Anonymous: Prime Sinister of the Internet?Submitted by TheBrushfire on Wed, 10/09/2013 - 01:15
Prime Minister describes a dignitary whose role is somewhat vague to the American people because we have no such thing. Our Secretary of State seems like a reasonable comparison, also whose role is somewhat vague to the American people because we have John Kerry.
Unlike our wars, our religions and our politics, inherently, our privacy is not an interest we simply protect, it is our individual identity--comprising innumerable experiences we purposefully leave untouched by others. Passwords, pictures, notes from high-school, cards from grandma, the beginning of a screenplay, a terrible poem, 2 song lyrics you think might be really good, and other various and sundry secrets. Maybe we all collect these things; and, the terribleness from one stupid poem to the next doesn't differ, but they're uniquely mine and yours.
We see life through one set of eyes--the metaphysical me would rally a tangent here about an omniscient and ethereal presence in which I believe--but, for "nones" and believers alike, individuality is precious--it IS us.
The rawest privacy we know is our inner self, because to others it will always be anonymous. This type of anonymity is inalienable, it's an inherent part of consciousness; alone, it establishes a birthright to privacy. This right to privacy comprehensibly underpins why we cast anonymous votes in an election. To truly acknowledge our birthright to privacy is to respect privacy. As anonymous sources we submit tips to the editor, or make anonymous donations. Respect yields only if our anonymity is protected.
People who surreptitiously collect my things disrespect my privacy. Those innumerable things which I've purposefully withheld or protected are uniquely mine. A law enacted under the auspice of "Cybersecurity" should protect the individual's privacy in a "cyber" space. Homeland security protects our homeland and home security protects my home. Security is a system, and guards protect individuals.
Who's tasked with being "guards" in the Cybersecurity, Fraud & Abuse Act? If a bank fails to guard your private information with adequate security as it so guarantees, it retroactively abandons its post as guardian when it suggests any third party is responsible for violating my privacy. We anonymously vote, we anonymously submit tips and we rely on the pollsters and the editors to respect our privacy by protecting our privacy. Should either fail to protect our privacy, then we consider it a violation of our mutual agreement. Equally, the bank has violated my right to privacy if it fails to protect my private information with adequate security.
In some cases, failure to protect is due to a third party actively trying to seek private information. Yet, the fact remains, a contract to respect my privacy doesn't exist with that third party. The only agreement confirmed is one that posts the bank as a guard in the security system to protect an individual's privacy. The security contract is with the bank. The banks, or entities who commit through contract to house my private information in exchange for money are the guards.
Why then is this law designed so that a person who can get past the guard is punished, but not the guard? Realized in terms of what serves as a guard to protect the banks, this law can be considered a security system and our government, its guard. The individual has been removed from this contract; the Cybersecurity, Fraud & Abuse Act is a government security contract, whereby it acts as a guard to banks (not simply financial) of private information---"protecting" it from the public. But, if WE are the public that is supposed to assume the government will uphold this guardianship--then the law, essentially keeps all information about the operations of the bank away from the public, too. The conflict of interest is so immediately apparent, to even consider appointing the Federal Government control over our access to information is not simply ludicrous, but a sinister proposition on their part. It calls to question all the lawmakers who point fingers at "Anonymous"--who is really the prime sinister of the Internet? The power to remain anonymous is the salvation of the individual.