This post is a summary of two articles. The first with the title above was published in April of 2012, at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/03/privacy-state-snooping-true-democracy. The second was published in August 2012 at http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/privacy_why_it_matters_much_more_than_you_think/
As we welcome the glimmers of democracy in Burma and applaud the heroic struggle for freedom and rights in countries such as Russia, China and Syria, it beggars belief that Britain now contemplates a law that will allow police and security services to access data from every phone call, email, internet connection and text message, without a warrant. The millions who suffer under dictatorships will be astonished that we are about to let slip, with so little protest, the freedoms for which they continue to sacrifice so much. Privacy from state snooping is the defining quality of any true democracy. If the bill next month is made law, Britain will overnight become a substantially less free country, our status as one of the beacons of freedom seriously diminished. This is among the most serious threats to freedom proposed anywhere in the democratic world. It compete with the very worst authoritarian laws and the last government`s morbid obsession with personal information. Those promoting the law, which will allow real-time surveillance of a person`s communications and their web usage, insist that the state only wants to know who is calling who, and the content of message, emails will remain private. It is an assurance that should be treated with the greatest scepticism for two reasons. The law of function creep means that opressive measures passed to address terrorism and crime are invariably deployed in much less threatening contexts. For example, the spread of surveillance under the last government`s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act resulted in local councils using counter-terror methods to mount undercover operations against fly-tippers and those suspected of lying in school applications. Once the police have these powers to insist that internet and phone companies hand over our data without our knowledge, it will be a short step for the same people to argue that they need to start reading our communications. These things ought to be a deal-breaker for the coalition because they go against everything Liberals Democrats they believed before the last election, and indeed against the coalition agreement itself, which placed an emphasis on privacy and civil liberties. Perhaps one thing in the politicians defence is that both the surveillance bill and the proposal to greatly increase secret hearings were inspired by civil servants and agency heads, rather than politicians: this is the agenda of the unelected officials who never have to go before the electorate and can run their affairs without being inconvenienced by too much public scrutiny. The bill, if becomes law, will vastly increase state power, which is why officials have been lobbying for measures like these. Politicians are there to defend us against such people. When the head of MI5 (Military Intelligence section 5), United Kingdom Security Agency, Jonathan Evans, make these suggestions, they should be told in no uncertain terms that they are unacceptable in a democracy. It is worth fighting in an age when google and the phone companies know so much about us already? The answer comes from the german philosopher Wolfgang Sofsky, who wrote: "Privacy is the citadel of personal freedom, it provides defence against expropriation, importunity and imposition, against power and coercion." The more practical objection is that police and security services are capable of getting things wrong as well as abusing a system that allow such power over ordinary citizens. Given the countless cases of police misconduct and present worries about the standards of Britain`s police, it is probably wise not to hand them such an intrusive tool. This surveillance system is the instrument of a Kafkaesque state that grants itself the right to universal suspicion, while enjoying the protection of a new law, that allows evidence of official misconduct to be heard in secret.
The greatest threat to privacy in contemporary America is a pervasive indifference. Many citizens are willing to give up a certain amount of their personal information to obtain credit cards, post photos on Facebook. After all, if you you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? At least that is the logic flitting through many minds. Read it to jolt your imagination into new territory, and to understand why privacy that many of us sacrifice so readily ought to be held more dear. Garret Keizer, a writer who lives in Vermont, points out, "the chief purpose of privacy is to reconcile his profound desire to be let alone with his faith in community and collective enterprise. Yankee reticence combined with town-hall meeting citizenship , reminiscent of Robert Frost`s belief that good fences make good neighbors. Keizer aims to show that privacy, and respect for privacy, are core humanist values that should be enshrined in the heart of any society aspiring to social justice. He argues this against two distinct points of view that treat privacy as uninportant. The first, and by far the most common, regard privacy as a relatively minor right that can and often should cede precedence in favor of commerce and security. But there is another type of skepticism toward privacy rights. To the tech moguls who seems to think we ought to blithely hand over our personal information, he retorts. "If privacy were not a good thing, the wealthier would not enjoy more of it than less wealthy do." Keizer`s observations on the embattled privacy of the poor, the distinctions between privacy and loneliness and the essential link between the degradation of public life and disrespect for the sanctuary of private life will serve readers of all political flavors. I am not totally sure if Keizer successfully demonstrate the compatibility of privacy and to each according to its need. Yet I am entirely convinced by Keizer`s argument that a society that does not value personal privacy can not plausibly claim to value humanity. This may be a far bigger conundrum than one slender book can solve, but the book "Privacy" by Keizer is a step in the right direction.
