If you ask anyone if they need privacy, their likely answer will be something along the lines of, "Of course not, only people performing bad actions need privacy. I don't need it because I have nothing to hide." These remarks are far too common; nonetheless, they are often short-sighted.
Someone who says they don't need privacy because they have nothing to hide usually contradicts their everyday actions. It wouldn't be uncommon to see that person close the window and pull the curtains of their bedroom before having an intimate moment with their partner. The action of reducing the spectators or participants of an event to only those in it is a clear claim on privacy, yet one took for granted. Ask if that person would like their boss or coworker to be peaking through the window, and the likely answer would be an astonishing "no." So why do people say they don't need privacy? Didn't they say they have nothing to hide? How is this different?
In reality, people dismissing privacy with the premise that only those doing nefarious actions need it entails there are only two types of people in the world: good and bad. Besides being a blunt misrepresentation of the world, this assumption has a bias embedded in it. What is considered bad enough for someone to be labeled as a bad person? Do good people only perform good deeds? What if they don't intend to do something wrong but end up doing it either way?
Reality is grey rather than black-and-white. Nonetheless, it is still in the general public's best interest to catch people performing actions that harm others. One's freedom of choice can't supersede another's right to life and well-being. But where in the sand is the line drawn? What ought to be public, and is a crime to be kept private? Contrastingly, what can be kept confidential, and is a crime to be made public?
In the physical world, intimate moments such as having sex are intuitively seen as private ones. In that case, pulling the curtains is something natural and expected, and nobody will judge you for it because it follows societary orthodoxy. But saying you need privacy in the digital realm is often taken as an offense in and of itself. The simple act of seeking to "pull the curtains" for some of your online activity is surprisingly perceived negatively, while physically doing so is a norm. What changes?
Human society has been enjoying physical privacy –– pulling the curtains for having sex –– for some centuries, but digital privacy –– pulling the curtains for browsing the web –– is very much new in the history of humanity. For the most part, those reading this document will intuitively understand and instantaneously mentally picture what pulling the curtains for having intimate moments means. On the other hand, the same cannot be said about pulling the online curtains for internet browsing. This fact highlights how society usually cannot understand online privacy, both what it is and how it is achieved.
In the physical world, you generally can tell if your privacy is being invaded. For instance, if you're in your bedroom with all the curtains and windows and doors closed, you can be reasonably sure that no one else is there with you besides those who you intended to be in the first place. In the online world, however, things aren't as straightforward. Most of the time, people assume they are doing something alone on their laptops simply because the room's door is locked and nobody is physically present with them. As a rule, online presence is harder to identify and measure than physical presence. You would likely be astonished if you could see behind the digital curtains and observe the many entities likely to be watching your every online move.
In reality, most of what is done online is not done alone –– there is always someone or something watching, or in online jargon, tracking. Not necessarily all your movements, but indeed what, when, and how you're browsing the web. Google can gather as much information on you and your behaviors as you're willing to give them, and the chances are that data will live for very long. Google was all it took for a U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) special agent to uncover Ross Ulbricht's identity1, the alleged operator of the deep web marketplace Silk Road.
Silk Road only operated as a hidden service (.onion instead of .com), but the agent thought there could be site mentions on the open web, also referred to as clearnet. After Googling "Silk Road" and ".onion," the agent found a forum post that quoted another post by a user named "altoid." 2 He then looked at older posts by that user until he found altoid seeking "the best and brightest IT pro in the bitcoin community to be the lead developer in a venture backed bitcoin startup company" 3 years before Silk Road was online. The recruitment post said interested candidates should email "rossulbricht at gmail dot com." The agent then asked the judiciary to break into that email account, and Ulbricht was in jail a little later.
You most likely have little clue about the massive amount of data the internet and Big Tech companies like Google have on you. Some of which you handed out willingly, although frequently due to carelessness like in Ulbricht's case, but many of which you have no idea the internet possesses.
After the Cambridge Analytica case, the data analytics company that used Facebook data of millions of U.S. voters to target them with advertising in the Trump campaign in 2016 and ultimately led the Republican candidate to victory, The New Yorker reporter Brian X. Chen sought to see how much data the social network had of him. Chen details how surprised and terrified he was after discovering all the pieces of information Facebook had on his persona. "Yikes."
"When I downloaded a copy of my Facebook data last week, I didn't expect to see much. My profile is sparse, I rarely post anything on the site, and I seldom click on ads," Chen wrote.4 "But when I opened my file, it was like opening Pandora's box."
If you were to follow Chen's steps and take a peek at all the personably identifiable information (PII) that Facebook stores about you, chances are you'd have a similar jaw-dropping reaction.
Since your online behavior is being tracked without your consent or acknowledgment, companies, hackers, and even the government can use that data to coerce you into doing something you don't want to do. They can threaten you if you deny, invade your personal life with physical stalking or harassment, or permanently damage your reputation by exposing things you wouldn't like made public. In short, the amount of data you leave online is likely far beyond what you'd be comfortable to share with others deliberately –– even the close ones.
Due to society's digitization, it has become more accessible and easier to harness and analyze data on anyone, anytime. Citizens can be tracked anytime, regardless of where they are, at the whim of a regulator or influential person. And worse, the citizens themselves have no clue they're being watched until those watching decide to tell them.
The panopticon is a system created in the 18th century to enable a security guard to watch over all inmates in jail without their knowledge5. But it has since been extended to any institution that wishes to obtain oversight and control over its members. In modern times, the model has been referenced in surveillance technology6, employment and management7, and social media8. The government, corporations, and motivated entities can use panopticon-like online tactics to enforce belief systems, political orientation (as in the Cambridge Analytica case), and most importantly, obedience. The constant oversight of those in power over their people is the most critical piece of the puzzle in obtaining conformity and compliance – and that is why totalitarian governments are keen on achieving it.
Big Tech most certainly knows all about you since it tracks all your online movements. Amazon knows what you like to buy, Facebook (and Instagram) knows your interests, and Google knows what you're looking for next. Puzzle that information together, and there's crucial PII on any person's interests, habits, social circle, political orientation, shopping preferences, and subconscious habits and inclinations of which not even the person themselves are aware.
Furthermore, even if you still say that you have nothing to hide and thus don't need privacy, you miss that privacy catalyzes diversity. There is no diversity in a panopticon because while being watched, people's behavior does not represent their true intentions but the expectations others have of them instead9. Authoritarian regimes don't want diversity; they want obedience. By stripping away personal privacy, the system ends up crashing individual freedom as well.
Moreover, a person that only does good things could quickly be turned into a bad person, by their definition, if they moved jurisdictions. Advocating for women's rights in the U.S. is seen as legitimate, while in most of the Middle East, it is seen as entirely absurd and even illegal in some areas. The definition of "good" or "bad" is more often than not determined by those in political power. Therefore, "bad" is any and everything that threatens a regime and its establishment –– authoritarian or not.
Constant China bans on Bitcoin are a clear example of this. The communist-ruled country has been trying to ban or restrict BTC usage since 201310 to suppress a monetary technology that, at its core, enables freedom and sovereignty. It goes against China's best interests to have a sound money system that empowers the individual since the idea of individual freedom is incompatible with a communist ideology11.
The Chinese government has been taking active measures to restrict or censor all the different forms an individual could gather information and form opinions. As early as 2002, the communist-led country blocked its citizens from accessing pro-democracy sites, health sites, Web pages from U.S. universities, online comic books, science-fiction fan centers, and the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg's Internet home12.
"To human rights research consultant Greg Walton, these patterns of suppression are beacons, showing where these regimes see threats to their authority," reported Wired12.
Countries seeking some or total control of their citizens will lash out at privacy, similar to what China is doing13. Often with propaganda, such governments will try to lead their population into believing that privacy is something only bad people need - a fallacious argument that this document has explored at length. In truth, behind the curtains, these governments want to be in the loop of what their citizens are doing and analyze anything that may threaten their power, even if said "bad" things aren't a crime and their regime isn't authoritarian. A panopticon-like nation-state subconsciously drives people away from their actual wants to favor the needs of the minority which is in power.
Despite all the negativities of government and Big Tech surveillance, privacy extends far beyond that. In addition to the general privacy requirements for individual freedom in a national or global context, many people crave privacy in their daily interactions, in their communities, families, or work settings. You may or may not relate, but people living in the margins of society face privacy needs that those in the mainstream ethos seldom think about.
"Queer Privacy: Essays From The Margins Of Society" 14 shares the stories of many people in situations where their very existence is seen as a threat. People on the margins of society often need the details of their personal lives to be kept private, even from the ones most close to them. In "Privacy On The Margins," an essay in "Queer Privacy," Morgan Potts explains how close people can often cause more harm than a government.
"For a long time the threat for me wasn't just the state, or identity thieves; more than anyone else it was my partner. For three years I was in an abusive relationship where my then-boyfriend cyberstalked me," wrote Potts. "He used our shared network to get access to my browser history. He would use that information to pretend he knew me better than I knew myself, and to exploit my fears. He also used a keystroke program to get my email password and therefore all my social media passwords, and made my email account passively forward him every email I sent and received."
Do you think someone would label Potts a "bad person" because of her need for privacy? Potts was a victim of stalking, coercion, and harassment, leading her to seek ways to achieve enough privacy so that she could sleep at night. To say that only people doing bad things need privacy seems a rather narrow-vision statement now that things have been put in perspective. Those uttering such remarks are often so privileged that they can't perceive the many different realities people face around the world. Similarly, those developing or marketing privacy-preserving technologies can't be labeled as bad people or called out for enticing wrongdoing. It was those tools that enabled Potts to reclaim her privacy, and ultimately her life.
"Reclaiming my privacy has been important both as an activist and immigrant, and on a personal level to regain control over my life," Potts wrote. "It's been empowering to realize that tools and methods which my ex used against me can be frustrated and blocked with tools of my own. Now my ex would need access to my phone (which is encrypted with its own passphrase) in order to gain access to my email or social media accounts. My confidence in my privacy from the prying eyes of the state is medium to low, but at least I'm fairly confident that my abusive ex can't track my movements across the city anymore—and if he did, my friends have bats at the ready."
To realize the need for privacy and work towards securing that right is to acknowledge the 4.3 billion people in the world who live under authoritarian regimes. It is an act of compassion towards those "on the margins" that need privacy only to exist peacefully. Moreover, fighting for the right to privacy even as a privileged person in the West is preventive. Kath Rella also shared her story in "Queer Privacy" in the essay "What's In A Name?" Rella, which is not her real name but instead her online pseudonym, shared the many ways with which the U.K. government had secretly been spying on law-abiding citizens15.
"The simple fact is we all have a private life. We should all have a right to a private life. Our government does not feel this is the case," she wrote. "The argument made by many, that the government is only interested in serious crime, falls apart when we look at how pre-existing powers are being used. With such comprehensive access to people's personal information, the likelihood of more invasive surveillance of innocent people only increases."
Ultimately, even if you are the most privileged human in the world, who enjoys financial inclusion, freedom of speech, and rights to form an opinion, and therefore claims to not need privacy, fighting for privacy is fighting for the rights and lives of those who are not that privileged. Saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is an unfair discourse that misses how your privacy is actually necessary for all the privileges you enjoy. Moreover, it doesn't account for the billions of people worldwide who live under totalitarian regimes and can't enjoy the same assurances you have.
To say that only people doing bad things need privacy because they want to cover it up is a selfish, reductionist, short-sighted, narrow-visioned, privileged statement. It places everyone alive in one of two boxes and fails to acknowledge the diverse set of realities people live in around the world. It completely dismisses good people such as Potts that need privacy to live without fear.
But even if you wish to dismiss all that and take the selfish route, being aware of and fighting to protect your privacy is an act of self-respect and preservation because you might not know the path your country chooses to follow next. By neglecting your privacy now, you may find yourself in troubled waters if democracy keeps declining worldwide as it has been in the 21st century161718.
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." – Edward Snowden.
The internet has become a hotbed for data harvesting as users are faced with ever-increasing requirements of data submission to access online services (aka know-your-customer, or KYC, procedures). Although KYC is marketed as being a counter-terrorism practice, it often leads to users having their personal information compromised. This is because data collecting companies, such as a phone company or bank that, which collect data to offer their services, are bad in securing that data.
The solution is not always hardened security for those companies' systems. The companies will always pose a security and privacy issue because they represent single points of failure: one system that guards many data points. Compared to a distributed peer-to-peer system, it is easier for such a single system to be targetted by hackers or attackers, and so they will be.
But full anonymity in the internet is likely a far-fetched reality. Tracking companies and their practices can extend far beyong your browser and its cookies. Someone who seeks online anonymity––or at least pseudonymity––must go at great lengths, usually at the expense of time and money. Basic habits will allow you to protect against the most commons threats that arise from online data harvesting from government, companies, and fellow humans, including:
- Marketing manipulation. Marketing companies can purchase your information from other corporations, e.g. banks, social media, hospitals or clinics, and bombard you with their marketing efforts through mail, email, phone number, etc. This can also be used to manipulate persons or groups of people, as in the Cambridge Analytica case.
- Credit card fraud. Bad actors can steal your information through social engineering or phishing scams and make purchases in your name. This can usually be reverted but will result in at least many days of headaches.
- Identity theft. Also through social engineering, people can commit crimes under your name, permanently injuring your personal records and affecting your life forever.
- Personal stalking. Technology has enabled tracking to be easier and more accurate, often putting peoples' lives in danger. Information sellers can also be harmful in this case, and might've been liable in the Amy Boyer case.
- Government surveillance. Some examples include: ECHELON, FinCEN, XKeyScore, Fascia, Optic Nerve, and PRISM. The issue is that many of these projects, created to target and trim terrorism, more often than not don't deliver and end up harming civilians.
Reminder: this guide currently does not help you guard from highly-skilled, highly-motivated individuals that are tracking you individually.
Privacy, including digital privacy, is not only a basic right but should be encouraged and practiced by regular people everyday. Bottom line is, everyone can benefit from adding even a little extra privacy in their online lives.
Now that you have understood why privacy is important, move on to take Basic Steps To Regain Online Privacy.
Footnotes
-
Joe Mullin. Retrieved September 2021. "The incredibly simple story of how the gov’t Googled Ross Ulbricht." Arstechnica Policy. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/the-incredibly-simple-story-of-how-the-govt-googled-ross-ulbricht/ ↩
-
Bitcointalk.org. Retrieved September 2021. "A Heroin Store." Bitcointalk.org. https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=175.70;wap2 ↩
-
altoid. Retrieved September 2021. "Topic: IT pro needed for venture backed bitcoin startup." Bitcointalk.org. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47811.msg568744#msg568744 ↩
-
Brian X. Chen. Retrieved September 2021. "I Downloaded the Information That Facebook Has on Me. Yikes." The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/technology/personaltech/i-downloaded-the-information-that-facebook-has-on-me-yikes.html ↩
-
Wikipedia. Retrieved September 2021. Panopticon. Wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon ↩
-
Wikipedia. Retrieved September 2021. Panopticon, surveillance technology. Wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#Surveillance_technology ↩
-
Wikipedia. Retrieved September 2021. Panopticon, employment and management. Wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#Employment_and_management ↩
-
Wikipedia. Retrieved September 2021. Panopticon, social media. Wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#Social_media ↩
-
FS Blog Science. Retrieved September 2021. "The Observer Effect: Seeing Is Changing." Farnam Street Media Inc. https://fs.blog/2020/08/observer-effect/ ↩
-
Kashmir Hill. Retrieved September 2021. "Bitcoin in China: The Fall-out From Chinese Government Banning Real World Use." Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/12/06/bitcoin-in-china-the-fall-out-from-chinese-government-banning-real-world-use/?sh=1320362481a8 ↩
-
Eric Roberts. Retrieved September 2021. "Communism and Computer Ethics: Censorship and Freedom of Speech." Stanford Computer Science. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/communism-computing-china/censorship.html ↩
-
Noah Shachtman. Retrieved September 2021. "An Inside Look at China Filters." Wired Security. https://www.wired.com/2002/12/an-inside-look-at-china-filters/ ↩ ↩2
-
Eric Roberts. Retrieved September 2021. "Communism and Computer Ethics: Privacy." Stanford Computer Science. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/communism-computing-china/privacy.html ↩
-
Sarah Jamie Lewis. Retrieved September 2021. "Queer Privacy: Essays from the Margins of Society." https://leanpub.com/queerprivacy ↩
-
Anushka Asthana. Retrieved September 2021. "Revealed: British councils used Ripa to secretly spy on public." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/25/british-councils-used-investigatory-powers-ripa-to-secretly-spy-on-public ↩
-
Rick Shenkman. Retrieved September 2021. "The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy." Politico Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045/ ↩
-
Tim Sullivan. Retrieved September 2021. "For democracy, it's a time of swimming against the tide." AP News. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-africa-europe-government-and-politics-fea9b7509bb99a836edd62f32bb45ac3 ↩
-
Arend Liphart. Retrieved September 2021. "Democracy in the 21st century: can we be optimistic?" European Review 9, no. 2 (2001): 169-84. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/abs/democracy-in-the-21st-century-can-we-be-optimistic/B4929D9B5E63A2D03E798B9B6B32C100 ↩