Protectors in the real world; Aggressors in the virtual world

Never before in human history has such an immense cluster of personal information existed. People a decade back were dumbfounded by the convenience that these internet services offered, only never to realize the consequences that these would have when used on a mass scale. And hereby the present generation honoured and carried forward the legacy of the human race, of realizing the problems only when water reaches the neck. People have suddenly begun to fret about the right to privacy, when the very vanguards of their rights, their governments have already shredded it to pieces. It’s interesting to see a large number of people blaming internet companies, who ironically enough have honoured people's privacy more than their so called representatives. 

For any debate on or analysis of Internet privacy issues, an understanding of the basic tenets of right to privacy becomes essential. Opponents of privacy rights, most of them based in our governments establishments believe that “You have nothing to fear, if you’ve got nothing to hide”. This is really a very shrewd argument because it somehow makes you believe that privacy is just about hiding something that you don’t want others to know, although that isn’t really the case. What this argument doesn’t recognize, is that every person must have the right to choose as to what he/she wishes to reveal and at what point of time, because that information essentially belongs to that person and is his/her property by all means, irrespective of whether the information is potentially harmful to anyone. Secondly, this choice can only be made if the person is aware of the consequence of this release of information i.e., what will be done with that information. For example, when I reveal information about my personal life to a friend, I have made the choice myself to disclose it to him as the information pertains to my life and hence belongs to me. No one else can make that choice for me, not in a democratic society atleast. On a second level, the fact that I am aware that my friend is not going to reveal it to anyone helps me make that decision i.e., I am aware of the consequences. There are also many more consequential arguments in support of privacy which we shall analyze later, but on a principle level these two make for strong arguments in support of privacy.

Many people today are crying foul about the amounts of information that internet juggernauts like Google and Facebook possess, ironically enough on their very own platforms. They fear that Google and Facebook are storing their personal information in huge amounts and are using them for all sorts of purposes. The fact that they scan keywords they type in search boxes and keep a track of sites being used by them somehow scares these people. Web tracking for the purposes of building profiles is opposed by most individuals. A March 2000 BusinessWeek/Harris Poll found that 89% of respondents were uncomfortable with web tracking schemes where data was combined with an individual's identity. The same poll found that 63% of respondents were uncomfortable with web tracking even where the clickstream data was not linked to personally-identifiable information. An August 2000 study conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 54% of Internet users objected to tracking. A July 2000 USA Weekend Poll showed that 65% of respondents thought that tracking computer use was an invasion of privacy [http://epic.org/privacy/survey/]. The Terms of Privacy of Google and similar search engines clearly state the kind of information that will be extracted from the users’ activities and also the purpose of this extraction, hence abiding by the principles established earlier. This is the very reason why these companies are more accountable and hence are actually protecting our privacy more than perhaps our own governments. This information storage by these companies is clearly a sort of payment in lieu of the free services they offer us. This information has manifold benefits as well. First off, these enable search engines provide better search results. For example, if you mention you address in your Google profile, Google would know where you live but when you type ‘restaurants’ in your Google search box, it would also show places in your city where restaurants are present, hence ensuring convenience. Secondly, it helps these search engines provide targeted advertisements. This not only again is convenient for users but helps these companies create larger revenues and also benefit the advertisers with more customers. Such skepticism of being tracked are not only unfounded as they have already agreed to it but they are also unreasonable as people are availing these services without paying a penny. People should pay for their services if they value their privacy so much.

The same argument works in the recent case where Google is being prosecuted for scanning emails by third-party users. Google here believes that it is unreasonable for users who aren’t Google account holders (and hence haven’t signed any agreement of privacy) to expect privacy protection from Google. Now this statement can be perceived from two perspectives. Firstly, just because someone hasn’t signed an agreement of privacy doesn’t mean that Google is solicited to scan their mails. It is similar to saying that the security guard of a house can actually rob all the other houses in the neighbourhood, and is it is legitimate for him to do so, which is simply unacceptable. But the other perspective is equally intriguing. The fact that these third-party users are actually using Google servers to send mails to Google users essentially means that they are using its services without paying for it, which is where the postal services analogy fails. Many believe that Google ought to behave like a postal service, whilst not recognizing that you pay the postal service while you don’t pay Google. How is it meant to generate revenues if it doesn’t get something in lieu for every tiny service that it offers? Hence the solution here is that either Google must make its services payable or the people using it directly or indirectly should be ready to give up on their privacy.

The real culprits in the whole privacy rights issue are as mentioned earlier, our so called ‘representatives’ who are meant to ‘safeguard our interests’. A  much needed national debate about privacy is now underway makes for interesting reading because it pretty much highlights the real issue with privacy today. Interestingly enough, the very website “Connect Safely” is funded by Facebook and Yahoo. It is a website that helps users understand privacy issues and provides them with tips on security and privacy controls, clearly establishing the seriousness with which these companies are looking at privacy issues. Coming back to government’s snooping on personal information, the article highlights as to how social networking firms are arm-twisted into revealing information to the extent that these companies decide to shutdown, something that big multinationals can’t afford as the very medium of internet depends on their survival, and so do the fortunes of so many investors and other stakeholders. While Julian Assange and Edward Snowden blame these companies for being extended arms of FBI and NSA, these companies have but no choice when they are threatened by government institutions of such power and influence. They are profit-making institutions and are not altruistic organisations. When the very vanguards of rights are bent on violating these rights, why should these private companies give a damn about honouring privacy, unless they aren’t headed by some extraordinary proponents of privacy rights and are running small businesses as mentioned in the earlier article?.

 [ NSA PRISM program Verizon and web companies get hit with class action lawsuit. Do customers stand a chance?]. This article pretty much sums up and establishes the above mentioned argument.

It's the governments which are the biggest violators of privacy rights, simply because they haven’t taken our consent when snooping on us or hacking into databases of social networking sites or rather simply arm-twisting and taking it from them. People aren’t aware of what is going to be done with that information either, hence violating both the basic tenets of right to privacy. It’s ironical when people expect their governments to make privacy laws stronger; simply because the governments don’t have any incentive to do so.

There are more reasons as to why governments shouldn’t be infringing on our privacy. The danger of the government drawing conclusions about us by putting together data available on us is inescapable. For example, if I were constantly reading blogs by Muslim extremists and watching their videos and maybe ordering books on their ideology, the government might perceive me to be a potential threat although I might just be writing a book on religious extremism. The government might block my passport; freeze my bank accounts for unfounded reasons! The problems of similar data aggregation are huge and can potentially harm the social fabric. Further violations of privacy can follow through racial profiling of the information present! What if all the Muslims in a country suddenly realized that their accounts, their mails, their Google searched aren’t just being searched for keywords, but are being read blatantly without their permission in order to keep track of their activities as they are considered potential terrorists. The repercussions will be horrifying.

So who then should the people expect to safeguard their privacy? The internet providers are profit making organizations more than anything else. We can’t expect them to always stand for our rights, not in front of governments as otherwise they will be robbed of their businesses. They will always continue tracking us for revenues unless we start paying for these internet services, which doesn’t seem possible in the near future. Governments are way too obsessed with security, in an almost unreasonable frenzy. They somehow believe that terrorists are dumb-retards who will post or share their daily activities on Facebook (“I just bombed a shopping mall in Karachi. Feeling so happy J”) or maybe order RDX on Flipkart.

Things need to change, and maybe the first step is to be aware of privacy controls and share as less information as possible online. Awareness and knowledge of Privacy laws and privacy controls are potent weapons in a fight against injustice and state hegemony. A new revolution is the need of the hour. Internet has invaded our lives to an unimaginable extent and this invasion is increasing by the day with improving technology. If we are to secure our private spaces and those of our future generations, then we must fend for ourselves and ensure that government snooping stops. Privacy laws, self-regulation by the government and transparency of government activities must become electoral issues and people who support such ideals must be voted in. We must fight for a day when Snowden and Assange are honoured instead of being declared state enemies.