Internet privacy? Forget it

A couple years ago, I attended a weekend meeting at which a variety of experts, mostly university professors, discussed the social impact of the internet. The dominant emotion was anxiety — about the amount of time young people spend on the net, the loss of newspaper and book readers, the rise of texting while driving, the spread of misinformation amid information, and cybersecurity.

A human rights lawyer who did work in countries ruled by dictators and juntas spoke. She warned about government hacking in these countries — but was equally concerned about American agents hacking the emails of human rights organizations.

Her conclusion: "If you don't want your beliefs, plans and activities part of a government data grab, correspond through the postal service. It's a lot safer than the internet." The audience laughed.

[The FCC just passed sweeping new rules to protect your online privacy]

Nobody is laughing after the Russian government hacked the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as well as numerous congressional campaigns. When the 2018 congressional races begin, perhaps we shall see an upsurge in the sale of stamps and envelopes. The postal service is slow, and many years have passed since government agents, all over the world, routinely steamed open the letters of suspicious characters. Steaming correspondence is far more labor-intensive than hacking, and it is pretty hard to open a letter mailed from San Francisco to Los Angeles in Moscow.

What the Russians did to American political organizations is a crime. Let's be clear about that. But no Russians are going to be dragged into court. Our government, President Obama made it clear, will punish the Russians in a time and manner of his choosing. (For myself, I would like to see the mafia do the dirty work a la "The Godfather" — let Vladimir Putin wake up with a horse head in his bed.)

The right to privacy is well established in this country — the right to be left alone. We are taught from childhood that a man's (or woman's) home is his/her castle. The castle walls may be breached only in exceptional circumstances — typically with the approval of a court. Yet there is no expectation of internet privacy. "Don't send it by email if you are concerned about it becoming available to unauthorized eyes" has become common wisdom. A version of this maxim for politicians is, don't put it in email if you can't live with it on the front page of the newspaper.

Can you have a right to internet privacy if there is no rational expectation of privacy? And where would the right to internet privacy exist? It's not in the Constitution or the statutes of states. It's not laid down by court decisions, although it is probably fair to expect that courts will eventually address the question.

A right to privacy will not extend to your communications on your employer's computer system, and the right to be left alone apparently does not prevent businesses from pestering you. Employers can and do look at employee emails. Meanwhile, advertisers — American Express provides a good example — tirelessly hector us about why we should make additional purchases.

The right to internet privacy seems to be anchored in arguments for common decency, the almost universal belief that what you have to say via email is nobody's business except yours and the people you choose to share it with. WikiLeaks advocates argue for "the people's right to know." But know what? Hillary Clinton's campaign plans? Donald Trump's campaign plans? Whether somebody at Democratic or Republican headquarters thinks Fox broadcaster Megyn Kelly is hot, stupid or gutsy? Where Clinton operative John Podesta eats pizza?

A great deal of internet communication perfectly replicates real life. It is banal. Look through your own emails at work. The notices from the office manager that somebody left their headlights on in the parking lot, the date and time of the company Christmas party, the update on company security policies, the panicked reminders to turn in your time sheet NOW. Then there's all those personal messages from a spouse, a friend, a child, a cousin — will be home late from work, please pick up milk, can you drop me off at the airport, sorry to upset you. Does "the people's right to know" include emails of completely private content? (Never mind love notes.)

[US troops might start relying on Russian satellites for internet service]

There are people who like to take the train and won't fly unless they must. Their number is small. I suspect turning to the postal service instead of the internet will follow this example.

The internet is so easy to use and provides virtually instantaneous correspondence, it is difficult to resist. Politicians are far more likely to say, "I'll find a way to make my internet communications secure," than beat feet for the post office. In other words, they will tell themselves, "From now on I will be careful."

And they will be careful right up to the day they pick up the newspaper and find their campaign plans, views of their opponent and the name of the restaurant where they eat pizza on the front page.

Michael Carey is an Alaska Dispatch News columnist. He can be reached at mcarey@alaskadispatch.com.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.