Ask yourself not how to defeat our privacy tools, but why we feel we need them

November 5, 2014 by Andrew Mcstay, The Conversation
Watching you, watching me. Credit: PublicDomainPictures

The language Robert Hannigan, the new head of GCHQ, uses in his opening statement is well considered in his appeal to openness, democratic values, and the need for corporate responsibility towards helping the security services.

"I understand why they have an uneasy relationship with governments", he writes:

They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.

It's an important part of the on-going debate about privacy and security, but I suspect the piece has been read, tweaked and perfected by many eyes. It is a piece of political public relations. A strategic communications weapon, if you like, from the agency for whom communications – yours, theirs – is what they do.

Certainly Hannigan is right when he writes about misuse of data, and the increasing pressure that companies and governments are under to demonstrate that they handle it properly. Already, firms that directly or indirectly make money from advertising have done so under shady and sometimes illegal premises, such as the court case over Phorm advertising trialed by BT. The commercial application of techniques used to mine people's electronic data are intrusive, growing in sophistication and poorly understood by the public.

But companies will respond to customer demand. Clearly the growth of privacy-friendly technologies is because customers object to the corporate world's interest in their data, just as they distrust and the national governments that direct them. They are capitalising on a market opening.

Apple and Google introduced encryption for their because organisations supposedly accountable to democratic oversight abused their position. Citizens' lack of trust is a correct and proper response to a coterie of intelligence security services conspiring – a sinister word, I know, but accurate – to gather extraordinarily large amounts of data on their citizenry.

In fact the scale of surveillance surprised nearly everyone, from computer scientists, privacy lawyers, industry watchers and critically engaged academics to some politicians themselves.

Hannigan is correct in stating privacy is not an absolute right. He will not find a serious privacy campaigner that disagrees with him, because no one believes that privacy trumps all. This is because, in a liberal democratic society, privacy is a qualified right. The question is whether GCHQ has a good reason for such excessive measures and whether it should be able to do so employ them without oversight.

I believe this is by some margin a step too far, and deeply undemocratic. The task facing society is to build greater public accountability into the system while being able to make best use of relevant intelligence. Demanding surveillance without oversight is not good enough.

It's important, however, that we do not fall into the habit of casting security services in a cartoon-ish role of sinister organisations. The abuse of surveillance tools is enough concern without adding any excessively dystopian amplification. Recall that security services forced businesses to hand over data under secret orders, tapped privately-owned cables carrying citizens' communications, and gathered and stored data from telephone calls, internet searches and websites visited to analyse these at will.

This was done without public oversight or consent. As recent revelations in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal highlight, the legality of this is questionable because these activities circumvent UK laws on the need for a warrant to conduct surveillance.

Hannigan's article makes generous use of appeals to democratic principles, but they are precisely what the powers he would see his agency awarded would undermine.

Explore further: Social networks 'in denial' on extremist use: GCHQ chief (Update)

Related Stories

Court: UK spies get bulk access to NSA data

October 29, 2014

The British government's insistence that its spies don't use the vast espionage powers of the U.S. National Security Agency to sidestep U.K. restrictions on domestic eavesdropping was called into question by a court document ...

UK surveillance programmes challenged at tribunal

July 14, 2014

Civil liberties campaigners began a legal challenge Monday against the alleged use of mass surveillance programmes by the British intelligence services, in what they said were historic public hearings sparked by the Snowden ...

When does Google hand over your data to governments?

September 19, 2014

Governments around the world want to know a lot about who we are and what we're doing online and they want communications companies to help them find it. We don't know a lot about when companies hand over this data, but we ...

The right to privacy in a big data world

October 27, 2014

In the digital age in which we live, monitoring, security breaches and hacks of sensitive data are all too common. It has been argued that privacy has no place in this big data environment and anything we put online can, ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

Paleontologists report world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex

March 22, 2019

University of Alberta paleontologists have just reported the world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex and the largest dinosaur skeleton ever found in Canada. The 13-metre-long T. rex, nicknamed "Scotty," lived in prehistoric Saskatchewan ...

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Egleton
not rated yet Nov 05, 2014
I saw a terrorist under my bed last night. He scared the shit out of me.

Hey, Mr Security Big Guy:- Go do your job and stop masterbating.

The greatest threat we face is the exponential function. Go do something about that.
We convert 10 units of oil energy into 1 unit of food energy on the end of the chopstick- go do something about energy security. Preferably before I see the population of the planet double again in two years.
ODesign
not rated yet Nov 06, 2014
We should be asking the question of why public business and government for the people and by the people should have any right to privacy at all. As a society we should have laws barring business that deals with the public from restricting access to any information under their control except with special public interest reasons. Why does wall mart have a right to keep their payroll, advertising budgets, and such secret from the public? the requirements for a market economy to work efficiently are for information to be freely available, but our current society gives an information advantage to business interests.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 06, 2014
We should be asking the question of why public business and government for the people and by the people should have any right to privacy at all.

Because government was set up BY the people, FOR the people? The government is the servant of the people. That's its entire job description.
Any rights the government has is accorded to it by the people. The government cannot just 'take' any kind of right - certainly not one the people don't want it to take.

Why does wall mart have a right to keep their payroll, advertising budgets, and such secret from the public?

Because wallmart is not a public service/company?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.