Monday, January 3, 2011

This house believes that security in the modern age cannot be established without some erosion of individual privacy - Opening speeches

First proposing speech
Privacy seems to be something very new: nobody has ever written, spoken or sung about it in the first eighteen centuries. In my mind, that's a rich man's problem: all my fundamental needs being satisfied, one can bother about his right of privacy. Modern ages, however, raise new challenges. Modern threats deal with our basic and fundamental needs: security and safety.  Because terrorism is blind, hazardous and random, our security is threatened. Such a reduction of our basic needs requirements calls for unmet responses. One can think about global surveillance and other new protection means. Privacy advocate generally hates surveillance, why that? I think this debate is both shifted and useless [...]

First Opposing speech
In the following, I will try to show to what extent privacy erosion isn't a solution to modern security issues, and even turns out to raise additional serious problems. My point isn't to provide an alternative solution to ensure security, but only to convince you that if you're looking for more security, you should definitely consider other ways than privacy erosion. [...]

First proposing speech
Privacy seems to be something very new: nobody has ever written, spoken or sung about it in the first eighteen centuries. In my mind, that's a rich man's problem: all my fundamental needs being satisfied, one can bother about his right of privacy.

Modern ages, however, raise new challenges. Modern threats deal with our basic and fundamental needs: security and safety.  Because terrorism is blind, hazardous and random, our security is threatened. Such a reduction of our basic needs requirements calls for unmet responses. One can think about global surveillance and other new protection means. Privacy advocate generally hates surveillance, why that? I think this debate is both shifted and useless.

Useless because mainstream idea is that security prevails over any other needs. That's a fact! Ask anyone, security first! ('Safety first' was the trade motto of the famous industrial company Union Carbide) My privacy concerns are not relevant against my family well-being. One may observe, of course, that security troubles are rare while privacy issues are daily life related. But, in people's mind, risk (specifically security risk) is not acceptable at all. We are use to a certain level of comfort including privacy, but security belongs to our root needs.

This debate could be said shifted because privacy aficionados claim privacy is erased by new security policies, they could not be more wrong. A video camera recording what's happening in the street does not deny our right to privacy. An email exchanges scanning system won't suppress my freedom of speech. This is a question of balance between real safety improvements and small changes in privacy. Security cannot be achieved without prevention and that prevention holds in electronic surveillance.

One can said that new policies are treating us all as terrorists. In some way, they are right: automatic systems are considering every one of us as suspects whereas human investigators used to pick individuals as suspects. However, automatic system does not break privacy, both sides agree on this point: potential danger of new security systems come from people behind such systems. To those issues we can oppose strict and precise laws. Legal enforcement has always protected us from abuses. Perquisitions for example are a complete violation of private property; when legally restricted it has become a powerful tool for justice.

Nobody fears all the satellites circling the Earth, spying and possibly recording our daily activities. Who cares? Maybe because we know instinctively that nobody would ever been interested in spying our Sunday sunbath in the garden! Plot theorists would argue these people behind these systems can spy and so they will... I agree we should not let data be freely disposed by small groups of people without any constraints. This is where law takes part.
There is no point reminding what the stakes are: street rapes, child pornography and blind terrorism are something our society could not let happen passively. Information technologies could help us to dyke these growing scourges. Closed circuit cameras will help crime investigation; we track and find terrorists with Echelon system in all parts of the world.

A good remark would be that people do not care about privacy anymore: every one of us is exhibitionists on Facebook.  Uploading our Saturday night picts, sharing our thoughts and purchases on daily basis are symptoms of this mind state where privacy has less space than before. I don't use this argument: privacy matters. But trade-off is required between our privacy needs and the stakes of security.

In a nutshell, the scheme is simple. Individuals are not able to protect themselves from menaces so they delegate their security to state-owned structures. By doing so, they give to the delegate the right to investigate to some extent in their life.

The cursor between "no privacy at all" and "complete privacy and nothing to protect me" has to be well positioned. Technological and automatic security systems stand for the best option we currently have because machines do not have misplaced curiosity. Law rules will guide people behind such systems. And more than anything: it will serve the common will which is to be protected.

by GS

First Opposing speech
In the following, I will try to show to what extent privacy erosion isn't a solution to modern security issues, and even turns out to raise additional serious problems. My point isn't to provide an alternative solution to ensure security, but only to convince you that if you're looking for more security, you should definitely consider other ways than privacy erosion.

I believe a key feature of privacy is anonymity. And I consider privacy as a part of freedom, you know, this fundamental right our government swears to protect. Because people have different points of view on everything, each individual has the right to protect his private life from others' sight. Although you are not guilty of anything, you wouldn't tell anyone about every detail of your life. What would happen if everyone (your friends, your close relatives, your colleagues...) could see any of your daily activities ? I guess you wouldn't behave as you do every day; you would avoid doing some things that might appear as strange to some of your acquaintances. Basically, you wouldn't be free to do whatever you want. You wouldn't give up your holy freedom for security, would you ? Then why would you tolerate giving up your privacy ?

The proposers say people don't complain a lot about intrusions [1]. Actually, these are just more and more hidden by technologies; people are still aware of them, but they hardly think about. A typical reaction towards privacy erosion is: "Anyway, why would they care about my private life ? There's nothing interesting for them, and I've done nothing bad". First, they do care about you as part of a global system called society: by knowing information about the microscopic elements, you can infer information about the macroscopic one, not to say manipulate it. Besides, many of your activities could be misinterpreted; no one is perfect, and everybody has a distinct opinion on what is good or bad. Anonymity is your best shield, "great honours are great burdens".

Anyway, privacy erosion has already begun. Huge databases already exist about every of us: your bank knows everything you buy, where and when, your favorite supermarket's loyalty card can track what kind of products you buy [2], your mobile operator knows all your conversations, and where you are [3], so does your internet provider, huge websites gather information and pictures of you, ... The list is endless.

If you don't notice the direct consequences of all this data gathering, just wait for a major war and you'll see how governments will make profit of them. All these spies know much more information about you than your identity card. And of course, they would never ever use your personal data without your knowing [4], and they all ensure no malicious user can access your data [5]. Last, but not least, if you happen to be involved even indirectly in any legal case, they will all betray you by releasing all your data to the authorities.

You may think this is actually a great way to track criminals, and that since you're an innocent person, you've got nothing to lose by releasing your life to authorities. But monitoring everyone is like suspecting everyone, it is contrary to presumption of innocence. Why should I have to bear such an intrusion while I'm a decent citizen ? Furthermore the existence of such databases boils down to putting all your eggs in one basket. This is a major security flaw, a great opportunity for terrorists to get more information than they ever dreamt of.

This question is somehow related to the religion case, in which people would be permanently looked by someone -- God -- so that they always feel monitored and try to behave well. At first sight, the idea is quite smart, since without any cost or mean, people are auto-monitoring. Where the novel falls short is that it becomes very easy for religion rulers to manipulate the crowd, and this has happened a lot in our history, including to drive people to war. Ensuring security by invading people's privacy is like considering governments as gods. Are you sure you believe in them?

To conclude, let's take the CCTV example. There are places and circumstances where the use of cameras is legitimate. But putting one on every street corner is irrelevant. In London, at the cost of billions of pounds, this system proved useful in very few cases [6]. The Scotland Yard itself recognized about its inefficiency. But tomorrow, smart machines will automatically analyze the images and warn the authorities about suspicious events, which will allegedly make the system more and more efficient. Even assuming this, this system will always have a drawback: it stores much more information than needed, including people's privacy, that could be used for many other purposes than public security.

Security doesn't come prior to privacy, these should be independent ideals, it's not a matter of trade-off. As Benjamin Franklin said, "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".

by CB

4 comments:

  1. as an constructive comment i would like to highlight the lack of precision of the opposite side :
    " not to say manipulate it" "just wait for a major war" "that could be used for many other purposes".
    To be convinced, I ask for precise examples of viable alternatives.
    GS

    ReplyDelete
  2. If privacy was not debated much till nowadays, it may be due to the lack of technological mean to erode it in a widespread basis, which is now "fixed".
    CB

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, as I understand it in the opposing speech, the ideal world for someone who absolutely wants to preserve his privacy is a sort of under-evolved world with no electronic devices (no cell phones for instance), no bank accounts and no Internet. I am convinced very few people would be ready to abandon their current way of life for more privacy. This vision is thus totally unrealistic and this is out of the current debate.
    Moreover your conclusion scares me: I cannot conceive how we could live in our modern information-based societies without a trade-off between security and privacy. For instance, in my view, the Internet is a powerful tool that has to be monitored by appropriate authorities in order to prevent terrorists or pedophiles from taking advantage of it.

    ML

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our law teacher, Alain Bensoussan, taught us today : law forbides high-level cryptography if it is not breakable by national security. He adds : "c'est normal et souhaitable". Even such an internet liberty defender agrees that terrorism fight requires some privacy erosion !

    ReplyDelete