While privacy on the Internet has garnered a lot of attention these days, the whole issue of privacy needs to be explored more by the media, especially in light of some conflicting views by the public.
Specifically, polls suggest that while nine out of 10 Americans want more privacy, many people willingly surrender personal information to large corporations in return for a discount on groceries or for a few extra air miles.
"We talk out of both sides of our mouths when it comes to privacy," said Charles Davis of the University of Missouri's Freedom of Information Center. Davis shared his views at a panel on "New Media Ethics and Privacy" at the 2000 National Computer-Assisted Reporting Conference in Lexington, Ky., held in September. He was joined by Rebecca Daugherty, director of the Freedom of Information Service Center at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post and Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News.
Consumers may gain extra goodies by sharing private information, but marketers gain much more comprehensive data on consumer behavior. At the same time, however, journalists have a tough time convincing the general public that personal information, laid out in government databases, should be open and accessible to all.
Davis said journalists should remind their readers of the difference between data collected by corporations and data collected by government agencies. "We have to tell the public the way we use data is different from how Procter & Gamble uses it," Davis said.
However, O'Harrow admits that journalists haven't even laid enough groundwork to educate readers on why public records are important, let alone private ones. Davis said that critics want to close off information being posted by government agencies on Web sites because of privacy concerns.
"Unfortunately, the government is using scare tactics to close off public records," Gillmor said.
In one more example, a member of the Lexington audience told of the unintended morphing of privacy legislation in Colorado.
The 1994 Driver's Protection Act prohibits state DMVs from reselling certain driver's license data, but since local police departments in Colorado collect some of the same information, they conclude they are arms of the DMV.
"That's a great example of what's going wrong with privacy," Gillmor said.
Noted Davis: "Privacy is becoming an industry. It's not just a topic anymore. There's a whole cottage industry emerging to protect personal privacy."
O'Harrow, who covers privacy issues for The Post, said that the fledgling privacy beat is much like the early days of civil rights reporting and environmental reporting.
Some issues of concern on the privacy beat include when companies legitimately get public records and turn around to resell and append it with other information, and the lack of individual control over information once it is out there. For example, drug companies can buy prescription information from pharmacists. O'Harrow said that while most people think medical records are confidential, in truth they are among the least protected records in America. Specifically, HMOs, banks and security firms all have access to insurance records, which ultimately lead to medical records.
"When bad medical things are happening, public records are important," Daugherty said. "The First Amendment should be a huge defense for that."
But Davis says that there are various uses for data, and it's not just journalists who can claim a public interest. Since researchers and historians all use public records and government data, Gillmor said he sees a problem with setting journalists apart from the general public. "What are the definitions of a journalist in the Internet era?" Gillmor asked. "Serious problems arise when government defines what a journalist is."
Noted O'Harrow: "Privacy is a great story. These stories have a very real impact on very real people. There's room for explaining the issue in real ways."