bryant spaces
Menu
Counter-arguments
Still think surveillance is important and privacy shouldn't take precedence? You're not alone!
Maricio Prinzlau, the CEO of Betanews, argues that the major threat of terrorism fuels the need for the NSA’s surveillance. He further claims that the intrusion on our online activities is a threat only to the common man and not to those with cruel intentions; he propagates the mentality that one has nothing to hide from the NSA if he/she hasn’t engaged in any criminal activity, something that Stoycheff and Richards try to prove wrong. To counter arguments that state NSA’s surveillance programs have access to some of our information that’s too private, he stands on the claim that if one is a “private” person, he/she should never share anything online that may be considered too personal to share. He keeps emphasizing the importance of trusting the NSA, which he thinks is making a genuine attempt to track down suspicious Internet addresses. Prinzlau is convinced that much of the NSA's spying is focused on tracking international Internet traffic and that such dedicated surveillance is necessary to avoid another 9/11 attack or the recent Paris attacks.
If you agree with Prinzlau, you'd also like Gallington.
Daniel J Gallington, who served in senior security policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, holds the same stance as Prinzlau. He too argues that government surveillance is a strict need to prevent terrorism in the United States. To consider privacy more important is to compromise the nation’s security. (Gallington) He further stresses that the expectation of privacy should not extend to spies, terrorists, and criminals. To support his argument that the American surveillance system is justified, he provides the examples of Europe and China where communications infrastructure is not privately owned and your personal data is in the hands of the government.
So how does surveillance in other countries work?
For instance, checking into any hotel in Europe requires you to show your passport or your identity card, and your personal data goes to the national police or a security unit. This data remains with them and can be referred back to anytime. In China, all internet activity is strictly monitored and everyone is under the state's constant watch because “all dissent is a threat to the regime in power, and that's simply how they stay in power and have always stayed in power”. (Gallington) Gallington clearly views surveillance as a means for the state to maintain its authority. United States, on the other hand, is unique because its telecommunications and internet infrastructure is privately owned. Hence, he argues, that it is justified if the American government wants some power and access over its citizens’ activity when other countries follow the same practice to a major extent.
It seems as though national security is the basis for both Prinzlau and Gallington's argument. Sounds like a solid reason, right?
But, my research revealed something that I'd like to bring your attention to.
Has surveillance really served the its stated purpose of national security at all? Careful study by Jenna McLaughlin, a writer covering surveillance and national security, into the issue reveals that NSA isn’t to be given credit for the lack of large-scale terror attacks by the ISIS. There weren’t any attacks actually planned. The NSA hasn’t been able to provide any substantiated example of an instance when it thwarted a domestic attack. An unclassified Department of Homeland Security document shows that terror arrests of people between January 2014 and September 2015 were of those who were providing only supporting material for attacks that were barely even planned. There are only five reported cases of what the authors call “advanced attack plotting.” However, these attacks were only ‘advanced’ because the FBI provided assistance in planning and arranging supplies for the attack before arresting the suspects. The unclassified document also shows 12 examples of “aspirational” plots that were just in their planning stages. (McLaughlin)
When asked about NSA’s role in thwarting attacks, the then-NSA Director Keith Alexander resorted to vague rhetoric saying that the intelligence programs “contributed to our understanding” and “helped enable the disruption of terrorist plots.” According to a White House Panel in December 2013, NSA’s massive scale collection and scrutiny of Americans’ telephone information was “not essential in preventing attacks.” (McLaughlin) Considering these details, one’s skepticism towards our national surveillance program only grows stronger.
Why do I think Prinzlau and Gallington have weak arguments:
Prinzlau’s argument that stands on the idea that if one is a “private” person, he/she should never share anything online that may be considered too personal to share. This reasoning is flawed because it doesn’t recognize that the information shared by the user is only meant for the people who are in his/her online circle. Most users in fact alter their privacy settings of social media accounts to ensure that they are only selectively sharing information with other users.
Gallington chooses a weak resort to support his argument when he draws comparisons of levels of surveillance in other countries to justify the American surveillance system. Different countries have their own priorities and needs for privacy. Because the American system relies so much on freedom of expression, its need for privacy differs.
What about privacy?!
If my argument on the chilling-effect convinced you on the importance of privacy, that's great! However, if you still think "you have nothing to hide", let me tell you the dire consequences of that mindset. Hypothetically, if everyone adopted the “I have nothing to hide mentality”, as Prinzlau
and Gallington advocate, this could lead to ‘privacy cynicism.’ Dr. Christian Pieter, a professor of communications at the University of Leipzig, discovered this behavior among internet users. It means that those who hold privacy concerns display a behavior that doesn’t reflect the need for privacy protection. Users give away too much information because they are already too cynical about the lack of or almost absent personal space due to the surveillance system. Hence, any privacy concern seems futile and users stop sharing information selectively. (Pieter)While chilling effect is on one extreme side of the spectrum where people alter their behavior to not come under the state’s attention, privacy cynicism is the other end of the spectrum in which people become too cynical to be discreet on the internet at all. Individuals might not “limit their lack of trust to internet service providers, especially if they feel unprotected or ignored.” (Pieter)
Giving up privacy for surveillance and 'national security'? Not a safe bet.
Maricio Prinzlau, the CEO of Betanews, argues that the major threat of terrorism fuels the need for the NSA’s surveillance. He further claims that the intrusion on our online activities is a threat only to the common man and not to those with cruel intentions; he propagates the mentality that one has nothing to hide from the NSA if he/she hasn’t engaged in any criminal activity, something that Stoycheff and Richards try to prove wrong. To counter arguments that state NSA’s surveillance programs have access to some of our information that’s too private, he stands on the claim that if one is a “private” person, he/she should never share anything online that may be considered too personal to share. He keeps emphasizing the importance of trusting the NSA, which he thinks is making a genuine attempt to track down suspicious Internet addresses. Prinzlau is convinced that much of the NSA's spying is focused on tracking international Internet traffic and that such dedicated surveillance is necessary to avoid another 9/11 attack or the recent Paris attacks.
If you agree with Prinzlau, you'd also like Gallington.
Daniel J Gallington, who served in senior security policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, holds the same stance as Prinzlau. He too argues that government surveillance is a strict need to prevent terrorism in the United States. To consider privacy more important is to compromise the nation’s security. (Gallington) He further stresses that the expectation of privacy should not extend to spies, terrorists, and criminals. To support his argument that the American surveillance system is justified, he provides the examples of Europe and China where communications infrastructure is not privately owned and your personal data is in the hands of the government.
So how does surveillance in other countries work?
For instance, checking into any hotel in Europe requires you to show your passport or your identity card, and your personal data goes to the national police or a security unit. This data remains with them and can be referred back to anytime. In China, all internet activity is strictly monitored and everyone is under the state's constant watch because “all dissent is a threat to the regime in power, and that's simply how they stay in power and have always stayed in power”. (Gallington) Gallington clearly views surveillance as a means for the state to maintain its authority. United States, on the other hand, is unique because its telecommunications and internet infrastructure is privately owned. Hence, he argues, that it is justified if the American government wants some power and access over its citizens’ activity when other countries follow the same practice to a major extent.
It seems as though national security is the basis for both Prinzlau and Gallington's argument. Sounds like a solid reason, right?
But, my research revealed something that I'd like to bring your attention to.
Has surveillance really served the its stated purpose of national security at all? Careful study by Jenna McLaughlin, a writer covering surveillance and national security, into the issue reveals that NSA isn’t to be given credit for the lack of large-scale terror attacks by the ISIS. There weren’t any attacks actually planned. The NSA hasn’t been able to provide any substantiated example of an instance when it thwarted a domestic attack. An unclassified Department of Homeland Security document shows that terror arrests of people between January 2014 and September 2015 were of those who were providing only supporting material for attacks that were barely even planned. There are only five reported cases of what the authors call “advanced attack plotting.” However, these attacks were only ‘advanced’ because the FBI provided assistance in planning and arranging supplies for the attack before arresting the suspects. The unclassified document also shows 12 examples of “aspirational” plots that were just in their planning stages. (McLaughlin)
When asked about NSA’s role in thwarting attacks, the then-NSA Director Keith Alexander resorted to vague rhetoric saying that the intelligence programs “contributed to our understanding” and “helped enable the disruption of terrorist plots.” According to a White House Panel in December 2013, NSA’s massive scale collection and scrutiny of Americans’ telephone information was “not essential in preventing attacks.” (McLaughlin) Considering these details, one’s skepticism towards our national surveillance program only grows stronger.
Why do I think Prinzlau and Gallington have weak arguments:
Prinzlau’s argument that stands on the idea that if one is a “private” person, he/she should never share anything online that may be considered too personal to share. This reasoning is flawed because it doesn’t recognize that the information shared by the user is only meant for the people who are in his/her online circle. Most users in fact alter their privacy settings of social media accounts to ensure that they are only selectively sharing information with other users.
Gallington chooses a weak resort to support his argument when he draws comparisons of levels of surveillance in other countries to justify the American surveillance system. Different countries have their own priorities and needs for privacy. Because the American system relies so much on freedom of expression, its need for privacy differs.
What about privacy?!
If my argument on the chilling-effect convinced you on the importance of privacy, that's great! However, if you still think "you have nothing to hide", let me tell you the dire consequences of that mindset. Hypothetically, if everyone adopted the “I have nothing to hide mentality”, as Prinzlau
and Gallington advocate, this could lead to ‘privacy cynicism.’ Dr. Christian Pieter, a professor of communications at the University of Leipzig, discovered this behavior among internet users. It means that those who hold privacy concerns display a behavior that doesn’t reflect the need for privacy protection. Users give away too much information because they are already too cynical about the lack of or almost absent personal space due to the surveillance system. Hence, any privacy concern seems futile and users stop sharing information selectively. (Pieter)While chilling effect is on one extreme side of the spectrum where people alter their behavior to not come under the state’s attention, privacy cynicism is the other end of the spectrum in which people become too cynical to be discreet on the internet at all. Individuals might not “limit their lack of trust to internet service providers, especially if they feel unprotected or ignored.” (Pieter)
Giving up privacy for surveillance and 'national security'? Not a safe bet.