The issue is still privacy; the outlook is still grim

As you may have read, this will be my last Ethics Matters column for InfoWorld. However, I plan to continue it in another venue: If you're interested, you'll find more details at the end of this column.

Free IT resource Hear how top CIOs turn change into a competitive advantage. Sponsored by HP Free IT resource Try Sun servers, workstations and storage products free for 60-days. Sponsored by Sun Microsystems

I understand the reasons behind the change. InfoWorld is making significant improvements in print and online, and I believe it will become a better publication as a result. If you haven't read about the exciting changes, I suggest you check out the details from InfoWorld's CEO and editorial director, Kevin McKean. (See Above the Noise, "Same great weekly, brand new package").

At this juncture, I think it's fitting to have a final word -- one last issue that I believe is important to address before I say goodbye. That one topic would have to be privacy and the threats it is facing today.

For one of my first columns, I was asked to look ahead at the coming year and talk about what I thought would be the biggest issue facing ethics and IT. At the time, I settled on privacy. I believe the headline was "The issue is privacy and the outlook is grim." Since that time, nothing has happened to convince me otherwise.

Recently, a reader wrote me wondering what was so special about privacy that we needed to be worried about it, and why the incursion of technology into our private lives was any different from the intrusions that come with living in a small town.

My opinion is that privacy is one of those things that falls into a category ethicists refer to as "welfare interests." These are concerns that, taken together, make our life better, rather than worse. Welfare interests include things like autonomy, freedom from pain, financial security (not necessarily wealth), meaningful employment, and so on.

Although we are allowed to make trade-offs among our own welfare interests, any diminution of a welfare interest from the outside -- especially without our consent -- is an assault on our general welfare. We can choose to make that trade-off, as long as we do it knowingly. I can, for example, accept living with some pain in order to avoid endangering my financial security. Or, conversely, I can adversely affect my financial security to avoid the pain. The important thing is that it's my choice.

The key to our welfare interests is that they are intrinsically valuable. We treasure them for what they are, not necessarily because they are instrumental in getting something else for us.

So we need to be careful about what others are doing to our privacy and to our ability to control our personal information. Every assault against that privacy makes our lives worse, not better. This is why privacy is so important.

How are the current technological and governmental incursions any different from the exposure of living in a small town? In some ways, they're not very different; in other ways, much different.

Having lived in a very small town, I have some experience in this area. It's true that in small towns you can't escape a great deal of scrutiny, but even there areas of your life remain private. No one knows what books you receive in "plain, brown wrappers," even though people know that you receive something. People don’t know what you buy at the big grocery store in the "city," although they know what you buy at the general store.

But the difference in small towns is that you can escape. You can go to the big city to kick up your heels, buy something scandalous, or just have a drink (depending on the town you're in). And you can pack up and leave, as so many people do, just to escape the non-stop scrutiny and lack of privacy.

However, when the surveillance is pervasive, invasive, nationwide, and computerized, the scrutiny takes on a whole new character. When the government is involved, it takes a quantum leap. The ability to store and process seemingly disparate bits of information -- many of which would be unknown in a small town -- gives the government enormous power, something with which none of us should be comfortable.

It's understandable that in the climate of panic and fear that gripped the nation following Sept. 11, 2001, some people would be willing to throw privacy to the wind in hopes of gaining some illusion of security. We can only hope that the climate has changed and that people can more rationally balance their own welfare interests once again.

I think the biggest issue is still privacy, and the outlook is still grim. There are forces afoot that want to collect every fragment of data about us and mine it, ostensibly for security reasons. However, I see a greater danger from the constant and pervasive invasion of our privacy than from other forces we might fear. We may someday live to regret so gleefully giving it away.

That's my final word in this forum, but I will try to carry on in another. I would like to continue my ethics column as a private venture and will, if there is enough interest, offer a weekly newsletter -- perhaps with future enhancements -- for a small annual subscription price. If you would be interested in subscribing, please send a blank e-mail to ethics@emailias.com  with "Interested" in the subject line. I will contact you when and if I determine sufficient interest. You can also check my Web site for updates.

Although I'm disappointed about my column's fate, that feeling is outweighed by a sense of tremendous gratitude. First, I'm grateful to InfoWorld, which found space for a column that was really tangential to its core mission. But I'm also really grateful to those readers who engaged in a fruitful and pleasant dialogue over these past two years.

When I began the column, I expected a fair amount of flames and personal attacks -- something we've all come to expect in Internet discussions. I was truly amazed at how little of that took place. There were a few, but they were overwhelmingly outweighed by thoughtful and respectful e-mail submissions. Many disagreed with me, but even the dissenters were pleasant.

Thank you all. I hope we meet again.