When it comes to basic freedoms, there can be no U-turns

Concerns have surfaced once again that our governments are set to use the attacks in Paris against satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last week as a pretext to try to curtail our personal freedoms, all in the name of greater security.

To begin with, there are the absurd proposals to restrict movement within the Schengen area even though the attack was carried out by French citizens and within France: it should come as no surprise that this idea has been put forward by Marine Le Pen, but what’s worrying is that people are taking it seriously, at the same time our governments are openly discussing more online censorship and surveillance. Such approaches reflect the same lack of common sense as does responding to an attack against freedom of expression by applying greater surveillance of the population.

So let’s get one thing clear: a terrorist attack can never be an excuse to curtail our basic freedoms. By now, it should be pretty clear: the whole NSA mess was brought by the September 11 attacks, and not only never served to prevent other attacks, but also gave birth to the biggest Orwellian monster ever conceived by human imagination.

Ideas such as banning all means of electronic communication that do not allow the authorities to eavesdrop are insane, absurd, and potentially catastrophic, and can only be the result of a complete lack of understanding as to how technology works. The idea is not only impracticable — the use of the social networks cannot be impeded as though they were physical objects that can be prevented from moving through hypothetical borders — but would represent a danger: back doors into our emails, cellphone calls, and other communication can be used not just by authorized bodies; they are also an opportunity for others to exploit by whatever methods. These kinds of proposals should have been buried long ago, but worryingly, have now been brought back to life.

We have to see our freedoms as gains that can never be revoked once won, partially or otherwise. It has taken a long time and much suffering to create a Europe without borders, along with such basic human rights as privacy; admittedly, that has never been fully guaranteed at the same time as the state’s infringement of it hasn’t prevented acts of terror. And yet, every time there is an attack of this nature, out come those calling for our freedoms to be suspended. It is intolerable, and we should not tolerate it. When surveillance is increased, it is we: the public, who suffer. All the criminals do is resort to other means of communicating with each other, and there is no technology capable of intercepting everything that technology is able to produce.

Mass surveillance has never produced greater security, and we have to learn to stand up to those in our societies that use any excuse to argue for restrictions on our liberties. We cannot give an inch on this issue.

Freedom of expression is a complex issue, and there is much to discuss. Most people who say they defend it, particularly politicians, seem happy to do so in the context of other countries, but often fail to do so at home. The Spanish prime minister was at Sunday’s march; his government has just passed highly controversial security legislation. And that is without getting into what the Saudi ambassador to France was doing there. And then there is the irony of Mark Zuckerberg, whose social network censors anything it finds a problem with, financing the next edition of Charlie Hebdo.

The British and Spanish governments’ proposals need to be reminded of the true meaning of Benjamin Franklin’s famous words on freedom and security: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” In other words, safety and liberty are not mutually exclusive, but restricting liberty doesn’t make us safer, and it simply creates new dangers. When somebody tells you that we need more security to have freedom, get far away from them, because you can be sure that their aim is to rid you of your freedom for reasons that have little to do with security.

(En español, aquí)