Is your data yours? Privacy in todays interconnected world.
By: Gui Bentley
Tags: Freedom, Surveillance, Politics, Data, Society

Photo by Alex on Unsplash

Data privacy & civil right

Is your data yours? Privacy in todays interconnected world.

Two faces of mass surveillance.

Since the beginning of the 21st century we witnessed an increasing trend in the strengthening of state surveillance. Due to some events beyond citizen control, fundamental rights have been ceded to the government for the benefit of the community. The State Surveillance system was strengthened from 2001 after the attack on the Twin Towers. This new security theory was called “Terrorism Surveillance State” and was applied internationally, mainly in the United States. This surveillance state relied heavily on strongly controlling everything that happened within borders, which in some cases exceeded the limits that separated surveillance from xenophobia (or in some cases put into question the individual freedom of the individuals). Border control was strengthened, extreme immigration measures and airport controls were reinforced with material prohibitions based on past terrorism attempts. Such prohibitions include not allowing passengers entering the main cabin with liquids greater than 100 ml, taking off shoes and placing yourself in highly accurate full-body scanners at the security check stage

However, the emergence of data collection and cross-referencing of date from different sources was different from these previous linear actions of prohibition and control. Showing greater effectiveness in preventing acts of terrorism. The seemingly endless race to collect data to prevent such acts sparked major political debates that questioned the scope of these measures as opposed to the basic values ​​of freedom. In other words, the balance of the sovereigns -the citizens — seemed to be unbalanced against them. After visualizing the imbalance, the intellectuals began to question and discuss the benefits and shortcomings of State Surveillance. Dr Reinhard Kreissl’s arguments in his paper “Terrorism, mass surveillance and civil rights” opens the debate on privacy, civil rights and security: Should civil rights and privacy be sacrificed and traded in for more security? Will more surveillance and more data for the law enforcement agencies significantly increase the level of security in a society?

Questions raised by Dr Reinhard Kreissl not only apply specifically to mass state surveillance of terrorism (note that we added the term “mass” after the appearance of the data as a source of surveillance), but also apply to the present day in the midst of the global crisis caused by Covid-19. In my opinion, we are beginning to witness the legitimization of the “pandemic mass surveillance”, renewing the term used by Dr. Kreissl, but not his questions about the invasion of privacy, and now twenty years later we are asking ourselves same questions.

What is “mass surveillance” about?

In the year 2020, technology has advanced by leaps and bounds compared to the year 2001. Access to data has multiplied exponentially and the massive — and necessary — use of the Internet has made our data available to many more people than we would like. Therefore, the data that we share is not private and if we add the cross-checking of data, it is not anonymous either.

Photo by ev on Unsplash

The levels of interconnection of the data are extraordinary and you will probably be nervous to know that it is not necessary for you to put your name, surname or ID so that they can identify you with a very low margin of error. The Markup shows us some clear examples about the (de)anonymization of data, when we believe that they are anonymous. Laboratories, governments, statisticians, etc. have access to medical data for research, traceability and disease evolution. They are shared without name, surname and ID number, so at first glance they seem anonymous, right? But, what happens if we cross them with census data (also anonymous) and with data from your any online subscription service you’ve got? VOILA! With a very low margin of error, a fairly accurate profile can be made of you, one that includes information such as your ID number, first and last name, your political preferences, your address and any other information you might think of. It is here that a major problem with privacy arises. The combination of data that we constantly generate, when paired with different sources that have different and complementary datasets of one individual leads to that data no longer being private

The health crisis, as we mentioned earlier, has shown the emergence of a new type of surveillance, the pandemic. To some, it may be a great mechanism for alleviating the virus. For others, it is a new excuse for governments to justify excessive control over citizens. However, the real debate arises when we look at the issue from a macro perspective. What is the regulation so that this issue does not become an excuse to prolong control? We agree that Big Data is a great tool for these exceptional situations such as terrorism and pandemics, among others. This acceptance does not mean that outside these particular conditions the acceptance of excessive surveillance remains. Privacy is perhaps one of the greatest pillars of freedom, where from John Stuart Mill’s point of view it is a fundamental pillar, as long as it does not impact negatively on the freedom of others. Following this idea, we can put under the magnifying glass all those forms of excessive surveillance that are not found under exceptional circumstances such as the pandemic that is currently underway.

Yascha Mounk, a specialist in political theory and democracy, has several times questioned state surveillance without control and regulation mechanisms. Not only does he view it as a threat to privacy, but he also warns of the damage it does to liberal democracy. Mounk raises three areas in which we must work to attain responsible surveillance:

● All the measures taken in particular situations should be temporary and never indefinite. ● Additional mechanisms of democratic and institutional control, valid within the time horizon defined for exceptional measures, are needed. ● All measures taken must be specifically aimed at combating a particular end, terrorism, pandemic, etc.

The areas raised by Mounk are clear and reasonable in terms of the protection of freedom. Decisions that negatively affect civil rights must have a beginning and an end. And if they do not, they should be duly accepted by the citizens. Fighting a pandemic or terrorism is an end in itself, and surely a large majority is willing to contribute to ending these undesirable situations. However, guarantees must also be demanded for this voluntary surrender of freedom. At the end of the day, it is our freedom that is at stake.