I have the good fortune of having HBO (or my grandparents' HBO password), so I was able to watch CitizenFour in its entirety. I actually watched this documentary when it first came out, because it was my first opportunity to look into who Snowden was as a person. Having watched it again for this class, I found it to be even more chilling the second time around. The unrestrained power the government wields in regards to information collection is staggering, to the point where it is difficult to even wrap my mind around the entire scope and scale of what they're doing. This mass collection is clearly a violation of constitutional rights, and I have a hard time believing people who argue the opposite. That being said, I can see where they are coming from on a legal standpoint. When the constitution was written 230 years ago, the notion of emails, text messages, metadata or even phones was pure fantasy. As such, the laws have gaps in them where they do not account for these new forms of communication and information exchange. The law simply does not have provisions and protections for the internet, and most likely won't any time soon given the state of Congress. One of the main things I take away from things like this is that our laws are often outdated, and need updating for the modern age (a prime example being the German extradition of a comedian who mocked the Turkish president, using a law from the 1830s as justification to send him to Turkey).
It's unfortunate that we won't likely see change anytime soon, in part because of a technologically illiterate Congress. Many of our elected officials were born before the computer was even invented - certainly before the internet became widespread - and they simply don't understand it. Some of the proposed laws, especially in the wake of the San Bernadino shooting and subsequent legal battle with Apple, show that Congress doesn't understand not only modern technology, but how privacy fits into it. Recently, Diane Feinstein and another Congressman introduced a bill that would required all information exchanged over the internet and mobile devices to be accessible at any time for law enforcement upon request. Essentially, they asked for back doors to every form of encryption, which makes it useless. They basically want to outlaw effective encryption. This would make it even easier for the NSA to run the programs Snowden describes in CitizenFour, It is a felony to steal or tamper with someone's physical mail because it is a massive invasion of privacy. Why should it not be equally illegal to steal and tamper with someone's mail and correspondence just because it is in a different format? These are the kinds of basic parallels that our current Congress seems to be failing to grasp, and why I think many people are frustrated with them.
On the actual topic of privacy, I think a quote from Benjamin Franklin is extremely relevant: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty". We should not be forced to give up our rights in the name of national security. Especially in the name of programs that have been shown to not be all that effective in the first place. I do not feel safer knowing the government is watching everyone. I feel more at risk, and like I'm being made out to be an enemy of my own country. I feel more on edge and distrusting of anything the government says. Ironically, distrusting the government would most likely put me more in line with the Founding Fathers than the people who claim to be protecting the Fathers' vision. It's sickening, to be frank. I haven't changed any habits on the internet per se, as I don't think anything I do now will be of any particular interest to the government (unless the government is really into watching Stephen Colbert on YouTube). However, I do find myself caring about my privacy in all other aspects of my life, and being more guarded with the details of my life. I think Snowden has accomplished his goal of getting people to care about their privacy, and taking steps, no matter how small, to protect it. I hope this continues to evolve, and maybe one day shut down the NSA's spy programs. A good start would be to not renew the Patriot Act when it next comes up, however I don't think our next President is likely to do that (assuming it is Hillary or Trump). For now, the only thing we can really do is vote, and pray the politicians actually decide to care.
I really like your opinion that "the law simply does not have provisions and protections for the internet". I am not sure the constitutional law, however, I do know that The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law. For example, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects a person's health information, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the right to privacy in various privacy policies and privacy statements. Nowadays, more and more privacy law cases are happening. I think what the court approaches the right to privacy and personal autonomy on a case-by-case basis. As public opinion changes regarding relationships and activities, and the boundaries of personal privacy change, largely due to social media and an atmosphere of "sharing," the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.
ReplyDeletePraying is one option. Changing public opinion is difficult. I'd opt to change your internet behavior, or find good encryption software (not difficult), use a password manager or change it often. I really liked your discussion of the topic. I think you nailed it. But hoping for change is probably not a good strategy for making personal behavior changes, and maybe spreading the word.
ReplyDelete