This post is a summary of two articles written by the same author, Bruce Schneier. The first one, with the title above, published at http://www.wired.com/, on May 18,2006. The other, with the title of, "Web snooping is a dangerous move." published at http://www.cnn.com/, on September 29, 2010.
The most common retort against privacy advocates, by those in favor of cameras, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures, is this line: "If you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" Possible answer: " Because you might do something wrong with my information." They accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It is not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect. Two proverbs say it best: "Who watches the watchers?" and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies. Whoever they happen to be at the time. Privacy protect us from abuses by those in power, even if we are doing nothing wrong. Privacy is a basic human need. A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the constitution that it never occurred to them to call privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course, being watched in your own home was so unreasonable. You could watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It is intrinsic to the concept of liberty. If we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of own uniqueness. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable. How many of us have paused during conversation, maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context. This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is the life in former East Germany. And it is our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives. Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign attack or under domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that is why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
President Obama will seek sweeping laws enabling law enforcement to more easily eavesdrop on the internet. Technologies are changing and modern digital systems are not as easy to monitor as traditional telephones. The government wants to force companies to redesign their communications systems and information networks to facilitate surveillance. The proposal may seem extreme, but unfortunately, it is not unique. Just a few months ago, the governments of U.A.E ( United Arab Emirates ) and Saudi Arabia threatened to ban BlackBerry devices unless the company made eavesdropping easier. China has already built a massive surveillance system to better control its citizens. Formerly reserved for totalitarian countries, this wholesale surveillance of citizens has moved into the democratic world as well. Governments like Sweden, Canada and U.K. are debating laws giving their police new powers of internet surveillance. These laws are dangerous, both for citizens of China and citizens of Western democracies. Forcing companies to redesign their communications products and services to facilitate government eavesdropping reduces privacy and liberty, that is obvious. But the laws also make us less safe. An infrastructure conducive to surveillance and control invites surveillance and control, both by the people you expect and the people you do not. Any surveillance and control system must itself be secured. Why does anyone think that only authorized law enforcement will mine collected internet data or eavesdrop our conversations? These risks are not theoretical. After September 11, the NSA ( National Security Agency ) built a surveillance infractructure to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mails within the U.S. Although rules stated that only non-Americans and international phone calls were to be listened to, actual practice did not always match those rules. NSA analysts collected more data than they were authorized to and used the system to spy on famous people. Surveillance free systems protect the lives of people in totalitarian countries around the world. They allow people to exchange ideas even when the government wants to limit free exchange. They power citizen journalism, political movements and social change. For example, anonymity of twitter saved the lives of Irarian dissidents. No matters what the eavesdroppers say, these systems cost too much and put us all at greater risk.
