For almost 2 years I have been writing on this blog about issues that I see as relevant to emerging businesses. In my professional opinion, I feel that the greatest threat to the long-term viability and valuation of any emerging enterprise is how well they protect their corporate mission-critical information. According to President Obama, the NSA, and other governmental spy agencies, one of the greatest threats to US national security is our cyber-infrastructure (both governmental and private). Time and again it has been proven to be vulnerable to attack. Yet the underlying question to all this is – Does the right to privacy exist in a Web 2.0 world? I would argue that "privacy" does not exist any more. We have either knowingly, or unknowingly, consented our right to privacy away, and therefore, why should corporate mission-critical information (i.e. trade secrets, intellectual property, sales figures, etc.) be any different. The best example of this is above.
I was driving along the border of Medina, WA, the other night, and as I came to the corner stoplight, I looked to my right, and what I saw, made me only shake my head with disgust. For the uninformed, Medina, WA, is one of the richest area codes in the world. It’s most notable resident’s are Bill and Melinda Gates, who amassed a small fortune building a tiny software company in Redmond, WA. Additionally, the State of Washington, in its Constitution, gives every citizen a right to privacy. Therefore, when video surveillance occurs, like walking into the local 7-11 convenience store, there must be some sort of notification to the individual that they are being taped. By choosing to step foot into the store, the individual has consented to waiving their right to privacy.
Based on that very abridged version of the privacy law in the State of Washington, I could not believe what I saw. For those that cannot read the sign it states: "NOTICE: You Are Entering A 24-Hour Video Surveillance Area[.]" Based on the contents of that sign,the right to privacy within the State of Washington’s Constitution, and the fact that many of the residents of Medina, WA, are tech-millionaires, I found the irony to be extremely overwhelming. Companies like Microsoft and Amazon (both based in the State of WA) are making a push in the cloud computing arena, and yet, one of the biggest selling points for cloud computing providers is "privacy and security." Does the simple posting of the sign, in a town where a majority of the residents are, or were, executives for those two companies, create anecdotal evidence that in order to provide adequate security for users (i.e. citizens), the user must be willing to sacrifice their privacy either knowingly or unknowingly? The biggest problem the Medina Police Department has is writing tickets for people who speed on the off ramp to their enclave, or serving spouses with notice of dissolution of marriage papers. The added protection of video surveillance seems to smell of "we don’t want you in our town, unless you are "one" of us."
This is the classic example of the late George Carlin’s "NIMBY" (Not In My Backyard). To the town council of Medina, WA, congratulations on keeping the riff-raff out, and taking away the privacy rights of your residents. Just don’t come complaining when their personal information is plastered all over the Internet for the world to see – obviously by living within the confines of your enclave, they don’t care about their privacy. And so it begins…the fleecing of our right to privacy in the State of Washington.