Where do you draw the line between individual privacy and national security? In a democracy, which one is paramount?
After the readings and videos for this week, I can’t simply dismiss all the stories I hear as conspiracy theories and nothing more. Thinking about these issues often instills fear for a variety of reasons. I think wholistically national security is more paramount truly ‘safe’ democracy, but I recognize that these fears must be addressed as barriers public trust and acceptance, and as the basis for restrictions of acceptable use:
- Abuse of power / intentional malicious intent
For me, the scariest articles we read were those on the abuse of power. It’s hard to trust agencies with extensive histories of such abuse either personally (the FBI girlfriend spying incident) or at an organizational level (as revealed by the Snowden leaks). In order to gain our trust, the government needs to strongly reprimand such abuses of power, and should invest more ‘security’ to prevent such activities from happening in the first place.
- Potential of leaks and being hacked
The government may have good intentions in wanting personal ‘backdoor’ access to information, but that’s only half the story. If a backdoor exists, there is no 100% guarantee it won’t eventually fall into the wrong hands, either through leaks or through independent hacking. As long as this possibility exists, there will always be inherent risks to these kinds of endeavors. I’m not sure what the best solution to this problem is, but I don’t think the possibility should be completely ignored, as it often is in government addresses on security issues.
- Morally ambiguous/immoral laws
As mentioned before, national security involves a huge amount of trust in our government, which includes laws passed regarding security. As citizens, we must ensure that laws passed adhere to our moral codes, or else we should stick up for our beliefs. This is especially true when it comes to security. Good moral laws (should hopefully) lead to a stronger trust in our government.
- Institutionalized discrimination and racism
Institutionalized racism is a hot topic in modern politics. Security done wrong enables the automation of such discrimination. As a safeguard, I think there should be more formalized legal procedures around security, such as the ability to ‘appeal’ security issues. The issue that was brought up in class of the black activist group being classified as a terrorist group is unsettling, and needs to be addressed on all levels before security can be used safely and effectively.
- Being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people
On a personal level, security cases have proved that your ‘digital self image’ is often beyond your control. This is evident in the story of the Harvard student who was kicked out of the country because of his friends’ social media posts. This raises fear of being caught even if I don’t personally think I have anything to hide. I think this kind of far-reaching evidence should not be allowed in making large scale legal decisions. Maybe it can be used in the initial process of gathering intelligence, but ultimately should be used to incriminate someone unless they have personally committed a crime.
- Being punished for ‘non-illegal’ activites
Sometimes we want to hide information for various reasons. For example mayor Pete Buttigieg hid the fact that he’s gay for many years. Had this information leaked before he decided to share, his career could have quickly taken a turn for the worse. Even if this information is never leaked, knowing that the government knows non-public information about you is unnerving.