COLUMN: The dangers of internet information

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 That "Information is Power" has been an axiom of human existence since long before the advent of the Internet; the phrase itself was though of long before the modern era. Governments kept a monopoly of information as an important way of maintaining their hold over the people they governed. There was, unfortunately, a flip side to this opening. In a broad sense, individuals could be more aware of what was going on due to the rise in private, unmediated information. However, there was a corresponding increase in the ability of the government to attain information about them. Phone lines could be tapped, and calls could be monitored. Telegrams intended for private viewing could be intercepted. Radio and TV both had the capability of producing a decrease in the government's monopoly of information and yet were also used to increase the propaganda capabilities of governments. These somewhat abstract trends continued throughout history to become increasingly real. Despite these changes, some types of information were still treated the same way. Personal information gathered directly by government agencies, ostensibly for the purpose of collecting taxes. Normally citizens' access to this information was restricted by law; for obvious reasons of maintaining privacy, our annual incomes, Social Security numbers and the like were legally off-limits to the general public. With the advent of the various freedom of information acts ,certain kinds of information were, in theory, opened up to the public. Journalists investigating the military's chemical weapons capabilities or people wanting to view police reports for crimes they had witnessed could, in essence, petition the appropriate agency for the ability to see them. Such petitions were often denied, usually on the grounds of national security or right to privacy, respectively. When permission was granted, the time elapsed was often months or even years. Thus, in practice even legal allowances for increased access proved to perpetuate long-standing controls on the flow of information. The Internet revolution has changed much of this -- with a computer, modem and credit card, anyone can find out personal information about other Americans. An ever growing number of companies make available personal profiles complete with a staggering amount of data -- Social Security numbers, purchasing patterns, descriptions of assets, criminal records, driving history, professional licenses and more. Though some of this material is garnered from other corporations -- credit company records are a prime example -- much of the information is attained through governmental sources. The dangers posed by the new ease in attaining personal information are all too real. With a Social Security number and a basic information about a person in hand, people can easily apply for driver's licenses and credit cards in the other person's name. There are thousands of documented cases of "identity theft" -- perhaps as many as a thousand per day. If the victims are able to avoid paying for the costs incurred by their fictitious twin, their credit records may still be ruined forever. One senator, Diane Feinstein of California, has proposed legislation seeking to limit to abilities of the on-line information providers; specifically, the bill will limit the circulation and sale of Social Security numbers without the individuals written consent. Feinstein was dismayed when her staffers found her own Social Security number in three minutes. "People are losing control over their identities" she testified before Congress as the bill was introduced. Feinstein's bill, known as the Personal Information Privacy Act, is one of an estimated 40 bills pending in Congress that deal with the new kinds of privacy issues raised by the new ways of disseminating information. Other proposals include limiting the ability of the U.S. Postal Service to sell its address lists to direct marketers or ensuring the privacy of medical information, ever more difficult in the age of HMOs. It doesn't take the possibility of grand theft to be wary of the ease in accessing personal information in the Internet-era, nor does one need to be militia member to be uncomfortable with the amount of information that government agencies have access to. The combination of the two -- individuals with easy access to information formerly an exclusive part of the government's domain -- require a new way of understanding the distribution of information for the so-called "information age."