Why the Government Can’t Spy on You, But Companies Can
You’re reading this article on Medium using the Internet, probably via WiFi. But the information you’re providing by reading this article — how long it took you, whether you skimmed it, which sections you scrolled back up to re-read, so on — is being stored by tech companies.
And that data is being sold to other companies, like ad companies. That’s why it seems like your phone is listening to your conversation when an ad for that jacket you’re thinking about buying pops up the next time you’re reading a news article.
But what’s the price of this lack of privacy in our online lives?
In my debut book, Necessary Symbiosis: What Happens When Science and Government Work Together (and When They Don’t), I explore what the current data privacy issues are and what measures some governments are taking to protect their citizens’ online lives.
Below is an excerpt from my fifth chapter (formatted for Medium). Enjoy!
We can’t talk data privacy without talking about one of the most infamous government contractors, Edward Snowden. He was a contractor at Booz Allen, working with the National Security Agency (NSA), and he realized that the agency was not only monitoring the data for potential threats but all domestic individuals, starting from the Bush administration. He leaked a top secret Foreign Intelligence Court order to Verizon, which required Verizon to send all of the daily domestic phone records of millions of American customers to the NSA. And that occurred without most Americans knowing. That vast reach of the government essentially spying on regular Americans started an intense debate on data privacy versus national security.(1)
That vast surveillance also violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that,
“[T]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Translation: the government has to get a warrant in order to search someone or their things with specific details of what exactly the government is looking for.(2)
The 4th amendment protects the people from government surveillance because it would violate their right to privacy. However, there isn’t anything that protects the people from data surveillance by private companies which can then be offered as a service to government agencies.
Tech companies say that the 4th amendment only applies to the government and not to them, so they use your data to model your behavior and sell that data to the highest bidder. Why is that so bad? These tech companies are selling access to your news feed, and thus they are selling access to your mind. And this kind of profit-making by companies isn’t part of their essential business.
Another example is AT&T. Since 2009, they have been collecting data from users and even non-users that connect to an AT&T cell site location. They have over a decade of information on each individual, and they sell that information as a service to law enforcement agencies. Instead of getting a warrant to search your physical abode, they just need a subpoena to search your virtual abode. Subpoenas, like administrative subpoenas, are easier to get and enforce than warrants. All it takes is a federal official’s signature, and any business — bank, bookstore, tech company, hospital — may be required to hand over sensitive data on individuals or corporations if it is pertinent to an investigation. Congress also authorized the government to bypass the 4th Amendment nearly 335 times to different agencies on different issues.(3)
Why is that so bad? If you were subpoenaed and turned over your phone to the police, they can get access to your call records, which shows which people are the most important to you. That kind of information, combined with cell site information of your movements, allows the police to infer who you travel with most often, who you are sleeping with, etc.(4)
Over the next weeks, I’ll be sharing excerpts and stories from my book, Necessary Symbiosis, in this article series. My book Necessary Symbiosis: What Happens When Science and Government Work Together (and When They Don’t) is available here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08PW4XP38. If you want to connect, find me on Twitter (@KarraVyshnavi), Instagram (@karravyshnavi, @necessarysymbiosis), and at www.vyshnavikarra.com.
(1) Government Accountability Project (blog), “Five Years After Snowden Blew the Whistle, The NSA Shutters Controversial Program,” March 7, 2019.
(2) Jonathan Kim, ed. “Fourth Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. Last modified June 2017.
(3) David Kravets, “We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena,” WIRED, August 28, 2020; Charles Doyle, Administrative Subpoenas in CriminalInvestigations: A Brief Legal Analysis, Congressional Report Services for Congress, 2006; Christopher Slobogin, “Subpoenas and Privacy,” DePaul Law Review 54, no. 805 (2005).
(4) Manoush Zomorodi, “IRL Online,” March 20, 2020, In TED Radio Hour, produced by National Public Radio, podcast, 52:00.
