One of the most striking reactions one could observe
after the Snowden data analysis leaks was not that people were upset that the
government was spying on citizens both domestic and abroad, but that they were
caught doing so. The National Security Agency uses data assemblies to gather an
unprecedented amount of information on nearly everyone who is logged into the
internet, has a credit card or mobile phone. Privacy in the modern era is
something one has with their neighbors, their friends and acquaintances, but it
is by self-delusion that one can believe they have any sense of privacy over
the internet. Every free service one receives online comes at the price of privacy;
the NSA and other intelligence agencies use this information to attempt to
identify threats. For most Americans, there is no harm. No one has true privacy
anyway, the vast majorities of people are not harmed in any way because of
these actions and so at the current level of data mining the NSA does,
Americans should not be alarmed nor should they care.
The Constitution of the United States is designed to
protect its people against a corrupt and oppressive government. This document,
however strong and well intentioned it is, is not sacrosanct. It was thought up
by men who were brilliant, though fallible as we all are. It has been amended 27
times over its history and will continue to be amended for as long as the State
exists in its current form. One of the major services the government provides
is security against foreign threats. To achieve that security, citizens willingly
sacrifice liberty and privacy. In the time before the internet, this could be
done with passports and armies. The threats, unfortunately, have changed with
the times. The United States is no longer threatened by other States with
armies, but by radical civilians who are attacking an ideology, not a military
or a government. The methods that must be used to provide security require a
change in what is acceptable privacy. In order to provide a sense of security
in the Information Age, the government must collect data on threats using the
internet and other networked devices. The argument here is not over the
effectiveness of their efforts or the value of the data in preemptively dealing
with threats to national security, but that some data collection is necessary
to protect the nation.
Anyone with a credit card, Facebook, a bank, email, cell
phone or Youtube account has willingly given away their privacy for a service.
Google provides each of its various services free of charge in exchange for its
client’s personal information. This allows for targeted ads to popup on gmails,
Youtube videos and other websites. Facebook operates in largely the same
manner. Nothing is private anymore, it is easier to think that one has a private
life, and that is a delusion that almost everyone is guilty of without fault or
blame. But if it is socially acceptable to give away one’s privacy for free
videos and emails, is it that taboo to exchange it for even a sense of
security?
"Every free service one receives online comes at the price of privacy"
ReplyDeleteWhat about services that people pay for, oftentimes with an expectation of privacy? The NSA still is able to mine that data. I agree that people shouldn't really expect privacy when using free services like Facebook or Youtube, but the fact of the matter is that many people choose NOT to use these services because they value their privacy. The NSA revelations were so problematic because many people saw themselves as having no privacy anywhere on the internet. Privacy is something that is Constitutionally guaranteed, and it seems awfully fatalist to say that we "shouldn't expect" privacy on the internet. The only reason we shouldn't expect privacy on the internet (when taking appropriate measures to ensure that privacy, of course) is because the NSA so blatantly deprives us of that privacy!
You analogize privacy to a kind of currency that can be exchanged for services or security. But that transaction is only valid if both parties consent to it, and obviously the American populace in no way consented to the kind of domestic spying that the NSA engaged in.
I think credit cards are a good example of something that you pay for (either through interest payments or yearly fees) but the government still mines or accesses that data. In today's world the government could likely map out someones entire life by analyzing their credit card history. I also think that the companies who turned over the data to the government are guilty in some way because they provided no disclaimer or notification that by using their services you would also be surrendering this data to the government.
DeleteI think it is delusional for Americans to think that they have privacy using gmail, facebook, or youtube. You don't actually own any of these accounts, the company does. There is a big distinction between privacy in ones home and privacy while using a service a company has provided free of charge. However, I do think that the government crossed a line when they took this data and used it to map out peoples lives. By using one of these internet services you surrender your right to privacy from the company who provides the service but prior to the Snowden leaks, people were largely unaware that they were also surrendering that privacy and information to the government. government
ReplyDeleteThe government may be invading one's privacy, but if you do not ever know it, the government never acts on it, and in the process of doing this to persons of interest, they actually stop a malignant presence, I believe then that it was justified.
Delete