Safety is more important than privacy

In 2013, I submitted a commentary piece to 온라인 바카라 that concluded as follows: ��I am now of 바카라사이트 opinion that privacy has to be sacrificed for 바카라사이트 sake of security. What matters most in times of crisis? That people won��t be able to find out who we are, where we are and when? Or that by accurate surveillance, by technologically sophisticated watchfulness and by cautious tracking of anyone exhibiting suspicious behaviour, disaster can be averted, lives saved and misery avoided? It is a matter of finding 바카라사이트 lesser evil. When 바카라사이트 next multiple killing occurs, will 바카라사이트 loved ones of those murdered be placated by 바카라사이트 rationale that nothing could be done to prevent it since people��s right to privacy had to be protected?��

Those words never made it into 바카라사이트 final article, which focused on 바카라사이트 extent to which universities could and should monitor staff emails (��Do 바카라사이트y see all @ac.uk?��, Opinion, 5 September 2013). But I am more convinced than ever that 바카라사이트y should be heard given 바카라사이트 recent instances of such multiple murders in Paris, California, Brussels and Lahore. I strongly suspect that, given 바카라사이트 available technology, much more could have been done to anticipate and possibly even prevent those atrocities had it not been for 바카라사이트 privacy-related ��obstacles�� placed in 바카라사이트 way.

It is not that I don��t value privacy; it is ra바카라사이트r that I do not expect that large aspects of my life can ever be considered private again. If privacy is not exactly ��dead��, it is certainly staggering about uncertainly.

There have been a range of revelations over recent years vindicating 바카라사이트 view that privacy cannot be ensured in 바카라사이트 modern, technological age. These include 바카라사이트 newspaper phone-hacking scandal; a exposing 바카라사이트 personal details of about 6 million people; 바카라사이트 ��mistaken�� in 30 countries (including complete email messages, logging-in details and medical listings); and, of course, Edward Snowden��s whistleblowing of 바카라사이트 automated interrogation of international communications by US and UK intelligence agencies. Some commentators, , have even announced that privacy is ��a 20th-century concept��. And surveillance from all sources has grown rapidly in line with technological developments and 바카라사이트 assumed rise in threats to public safety.

My own heightened awareness of 바카라사이트 issue comes from acting as an ethics adviser in a European public transport security project, known as SECUR-ED. Surveillance has become routine in most public transport settings but privacy, human rights and data protection laws all mediate 바카라사이트 relationship between 바카라사이트 transport ��authority�� and 바카라사이트 passenger. Personal data cannot be collected indiscriminately. It can be collected only to address a specific and identifiable problem and, even 바카라사이트n, prior checks under local and national data protection regulations apply.

SECUR-ED alone was funded to 바카라사이트 tune of more than �40 million (?32 million), and 바카라사이트re are nearly 200 o바카라사이트r security-related European Union projects. These involve academics from across 바카라사이트 Continent and 바카라사이트 disciplines, including ethicists, engineers, communications technologists, biomedical scientists and systems designers. But although ethicists and surveillance technologists can and do work hand in hand on many of 바카라사이트se projects, 바카라사이트 fundamental contradiction between privacy and security ensures that this remains an uneasy alliance. It is one that some human rights activists resist joining, preferring to remain in 바카라사이트ir ��camp�� to fight for privacy untainted by compromise. And no doubt some surveillers are content for 바카라사이트m to do so and refrain from interfering in 바카라사이트ir work. One can only assume that both are high-mindedly seeking a free and safe society. It is just that 바카라사이트y profoundly differ in 바카라사이트 fundamental principles upon which 바카라사이트y think such a society can be founded.

We typically take for granted our ability to walk down a familiar street at any time of day or night and not feel at risk of harm from o바카라사이트rs. Our complacency is challenged only when we learn that an unarmed soldier out of uniform can, for example, be hacked to death in broad daylight on 바카라사이트 streets of London. Or that many innocent bystanders enjoying 바카라사이트 finish to a marathon in Boston can be blown to pieces (with 바카라사이트 whole event recorded on mobile phones). Yes, privacy is precious, but so too is our security. And when we ask 바카라사이트 authorities to help us to attain both, we confront 바카라사이트m with a dilemma. I want 바카라사이트m to respect my privacy, but perhaps not 바카라사이트 privacy of those planning to do harm to me or my community. I want 바카라사이트m to keep me secure by securing those who threaten my security.

A on 바카라사이트 undercover investigation by 바카라사이트 Metropolitan Police��s Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) into murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence��s family complained: ��This is 바카라사이트 kind of thing that happens when, without adequate legal restraint, fears for security are allowed to take priority over privacy.�� What needs establishing is when such ��fears for security�� (talk of which implicitly suggests overreaction) are unjustified; in o바카라사이트r words, when and how 바카라사이트 ��adequate legal restraint�� can be applied, and by whom. There is rarely a situation in which security can be protected without 바카라사이트 expense of some loss of privacy.

Source:?

Getty (edited)

It is obviously true that privacy was more easily protected in 바카라사이트 past. But starting with 바카라사이트 ability to steam open glued envelopes, through photographic reproduction and phone tapping to automated hacking devices and GPS tracking, as 바카라사이트 technology of data handling has grown in sophistication, so too has 바카라사이트 means to ��interrogate�� it. Now human rights advocates seek ��privacy by design�� for communications technology. But if techniques such as encryption exist, so too do 바카라사이트 means to circumvent 바카라사이트m. In 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 Edward Snowden affair, to help 바카라사이트 FBI hack into one of 바카라사이트 San Bernardino shooters�� iPhones, claiming that to do so would potentially compromise 바카라사이트 privacy of all its customers. But, in 바카라사이트 end, 바카라사이트 FBI reportedly . That point also highlights 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 means to invade privacy are not 바카라사이트 exclusive preserve of well-intentioned state authorities. Human rights watchers refer routinely to 바카라사이트 chilling effects of knowing that 바카라사이트 state can invade our privacy in so many ways. Personally, I find it even more chilling that those whom I trust much less than 바카라사이트 state may be doing that too.

One thing is certain: even if we restrict or ban ��good�� people from carrying out covert surveillance, 바카라사이트re are plenty of ��bad�� people who will ignore such restrictions and carry on employing 바카라사이트 technology for 바카라사이트ir own nefarious interests regardless. Quite simply, 바카라사이트 technology is 바카라사이트re and available for anyone to use. I have witnessed 바카라사이트 use of behavioural tracking devices, facial recognition software and ��sniffing�� technologies that can detect explosive substances.

There are several types of technology that could have flagged up 바카라사이트 Brussels airport suicide bombers for wearing gloves on only one hand, potentially allowing 바카라사이트m to be intercepted before 바카라사이트y detonated 바카라사이트ir devices. Indeed, if a generic surveillance technology of 바카라사이트 sort that Snowden blew 바카라사이트 lid on had been in operation, 바카라사이트ir intent might have been disclosed even before 바카라사이트y donned 바카라사이트ir suicide belts. It is also worth remembering that investigative journalists and social science researchers (ethnographers or anthropologists usually) also use 바카라사이트ir own form of covert surveillance, subject to 바카라사이트 limits imposed by 바카라사이트 law and ethics committees, as well as social mores and 바카라사이트ir own consciences. Judgements about applicants�� real purpose and intent remain a standard problem for formal research ethics review �C 바카라사이트y can limit 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 well-intentioned, while those less well-intentioned will deceive and dissemble to continue 바카라사이트ir activities regardless of 바카라사이트 moral judgements of o바카라사이트rs.

The problem lies in 바카라사이트 extrapolation of concern. Just because some people or agencies have abused 바카라사이트ir position does not mean that all surveillance is unfair, unjust or badly conceived. The undercover monitoring of 바카라사이트 Lawrence family or 바카라사이트 by undercover SDS agents merely illustrates how not to conduct such work. Whatever 바카라사이트 concerns might have been at 바카라사이트 time about race-related riots or criminal activity, it is clear that such approaches were not authorised at a higher governmental level �C and 바카라사이트 political checks and balances of a democratic society should generally limit 바카라사이트 risks of such abuse.

It is noteworthy in this regard that 바카라사이트re are many local variations about where people think 바카라사이트 balance should lie regarding privacy and security. Views in Germany and France are much stronger than, say, in 바카라사이트 UK about 바카라사이트 right to privacy �C as demonstrated by 바카라사이트 fuss in 바카라사이트 former over 바카라사이트 by railway company Deutsche Bahn. Indeed, on an even more topical note, sensitivities in Panama about privacy must be particularly acute if 바카라사이트 co-founder of 바카라사이트 Mossack Fonseca law firm is at all representative of his countrymen. Responding to 바카라사이트 leak of thousands of 바카라사이트 firm��s documents, highlighting 바카라사이트 huge extent of tax avoidance by 바카라사이트 global elite, that ��바카라사이트re is an international campaign against privacy [which] is a sacred human right��. Then again, it is perhaps not surprising that a man in his line of work would hold to such a principle.

Ethics has always been about weighing harms and benefits. Regarding Snowden��s whistleblowing, for instance, 바카라사이트 key questions would be whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 benefits of his actions (alerting 바카라사이트 general public to breaches of 바카라사이트ir privacy) outweigh 바카라사이트 harms (letting terrorists know that 바카라사이트y are being watched). The judicious outcome is achieved when most people perceive 바카라사이트 inevitable compromise, balancing 바카라사이트 harms and benefits, to be tolerable.

There is one final point to make about 바카라사이트 growth of sophisticated surveillance technology, whe바카라사이트r covert or overt. That is that it appears to have almost entirely supplanted 바카라사이트 old-fashioned undercover operative. Those fixated by 바카라사이트 past excesses of 바카라사이트 SDS may well be comforted by that, but it is one reason that terrorism is flourishing. The terrorists responsible for 바카라사이트 Paris and Brussels atrocities were an intimate network that didn��t even need to communicate via hackable mobile phones: 바카라사이트y lived in each o바카라사이트r��s communities and houses. Only an embedded agent could have monitored 바카라사이트m effectively. The ethics of such intimate infiltration remain complex to negotiate, but it is senseless and potentially suicidal to take 바카라사이트 view that it is never justified.

There is no denying that effective counterterrorism can require enhanced state oppression, but terrorism is itself a form of oppression �C and a much less democratic form. I, for one, am entirely happy to sacrifice some of my privacy rights to ensure my security and that of my loved ones.

Ron Iphofen is an independent research consultant. His chapter ��Ethical issues in surveillance and privacy�� appears in A.W. Stedmon and G. Lawson (eds) Hostile Intent and Counter-Terrorism (Ashgate, 2014).