Reading 06: Security or Privacy? Should We Even Have to Choose?
We all want security. We want the peace of mind that we’re safe in our country and are often motivated by fear.
We also all want privacy. Certainly there are plenty of things that we don’t want the rest of the world to know. Some information is for our eyes and those we decide to trust it with.
The biggest question is do we really have to choose between the two?
Can we only have one or the other?
Companies (most notably Apple) are being pressed by the government and law enforcement agencies to compromise the privacy and security of their customers in order to allow greater ease of access for the purpose of investigating crimes. Organizations like the DOJ and FBI argue that extra access is necessary for the investigation and prosecution of terrorists.
Apple and other companies being pressed to compromise their security should not bend to the pressures put on them.
Talking in reference to Apple specifically, they highly pride themselves in maintaining the privacy and security of their users and their information. Apple CEO Tim Cook has even gone as far as calling his company a “privacy company” and not a technology company. He has heavily stressed privacy’s importance to everything Apple is and everything they stand for.
These are very noble values for a tech company to have in today’s world, but they don’t mean a thing if Apple fails to uphold them. Apple should keep taking its stand against weakening the security of its devices. This is not to say they shouldn’t cooperate with authorities (they already do), but they should not do so in a way that requires them to create back doors in their systems.
Technology companies have much more of an obligation to their customers than they have to the US government. They are selling a product to their customers and tell them that they value their security. And so, these companies should protect the privacy of their customers as well as they can and not jeopardize their sensitive information. They do not have the same obligation to the government and law enforcement agencies.
The counterargument to the point of technology companies refusing to weaken their security systems for the government is that people argue refusing to do so puts our national security at risk.
This argument certainly has some credibility as I would agree — the same as anyone else I imagine — that national security is a very good thing to have and to protect. We should absolutely attempt to discover potential terrorist attacks and prevent them before they happen. We should absolutely prosecute those who do harm or attempt to do harm to others. We should absolutely try to save as many lives as we can.
While these are all very good ideals to keep, there is very little — if any — evidence that would indicate that limiting privacy through surveillance promotes our national security at all. Allowing the government and law enforcement agencies to access more of our personal information more freely does not deter and does not prevent terrorist attacks from occurring.
For example, the FBI recently admitted that the Patriot Act has not yielded results in uncovering and stopping any major terrorist attacks. Yet, it has been enacted since 9/11 and allows the government much more freedom in surveillance. It would be fantastic if it was successful, but it just hasn’t been.
However, The Patriot Act still manages to get renewed whenever it is about to expire because as a country we prize the idea of national security so highly. There’s certainly nothing wrong with this by itself, but we so often allow privacy to be stripped away on only the promise (potentially hollow) of increased national security.
Many people may say that they don’t care about a lack of privacy.
“Who cares if the government has lots of information on me? I haven’t done anything wrong!”
I haven’t done anything wrong either, but I’m still strongly against unwillingly being an open book to the US government.
Throughout recent history, mass surveillance has oft signaled much more sinister revelations. It’s an all too easy way to quell resistance from political opponents and those who speak up against the government.
Even if its intentions are pure as snow, it’s near impossible for it to be prevented from misuse if the wrong people gain power in the government.
For example, even in the US there are examples of dangerous voices gaining too much power and influence within our government. Perhaps one of the best examples is McCarthyism in the the early 1950s.
Even without nearly any kind of evidence, multitudes of people were unduly persecuted for being members of the Communist Party, even though few had even the slightest affiliation.
Obviously, a modern wave of McCarthyism would be much more damaging and scary given the swaths of information the government could obtain on any US citizen. Using simple data mining techniques, the government feasibly could profile citizens as the “offending” group based on shopping habits, online acquaintances, and Facebook likes.
Furthermore, every single online action you have every taken could be scrutinized in order to create a story in which you’re guilty for a crime you’ve never committed.
The potential for dangers and abuse is certainly there with mass surveillance, and there’s simply not enough evidence of benefits to accept that kind of risk.
