David Fraser has a post entitled The irony of privacy enhancing technologies. That refers to technologies that, for example, mask people’s identities when caught on video.

The ironic part, as David rightly points out, is that one aspect of privacy is to protect people’s sensibilities about unwanted intrusions. If we still know we are being watched, how do we know and trust that these technologies are being used, and used properly?

Indeed, just thinking you are being watched results in anticipatory conformity.

The irony is that more privacy enhancement technology might lead to more surveillance because of the thought that the privacy angle is covered.

Given where we are headed with technology and new uses for it that will either directly or tangentally affect privacy, privacy enhancing technologies are useful and necessary. But that’s only part of the equation. Its necessary to make the public aware that PET’s are being used, and in a way that the public actually trusts they will be used as advertised.

In many tangental instances (eg Google streetscape), the privacy issues can be dealt with, and should not kill the product or service itself.

When surveillance of individuals is the direct goal, we must not fall into the trap of becoming comfortable with it because of PET’s or other reasons. We must ask the fundamental question about whether it is really necessary or useful in the first place. “Because we can” is never the right reason to do anything.

Read David’s post