When I started to read up on the issue of government surveillance, my mind immediately went to a funny Buzzfeed article that I had seen recently. Its title was "18 Jokes About the FBI Spying on People That Will Make You Laugh Then Feel Super Paranoid". A lot of it was about the FBI Agent that is apparently assigned to watch you through your webcam and about what they must think about you watching you go through the motions of your daily life. It's funny, and I laugh it off because I'm pretty sure it's not true (sounds like a pretty significant waste of resources), but the idea of someone constantly monitoring me and everything that I do on the internet sort of unsettles me. I don't have anything to hide, and I don't ever intend to do anything dangerously illegal, but the idea of being constantly looked at is no bueno.
That all being said, how do I feel about government surveillance? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I think it's important that we have the option to have access to private data of individuals, particularly those involved in shady dealings or terrorist attacks. If invading the privacy of that person means learning about other potential issues that could come up in the future, then I say go for it. However, I understand the ramifications of tech companies purposefully weakening encryption to implement backdoors; even if it was something that could be turned off and on, it still risks the increased potential for a cybersecurity attack from a party that does not have the user's best interest in mind. As for whether companies like Apple are ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users, I do think they are to an extent. I don't think that the general population of law-abiding citizens should have their privacy invaded by the government. It's tricky, however, as one article had mentioned, how to define what privacy means since that in itself is somewhat of a social/abstract concept. So, to what extent is Apple obligated to reveal morally unjust people or those who may be participating in illegal/dangerous activities? I don't think that they can simply say "NO" in the name of privacy. I don't think that they could really stomach being part of the reason why something horrible happens, especially if it was preventable by sharing "private" information. In hindsight, it's difficult to turn a blind eye to the fact that sharing information could prevent terrible things, even if you are a strong advocate for privacy. How do you equate the privacy of one malicious individual over the lives of the innocent people who are affected? With that in mind, I suppose I would say I lean more towards government surveillance, but I believe that this surveillance needs surveillance. The government should not be able to just go around and monitor any person; they should need warrants and probable cause for doing so. Even though terrorist attacks are few and far between, I still think having the technology in place to be able to monitor erratic behavior is important and would give people an (ironic) sense of security. I don't know many people who would be against the government invading the privacy of a single individual who knew the exact time and location a bomb would go off in the US. Though it's tough to shirk away from the idea of being watched all the time, I believe the benefits of its potential outweigh the bad. So long as there is very thorough and serious surveillance over this government surveillance, I think that it would be good in the long run.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorJulianna Yee. Archives
March 2018
Categories |