Is there an international consensus about Privacy vs Security (How Much Data Should We Collect?)
On the one hand, privacy gives people leeway for free thought, freedom of expression, and criticism without fear of personal consequences.
On the other hand, security ensures the structural integrity of society and grants citizens a sense of safety, which translates into stability.
Previously, law enforcement with few exceptions did not have to think much about what sort of data to collect, since surveillance resources were limited and had to be used in a directed fashion to be effective at all. Nowadays, as China is demonstrating with their extensive camera coverage and social credit system, the boundaries of state knowledge seem out of sight.
Though it is easy to criticize China for their in many ways immoral social credit system, simultaneously they are doing pioneer work in modern law enforcement by exploring extreme surveillance. Western nations will soon also face questions of when and where to install cameras, under which conditions to perform facial recognition, and which social spheres law enforcement may inspect.
Theoretically, a perfectly just government could collect all the data it wanted and use it sensibly, but since data persists, even if we had such a perfect state, successive governments could misuse extensive citizen profiles to establish an authoritarian regime, for example through tailored propaganda and selective law enforcement.
In conclusion, maximal security implies stagnation of societal development, while maximal privacy gives rise to unlimited crime. How much information can the state be trusted with? Where do you draw the line? Is there already a consensus out there for where the line should be drawn?
political-theory police freedom-of-speech privacy surveillance
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
|
show 4 more comments
On the one hand, privacy gives people leeway for free thought, freedom of expression, and criticism without fear of personal consequences.
On the other hand, security ensures the structural integrity of society and grants citizens a sense of safety, which translates into stability.
Previously, law enforcement with few exceptions did not have to think much about what sort of data to collect, since surveillance resources were limited and had to be used in a directed fashion to be effective at all. Nowadays, as China is demonstrating with their extensive camera coverage and social credit system, the boundaries of state knowledge seem out of sight.
Though it is easy to criticize China for their in many ways immoral social credit system, simultaneously they are doing pioneer work in modern law enforcement by exploring extreme surveillance. Western nations will soon also face questions of when and where to install cameras, under which conditions to perform facial recognition, and which social spheres law enforcement may inspect.
Theoretically, a perfectly just government could collect all the data it wanted and use it sensibly, but since data persists, even if we had such a perfect state, successive governments could misuse extensive citizen profiles to establish an authoritarian regime, for example through tailored propaganda and selective law enforcement.
In conclusion, maximal security implies stagnation of societal development, while maximal privacy gives rise to unlimited crime. How much information can the state be trusted with? Where do you draw the line? Is there already a consensus out there for where the line should be drawn?
political-theory police freedom-of-speech privacy surveillance
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
2
I would note that, to an extent, privacy/freedom vs security has always been a debate, and indeed is one of the axis along which to judge candidates/parties when they present their programs in western democracies.
– Matthieu M.
Dec 31 '18 at 20:09
1
If people were wary of these issues, everyone would use communications methods with nigh-unbreakable encryption, which are easily available these days through apps like Signal or Telegram. Then the governments could store nothing as they couldn't decrypt anything.
– JonathanReez
Jan 1 at 0:46
Also, keep in mind that "security" means "the continued existence of the state". Individuals may benefit from the state, but that is by no means guaranteed.
– Simon Richter
Jan 1 at 4:39
Part of the problem is defining "privacy" and in particular "privacy" vs "secrecy". When I go to the toilet, I close the door. It's not a secret what I'm doing, but I prefer not to be observed while I'm doing it.
– pinoyyid
Jan 1 at 5:46
I would argue that privacy vs. security is a fallacious framing. Solitary confinement is high in both security and privacy. Naked and alone with an unlocked device in a high-crime area is low in both security and privacy (odd example, but you get the point). Privacy and security need to be defined for this question, but security is often an essential prerequisite for privacy (e.g., end-to-end encryption). As you note, once collected, data is ripe for abuse, so collection theoretically should be the minimum necessary for any given well-justified security objective (ditto for data retention).
– pseudon
Jan 1 at 18:11
|
show 4 more comments
On the one hand, privacy gives people leeway for free thought, freedom of expression, and criticism without fear of personal consequences.
On the other hand, security ensures the structural integrity of society and grants citizens a sense of safety, which translates into stability.
Previously, law enforcement with few exceptions did not have to think much about what sort of data to collect, since surveillance resources were limited and had to be used in a directed fashion to be effective at all. Nowadays, as China is demonstrating with their extensive camera coverage and social credit system, the boundaries of state knowledge seem out of sight.
Though it is easy to criticize China for their in many ways immoral social credit system, simultaneously they are doing pioneer work in modern law enforcement by exploring extreme surveillance. Western nations will soon also face questions of when and where to install cameras, under which conditions to perform facial recognition, and which social spheres law enforcement may inspect.
Theoretically, a perfectly just government could collect all the data it wanted and use it sensibly, but since data persists, even if we had such a perfect state, successive governments could misuse extensive citizen profiles to establish an authoritarian regime, for example through tailored propaganda and selective law enforcement.
In conclusion, maximal security implies stagnation of societal development, while maximal privacy gives rise to unlimited crime. How much information can the state be trusted with? Where do you draw the line? Is there already a consensus out there for where the line should be drawn?
political-theory police freedom-of-speech privacy surveillance
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
On the one hand, privacy gives people leeway for free thought, freedom of expression, and criticism without fear of personal consequences.
On the other hand, security ensures the structural integrity of society and grants citizens a sense of safety, which translates into stability.
Previously, law enforcement with few exceptions did not have to think much about what sort of data to collect, since surveillance resources were limited and had to be used in a directed fashion to be effective at all. Nowadays, as China is demonstrating with their extensive camera coverage and social credit system, the boundaries of state knowledge seem out of sight.
Though it is easy to criticize China for their in many ways immoral social credit system, simultaneously they are doing pioneer work in modern law enforcement by exploring extreme surveillance. Western nations will soon also face questions of when and where to install cameras, under which conditions to perform facial recognition, and which social spheres law enforcement may inspect.
Theoretically, a perfectly just government could collect all the data it wanted and use it sensibly, but since data persists, even if we had such a perfect state, successive governments could misuse extensive citizen profiles to establish an authoritarian regime, for example through tailored propaganda and selective law enforcement.
In conclusion, maximal security implies stagnation of societal development, while maximal privacy gives rise to unlimited crime. How much information can the state be trusted with? Where do you draw the line? Is there already a consensus out there for where the line should be drawn?
political-theory police freedom-of-speech privacy surveillance
political-theory police freedom-of-speech privacy surveillance
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:15
Alexei
16.9k2296175
16.9k2296175
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
asked Dec 31 '18 at 11:05
ride_on_the_NOP_sledride_on_the_NOP_sled
282
282
2
I would note that, to an extent, privacy/freedom vs security has always been a debate, and indeed is one of the axis along which to judge candidates/parties when they present their programs in western democracies.
– Matthieu M.
Dec 31 '18 at 20:09
1
If people were wary of these issues, everyone would use communications methods with nigh-unbreakable encryption, which are easily available these days through apps like Signal or Telegram. Then the governments could store nothing as they couldn't decrypt anything.
– JonathanReez
Jan 1 at 0:46
Also, keep in mind that "security" means "the continued existence of the state". Individuals may benefit from the state, but that is by no means guaranteed.
– Simon Richter
Jan 1 at 4:39
Part of the problem is defining "privacy" and in particular "privacy" vs "secrecy". When I go to the toilet, I close the door. It's not a secret what I'm doing, but I prefer not to be observed while I'm doing it.
– pinoyyid
Jan 1 at 5:46
I would argue that privacy vs. security is a fallacious framing. Solitary confinement is high in both security and privacy. Naked and alone with an unlocked device in a high-crime area is low in both security and privacy (odd example, but you get the point). Privacy and security need to be defined for this question, but security is often an essential prerequisite for privacy (e.g., end-to-end encryption). As you note, once collected, data is ripe for abuse, so collection theoretically should be the minimum necessary for any given well-justified security objective (ditto for data retention).
– pseudon
Jan 1 at 18:11
|
show 4 more comments
2
I would note that, to an extent, privacy/freedom vs security has always been a debate, and indeed is one of the axis along which to judge candidates/parties when they present their programs in western democracies.
– Matthieu M.
Dec 31 '18 at 20:09
1
If people were wary of these issues, everyone would use communications methods with nigh-unbreakable encryption, which are easily available these days through apps like Signal or Telegram. Then the governments could store nothing as they couldn't decrypt anything.
– JonathanReez
Jan 1 at 0:46
Also, keep in mind that "security" means "the continued existence of the state". Individuals may benefit from the state, but that is by no means guaranteed.
– Simon Richter
Jan 1 at 4:39
Part of the problem is defining "privacy" and in particular "privacy" vs "secrecy". When I go to the toilet, I close the door. It's not a secret what I'm doing, but I prefer not to be observed while I'm doing it.
– pinoyyid
Jan 1 at 5:46
I would argue that privacy vs. security is a fallacious framing. Solitary confinement is high in both security and privacy. Naked and alone with an unlocked device in a high-crime area is low in both security and privacy (odd example, but you get the point). Privacy and security need to be defined for this question, but security is often an essential prerequisite for privacy (e.g., end-to-end encryption). As you note, once collected, data is ripe for abuse, so collection theoretically should be the minimum necessary for any given well-justified security objective (ditto for data retention).
– pseudon
Jan 1 at 18:11
2
2
I would note that, to an extent, privacy/freedom vs security has always been a debate, and indeed is one of the axis along which to judge candidates/parties when they present their programs in western democracies.
– Matthieu M.
Dec 31 '18 at 20:09
I would note that, to an extent, privacy/freedom vs security has always been a debate, and indeed is one of the axis along which to judge candidates/parties when they present their programs in western democracies.
– Matthieu M.
Dec 31 '18 at 20:09
1
1
If people were wary of these issues, everyone would use communications methods with nigh-unbreakable encryption, which are easily available these days through apps like Signal or Telegram. Then the governments could store nothing as they couldn't decrypt anything.
– JonathanReez
Jan 1 at 0:46
If people were wary of these issues, everyone would use communications methods with nigh-unbreakable encryption, which are easily available these days through apps like Signal or Telegram. Then the governments could store nothing as they couldn't decrypt anything.
– JonathanReez
Jan 1 at 0:46
Also, keep in mind that "security" means "the continued existence of the state". Individuals may benefit from the state, but that is by no means guaranteed.
– Simon Richter
Jan 1 at 4:39
Also, keep in mind that "security" means "the continued existence of the state". Individuals may benefit from the state, but that is by no means guaranteed.
– Simon Richter
Jan 1 at 4:39
Part of the problem is defining "privacy" and in particular "privacy" vs "secrecy". When I go to the toilet, I close the door. It's not a secret what I'm doing, but I prefer not to be observed while I'm doing it.
– pinoyyid
Jan 1 at 5:46
Part of the problem is defining "privacy" and in particular "privacy" vs "secrecy". When I go to the toilet, I close the door. It's not a secret what I'm doing, but I prefer not to be observed while I'm doing it.
– pinoyyid
Jan 1 at 5:46
I would argue that privacy vs. security is a fallacious framing. Solitary confinement is high in both security and privacy. Naked and alone with an unlocked device in a high-crime area is low in both security and privacy (odd example, but you get the point). Privacy and security need to be defined for this question, but security is often an essential prerequisite for privacy (e.g., end-to-end encryption). As you note, once collected, data is ripe for abuse, so collection theoretically should be the minimum necessary for any given well-justified security objective (ditto for data retention).
– pseudon
Jan 1 at 18:11
I would argue that privacy vs. security is a fallacious framing. Solitary confinement is high in both security and privacy. Naked and alone with an unlocked device in a high-crime area is low in both security and privacy (odd example, but you get the point). Privacy and security need to be defined for this question, but security is often an essential prerequisite for privacy (e.g., end-to-end encryption). As you note, once collected, data is ripe for abuse, so collection theoretically should be the minimum necessary for any given well-justified security objective (ditto for data retention).
– pseudon
Jan 1 at 18:11
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There is no consensus.
Not even among the so-called Western nations, and certainly not beyond that.
- Many countries use double standards for their own citizens (or residents) and those of other nations. One group is protected by their constitution, the other isn't.
- Some countries are making distinctions between the content of communication and the metadata (who, when, were, to whom, ...) with metadata getting less protection than the content. This allows extensive profiling of the users which was not possible a few decades ago.
- Some countries are extending the protection of paper mail and telephones to email, messengers, and voice-over-IP. This is not always a good fit, e.g. when a mail is saved on a computer.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
6
In general whenever the question is "is there international consensus" the answer is no.
– David Grinberg
Jan 1 at 1:06
Of course, there can never be unanimous agreement on any fundamental matter, at least due to the ambiguity of language. However, I would consider something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be enough of a concensus to call it one.
– ride_on_the_NOP_sled
Jan 2 at 15:07
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37573%2fis-there-an-international-consensus-about-privacy-vs-security-how-much-data-sho%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is no consensus.
Not even among the so-called Western nations, and certainly not beyond that.
- Many countries use double standards for their own citizens (or residents) and those of other nations. One group is protected by their constitution, the other isn't.
- Some countries are making distinctions between the content of communication and the metadata (who, when, were, to whom, ...) with metadata getting less protection than the content. This allows extensive profiling of the users which was not possible a few decades ago.
- Some countries are extending the protection of paper mail and telephones to email, messengers, and voice-over-IP. This is not always a good fit, e.g. when a mail is saved on a computer.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
6
In general whenever the question is "is there international consensus" the answer is no.
– David Grinberg
Jan 1 at 1:06
Of course, there can never be unanimous agreement on any fundamental matter, at least due to the ambiguity of language. However, I would consider something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be enough of a concensus to call it one.
– ride_on_the_NOP_sled
Jan 2 at 15:07
add a comment |
There is no consensus.
Not even among the so-called Western nations, and certainly not beyond that.
- Many countries use double standards for their own citizens (or residents) and those of other nations. One group is protected by their constitution, the other isn't.
- Some countries are making distinctions between the content of communication and the metadata (who, when, were, to whom, ...) with metadata getting less protection than the content. This allows extensive profiling of the users which was not possible a few decades ago.
- Some countries are extending the protection of paper mail and telephones to email, messengers, and voice-over-IP. This is not always a good fit, e.g. when a mail is saved on a computer.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
6
In general whenever the question is "is there international consensus" the answer is no.
– David Grinberg
Jan 1 at 1:06
Of course, there can never be unanimous agreement on any fundamental matter, at least due to the ambiguity of language. However, I would consider something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be enough of a concensus to call it one.
– ride_on_the_NOP_sled
Jan 2 at 15:07
add a comment |
There is no consensus.
Not even among the so-called Western nations, and certainly not beyond that.
- Many countries use double standards for their own citizens (or residents) and those of other nations. One group is protected by their constitution, the other isn't.
- Some countries are making distinctions between the content of communication and the metadata (who, when, were, to whom, ...) with metadata getting less protection than the content. This allows extensive profiling of the users which was not possible a few decades ago.
- Some countries are extending the protection of paper mail and telephones to email, messengers, and voice-over-IP. This is not always a good fit, e.g. when a mail is saved on a computer.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
There is no consensus.
Not even among the so-called Western nations, and certainly not beyond that.
- Many countries use double standards for their own citizens (or residents) and those of other nations. One group is protected by their constitution, the other isn't.
- Some countries are making distinctions between the content of communication and the metadata (who, when, were, to whom, ...) with metadata getting less protection than the content. This allows extensive profiling of the users which was not possible a few decades ago.
- Some countries are extending the protection of paper mail and telephones to email, messengers, and voice-over-IP. This is not always a good fit, e.g. when a mail is saved on a computer.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:02
o.m.o.m.
8,35911432
8,35911432
6
In general whenever the question is "is there international consensus" the answer is no.
– David Grinberg
Jan 1 at 1:06
Of course, there can never be unanimous agreement on any fundamental matter, at least due to the ambiguity of language. However, I would consider something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be enough of a concensus to call it one.
– ride_on_the_NOP_sled
Jan 2 at 15:07
add a comment |
6
In general whenever the question is "is there international consensus" the answer is no.
– David Grinberg
Jan 1 at 1:06
Of course, there can never be unanimous agreement on any fundamental matter, at least due to the ambiguity of language. However, I would consider something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be enough of a concensus to call it one.
– ride_on_the_NOP_sled
Jan 2 at 15:07
6
6
In general whenever the question is "is there international consensus" the answer is no.
– David Grinberg
Jan 1 at 1:06
In general whenever the question is "is there international consensus" the answer is no.
– David Grinberg
Jan 1 at 1:06
Of course, there can never be unanimous agreement on any fundamental matter, at least due to the ambiguity of language. However, I would consider something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be enough of a concensus to call it one.
– ride_on_the_NOP_sled
Jan 2 at 15:07
Of course, there can never be unanimous agreement on any fundamental matter, at least due to the ambiguity of language. However, I would consider something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be enough of a concensus to call it one.
– ride_on_the_NOP_sled
Jan 2 at 15:07
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37573%2fis-there-an-international-consensus-about-privacy-vs-security-how-much-data-sho%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
I would note that, to an extent, privacy/freedom vs security has always been a debate, and indeed is one of the axis along which to judge candidates/parties when they present their programs in western democracies.
– Matthieu M.
Dec 31 '18 at 20:09
1
If people were wary of these issues, everyone would use communications methods with nigh-unbreakable encryption, which are easily available these days through apps like Signal or Telegram. Then the governments could store nothing as they couldn't decrypt anything.
– JonathanReez
Jan 1 at 0:46
Also, keep in mind that "security" means "the continued existence of the state". Individuals may benefit from the state, but that is by no means guaranteed.
– Simon Richter
Jan 1 at 4:39
Part of the problem is defining "privacy" and in particular "privacy" vs "secrecy". When I go to the toilet, I close the door. It's not a secret what I'm doing, but I prefer not to be observed while I'm doing it.
– pinoyyid
Jan 1 at 5:46
I would argue that privacy vs. security is a fallacious framing. Solitary confinement is high in both security and privacy. Naked and alone with an unlocked device in a high-crime area is low in both security and privacy (odd example, but you get the point). Privacy and security need to be defined for this question, but security is often an essential prerequisite for privacy (e.g., end-to-end encryption). As you note, once collected, data is ripe for abuse, so collection theoretically should be the minimum necessary for any given well-justified security objective (ditto for data retention).
– pseudon
Jan 1 at 18:11