海角大神

If I take your picture on the public street, I do not need to give听you any notice 鈥� and you have no basis to complain about it. If听there's visible light, your image is fair game.

My porch light has a motion sensor that can see as far as the public听sidewalk. If you walk by, it will light up 鈥� and you have no basis听to complain that it captured your movement. If there's infrared听light, you are fair game.

Even your heart emits unique electromagnetic pulses. What if I can听detect and capture those signals? If there are microwaves, you are听fair game.
If you have a new car, it broadcasts several unique Bluetooth听signals. High-frequency radio? You're fair game.

The inexpensive Wi-Fi router in your home continuously advertises听its name 鈥� the service set identifier 鈥� that was probably selected听by you. That information is being broadcast on a 2.4GHz radio band听through the air 鈥� and, so, that information is fair game.

Let's be rational and thus concrete: Wavelength does not matter.听What is fair game to observe is independent of wavelength 鈥� I have听the right to capture what you emanate.

Even just in visible light, the technology is readily available听today to capture and recognize your iris 鈥� increasingly used in听security systems 鈥� from a distance of 50 yards. Facial recognition听is feasible at 500 yards. The unique pattern of your gait can be听detected in just 10 paces. Again, being concrete, does my right to听look at you 鈥� and capture your identity and identifiers 鈥� depend听on what I'm looking for? Hardly.

Most privacy laws exist to block government actions. A few exist听to block private institutional actions. But none exist to block听individuals' actions.

In the Supreme Court case , defendant Danny Lee Kyllo,听a marijuana grower, argued that police use of a thermal imager to听discover the high-intensity lights growing marijuana in his garage听constituted a search for which a warrant was necessary.

The Court held: "Where, as here, the Government uses a device that听is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home听that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion,听the surveillance is a听Fourth听Amendment 'search,' and is presumptively听unreasonable without a warrant."

Read that carefully 鈥� the requirement for a warrant exists solely听where the device to be used to gather photons is "not in general听public use."

As anyone knows, what the government and only the government has听today, the rich will have tomorrow. What the rich have tomorrow the听lumpen proletariat will have it the day after tomorrow 鈥� it is听general public use that removes any prohibitions on use by government听or other institutions.

Now consider the thermal imager. Fifteen years ago when Kyllo was听decided, the devices were not in general use. Now, they are readily听available. One ad reads: "Multispectral imaging 鈥� maximizes details听and image sharpness, adds GPS location to images, self-calibrates听for optimum image and accurate temperature calculation, combines听infrared with visual input, records audio with the video which is听directly stored in the iPhone photo gallery."

That description begins with "multispectral," meaning that it听combines multiple wavelengths 鈥� visible light, infrared light, and听GPS radio. The number of emanations that are capturable by devices听that are in general public use is large and growing. You tell me,听what does "appearing in public" mean as that variety grows? That听multiple spectra are correlatable is hardly a surprise, but does听your intuition tell you that the net effect is additive, that each听new correlation adds "1" to some pre-existing sum?听 Or is the power听of correlation such that each new one added does not increase a sum听through addition but a product through multiplication like a compound听interest sort of calculation?

This is the point: No society, no people need rules against things听that are impossible. If your personal "expectation of privacy" is听based on the impossibility of observability or even the impossibility听of identifiability, then your logic, like that of the Supreme Court,听is temporary and weak. A long view in the face of rapid technologic听change is far harder.

In past months, well-informed individuals have warned about听advances in artificial intelligence as being likely to introduce听irreversible unintended effects that are permanently incompatible听with fundamental values. In past months, well-informed individuals听have warned about advances in genetic engineering as being likely听to introduce irreversible unintended effects that are permanently听incompatible with fundamental values. I am here to say that I side听with听those well-informed individuals听in both cases, and hope that they, and you, side听with me that advances in observability are introducing irreversible听and unintended effects that are permanently incompatible with听fundamental values.

It is easy to drift toward "making the best be the enemy of the听good." Baking radio frequency identity tags in your microwave does听not, in the end, do anything if your cellphone, Bluetooth gizmos,听iris, and auto registration are each collected and then correlated.听We cannot 鈥� nor should we waste political capital trying to 鈥撎齭erially forbid collections by name or by type or by wavelength.

We can only sabotage use. We must change liability law so thoroughly听and so substantially that data acquisition is no different from听stockpiling combinations of lethal chemicals that grow increasingly听dangerous as their varieties increase. There is no mechanistic听difference whatsoever between personalization and targeting save听for the intent of the analyst. To believe otherwise is to believe听in the Tooth Fairy. To not care is to abandon your duty.

Dan Geer is the chief information security officer for听In-Q-Tel, a not-for-profit investment firm that works to invest in technology that supports the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader US intelligence community.

听