The public has remained quiet about this problem for some time, but the downturn in the economy has made getting a job and holding one much more difficult. The U.S. is discussing the implementation of biometric cards to verify that all employees are legitimate citizens. They propose to use iris scans or maybe fingerprint scans that would require every employee to sign in at the beginning of every day and especially for job interviews.

The plan also proposes to step up immigration security and make it more difficult for someone to infiltrate the U.S.’s borders. For workers who are illegal but have been in the U.S. for some time, they will offer naturalization processes that are normally only available to legitimate immigrants.

While many support the idea of the plan, it is only the principle  that they support. The actual implementation of the plan is questioned. Obviously installing all of this technology would be quite expensive, and seeing as we are already cash-strapped, people wonder if their taxes will rise to accommodate the new addition. Then there is the matter of people actually using it. Employers might have to pay employees more every day to go through an austere and arduous sign in process that would take up some of their working time. There is still the likely possibility that employers will just start to play employees under the table, and not have them on the registered payroll.

The U.S. already fingerprints all immigrants into their data banks that income into the country. This would eliminate the need of gathering up all legal immigrants, but they still would have to convince petrified illegal immigrants that they can come out of the woodwork and register; many would probably think it’s a sting to try and pick them up and deport them.

With so many citizens fleeing from own country to escape to the U.S., we now have strained relations with these nations, and many problems in our own economy. These illegal immigrants will be scared of the law for a while, but after being more confident, they won’t have the pathos most citizens feel towards our law enforcement and cause a lot of trouble.

There are privacy concerns with this as well. A fingerprint is just like a social security number, and if this information falls into the wrong hands, can lead to tracking and harassing. Something just seems a bit fishy about having so much information on store about you too. Privacy advocates are completely opposed to the idea of cornea scanning or fingerprint scanning, and feel it is a step towards an authoritarian world a la 1984.

I think it’s safe to say Orwell would be turning in his grave right now though.

Tweet This Post

Online advertisement agencies have always had a spotted past with privacy laws and their invasion due to the behavioral advertising practices, (where they browse your history to figure out what you are interested in) and the fact that much of this is done with no permission and often without the consumer’s knowledge.

They need to change soon though, because people and lawmakers are complaining. Two subcommittees in the House are meeting this week to discuss implementing more stringent privacy laws as far as online advertising goes. The House has polled major Internet giants such as Yahoo, FaceBook, and MySpace, and found that many of them have very flawed and inadequate privacy guarantees. The people have spoken too; those polled confess they are unsure about how well they are being protected and usually completely unsure of their rights to privacy. Needless to say, the House is almost dead-set on increasing guidelines and enforcing them more strictly.

In actuality, a physical bill governing these privacy failures is unlikely, but the companies get the idea: shape up quick! The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been using a self-regulating system for these advertisers, but when it doesn’t work, kicks in a little regulatory pressure. Basically, the law threats make everyone get their act together.

The House is planning to use a system where first party websites (the one you are surfing) can track and collect cookies, while third party websites have to have permission from the consumer. In other words, an opt-out system for first party websites, (where you have to say if you don’t want to take part) and an opt-in system for third party websites. (where you would have to say you wish to have your information taken)
Although this seems like a good situation, advertisers are a bit nervous about it. In an already faltering economy with most companies barely afloat, this will push some over the edge by not allowing them to access their desired demographics.

What is the best solution? Some suggest that it be totally left up to the consumer to decide whether they wish to share information, but offer incentives for their participation. The solution needs to come soon though, as people spend less money on ads than another other month this year in June.

Media companies are going to have to come up with something quick. It is quite ironic that they so meticulously collect data on us as though we were lab rats, but then will share no fiscal reports or any other financial reports with the public. Something has got to give, and even in these days where privacy seems to be an idyllic memory, it probably won’t be the public.

Tweet This Post

Privacy groups have claimed that the scanner can show in detail things that are meant to be hidden. “Even genitalia can be discerned in the scan”, some claim. TSA representatives on the other hand, assert that the imager is invades privacy only minimally, and even offers a “privacy algorithm” to further distort sensitive areas on travelers.

The House’s amendment says that these screenings may not be used as the primary form of passenger screenings, and those who refuse the image scanner will be given a less invasive pat down. Senator Chaffetz makes a bold statement on the House’s condemnation: “No one needs to see my wife and kids naked to ensure the security of an airplane.”

The TSA argues the power of these devices though. They insist they are safe for even frequent flyers, and that they can detect hidden threats not even the strongest metal detector could. Still, many people and organizations called to suspend the this technology until an in-depth privacy analysis could be done.

The TSA is currently employing the technology at 19 airports across the U.S. At a recent convention, TSA representative Peter Pietra defended the image scanner: “Much work has gone into this… I personally prefer them. They are much more efficient than a pat down search or a metal detector.”

The TSA is currently accepting any suggestions to improve privacy for flyers at tsaprivacy@dhs.gov.
The government is currently deciding whether to abolish the technology for good, or to keep it as an open option.

Tweet This Post

Our government representatives would be wise to take a look at TechCrunch’s article and Digital Bill of Rights.  It would be an excellent template and jump-off point to getting out legislation we sorely need in the digital world.

Tweet This Post