Fergus Cassidy

House of cards

PRIVATE Middle English privat, from Latin privatus, from past participle of privare to deprive.

                                    * * *

THE woman at the checkout till in the supermarket couldn't have been more friendly and helpful. "But why haven't you got our loyalty card? You save money. You're missing out." I was hoping that another customer would come in behind me and provide the push I needed to leave. "Here I'll fill one out for you right now. What's your name and address".

The words escaped before I knew it. "Er, Rick... em... O'Shea. 33, Trees Road, Bird Avenue". But I couldn't keep the corners of my mouth in the right place and she was on to me. "Ah, you're messing aren't you? You have to give the correct name and address otherwise they can't send you out the vouchers. Here take the form with you and you can fill it out and bring it next time". A shopper with two overladen trolleys arrived and I was gone.

I read the form afterwards but never filled it out. That was quite a long time ago and I wondered then why was it necessary to give an address? Couldn't customers collect the credits in the store? But recently a friend of mine received a postcard from a well-known supplier of tea inviting him to sample their new premium blend. At first he was mystified as to how the company had his name and address and even more puzzled as to how they knew he liked expensive tea. Yes he had a store card for the local supermarket and no he wasn't sure whether he checked the box which indicated he didn't wish to be informed of products from other companies. He thought he did, but he reckoned he must have missed it.

In case you're wondering what all this has to do with the price of turnips, I didn't, and still don't, participate in any of those loyalty schemes. 'Sure what harm can it do', I'm regularly told. So what if my friend is on god knows how many company databases as a connoisseur of fine teas, pork pies or dark chocolate?

I don't touch the schemes because details about my private life are not for sale. At any price. Government agencies, police, insurance companies etc get the details, but usually I've no choice but to provide that information. And in most cases I can understand why that information is required.

But getting a few measly euros off such-and-such product (which more than likely is cross-subsidised by adding it on to something else) is not my idea of a bargain or even a fair swop. If the chief executives of companies looking for my custom choose to send me all their personal details, then I might reconsider. But I won't be holding my breath.

The really strange thing about the collection of personal information by companies is that, in one sense, they actually know more about us than the state intelligence agencies. There may be a strict code of practice watched over by the Data Protection office, but private companies are only accountable if they are caught breaching or abusing the regulations.

State intelligence agencies, on the other hand, have far less information on most people but yet are subject to political and legal restraints which, if broken, can dramatically threaten the very authority of the state.

It's a strange imbalance but one of the reasons for it is lies in the fact that a lot of information given over by people (such as loyalty schemes) is done so on a completely voluntary basis. As I mentioned last week, workplace surveillance of personal communications is carried out on a largely voluntary basis where employees agree to sign away their rights to workplace privacy.

In the same vein the recent emergence of digital television recorders has allowed viewers to record a huge amount of programmes and skip the ads completely. Besides the clap-trap that not watching the ads is akin to "stealing", there is talk that the television companies and advertisers will now take a different approach. They've got no choice really.

The suggestion is that subscribers, particularly to cable services, will have their monthly subscription reduced in return for watching the ads. How will it be known that they do? Ah the set top box with its updatable software connected to the telephone line. Not only that, but with the carrot of further price reductions, viewers will be asked to fill in questionnaires about programs they watch and, just like the supermarkets, other personal details about their lifestyle and spending habits.

Information is valuable but certain kinds of information is invaluable. The kind of detailed personal information that reveals how an individual spends their money (and their life) is extremely valuable. Not just for sales. But future products, trends and marketing.

Now the denial last week by Irish justice minister Michael McDowell that there was anything sinister in the proposed Retention of Telecommunications Data Traffic Bill was strong on the 'paranoia' defence but woefully lacking in an explanation for such a Bill. What exactly will personal communications data be checked for? What details in particular will be relevant?

The reality of such a bill is that everybody's communications data (phone, cell phone, fax, email, web usage) will be kept for a three or four year period is nothing more than an admission that everybody must be presumed guilty. The same goes for closed circuit television cameras. Mass surveillance, is not just a crime prevention method, but is now proposed to be used after something has happened.

And I've no doubt if such a bill gets to the reading stage, the familiar mantra will ring out from certain quarters. "If you haven't done anything wrong, why worry about it". My concern about data collection, or dataveillance (yes the Americans once again) is largely focussed on the acceptance of the emerging sea change (post 11 September) of innocent until proven guilty.

But I am also increasingly concerned by a more insidious and growing trend of the buying-out of personal privacy. Although it is vitally important that state surveillance be held publicly accountable, the reality in the future is that private companies and multinational corporations will have far more detailed personal information in their databases than most governments or state agencies.

Controlling what happens to that information cannot be left solely to politicians. They have proved time and again - and not just in Ireland - their unwillingness and inability to intervene in the private sector. Corruption. Scandals. Tribunals. 'Nuff said.

Technology - encryption for example - will be helpful in protecting privacy but in my own mind the bottom-line in the future is with each individual. Yes it's vital to ensure that the state doesn't erode privacy - no matter what the excuse or reasoning behind it.

But when it comes to voluntarily handing over personal information ask yourself this. Is it really worth it and who is the real winner from the exchange?

Privacy? This time it's personal.