Share This Page

Privacy? Surely you jest!

| Saturday, April 5, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Ring. Ring.

“Hello, this is Tom.”

“We know who you are, Tom. In the digital age, you will be shocked by what we know about you.”

“Who is this? The National Security Agency? I thought President Obama issued orders to rein you in!”

“That's a good one, Tom. Obama told the NSA to stop storing bulk phone records on millions of Americans. The NSA can easily access that information through phone companies. I'm not from the NSA, however.”

“Then who are you and what do you want?”

“What is more important, Tom, is who are you and what do you want? Lots of government and private organizations are interested in that information and you are making it easy for them to get it.”

“I have given no one permission to access my information!”

“Really, Tom? Didn't you hand over your address, Social Security number and other information to buy a car, get a credit card, apply for a job or vote?”

“Maybe a few times.”

“Did you know that since 1961, various Congresses and presidential administrations have enacted more than 40 laws, regulations and policies that require the use of Social Security numbers? That is a godsend to people like me — and that was before the digital era made my job easier!”

“What do you mean?”

“Every website you visit, every online purchase you make, every email, text or online comment you make leaves an incredibly rich electronic trail that defines who you are and what you do.”

“You are bluffing.”

“Really, Tom? That 32-year-old Bolivian flight attendant you've been flirting with on Facebook?”

“What about her?”

“He's 45 and he's an undercover surveillance expert for a large retail outfit.”

“Oh. My. God.”

“You should be more careful with your password selections, Tom. It took me less than a minute to access your credit card account. Only a fool would use ‘123456,' the worst password of 2013, according to PC World.”

“You are invading my right to privacy.”

“Really, Tom? There is no mention of any right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. Sure, the Fourth Amendment stops the police and other government agents from searching our property without probable cause. And, says the American Civil Liberties Union, ‘other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government.' But a specific right to privacy does not exist.”

“You must be breaking some law!”

“That's a good one, too, Tom. There are no laws to prevent us from knowing about you — particularly when you so willingly hand over so much private information to so many strangers! You have no idea how vulnerable you are!”

“Vulnerable?”

“Identity theft is a growing problem, Tom. The personal information you willingly gave about yourself exists forever in the digital ecosystem. That gives savvy technical people lots of opportunities to steal your identity and destroy your finances.”

“I didn't realize it was that easy.”

“Identity theft is less worrisome than what government entities could do to you. Look how the IRS has been used to attack political enemies. Now imagine what government entities can do when they know EVERYTHING about you! That's why I called you today, Tom. I called to help you.”

“Help me how?”

“You know those new anti-terrorist scanners they use at the airports? Well, at your age, you might want to consider switching from briefs to boxers.”

“That, sir, is an outrage. I demand to know who you are and what you want!”

“Sorry, Tom. That information is private.”

Tom Purcell, a freelance writer, lives in Library. Visit him on the web at TomPurcell.com. E-mail him at: Tom@TomPurcell.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.