Word of the Year: Privacy

[boedicca]

Dictionary.com has chosen "Privacy" as word of the year...a word that is sadly becoming quite obsolete.

Can you summarize 2013 in a single word? Dictionary.com, which touts itself as the most-visited online dictionary, thinks so — and the one it’s chosen, thank heavens, is not “twerk.”

Instead, it’s a word which, pretty much by definition, is deeply serious: “privacy.”

In an infographic it prepared to explain its choice — see below — Dictionary.com itemized 30 privacy-related news stories from 2013. They include by far the biggest one of the year: Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s sweeping covert surveillance of Internet traffic. But the list also covers everything from the discovery that it’s possible to recover Snapchat photos after they’ve disappeared to the incident in which a Seattle eatery kicked out a patron who was wearing Google Glass.

Unlike “twerk,” “privacy” is about the furthest thing possible from a neologism, but Dictionary.com said that was a point in its favor. “etymologically, ‘privacy’ is such an interesting word,” says Rebekah Otto, head of content for Dictionary.com. She points out that it derived from privatus, the Latin word for those things that were not publicis, because they didn’t belong to the Roman people.

Though “privacy” has a rich history, it’s also a word with implications that are subject to ongoing change. “Our definition of privacy reads: ‘The state of being free from intrusion or disturbance,’” Otto says. “As we were considering this, we realized that it’s incomplete in a way. The big question is, free from whom? Is it the other person in the restaurant wearing Google Glass, or the NSA, or your Waze app, or other things that you might be interacting with on a frequent basis?”

The fact that Dictionary.com chose a word with such resonance in the digital age isn’t a coincidence. “We’re the first online dictionary — we’ll be 19 years old next year,” says Michele Turner, the company’s CEO. “We think about what’s happening in the online world a lot.”...

"Privacy" Is Dictionary.com's 2013 Word of the Year | TIME.com!

 

[waltky]

Google seeks help in privacy ruling...

Google Seeks Help Defining ‘Right to Be Forgotten’
September 09, 2014 ~ Google’s chairman has asked a panel of experts to help the search-engine company better define and implement the "right to be forgotten" court ruling, under which Europeans can request the removal of irrelevant or embarrassing Internet records.

Speaking Tuesday at Casa de America in Madrid, Eric Schmidt stressed the need for balancing the right to information and the right to privacy, after the advisory council heard testimony from Spanish privacy and right-to-know experts. In May, the European Union’s Court of Justice decided that an individual’s right to privacy supersedes society’s right to know. The ruling enables Europeans to ask Internet "data controllers" to delete data that could "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant or excessive … in the light of the time that had elapsed."

Such information includes, but is not limited to, everything from serious criminal records and embarrassing photos to online bullying, and negative press stories, mainly about politicians. The company so far has received more than 120,000 requests to deactivate 457,000 links, a Google spokesman said Tuesday. Reuters reported he did not disclose how many requests had been approved or denied. The news agency said Google has 80 percent of Europe’s Internet search market. The court had said information about prominent people could be subjected to a public-interest test.

Concern over decision making

But free-speech advocates have expressed dismay at giving data controllers such as search-engine firms Google, Yahoo and Microsoft the authority to determine what personal information could be accessed and what might be blocked from the historical record. "Where do we put the limit? And should Google decide it?" Milagros del Corral, a UNESCO director, asked the panel. Tuesday’s meeting was the first of seven scheduled for several European capitals through early November.

The advisory council plans to meet next in Rome on Wednesday. Subsequent sessions are set for Paris and Warsaw on September 25 and 30, Berlin and London on October 14 and 16, and Brussels on November 4. The panel expects to report its findings to Google early next year. Reuters said European data protection authorities also plan to meet next week to discuss draft guidelines for regulators in the EU’s 28 member nations. The two-day gathering, beginning Tuesday, aims to ensure uniform handling of appeals by citizens whose privacy requests are rejected.

Google Seeks Help Defining Right to Be Forgotten

 

[shart_attack]

Wow. Walt is his own special breed of necromancer.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - get a warrant...

US Supreme Court Considers Limits on Government in Key Privacy Case
November 29, 2017 - The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone.

A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change. At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant. The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction.

Get a warrant

On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information. They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today."

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Nathan Wessler speaks outside the Supreme Court on Nov. 29, 2017, in Washington, following arguments in a case about the government's ability to track Americans' movements through collection of their cellphone data.​

Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age. "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant."

Privacy versus security

Justice Department lawyers defended the process of obtaining the data without a court warrant, arguing that even though the technology has changed, the need to rapidly obtain such information for law enforcement has not. The government also argued that privacy rights are not at issue because law enforcement agencies can obtain information from telecommunications companies that record transactions with their customers. Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy indicated they were open to the government's position in the case.

Legal experts say whichever way the court eventually rules could have an enormous impact on privacy rights in the digital age. "I don't think that this is a world that anybody anticipated a couple of decades ago," Stanford University law professor David Alan Sklansky said via Skype. "These new data capabilities are rapidly increasing the things that government can do for good and for evil. And figuring out how we allow the government to make full use of these new capabilities, without endangering political liberties and endangering the privacy that is necessary for us to have the kind of flourishing democratic social life we want, is a huge ongoing challenge."

An iPhone is seen in Washington​

Sklansky added that the United States "has historically been a leader in thinking about privacy rights, particularly with regard to privacy from the government." And he predicted that other countries will be closely following the high court case as they wrestle with similar conflicts. "This is a global problem. Countries around the world are trying to figure out how to deal with it. I think that people in all democratic countries should care about how the United States winds up resolving this question," he said.

Past rulings

Twice in recent years the Supreme Court has ruled in major cases related to privacy and technology and both times ruled against law enforcement. The court ruled in 2012 that a warrant is required to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle. And in 2014, the high court ruled that a warrant is required to search a cellphone seized during an arrest. A decision in the current case, known as Carpenter v. U.S., is expected sometime before the end of June.

US Supreme Court Considers Limits on Government in Key Privacy Case