The U.N. will receive an anti-spying resolution spear-headed by European and Latin American diplomats in collaboration with other countries in the next week in an effort to protect and expand online confidentiality. In my opinion the anti-spying resolution is more than data protection. It is a contractual boundary promoting transparency indicative of unspoken trust that must be at the forefront of negotiations and collaboration to meet basic shared needs of all countries.
I remember a particular incidence where my trust was ripped
from me as my face grew flush and my stomach contracted with the visceral
reaction of betrayal. In a moment I knew my privacy had been violated. This may
very well be the same gut response German Counselor Angela Merkel had when she
furiously spoke out against spying upon learning the U.S. allegedly monitored
her cell phone through NSA activities.
Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff is outraged over purported
U.S. surveillance tactics, which she is likening to espionage activity. As
covered by an article in the Huffington Post, monitoring of citizen’s data is protected
under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which went into force in 1976. One of the reasons countries
are drafting a U.N. resolution to expand these rights.
In response to
concerns about surveillance the U.S. has justified unnecessary policing
activities as a measure to counter terrorism. This is an odd strategy to say the
least along with the confusing unspoken messages it sends to citizens in the
U.S. and other countries. As a nation we are policing the activities of
countries with whom we have good relations. Data scrubbing is a betrayal of
trust, or indicates the lack thereof, which I believe is at the heart of the
outrage. The theory that if you do not have anything to hide
you will not be concerned about being monitored is a fallacy. Nations are
outraged because being monitored for an ongoing basis sends the message that in
reality we are not ready to collaborate with other countries because at our
core we do not trust them. The U.S. will need to genuinely respond to the
breach of trust and growing frustration
of other countries or risk polarizing them with unwarranted investigations for
potential threats and our lack of shared beliefs in transparency.
Read further here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/un-anti-spying-resolution_n_4165470.html?utm_hp_ref=world
Very well stated... I am indeed feeling a bit itchy some days. At the same time, in today's environment it has become incredibly easy to "monitor" someone, because more often than not they are talking out loud! Public conversations via social media outlets are everywhere, and easy to look at. I think the truth of the matter is that we, as a country, often don't trust each other, let alone the world. We say that we don't want to be watched, but then we also say (as you called out) if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide. So where is the line? Are cameras in public places wrong? Is monitoring public conversations wrong? Does the line get drawn between what is made public and what we choose to keep private?
ReplyDeleteJon, thanks for the response and questions. First I want to make sure that I made it clear that even if someone does not have something to hide, in my opinion it is not okay to monitor their conversations in general, and especially without consent. I believe this promotes a police state which I do not agree with. Policing of this nature promotes secrecy and insecurity.
DeleteHow can we govern our own citizens or interact with other countries with those two priorities driving relations? Trust and transparency are the keys to mutually concerned and beneficial relationships.
To address your other points, monitoring happens for "training purposes" all the time and it is nothing new to be recorded during customer service calls with our knowledge for two reasons. 1. so information is being recorded about the problem we need solved so it can be handled appropriately 2. so a customer service rep can get post-training on providing better service or alternatives. The information from such calls is not used for profiling rather for the PR and CRM protocols for crisis prevention and customer service goals.
Cameras in public places like banks or financial institutions are not used for profiling purposes.
So the most important question you asked is where does the line get drawn? In mind it is simple. No monitoring of online activity. What is your freedom worth? The security of online monitoring is a fallacy. Think about the fact that even on Facebook people pose as other people so it is just as easy to post decoy information for the government to monitor.
If anything it perpetuates fear and makes people think they should be monitored. Security is a basic human need so why wouldn't people want to do something like be monitored to feel more "safe?" That is what the NSA is banking on when they pitch the reasoning that they are trying to counter terrorism. I'm not buying the pitch. I think acting with the end goal in mind is what is needed in the leadership of our country.
"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." ~Benjamin Franklin