Unreasonable is a relative standard
Here is what I would regard as a vigorous and intelligent critique of the “surveillance state” from Mikko Hypponen, a Finnish computer security expert:
The most basic point here is the one he quotes from Dilma Roussef:
In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among Nations.
This isn’t completely wrong, but the issues are relative, not absolute. The fact that the National Security Agency (NSA) has the capability to collect everything I write or say via the internet does not mean I am not free. After all, the many companies providing my internet services already have everything. What do they do with it? Mostly send me ads, which is annoying but certainly not infringing on my freedom (only my patience).
The vital issue is this: to what use does NSA put the information it collects? And what information does it need to achieve the purposes we can all agree on? A Dutch traffic camera caught me running a red light (unintentionally) last summer. I’d have a serious objection to their using that photo to zap me with a Hellfire missile from a drone. But all they’ve done is try to collect what I perceive as an exorbitant fine. I know people who also object in principle to that use of traffic cameras, but most of us don’t.
I’ve got no reason to believe that NSA is doing anything with 99.999…% of what they are collecting. They may have the computers to store it, but they don’t have the human capability to listen to it or read it. I have more evidence that Google knows what to do with the contents of my emails.
The question then is who decides what an appropriate use is, and isn’t. On this score, I can’t give NSA high marks. The court that nominally controls its behavior seems never to disapprove of anything. And NSA was careless with its own secrets, allowing Edward Snowden to abscond with them. How careful are they being with mine?
Yesterday’s US District Court for the District of Columbia decision on the constitutionality of NSA surveillance revolved around whether NSA behavior constituted unreasonable search and seizure, prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. It seems fairly clear that had the US government been able to demonstrate conclusively that its use of the material was necessary to protection of public safety, the court decision could have gone the other way. It failed to meet its burden of proof in this round. They’ll try again on appeal.
I marvel that some people worry a great deal about their own privacy but think their government should have none. What I want from the government is assurance that surveillance is used for protecting the public. That’s what the traffic camera does. That is also what the constitution requires: unreasonable is a relative standard, not an absolute one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
One thought on “Unreasonable is a relative standard”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
The problem is that there are no laws suitable for the advancements in the technology. NSA is doing nothing that very internet or mobile provider is not doing already and trading on it or making/improving their business models. Ad industry would not function properly without their ability to serve me with an ad of a product that I actually need but instead I would be served with a garbage. What NSA is doing every government on the planet is doing as well. Hence reluctancy in China and Russia or anyone else to grant him an asylum. I think that in his manner Snowden is stand up person aside for a moment breach of contract (Idealistic type). He was offered in several places an asylum but he do not want to accept it if it is in exchange for the data he got hold on. I think it would be wise for him to go back to the states and as for the guys from F-Secure we are all lucky they wear a whit hat. Which brings me to an interesting point. Snowden might have done for the industry more in one year than the industry was trying for decades. It will boost security industry and turn attention on the tools and software and knowledge how to protect oneself from credit card thieves, boot net creators, and criminal industry that is raging around the world, outside from the US/Canada borders. In the other words to protect their privacy. It is a personal responsibility today. I would consider the US citizens lucky to have a state that succeeded in ensuring online safety for their citizens. The US now is debating patent laws (or their abuse by patent trolls) and laws against revenge porn. It is an achievement of the society to debate things that were not there before. A debate on NSA is probably necessary as well so the laws can catch up on the advancement in the technology. I say probably because who is to be blamed and who is to go after a Russian or Chinese hacker who just stole your data and wiped out your money from your bank account. The laws can do only so much, on the internet it is personal obligation to learn and use tools to protect oneself. And it is not much to spend 40 bucks on the software to protect one’s privacy and sensitive data.