Big Brother: Why Not?
Almer S. Tigelaar 11 / 08 / 2011, 09:00
Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, caused a big stir when he remarked: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”. Connected to this: a friend recently asked me the question: If we would place camera’s everywhere that would track your every move continuously, as in George Orwell’s 1984, why would that be a problem, other than it making you feel uncomfortable? What are the rational arguments against constant nation-wide surveillance?
It might seem as if twenty-four hour surveillance everywhere is a good idea. Admittedly, security camera’s are often initially installed for good reasons: safety and security. The recordings can be used to prosecute criminals and perhaps even to detect situations about to spin out of control: a hot topic. Schmidt’s argument is really a variation on the old adagium: “if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear”, right?
Wrong, apart from the technical issue of generating too much data to sort through, the more important ethical problems are the topic of George Orwell’s 1984: it’s all about who controls the information that is collected and the potential for misuse. For those not familiar with the book, the origin of the term Big Brother: it is about a dystopian society of which all members are under constant surveillance, even in their own homes. The government controls, and heavily censors, the flow of information to all citizens even rewriting history, and also dictates not only what constitutes acceptable behaviour, but goes as far as punishing people for what they think: thoughtcrimes. Some parallels with this are also in Philip K. Dick’s short story Minority Report, which has a well known film adaptation. Science fiction apart: history is full of people with good intentions that become corrupted, so it would be rather naive to believe such scenarios will not unfold in reality.
Some years ago I was taught that data by itself has no meaning, it only acquires meaning when you interpret it which turns it into information. The collection of bytes that make up the Internet page you are looking at right now has no meaning without this particular part being interpreted by your browser as text and other parts as images, links, etcetera. This brings me to my main argument: recorded data with an innocent interpretation today, may not be be viewed as such tomorrow. There is ongoing debate as for how long data should be retained, and the benefits of doing so. Keep it longer and you may catch more criminals, but you also open up the potential for unethical or even criminal use of that same recorded data. Misuse need not even be perpetrated by a totalitarian regime as in 1984: data can be stolen or leaked.
A former colleague has written his thesis about the topic of data retention and degradation in light of privacy. The simple fact remains: if something is not recorded anywhere, it can not be used and thus also not be misused. Security expert Bruce Schneier’s stance is that privacy is a basic human need stating that the debate is really about liberty versus control: “Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.”
Some rightly point out that security camera’s can provide a false sense of security. It can’t be denied that they discourage unlawful behaviour. However, they are a stopgap solution that does not solve the underlying problem of criminal behaviour, nor did the some 8000 surveillance cameras in London prevent riots. All the money spent on those eyes in the sky had perhaps better been invested in crime prevention and on real cops. While I applaud using modern technology for solving crimes, technology is not, and should never be, an end itself.
I have to say that it surprises me that people are happy nowadays to voluntarily transmit their exact physical coordinates in real-time to all kinds of services: apparantly cameras are evil, but no one appears to see a problem if something is packaged as a cute ‘helpful’ app. Obviously, the concern extends far beyond surveillance cameras alone. We can learn a valuable lesson from an old soul: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” – Benjamin Franklin.
9 comments
add your commentHey Almer, nice blog. Although you already touched on it a little, I think it is good to point out that such a wealth of information, even in the "right" hands, will inevitably attract corruption. Imagine what some mafia could do if they knew everyone's location at all times… the money that they would offer for such information will surely buy them into the police somehow. And, what's even worse: if some citizens would try to fight this corruption, the mafia would have enough power to stop them.
In a healthy democracy, there is a power balance that allows citizens to correct abuse of power by the government. Providing all our information to the government tips this balance and is bad for democracy.
silexron 11 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
Hi Almer, very well written. What surprised me, is that the London police have been more or less blamed that they didn't or couldn't spy on the communication between young people, to prevent the riots…. I can remember the comments and aversion against the demands of so called 'evil' countries to get access to the blackberry network. Of course, you lose every discussion if it comes to safety. Nobody understands why the privacy of criminals should be respected. Prime-minister Cameron states in front of the parliament that 'no further human rights concerns about publishing these photographs will get in the way of bringing those criminals to justice', receiving the enthusiastic applause of the members of parliament in return. The fact that those criminals have not been sentenced by a judge can simply be forgotten…..
HaroldvanHeerdeon 11 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
Maybe if we're able to create a perfect artificial system that can handle and analyze all this information on our behalf.
For now, I personally don't mind but favor Bruce Schneier's view. So it's okay as long as I feel I'm in control. So I have control over what is stored and who can access this information.
Preferably by default I'm the only one who has access. Everything else has not, until granted explicitly by me. No exceptions allowed or you break the law.
The law? Yes, the law! Otherwise I don't believe we'll ever see a change with people's willingness to accept that this could have great benefits for them personally as well as society.
You should lower the potential and perceived risk for people. Possibly by adapting existing or adopting new laws.
So in case your insurance rate goes up because your insurance firm finds out you've got a rare decease running down your family. You should be protected by law. Simple as that.
If an individual would ever experience any personal disadvantage from information stored in the system, this harm should by default be conceived as "illegal" due to a failure of the system and as such be compensated.
The first signs of the gloomy scenario everybody always thinks of when 1984 gets mentioned is of course (in part) already well on it's way on the web.
Great post Almer, imho. Having a nice time in the US?
roelvanbommelon 21 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
@HaroldvanHeerde Policitians often resort to desperate measures to please their electorate. To prevent witch hunts we luckily have the trias politica.
almer.tigelaaron 23 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
@roelvanbommel Tread carefully, there may be a world of difference between “feeling in control” and actually “being in control”. The former may not be enough, but by the time you find out: you might just be too late. Your call for better legislation is a valid one. However, these bureaucratic institutions have a hard time keeping of with the peace of technology, and that’s not something that will soon change. Barring that the view on what is “illegal” use of information remains, unfortunately, subjective.
almer.tigelaaron 23 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
@Sander E Exactly what people often forget is that a government gets its power democratically from the people and is thus supposed to use this power to the benefit of the lives of its citizens, not to suppress them.
almer.tigelaaron 23 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
@HaroldvanHeerde Policitians often resort to desperate measures to please their electorate. To prevent witch hunts we luckily have the trias politica.
almer.tigelaaron 23 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
@roelvanbommel Tread carefully, there may be a world of difference between "feeling in control" and actually "being in control". The former may not be enough, but by the time you find out: you might just be too late. Your call for better legislation is a valid one. However, these bureaucratic institutions have a hard time keeping of with the peace of technology, and that's not something that will soon change. Barring that the view on what is "illegal" use of information remains, unfortunately, subjective.
almer.tigelaaron 23 / 08 / 2011 wrote:
@almer.tigelaar Hey Almer, I feel you're right that there's a thin line between feeling in control and being in control.
When are you ever in control if it comes to life? Best is to be properly insured. Although that's one of the implications I have in my personal life. I share my location all the time, does that imply I'm not fully covered with my home insurance? Hope not or I'd need a new insurance agent.
Anyway, I like to think we tech savvy peeps are reasonably in control and can help out those who have absolutely no clue. Among others the politicians coming up with the legislation. The reason this topic is often subjective is partly due to the fact there are no laws of course
roelvanbommelon 23 / 08 / 2011 wrote: