When I first started reading the article, my knowledge of the Snowden leak was very limited. I knew he had taken classified documents and made them available to the public so that the public would be aware of privacy violations; however, anything beyond that I had not given a great deal of thought. After reading and listening through the article, I was still left with a sense of “Does it really matter?” All the article did was present to the reader that their privacy was being violated and that it was not a good thing; I never got any insight as to why violating a person’s data privacy was a bad thing, instead, the idea that it was bad was forced repetitively down my throat. So I spent some time in introspection and browsing through different articles online and I developed a very basic and short list of reasons why it was a bad thing (beyond the idea of it violating the Constitution).
- I found a TED Talk that was given by the journalist, Glenn Greenwald, with whom Snowden confided his story. In it, he gives his argument to the people who argue “We don’t actually need privacy if we are not acting like criminals.” His response is to give them one of his email addresses and asks them to send him the addresses and passwords for all of their email accounts. He has never received one.
- It leads the American public to believe that America is not as Democratic (yes I do know that we are more of a Republic than a democracy) as was once thought.
- Snowden only took some of the classified documents…there are many other secrets that are undoubtedly as bad if not worse than the documents he lifted.
My opinion on the matter is much more complex than this blog post (and my list of reasons) allows, but hopefully by pointing out that the article only tells us that the leaks are bad, and not the potential implications of the leaks, you develop an opinion that goes beyond the surface.
Greenwald’s TED Talk:
gilee
I agree with your take from the article, as I similarly experienced a lack of understanding of how decreased privacy is necessarily bad. Furthermore, the three points you lay out are compelling, particularly the first. To be frank, I would not feel comfortable handing over my login information for my bank account to you, even for my email or social networking sites. However, I would like to present the benefits of having the NSA breach our privacy and collect our data (as well as metadata).
In my opinion, the benefit of having a higher organization provide our national security outweighs the costs of losing my privacy. Although the NSA is comprised of contractors and humans, just like you and me, who have access to my private information, I believe it would not be efficient to live in a society that does not track for potential threats. If you do not believe the NSA should access our data or even exist, how do you propose our society identifies potential threats? It is difficult to expect individuals to be watchdogs, in this respect, as national defense is a public good that disincentivizes people from acting to support it.
Secondly, I believe the NSA is focused on protecting American citizens, not commoditizing our data. I would not give you my login information because I am uncertain whether you have private incentives to perhaps take all my money from my checking account or damage my social reputation through acting as me through my email or social networking sites. Although I may have too idealistic of a view (and honestly a limited understanding of what the NSA actually does with our data), I do believe the NSA is warranted to access my private data if that means it is protecting me and those around me. However, I suggest that there be more regulation over the NSA’s activities.