We the Bloggers: Chertoff on Balancing Privacy and Security
The month of September saw the launch of DHS head Michael Chertoff’s blog and even the State Department entered the blogosphere with its Dipnote blog. And Mike Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services began publishing the first cabinet-level blog back in August.
This blogging thing must really be catching on.
Mr. Chertoff’s blog is of interest, particularly yesterday’s post, Privacy And Security. Writing about this post, Wired noted that “the man has a little flair.” And indeed, he does. His post starts off refuting Scott McNealy’s famous declaration, “Privacy is dead, get over it.” Writes Mr. Chertoff
“Privacy is certainly not dead, but our society must go the second mile to protect it. The question that my Department faces is how to do that in our post-9/11 world where the need for greater security is paramount.”
The U.S. has been balancing privacy and security since its inception, not just in a post-9/11 world. Witness these two competing quotes from our Founding Fathers
“He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” — Ben Franklin
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” — Thomas Jefferson
We write about the need for security versus the right to privacy a great deal, and those two quotes appear in most of our posts as a constant reminder to both securicrats and privacy advocates that this debate has raged since long before our time. And let us pray that it continues long after we’re gone.
To quote a previous post:
“Achieving a balance between privacy and security is critically important to the survival of our American democracy. At this juncture in our history, the threat of terrorism has caused us to restrict some rights to privacy for the sake of national security. Without a certain level of security then American lives will be lost. Conversely, without a certain level of privacy, the American way of life will be lost. And at times, we as a nation have made mistakes when the pendulum has swung too far either way. Fortunately, we seem to keep returning to a state of equilibrium. It’s the howls of protest that arise when proponents of one side earns a win over the other, the constant, never-ending debate that keeps both sides in check and ensures a perpetual balance.”
Reading Mr. Chertoff’s blog, it’s clear he gets the importance of preserving this balance. In yesterday’s post he wrote
“But what about the tension between privacy and security? Is it true that whatever we do to strengthen our security must be at the expense of privacy? It is not. Our efforts to secure our homeland need not harm our privacy. Rather, in many cases they can actually strengthen it. […] Privacy and security are fundamental rights and we will continue to defend both in our post-9/11 world.”
At Infoglide Software we’ve been acutely aware of this tension between privacy and security since the beginning. In the first week of our blog, CEO Mike Shultz wrote
“It was important to all of us here that we didn’t create some sort of Big-Brother-enabling technology. As a result, we designed software that can resolve identities across multiple sources while protecting data privacy and security. That technology is now the new core of the government’s Secure Flight program after it suffered some early setbacks.
“Now, there’s no question that our government has to be involved in identity resolution. The impact of the events of 9/11 clearly make this an imperative. The good news is that our government is under constant scrutiny as it relates to the freedoms that we all enjoy. From Congressional oversight to privacy advocates, the government invests in assuring that it does not unreasonably trample on personal rights.”
As an example of way in which DHS has strengthened privacy rights under his reign, Chertoff mentions the TSA Secure Flight program:
“Our strategy is to collect a little information about each visitor–just enough to help us decide who might be a potential security risk. When compared to the alternatives–-searching everyone, searching no one, or the hit-or-miss strategy of random searches–we’ve found that this is the best way to maximize security while at the same time maximizing privacy.”
Privacy advocates would disagree that collecting a little information like the types of books you read does indeed maximize security and privacy. Note that Mr. Chertoff wrote that current data collection efforts are “the best way.” As we saw when the CAPPS II program was scuttled over privacy concerns, if this isn’t the best way, DHS will respond to the howls of protest from privacy advocates and change the program.
DHS is the first department to have a Chief Privacy Officer as mandated by Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Mr Chertoff asserts. Hugo Teufel, the CPO, is empowered by Section 222 to assure that the “use of technologies sustain, and do not erode, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of personal information.” Both Mr. Tuefel and the Civil Rights and Liberties Officer report directly to Mr. Chertoff, and must also compile an annual report that is subject to congressional review.
If Mr. Teufel’s position is just a token gesture, we’ll all know soon enough.
In conclusion, we’ll leave you with two quotes from another Founding Father, Thomas Paine:
“Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.” — Common Sense
“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” — Dissertation on First Principles of Government
Subscribe to this blog