Writing 05
Where do you draw the line between individual privacy and national security? In a democracy, which one is paramount?
In the past, I haven't given much thought to individual privacy if I am being totally honest. I've sort of had the mindset of "I have nothing to hide so why should I care?" I'm not involved in anything shady, and really believe that if literally my entire digital footprint was leaked to the world, the worst that would happen would me some mild embarrassment. After this week of discussion, though, my opinion has shifted rather drastically.
Snowden's adage of "not caring about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like not caring about free speech because you have nothing to say" really stuck with me. What happens if the day comes where you DO have something to hide? By then, since you've been complacent in the privacy war thus far, it's too late.
Even if that day never comes, I still see great value in internet privacy. There are many things I can easily see that, while not illegal, people would want to be kept private. Medical records, education information, and others are datasets that could definitely harm someone if put in the wrong hands.
I think these concerns are not ridiculous in the slightest, and worrying about "Big Brother" is a completely reasonable fear. It's already been shown how much both the government and tech companies are watching us, and the rate of data collection and surveillance only seems to be increasing. Yes, you might not care if someone is reading your emails, but unauthorized, unknown access to your microphone and webcam? I'd be hard pressed to find someone who simply says "yeah that's totally fine."
The debate of how tech companies should handle privacy is a precarious one, and one I don't have a hard fast answer for. If a company provides a means of communication for terrorists, for example, should they allow the government access to these records to aid in investigation? We know these companies already have access to the data used for targeted advertising and data analytics. If using it can help save lives, why shouldn't they?
As with many issues revolving around tech ethics, I can't draw a solid line where a user's privacy ends and national security takes precedence. At the same time, though, I feel like there almost HAS to be a solid line. It cannot be on a case by case basis, because then any action could somehow be morally justified with enough mental gymnastics. Terrorism and violence are huge threats, but the simple fact is that most people are not terrorists nor are they violent. Because of this fact, I believe that privacy should take precedence over national security in most cases. This isn't to say that it should be complete security and privacy across the board for everyone all the time, but it should be priority number one the majority of the time.
True freedom means you can think and say what you want, AND have the privacy to do so. I believe that the core of American freedoms would be lost if we did not live in a state where privacy was held as a core protection.
In the past, I haven't given much thought to individual privacy if I am being totally honest. I've sort of had the mindset of "I have nothing to hide so why should I care?" I'm not involved in anything shady, and really believe that if literally my entire digital footprint was leaked to the world, the worst that would happen would me some mild embarrassment. After this week of discussion, though, my opinion has shifted rather drastically.
Snowden's adage of "not caring about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like not caring about free speech because you have nothing to say" really stuck with me. What happens if the day comes where you DO have something to hide? By then, since you've been complacent in the privacy war thus far, it's too late.
Even if that day never comes, I still see great value in internet privacy. There are many things I can easily see that, while not illegal, people would want to be kept private. Medical records, education information, and others are datasets that could definitely harm someone if put in the wrong hands.
I think these concerns are not ridiculous in the slightest, and worrying about "Big Brother" is a completely reasonable fear. It's already been shown how much both the government and tech companies are watching us, and the rate of data collection and surveillance only seems to be increasing. Yes, you might not care if someone is reading your emails, but unauthorized, unknown access to your microphone and webcam? I'd be hard pressed to find someone who simply says "yeah that's totally fine."
The debate of how tech companies should handle privacy is a precarious one, and one I don't have a hard fast answer for. If a company provides a means of communication for terrorists, for example, should they allow the government access to these records to aid in investigation? We know these companies already have access to the data used for targeted advertising and data analytics. If using it can help save lives, why shouldn't they?
As with many issues revolving around tech ethics, I can't draw a solid line where a user's privacy ends and national security takes precedence. At the same time, though, I feel like there almost HAS to be a solid line. It cannot be on a case by case basis, because then any action could somehow be morally justified with enough mental gymnastics. Terrorism and violence are huge threats, but the simple fact is that most people are not terrorists nor are they violent. Because of this fact, I believe that privacy should take precedence over national security in most cases. This isn't to say that it should be complete security and privacy across the board for everyone all the time, but it should be priority number one the majority of the time.
True freedom means you can think and say what you want, AND have the privacy to do so. I believe that the core of American freedoms would be lost if we did not live in a state where privacy was held as a core protection.
Comments
Post a Comment