young child in a crowded place.  If you are the parent of a mischievous teenager, you may be more able to prevent them from getting into trouble and/or find them if they are in need of help.  Elderly people with Alzheimer's are frequently not in a right state of mind and can get easy lost or confused if not monitored closely.  All these are admirable reasons for a guardian to be able to locate their dependent; not to mention the ever present fear of kidnapping.  However, if the tracking system is not secure, the risks could far outweigh the benefits.  Kidnappers, stalkers, and other devious criminals would have the power to do awful things if they also had access to this data.

Despite my advocacy of the right for guardians to implant these chips, I would not support a congressional bill mandating them.  I think that it is important for the parents to decide if and when it is important or necessary to use this technology.  This form of tracking is very intrusive, leaving little privacy for those with implants; as the old adage goes, "Mother knows best" so I believe the decision remain in her (or his) power.  Do the benefits outweigh the risks? I think that is for the guardians to decide.

Statement of Purpose

This blog will be a forum for discussing CS 408 topics.  This will include subjects concerning the usage, privacy, and security of technology, primarily the internet.