Digital privacy an illusion

We’re being watched! The government’s out to get us! Obama’s reading my email!

The same hysterical thoughts flooded the minds of millions of Americans when Edward Snowden’s leaks last May revealed the government’s use of mass surveillance programs and interception of telephone metadata, which describes information about calls without disclosing the actual content.

Ever since then, a heated controversy has ensued, pointing to a fundamental conflict between the government’s pursuit of national security objectives and individual claims to privacy of personal information. The problem is that these claims are simply trivial and overrated. 

Although we would like to believe otherwise, digital privacy no longer exists in modern society. Due to the digital record we leave, virtually everything we do online can be monitored and copied.

In fact, companies like Google make a profit from users’ digital content by giving them advertisements based on their personal emails and searches. Technically, when people click “Agree” to user contracts without reading the terms and conditions, they consent to allowing third parties access to their digital information.

If people are so concerned about their digital privacy, then why don’t they bother to read those lengthy contracts? Research conducted by privacy expert Larry Ponemon shows that around 60 percent of adults claim they care about privacy, but will barely lift a finger to protect it. Few bother with Facebook privacy settings, no one minds giving out phone numbers to stores, and certainly no one signs up for encrypted emails.

Yet ironically, people still fiercely defend their right to privacy as alluded to in the Fourth Amendment, as if it were an inborn natural right. However, this simply is not true. The Constitution does not even mention the word “privacy,” but what it does imply is the right to one’s own person, which is radically different from informational privacy. 

Not only that, but the Constitution was drafted over 200 years ago, at a time when computers and the Internet were inconceivable. People can no longer look to ancient documents in regard to modern issues. And even if they do, a government’s inherent obligation to protect its citizens and their safety overrides any loose and unsupported connection to ancient legislation.

In that case, if people are willing to give up their information to random third parties who use it for their selfish benefit, why not hand it over to someone useful like the NSA? The agency actually uses the information in counterterrorism efforts, which ultimately protects the American people.

In fact, NSA director Keith Alexander reported in June that data mining and electronic surveillance were crucial to foiling over 50 terrorist plots across the globe, a statistic confirmed by various other sources as well. With the rise in global terrorism, evidenced by recent incidents like the Boston Marathon bombing, allowing one more party access to digital information is a small price to pay for one’s safety and wellbeing.

Though most people do not actually care about privacy in practice, the most cause for concern after the NSA scandal was the extent of unwarranted surveillance that the government now had the power to conduct. However, the reality is that the NSA only collects metadata, without monitoring the actual contents of telephone calls or emails. That way, some degree of privacy is still respected, and the NSA can carry out its counter-terrorism plots.

Previously, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act required a court order for any and all types of electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens. With the imminent threat of terrorist attacks, time is of the essence, and going through court every time the NSA has a lead would just hamper investigations.

Still, people assert that there is a possibility that the government will abuse its power; however, this claim hinges on extrapolations of potential capabilities, rather than deliberately assessing actual activities. 

These activities have proven to be measurably successful in stopping terrorist plots, and in the end, that is all that matters.