privacy rights

the right of privacy. a preliminary idea is that the right of privacy is inversely proportional to the degree that the information affects someone/something other than the person whose privacy is in question. this seems simple enough if we buy into the idea of large and small consequences, of goals and a right of private consumption. what toothpaste you used this morning is seemingly inconsequential information; so inconsequential that we might be tempted to say it is not even worth protecting the privacy of this information. but what toothpaste you used this morning is not inconsequential at all. to someone involved with toothpaste, this information is worth money. to look at it another way, can you really make an educated consumer choice without knowing who consumes and supports the product you are considering. campaign finance reforms require that we have access to who contributes to politicians. in a global economy, the same must be true for corporations. (or is there another way) the right of privacy stems from the failure of the right of anonymity. through some means, either by your device or someone elses, you have been objectified. does consumption automatically entail objectification. what if we were to be completely anonymous consumers? what is political contributions went through a clearing house so that politicians could not know who gave money to them – anonymous contributions. would anybody ‘give’ then? does this not lead to anonymous bank accounts, swiss bank accounts, non-taxable bank accounts, non-accountability. how could we punish, how could we control, how could we ‘reward’ without linking the actions and extensions to the objectification of an individual. as foucault suggests, our whole soul is built upon our objectification. to be truly modern, to continually re-invent a flow which does not leave traces or refer to its past self, endless possibility. yet even with an expanded definition of self, that of continuation, we are presented with a link to the past. the seed turning into the tree is assumed to be a single life-form by virtue of the objectification of its continuity. by approaching the definition of tree from a scientific viewpoint, by exclusion, by the belief in the platonic forms. by removing tree from its context. what is and is not included in the definition, by excluding dirt, oxygen, carbon dioxide, sunlight as external, but including the process of photosynthesis as internal. despite the fact that tree can not occur without these external variables. an expanded definition attempts to include what is essential to the definition of tree. by excluding other factors which could affect the tree and including factors deemed essential to its development. by excluding those factors which do not produce our platonic tree and including those factors which do include our platonic tree we think that we have ‘proved’ something truly objective and scientific when all we have proved is our ability to make our environment conform to our thoughts about it. to design. fuzzy, physical, existential, changing definition. death of definition. unified vision beyond words. but these are dreams. are you going to give up your bank account? even squirrels hide a stash for winter. there is a line between faith and stupidity i think. i also think we have very little faith though. a whole economy, an entire society, based on fear. you do not have the right to change your identity. you do not have the right to your identity. what are your rights with regards to the information mined from you? credit card billings, credit reports, phone bill logs, e-mail, surveys, tax information, social security numbers, drivers license, license plates, on and on… this information is about you yet you do not own it. identity is reciprocal. your identity depends on how others view you, and they own this right to view you. so what is your identity anyway? the only way to get rid of this idea of identity is to make the idea worthless. to not conform to your identity. a camouflage. a disguise. this is the war of the future, terrorism – an enemy without a face. we have the right to not witness against ourself in a criminal case (V – to not divulge information). the right to bear arms (II – this right could become more useful as information warfare increases and more things are deemed weapons – encryption is considered a weapon now). the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures (the effects clause could be used against data-mining). the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people (no mention of corporations). it is interesting how discussions of privacy include the right to know what information is being collected on you. we have certain rights with regard to government files (not many, but some). i’m not really the paranoid type who thinks the government is watching me every second since i live a pretty boring life (not that i’m complaining). but when the potential to make money is involved, you can be sure people are watching your every move. it’s not the government; its the telemarketers. the credit bureaus, insurance companies, credit card reports, phone bills, grocery discount cards. as we enter into a one world economy where corporations are more powerful than governments (, we need our governments to protect us against corporations. we need an expanded bill of rights. we need a bill of consumer rights. not a bunch of hodge podge laws and consumer ‘protection’ but a real bill of rights guarded and enforced as closely as the government’s bill of rights. we need to know what information is being collected on us. we need to know when it is being collected. we must be able to view, modify or delete this information – why should corporations be allowed to make money off of our identity, off of our false identity, our objectification, without our consent? conversely, why should we be left in the dark with regards to corporate practices and structures? we have the right to know how much companies pay their employees. we have a right to know their parent companies, their links to other corporations, etc. the right of privacy stems from objectification. do we have a right to control our objectification whether or net it is fabricated by us. do we have a right to prevent our objectification? how do we establish the line between consumer information and consumer privacy? is it not better to error on the side of anonymity, since all objectifications can be used as chains? shouldn’t i be getting the profits fromm the sale of my information? you use the internet, obviously, so check out this site: it will give you some info on your self. want to do something about it: if you are behind a firewall: for more info: