| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
Is privacy an inalienable right? | |
<
< | -- By MelissaTeh - 11 Oct 2019 | >
> | -- By MelissaTeh - 10 Jan 2020 | | | | |
<
< | What got me interested in this topic
My cultural background
Having lived in Singapore all my life before college, I had never really thought much about surveillance. Ironically, governmental surveillance in Singapore, being a one party state, is rampant, and privacy ranks second to other national security – and perhaps also political – interests. In return, those in power provide safety and a stable social fabric. Naively, I believed that this tradeoff was fair, and that giving up individual privacy was even necessary, as per Hobbesian’s social contract theory.
Perhaps a further occasion for thought, not in this essay, could be
found in inquiring why the obvious fiction of the "social contract"
would be treated as real by despotisms that want to put the moment of
imagined consent outside the scope of existing human lives.
| >
> | I view privacy as an inalienable right. This means that privacy is not only an important right, but one which should not be compromised under any circumstances. Most importantly, I believe that the perceived net benefits cannot be used to justify infringement of one’s privacy for two reasons – one, because those net benefits do not actually exist or may be achieved through other non-malicious means, and two, because spying is in itself wrong, so the ends may not justify it in the first place. | | |
A paradigm shift | |
<
< | The Edward Snowden fiasco was one of the big events that ignited a paradigm shift in my mind. Needless to say, the revelation of US governmental spying appalled most – if not all – Americans. Interestingly (to me), the spying was the wrong and the harm in itself in the sense that it did not matter if the spying did not culminate in anything, like persecution. In fact, but for the leak, most people would be able to live their whole lives unaffected in any material way by the spying. This is because most people are not high security individuals entrusted with secrets that they might then have an interest in protecting. Most individuals, like myself, lead average lives with petty problems that will not interest many.
The question is not whether they interest many, but whether mass surveillance makes it possible to treat those who consider themselves unpowerful and uninteresting with uniform brutality anyway. That's the question Snowden's purloined documents raised.
| >
> | This however, has not always been the way I thought about privacy. Rather, I had believed that privacy, though important, could be given up in the pursuit of other interests such as national security and social stability. In other words, I had accepted that Hobbesian’s social contract theory applied to privacy as well, and so individual privacy could be traded for other benefits. | | | | |
>
> | The Edward Snowden fiasco was one of the big events that ignited a paradigm shift in my mind. Even though the spying did not result in any tangible harm like persecution, this incident raised the point that mass surveillance makes it possible to inflict uniform brutality onto average powerless and uninteresting individuals like myself. | | | Could spying be a good thing? | |
<
< | One might think that spying actually results in a net benefit for average individuals since stability and safety is a reward for the spying. Acts of terrorism for example, can be preempted and prevented by monitoring messages containing certain key words, affiliations with other suspected individuals, online and in store purchases of dangerous items and etcetera. Beyond security, spying arguably also increases convenience in the world we currently live in – customization of advertisements and applications for instance, make the lives of average people easier by tailoring users’ experience to their own unique needs.
Why should we ask whether a beneficial consequence can flow from a bad action without asking whether the same benefits could be derived from other actions that are not immoral or unacceptable? This elision is what is meant by using the ends to justify the means, correct?
Why do people even care about privacy?
Why then do people view privacy infringement as a wrong in itself?
What is the then-ness here? If a course of action is viewed as wrong in itself, then by definition it cannot be justified by its consequences. That's what "wrong in itself" means, correct? This is the line of distinction between "deontological" and "consequentialist" moral argument.
The Supreme Court itself struggled to find a constitutional right to privacy in Griswold given that it is not explicitly worded in the Bill of Rights.
Why is that important? The Constitution itself, in the Ninth Amendment, says that rights not explicitly named there exist, and that failure to mention them shall not "deny or disparage" those rights.
Is the response to Edward Snowden simply an emotional eruption? | >
> | Even so, I wondered if this risk could be viewed as a calculated, reasonable one. Although spying makes us vulnerable to arbitrary abuse, one might think that spying still results in a net benefit for average individuals since stability and safety is a reward for the spying. Acts of terrorism for example, can be preempted and prevented by monitoring messages containing certain key words, affiliations with other suspected individuals, online and in store purchases of dangerous items and etcetera. Beyond security, spying arguably also increases convenience in the world we currently live in – customization of advertisements and applications for instance, make the lives of average people easier by tailoring users’ experience to their own unique needs. | | | | |
<
< |
Because anything not said in the US Constitution is therefore an emotional eruption?
| >
> | Can the ends justify the means? | | | | |
>
> | One obvious bias in the argument above is that the ends are being used to justify the means. | | | | |
<
< | Or does it stem from a principled belief that privacy is a human right, one that “occupies so profound a position in the constellation of human values that it is innately inalienable and should never be subject to commodification, regardless of the potential social or economic benefit?
Why are these the only two choices?
Where does this need for anonymity stem from? Are people truly concerned with someone in Washington or silicon valley knowing what kind of porn they watch? Or is it that people are unhappy that big corporations are profitting hugely from their personal information? In that case, would more people be satisfied if they could profit from selling their personal data?
These are apparently rhetorical questions, not actual inquiries into what people believe. It is evident that some people have each of the views you mention, and a very much larger number of other views you do not mention. What does that diversity of opinions mean for whatever argument you are making.
| >
> | However, these supposed benefits are but a façade since rewards like convenience only exist because we have bought into the system that we currently live in, where big corporations collect large amounts of data and provide us with bespoke services in turn. | | | | |
>
> | Moreover, spying cannot be justified by its ends if the same benefits could be derived from other actions that are not immoral or unacceptable. Although it is difficult to conceive of another system where services can be equally convenient absent the constant spying and surveillance, to assume such systems cannot exist is a fallacy. In an alternate reality where big corporations did not provide these services, it is likely that adequate services can be provided by others who did not have the perverse incentive to spy on individuals, simply because there will always exist individuals who yearn to create better services. Convenience thus, is a concept that companies use to deceive its users that spying is acceptable and even good. | | | | |
>
> | Furthermore, the net benefit argument is a slippery one because it can then be extended as a justification for other infringements. If “for the greater good” is always an allowable line of reasoning, then there may be no discernable end to individual sacrifice.
Importantly, if we view privacy infringement as a wrong in itself, then the end result and benefits (if there are even any) cannot justify the means. This however, requires an analysis of why privacy is an inalienable right, making privacy infringement inherently wrong. | | | Analyzing the importance of privacy
On reflection, there might be several reasons for why privacy should be regarded by everyone as an inalienable right. | |
<
< |
It might be useful to explain why Jefferson's word "inalienable" is in this conversation. What do you mean by it except "important"?
For one, it is a fallacy to think that spying creates a net benefit for individuals. Rewards like convenience only exist because we have bought into the system that we currently live in, where big corporations collect large amounts of data and provide us with bespoke services in turn. In other words, it is only good because it is difficult for us to conceive of another system where services can be equally convenient absent the constant spying and surveillance. In an alternate reality where big corporations did not provide these services, it is likely that adequate services can be provided by others who did not have the perverse incentive to spy on individuals, simply because there will always exist individuals who yearn to create better services. Convenience thus, is a concept that companies use to deceive its users that spying is acceptable and even good.
I think this is a version of an idea I have expressed in the classroom, but I'm not sure why it is here, or how it is supposed to balance against the other, conflicting views expressed earlier. Were they objections to this view? If so, how were they resolved?
Importantly, privacy is also important because it enables us to create boundaries and protect us from unwarranted interference.
The sentence plainly needed rewriting, and because it was the topic sentence of the paragraph, that probably should have signalled that something was wrong with the paragraph in a larger sense. The topic sentence of the paragraph must be coherent if the remaining sentences are to have clear work to do.
Net benefit, even if it truly exists, is a slippery slope because it can then be extended as a justification for other infringements. If “for the greater good” is always an allowable line of reasoning, then there can be no discernable end to individual sacrifice. Further, it is difficult for lay persons to truly analyze claims of these alleged benefits – for example, privacy has been wrongfully pitched against security, whereby privacy is viewed as an impediment to the “fight against terrorism”.
The first part of the paragraph is too general, and the last "further-ness," is not really a continuation of that idea, but a swerve into a particular controversy, about which factual rather than general argument is necessary.
| >
> | For one, privacy can be viewed as a fundamental constitutional and human right. Although not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment leaves room for finding the existence of rights that are not explicitly stated. | | |
Further, asymmetric distribution of information is inherently dangerous. In the world, information is power – large corporations and governments thus currently have a dangerously uneven upper hand. Whilst some might believe that the information collected is only being used for legitimate and good purposes – like to provide convenience, security etc. – the situation could radically change should these organizations want to. In other words, it is inherently risky that power is concentrated in these oligopolies. It is difficult to see the importance of privacy rights where these oligopolies are benevolent, but to believe that they will always be is hubris. | |
<
< | | | | Additionally, the way in which our privacy is being infringed also robs individuals of choice. Whilst corporations and the government provide services and security in exchange for data collection, there is no way for individuals to meaningfully opt out of this system unless they make radical changes to their lifestyle, which most people are not willing to do. As a result, individuals are forced into making this tradeoff, even if they do not meaningfully make the decision to do so. The cost of opt-out (if possible) is so high that it is almost impossible, resulting in the situation that we have now, where people have no choice but to be subjected to spying. As a coping mechanism for this learned helplessness, they then defend the system by psyching themselves into thinking that spying results in a net benefit for them.
Conclusion | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | In conclusion, whilst individuals should be entitled to exercise their freedom of choice to give up their privacy rights, the system we currently exist in subjects us to mandatory spying that favors large corporations at our expense. Perhaps, the tradeoff is not necessary, and more people need to think about that.
What is the conclusion? All this work to say "people should think" about what you have just been thinking, which is rather thin, to say the least.
That seems to me to indicate the best path to improvement. What is your idea? State it clearly at the outset and provide an indication of the pathway that led you to it (which seems to be Snowden in this draft, but not particularly distinctly). Then you can use the center of the draft to show why your idea helps to make sense of the world, and to deal with whatever you consider the most important objections. Then you can have a stronger conclusion, one which invites the reader to take your idea and build on it, rather than urging her to redo the work you should have just credibly and seriously finished.
| >
> | In conclusion, the alleged benefits that arise from spying cannot be used to justify it. However, because of inertia, lack of information or some other reason, most of us do not fundamentally believe that the threat of mass surveillance will be unleashed onto us. On the bright side however, reflecting on this issue can make one (myself included) more skeptical about spying in general and more motivated to retain anonymous where possible. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|