Originally appeared in the magazine ' 22 '
To be effective, any national security policy has to control the way in which the information, including those of private interest, circulate. It appears, however, a disagreement: control information may get into conflict with individuals ' freedom to decide on issues related to private life, at which point the question arises of determining the limits up to which the State may intervene in the distribution of private information?
Question of the definition of a private sphere of the individual. The existence and preservation of a private sphere means controlling how private information circulates, is stored and can be accessed. The individual have control over his private life when he can control the terms in which others can access the information of private nature. Therefore, the private sphere is the State in which the individual has access to tools that can control others ' access to the information which he considers private nature, in accordance with his own values and interests.
The first useful thing to point out is the subjective nature of the elements that comprise the scope of private individuals. Only the individual can decide if the information concerning you is private nature, if and under what conditions it can be made public. A person (or an organ of the State) can know no boundaries of privacy of another person. A consequence resulting from subjectivity privacy is that government regulation in the name of privacy protection is based on the inevitable approximations made by politicians and bureaucrats about how it should look like spheres of private individuals. These rules cannot supercede successfully numerous decisions of individuals who want to protect their privacy.
It looks like the private sphere of individuals needs to be protected. Once the magic word "protection" is pronounced, appears like magic and solution: the State. The State should protect by law private life, they say. From a careful analysis, we realize that the laws have conflicting effects on the private sphere. Many laws protecting the private sphere through the recognition of the right to keep certain information secret. For example, the buyer can make an agreement with the seller a transaction whereby the conditions to remain secret, and the law of contracts makes this agreement may be executed legally. The legal framework is essential for the protection of the private sphere, but many laws and regulations have adverse effects on the capacity of individuals to keep your personal information secret.
Video surveillance of public places to prevent crime is a useful example in this respect. Legal constraints on the private companies and State bodies that make video surveillance are essential for preventing abuses. Venice Commission-Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional issues — believe that video surveillance of public places is a threat to privacy and freedom of movement. In the 2007 report, the Commission invited the Member States to systematically indicate areas where filming and create, at national level, bodies which ensure the legality of surveillance installations.
Video surveillance take avant and in Bucharest in Romania: installs cameras in intersections and on some blocks in subway stations, in backyards, in schools and other public buildings, in some buses and trolleybuses RATB etc. In some schools have installed video cameras in the classroom. The legality of the surveillance video is debatable, given that the regulatory authority in this field (national authority for the supervision of the processing of Personal data-2ND) has not taken any decision on the rules to be observed in the activity of surveillance, the way the data stored can be used to enable consumers to being filmed times exercise the right of opposition.
A consequence of political approach, and not the economic problem is very unfavourable from the perspective of a society of free men: the freedom of decision of the people is replaced by mandatory rules imposed by the State. In addition, if the State takes over the task of providing privacy protection, quantity and nature protection will be defined by consumer preferences. Similar individuals different activity of protection of private life and, therefore, would like to purchase different amounts. The Government does not have any tools to measure is effective protection to Cabrera offer.
What conclusion emerges in light of the above arguments? The best way to protect your private sphere is to leave the decision regarding the circulation mode of private information on behalf of the individuals involved. People will make informed choices with regard to what, and in what circumstances can I find others about them. The only way forward compatible with maintaining freedom of choice of individuals is that of educating and informing about the dangers of disclosure-voluntary or involuntary — of some information, especially in the mysterious virtual environment. Legitimate task that lies with the State in the immediate horizon is the important one: to recognize the erosion of privacy resulting from the application of laws and regulations designed to promote an illusory "State security".
