Following the dissemination of Edward Snowden’s leaked documents of the NSA in 2013, it became public knowledge that the NSA and other security agencies were actively surveilling on its citizens and the global community. In the face of such mass surveillance, unrestricted privacy is becoming rarer as both our actions in the physical world and within technology can be monitored and watched. Many have argued that privacy should be preserved as it is necessary for individuals to maintain their autonomy and individuality, while others argue that the restrictions on privacy were in fact decided, either directly or indirectly, by the people. This controversy sparks the question, “how should privacy be hierarchized when compared to technology and …show more content…
The people in this camp believe that a lack of privacy is detrimental to human behavior, creating a more conformist society or a society where its citizens feel unsafe in being independent. One member of this group is Glenn Greenwald, who centers his argument on privacy being profoundly important as it is synonymous with independence and freedom. Greenwald claims that “when somebody knows that they might be watched, the behavior they engage in is vastly more conformist and compliant,” (Greenwald 8). Greenwald further claims that once someone’s privacy has been lost, all of their actions, however mundane or embarrassing, could now in full view of a third party. This knowledge can create a sense of shame, and to avoid this shame, Greenwald states that people begin to limit their decisions to something only expected by social norms or by others. Greenwald states that people choose to become “harmless and unthreatening and uninteresting” to show that they have nothing to hide in the face of surveillance (Greenwald 4). Greenwald equates mass surveillance to a Panopticon, a “prison in the mind”, where it “suppresses our own freedom” since people know that their privacy can be lost at any moment (Greenwald 9, 14). Inherently, people take many steps to maintain their privacy, from using locks on doors to passwords on their personal accounts. We do so to create a …show more content…
whose main claim is that mass surveillance makes the surveilled feel afraid and unsafe to express themselves and their beliefs. As opposed to Greenwald and Gutting who focus on mass surveillance connection with the Panopticon, Starr et al. focus on interviewing those involved in social justice organizations that have been surveilled. Through these multiple interviews, people seem to be “paralyzed” under surveillance, afraid to speak out or express their First Amendment rights (Starr et. al 260). Many interviewees in the text claim feeling scared, suspicious, or cautious, not only affecting the way they interact with the group, but also their motivation to be involved with such organizations in the face of mass surveillance. This fear also permeates into many facets of the protestors lives, with interviewees being cautious of attending protests, being associated with certain organizations, and even communicating with other members of the group to avoid the threat of undercover agents. Starr et al. claim that “strategic and ideological dialogue has been both reduced and self-censored” as a result of this created “security culture” (Starr et al. 262, 267). Now, “organizations do not feel safe even undertaking [the] most pacific type of action”, in fear of just being under surveillance (Starr et al. 267). Starr et al., similar to Greenwald and Gutting, agrees that a lack of privacy psychologically affects
The word “privacy” has a different meaning in our society than it did in previous times. You can put on Privacy settings on Facebook, twitter, or any social media sights, however, nothing is truly personal and without others being able to view your information. You can get to know a person’s personal life simply by typing in their name in google. In the chronicle review, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide,'" published on May 15th 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. Solove starts talking about this argument right away in the article and discusses how the nothing-to-hide
Rosen portrays our society as completely exposed, giving up all privacy to join, and fit in with the “naked crowd”. Rosen claims that we willing give up all power of privacy in order to fit in with society and be accepted as someone that can be trusted through exposure. He claims that image is the key to establishing trust, not through a relationship or conversation. His thesis presents his views on the subject, “has led us to value exposure over privacy? Why, in short, are we so eager to become members of the Naked Crowd, in which we have the illusion of belonging only when we are exposed?”(Rosen) he states that we value exposure over privacy, and will give away privacy to fit in.
The United States has lived through an age of terrorism and the citizens have come to realize that they would rather ensure the safety of the masses than protect their privacy. Works Cited Cunningham, David. A. "The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left." Social Forces 82.1 (2003): 209–40. JSTOR.com - "The New York Times" Oxford Journals.
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
Zetter, Kim. "World’s Top Surveillance Societies — Updated with Link." Editorial. Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 31 Dec. 2007. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Howard Rheingold notably mentioned, "You can’t assume any place you go is private because the means of surveillance are becoming so affordable and invisible." Judging by the efficiency of American surveillance, it would seem that Rheingold’s outlook stands as of today. Technology has advanced so powerfully that surveillance has become predominant in our society. On nearly every front, American citizens are under a great threat of control as well as persistent, high-tech surveillance.
“You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide.” This phrase was first introduced in George Orwell’s novel 1984, where Orwell created a dictatorial government that addressed itself as “Big Brother”, a sort of benevolent nickname for the higher powers that actually watched over it’s citizens obsessively, and managed their behavior like an eye in the sky. The phrase has also been used in British closed-circuit television (otherwise known simply as video surveillance), which was used experimentally during the 1970’s. During that time period, citizens rebelled against the higher-power that had assumed the right to sift through personal information for the sake of monitoring individuals. New-age technology has herded first-world citizens to document their lives for the public, using methods such as “Tweeting”, “Snapchatting”, and “Facebooking”.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
One of the many details shown is that mass surveillance has not had an apparent impact on the prevention of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Most of the information gathered has not been used to impede a terrorist attack. Surveillance does not protect the rights to life, property and so on from being violated by terrorists. However it gives the citizen...
James Madison once said “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” To gain a better understanding of a society, one must gain knowledge of the needs and wants the citizens’ demand from the country’s representatives. In every country the needed to protect its citizens is the same. In some nations, security is a higher priority which causes sacrifices to be made to obtain an indefinite protection against all rivals. In Peter Singer’s essay titled “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets” he states that there is a way that governments can collect information by using technology; to allow more ‘openness’ and exposure as an increase of unknown surveillance that the public is not aware of. Singer’s essay also talks about how also with the rise of secrecy within politics; organizations such as ‘WikiLeaks’ and ‘Anonymous’ reveal to the world what is really going on within their privacy. Benefits come from both sides in a world where surveillance exists to the highest priority with or without privacy.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
With continuing revelations of government surveillance, much has been said about the “trade-off” between privacy and security and finding the “right balance” between the two. As Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times, “this way of framing the issue makes sense if [one] understand[s] privacy solely as a political or legal concept.” In this context, the loss of privacy might seem to be a small price to pay to ensure one's safety. However, the relevance of privacy extends far beyond the political and legal sphere. Privacy – or the lack thereof – affects all aspects of one's life; it is a state of human experience.
Privacy from governments has been under assault increasing amounts in the last 100 years. Technology has revolutionized the concept, as before we had microphones, telephones, wiretaps, video cameras, someone would actually need to trespass to violate your privacy. For example, you would need to actually be in someone?s house to eavesdrop on his or her conversation without technological help[1]. Privacy protection can be looked at as how far society can intrude into a person?s personal affairs.