Sacrificing privacy for what?
In my last blog, I introduced the conflict between privacy and security. People have varying
opinions about the importance and the meaning of privacy. However, most would agree that
rights to privacy can be sacrificed for a greater cause in security. To what extent are citizens
willing to sacrifice privacy and can we be assured that threat to privacy is compensated by greater
security?
Recently, Trend Micro claimed that Pawn Storm, cyber espionage group, is targeting Turkey. Ever
since its founding in 2004, Pawn Storm has been launching various cyber attacks on high-ranking
officials in the United States and its allies as well as dissidents of the Russian government. By
creating fake Outlook Web Access login page or creating iOS malware, this group has surely
been invading privacy and threatening cyber security. It has also been believed for a long time
that Pawn Storm is an agent of Russian government and its recent attacks against Turkey only
seems to strengthen such belief. Ewan Lawson, an expert in cyber-warfare at the Royal United
Services Institute, said that “the interesting question remains as to the extent that this is being
directed or organized by the Russian state and in particular those close to the leadership.” High
suspicion regarding Russian state’s threats to privacy is not new. Russia is rather infamous for use
of mass surveillance to tighten the control of its population. Of course, Putin claims that only
the surveillance on terrorists and criminals are allowed to ensure security. But Court’s claim that
“threats to national security may vary in character and may be unanticipated or difficult to define
in advance” opens door for arbitrariness and abuse. Not surprisingly, these clauses have been
used to justify various forms to threats to privacy in attempt to control the population.
Continuing from last week’s brief introduction and discussion about Apple versus FBI case, the
issue is still hotly debated among experts and leaders. Apple is not only interested in actual
protection of its customers’ privacy but also the image of the company. While FBI claims that
Syed Farook’s information will greatly increase security because it can unveil information about
other terrorists, skepticism is gaining support. Edward Snowden posted in his social media about
evidences that undermine FBI’s claim that unlocking Farook’s phone is absolutely ecessary. One
example of evidences is that necessary records of contacts with Farook have already been
provided by co-workers. If that’s the case, FBI’s real intention behind request to unlock Farook’s
phone is deemed with suspicions. Even if we do not buy Snowden’s skepticism, we are at least
cautioned against naïve belief in benevolent government agency.
Is it possible to achieve both privacy and security or are they mutually exclusive? By assuming
that the Apple’s consent to FBI’s request will automatically cause serious damages to privacy, are
we undermining government’s integrity and technology on selective encryption? Before asking
these questions, we should cautiously examine whether the invasion to privacy has been
worsening sense of security. This battle between privacy and security with growing skepticism is
extremely difficult to tackle as we are faced with many uncertainties and frenzy about worse
scenarios which have heavy consequences.
<References>
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/zakharov-v-russia-mass-surveillance-and.html
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-fbi-applegiving-privacy.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/admiral-jim-stavridis-ret/apple-fbi-privacy-
security_b_9404314.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/vladimir-putin-web-breakup-internet-cia
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/09/edward-snowden-fbi-san-bernardino-
iphone-bullshit-nsa-apple
http://www.zdnet.com/article/russian-cyberspies-pawn-storm-add-turkey-to-the-target-list/
http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/subir-roy-protecting-privacy-in-
democracies-116030801242_1.html
