Edward Snowden, National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower, has said

“I can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom, and basic liberties … with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”

Working as a subcontractor for the NSA, Snowden found and later leaked proof of invasive NSA surveillance of American citizens on a massive scale. His leak of information in 2013 made headlines around the world and sparked a national debate regarding the extent to which data-collection was being conducted. Snowden quickly became a polarizing figure, bringing to the forefront a mass of both pro-surveillance and pro-privacy advocates. Eventually, this led to an equally polarizing public discourse that sought to examine for-profit surveillance companies such as Google and Facebook. This is significant because a conversation about surveillance should be all-encompassing and look to consider all forms of spying and data-collection in order to see the big picture. With the digital age upon our society and technology usage only projected to increase, it’s important to have discussions and ultimately intervene and put restrictions on mass surveillance now, before it escalates to the extreme. Privacy is a vital facet of our human rights and thus should be protected until individuals choose to relinquish it, or are suspect in a criminal investigation, in which surveillance is necessary.

Although perhaps not as largely discussed as NSA surveillance, data collection by services such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and numerous others is a topic of concern for many. More than 230 million tweets, 294 billion emails, and more than one billion Google searches are made daily. The result of so much data being generated is that these services store and analyze a wealth of information about their users. Even more concerning, they participate in big-data collection purely for profit. Because these big-data companies don’t charge for their services, their business models are ones that rely on the exploitation of user data. Once collected, this data is sold to advertisers, who can then target consumers with ads directly related to their online presence and history. The concerns with this revenue system are twofold: this data surveillance and collection isn’t done for our safety, but for the profit of big-data. Secondly, this practice is all encompassing and non-discriminatory, meaning all users are subject to surveillance. This widespread form of data collection is a blatant attack upon our right to privacy. Defined by the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to privacy ensures that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” Despite the declaration, this right is still violated by big-data and therefore breaches of privacy on this scale should be considered nothing less than an abuse.

Some users, however, are willing to give up their privacy in exchange for free services. These people don’t like the alternative to data collection – a system that, unable to exploit their data, imposes fees on users in order to generate revenue.  For those who enjoy the ease and convenience that comes with free use of web apps such as Facebook and Google, giving up the right to privacy is a choice they’re willing to make. In this case, the ability to deny oneself the right to privacy should also be a right given to internet users. If implemented, this system would ensure that those willing to cooperate with data surveillance and collection would receive free services from big-data web apps, while those who choose to exercise their right to privacy would pay for their services. Nonetheless, the choice to give up one’s rights should be a well-informed one, not made in haste. Privacy is a fundamental right and the implications of giving it up are large and far-reaching. In this way, users are able to make their own decisions regarding big-data based on their value systems and beliefs.

For-profit data collection is an important aspect of online surveillance. However, a look at digital privacy as a whole would be incomplete without considering government spying. The fourth amendment to the Constitution gives U.S. citizens the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against  unreasonable searches and seizures.” Additionally, it requires a search warrant be issued in order for law enforcement to conduct a search against the owner’s consent. This system is put in place to protect the privacy of Americans. But it’s being violated daily by the very entity that put the laws in place. As found by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, the NSA now has the legal authority to keep and make use of data regarding U.S. citizens. While approved under the guise of a security measure, this mass surveillance and data collection is just another way in which our right to privacy is being violated. Additionally, this NSA surveillance isn’t targeted at suspects – it collects data on everyone. This constitutes a substantial invasion of privacy and is done so without the use of a search warrant. Not only is this practice unethical, it should be considered unconstitutional from a legal standpoint as it violates the fourth amendment.

This is not to say that breaches of personal privacy are never admissible. Just as search warrants are issued in order for law enforcement to collect information about suspects, they can and should be used to do the same with online data. However, the current large scale data collection by the NSA and for-profit companies represent mass spying, not targeted surveillance.

Digital privacy should be protected from government agencies that seek to collect personal data, as well as corporations that look to exploit it. Breaches of citizens’ right to privacy should only be allowed in the event that a search warrant is produced, or if one actively choose to relinquish that right. Combating such an institutionalized system of abuse requires a lot of work. It starts with taking the argument to the government directly by signing a petition or contacting representatives. But perhaps the largest step that can be taken is spreading awareness. The government and big data cannot keep the population in the dark, nor can they stop citizens from exposing their practices. Although the internet harbors the watchful eye of powerful and manipulative groups, it also provides the most powerful tool for resistance: the ability to make voices be heard. Those who oppose the current system of surveillance must make themselves and their opinions known. The louder that dissent is expressed, the more voices will surface to show their support.

Sources Cited

“Big Data – Interesting Statistics, Facts & Figures.” Waterford Technologies, 15 Sept. 2017, http://www.waterfordtechnologies.com/big-data-interesting-facts/.

Hachman, Mark. “The Price of Free: How Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Google Sell You to Advertisers.” PCWorld, PCWorld, 1 Oct. 2015, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2986988/privacy/the-price-of-free-how-apple facebook-microsoft-and-google-sell-you-to-advertisers.html.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

Carlson, Mr. David. “Search Warrant.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 26 June 2009, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant.

Greenwald, Glenn, and James Ball. “The Top Secret Rules That Allow NSA to Use US Data without a Warrant.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 June 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant.