Systemized Fraud-Part 3? Oh Canada :-(
If you've read Part 1 and 2 of this "Systemized Fraud?" series you know I…
Maybe the State doesn’t take our rights away?
Maybe as the article below claims “we have only ourselves to blame for the shrinking of the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy””. This, in my opinion, is a very valid view.
When you provide information it is your job to determine what and how much and whether or not it is voluntary or mandatory. Mandatory means it is recognized as private info and the collector of the information MUST maintain the privacy of the info or be subject to penalty under privacy laws (which is why knowing your rights and ensuring you do not waive or voluntarily give them up is the most powerful lesson to learn).
Even though, in Canada the the recent federal privacy law PIPEDA changed the rules in favour of the individual (the agency or corp has an obligation to INFORM you of the voluntary info you can decline to provide ie. credit card applications now say “optional”next to the SIN space) often times and more so as time goes on I expect the law will be forgotten and it will be our job to remind the corporations and agencies of it’s existence governing THEM.
Laws are for them to obey and us to know, so we can remind them not to step over the line. The only laws that really matter are based on principles. If you remember the principles of your rights (which is the foundation of law) then the details, wording, legal gooblygook do not matter. Claim you rights consistently.
Do you know your rights?
“I think we can all agree about the fact that privacy has become an increasingly fluid concept with the advent of social networks.
Yes, you can choose what you post, but your family and friends don’t usually have a say in it (or don’t even think about possible repercussions). Wait – as a matter of fact, have YOU thought about potential consequences of sharing your life online?
BBC News reports that Dr Kieron O’Hara, a senior research fellow in Electronic and Computer Science at the University of Southampton, thinks we have only ourselves to blame for the shrinking of the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy”, heavily used in privacy laws.
“When our reasonable expectations diminish, as they have, by necessity our legal protection diminishes,” he says. When, in the past, you had an embarrassing or compromising photo from a party with friends, it was reasonable to expect that it wouldn’t end up in the hands of someone outside that circle of friends.
Now, it can be assumed that there is a great probability it could end up on the Internet and, consequently, be seen by complete strangers. How will you then able to prove in a court of law that the publication of said picture in – let’s say – a newspaper or magazine constitutes a breach of your privacy?
What we’re witnessing is only the beginning of the changes that will affect the concept of privacy. People in the UK have become used to be monitored with CCTV for the great part of their day – there can be no talk of privacy during that time. Will our ignoring of the privacy question online also lead to disregarding the issue in real life and failing to protect ourselves?”