Skip to main content

Speech Under Surveillance


As the discussion of the NSA's surveillance program continues, it's important to reflect on the role privacy plays in a free society. As analysts and experts debate the scope and degree of access, the PRISM leak shows us that our communications and personal information are vulnerable. Even if no one is in fact listening, reading, or tracking, someone might be, so we cannot assume that any information transmitted over any communication network or held by any third party is safe from scrutiny.

Why does this level of scrutiny make us feel less free? For one, with the loss of privacy comes the loss of a little bit of autonomy. Agree or disagree with prevailing social norms, when in public there is a clear pressure to conform to them. In private, a person can shrug off that pressure and act solely on his or her own judgment. Privacy theorists from John Stuart Mill to Tim Scanlon emphasize the freedom of the private sphere as an important proving ground for developing a sense of autonomy, an important ingredient of freedom.

I find the autonomy argument interesting, but I don't think it stops there. Considering the current situation, the principal concern is not the fully private domain, but the domain of information shared between individuals. Free speech and free association entails the ability to share what we want with whom we want. I can share my opinions on a political candidate with a sympathetic friend but not with a colleague I don't want to antagonize. This kind of discretion is important both for protecting ourselves from other people's biases and for providing a safe space for discussion and exchange.

When all of our communications are subject to eavesdropping, we lose that safe space. I no longer feel secure in disclosing my opinions even to trusted friends. As a society, we stop speaking to each other about anything of substance, anything that might invite suspicion, investigation, or persecution. Each person becomes an isolate island of opinion, a seemingly tiny mote of dissent in an ocean of uneasy acquiescence. A democratic society is only healthy if citizens are talking to one another, debating law and policy, and recognizing their important role as constituents of the state.

As third-party service providers like Google have increasing control and custody of our information, we need to focus on how to keep maintain privacy of our personal information and our communications. In current policy, third party custodians present a vulnerability because there is an assumption that without some explicit or established confidentiality agreement, any information we turn over to a third party does not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Since it doesn't seem like we're going to stop using Google anytime soon, it will become increasingly important to demand that our information-management services carry strong privacy or confidentiality guarantees. Google's call for transparency in the PRISM debate has been a good sign. While lots of our data runs through Google's hands, they seem to have a sense of stewardship over that information. Of course, if the NSA has back doors or is intercepting information during transmission, Google's policies may serve as only a thin protection.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 1: Utilitarianism

There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial.
There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, the Lab…

Fair Use Part 2: Subtleties

Now that you've had the time to digest the basics of fair use, it's time to talk about some common misunderstandings and problems that arise with regard to this aspect of copyright law. As you might have noticed from last time, fair use a complex issue, one in which various concerns must be weighed with no guiding standard as to how much impact each factor should have. Even more problematically, US courts have stayed away from fair use cases for the most part. Very few actually reach a judge, and only four fair use cases have been heard by the Supreme Court. As such, there is very little jurisprudence to clarify the law. As such, fair use is a ripe subject for confusion and debate. Let's begin with the most crucial clarification.
Fair Use is not a right While one might hear talk about “fair use rights,” there really is no such thing. The National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property (released Sept 1995; for more information see: http://www.uspto.g…

History and Identity

Yesterday the European Court of Justice issued an important ruling that has the tech policy world buzzing about privacy, search engines and personal history. In short, the court ruled that the EU Data Protection Directive gives a person the right to demand that old information be purged from search results. The particular case involves an attorney seeking removal of links to announcements about a real-estate auction connected with a debt settlement in 1998. While the ECJ made a number of interesting moves in the case (including a welcome argument that the distinction between data processors and data controllers does not make as much sense today as it did in 1995 when the Directive went into effect), the big consequence everyone is talking is the right to be forgotten.

The long memory of the Internet is a feature it's hard not to love and fear at the same time. Whether you have something to hide or not, if it's on the Internet, it stays on the Internet (most of the time, at lea…