Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


I See You: The Right to Privacy in the Face of Threat

Image taken from www.pixabay.com and used  under Creative Commons License.

Surveillance camera. Image taken from www.pixabay.com and used under Creative Commons License.

In June 2013, Edward Snowden shocked the world when he revealed the staggering extent of the NSA’s surveillance programs. Not limited to collecting data about enemies abroad, the agency was shown to have been amassing huge quantities of information about foreign allies and even its own citizens. Many security holes in software and encryption are a direct result of the NSA, leaving sections of the internet vulnerable to cyber crime. The agency also aggregated vast amounts of personal data, ranging from movement patterns to call records. Even two years after the initial revelations, US citizens and foreign governments alike remain outraged at the audacity of the spy agency’s actions.

Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.

The New York Times

Proponents of the NSA claim that the agency’s actions were appropriate for reasons of national security. If the government does not have the ability to invade privacy in this manner, they say, then its ability to combat terrorism will be greatly reduced. Some worry about the chance of a additional terrorist incidents such as 9/11 if the government lacks this “essential” power. Another often-repeated point is the Nothing to Hide argument. This argument states that if an individual has not committed any crimes, they shouldn’t worry about being spied upon. If they have committed crimes, the argument continues, then they don’t deserve the right to privacy anyhow.


Edward Snowden. Image taken from http://upload.wikimedia.org/ and modified under Creative Commons License

Those who deem the NSA’s actions unacceptable refute the claims of proponents. Opponents see the NSA’s “pre-emptive strike” surveillance as a complete and utter invasion of personal privacy, prompting distrust in the United States government and its agencies. They dismiss the Nothing to Hide argument out of hand, arguing that it limits freedom, defies the basic human need for privacy, and even leads to an Orwellian society. Hyperbolically mocking the proponents, they ask: don’t walls also impede the government’s ability to catch terrorists?

The conflict at hand here revolves around one moral issue: is the government morally justified in violating an individual’s right to privacy to whatever extent it deems necessary for reasons of national security?

Understandably, different fields of ethics would have varied responses to this question. In particular, two large theories of ethics – utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical Imperative – would have vastly contrasting views on the subject.

Utility . . . holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

-John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill’s consequentialist utilitarianism would approach the issue by evaluating the results of the NSA’s actions. Thousands of potential deaths due to terrorist activities, it would evaluate, are far worse then the invasion of the privacy of millions. Viewed as a pain vs. pleasure issue, Mill would say that the potential pain experienced by the family and friends of those killed by terrorist activities would be greater than the mild discomfort of those millions whose privacy is being invaded. Furthermore, many of those victims of privacy invasion may not even be aware of the infractions, causing them no pain whatsoever. Due to this analysis, utilitarianism reasons that the morally correct choice is to invade the privacy of millions of innocent people worldwide (often at no discomfort to them) for the purpose of potentially saving the lives of thousands.

There is therefore only a single categorical imperative, and it is this: Act only on that maxim though which you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law . . .

. . . Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

-Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative

On the other side of the debate, Kant’s categoricalism would approach the issue in a different manner. It would look at the people who ordered the NSA’s surveillance program, and analyze their motives for committing these invasions of privacy. If an action is not born out of duty and goodwill, says Kant, it cannot possibly be moral. Furthermore, these programs use humans as a means rather than an end – another cardinal sin in Kant’s Categorical Imperative. By using and abusing these innocent’s people information, they fail to recognize these individuals as an endpoint rather than as an easy method of collecting data. To conclude, Kant’s Categorical Imperative would reject the morality of the NSA’s actions on the basis of the uncertain moral basis of the actions and the violation of humanity as an end.



Encryption Conniption: Privacy and Security in a Digital World


Image taken from http://upload.wikimedia.org/ and used under Creative Commons License.

Recently, Apple and Google have come under fire from several police and law organizations over their use of encryption on smartphones. With the release of iOS 8, Apple wrote on their privacy page that

 “On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data.” (Source)

Understandably, organizations such as the FBI have denounced this data protection, protesting that services like this place users “beyond the law”. Ironically, going “beyond the law” has been exactly what the NSA’s data collection program has recently discovered to have been doing, which is part of the cause for recent privacy and security developments such as this.

Other government organizations have responded even more strongly that the FBI. The Chief of Detectives for Chicago’s police department, John J. Escalante, has even gone so far as to state that

“Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile.” (Source)

This is an unusual argument, and to help understand it better I have broken it down into its different pieces:

  • Premise 1: Pedophiles are in want of products that do not allow outside parties to see their data.
  • Premise 2:  Apple phones are products that do not allow outside parties to see their users data.
  • Conclusion: Apple phones are going to become the phone of choice for the pedophile.

Let’s go through each part in-depth to determine whether the argument is true, valid, and/or sound.

  • Premise 1: While this premise makes somewhat of a sweeping generalization about pedophiles, it still appears to hold true. It makes logical sense that those who commit crimes and do not want to be punished for their crimes would purchase products that conceal their potentially incriminating data from outside parties.
  • Premise 2: At this point in time the premise seems to be true, as shown by Apple’s privacy page. However, there is no knowing if this may change in the future.

At this point, we can infer that this argument is factually correct because all of its premises are true (note: just because an argument is factually correct does not mean that its conclusion is true, only its premises).

Well, what about the conclusion?

This is where the argument falls through. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, so the argument is invalid. Let me explain why.

The conclusion relies on a large assumption not present in the premises:

  • Note: This argument states that “Apple phones are going to become the phone of choice for the pedophile.” If something is the “anything of choice”, it is distinguished from other choices in some way. In this case, possible distinguishments could be availability of options or perhaps quality. This leads to the assumption below.
  • Assumption: Apple Phones are the distinguished (i.e. only or best) option for encrypted data and communications.
  • This is obviously wrong: there are countless products and services that offer encrypted data and communications. It is wrong to assume that Apple Phones are the only options in this area. In fact, they may not even be the best choice – there are many other choices such as open-source encrypted messenger surespot and encrypted data service spideroak (note: the author of this article does not assert the authenticity of these services – use at own risk).
  •  The conclusion of this argument relies on this assumption, and as this assumption is false, the conclusion is also false.

So, the argument is invalid – is that it then? Not quite.

Arguments such as this about criminals using encryption are outdated. Yes, criminals use encryption, but so do everyday citizens (and the government, for that matter). Encryption may conceal evidence from the government, but so do walls. Encryption and walls alike protect the privacy of individuals, and just because criminal use is a possibility does not mean they should be scrapped. We have a right to privacy, and it should not be thrown aside.




NSA Need Not Look Here

Edward Snowden, the whistleblower of the NSA, is arguably one of the better-known crusaders for privacy. When he talks, people listen, which is why Tech Crunch reports:

According to Edward Snowden, people who care about their privacy should stay away from popular consumer Internet services like Dropbox, Facebook, and Google.

Anthony Ha “Edward Snowden’s Privacy Tips: “Get Rid Of Dropbox,” Avoid Facebook And Google”

The argument is made that those who value privacy ought to stay away from popular consumer Internet services. The argument can be broken down into this:

  1. Premise: People who care about privacy take measures to ensure their privacy
  2. Premise: Popular internet services do not ensure the privacy of their users
  3. Conclusion: Therefore people who care about their privacy should stay away from popular consumer Internet services

First, to determine the soundness of Snowden’s argument, we must ensure that the arguments are true/accurate.

  • Premise 1 can be contested, though is mostly accepted.

  • Premise 2 can be contested. Popular Internet services may not have privacy as their highest concern, it may be argued that Internet services are not antagonistic to privacy. Companies like Dropbox actively encrypt files transferred from you to their servers, and are also encrypted while they rest on their servers as well.

Therefore, the flaw in Snowden’s logic lies in premise 2, stating that popular consumer internet services do not ensure the privacy of their users. Though the form of the argument may be valid, premise 2’s error in its contents damages the truth of its premises, and consequently the conclusion reached.

The reason why Snowden may have come to this conclusion is another argument in itself. Though his idea of ‘privacy’ may differ from those of a layman, he should be aware that not all popular consumer internet services disregard privacy, though many do. This misconception may have come from numerous sensationalist titles of news articles:

The Guardian – “Apple’s Tim Cook attacks Google and Facebook over privacy flaws”
BBC News – “Google urged to change privacy rules by data regulators”
Reuters – “German privacy watchdog tells Google to restrict use of data”
ABC News – “How Hackers Got Private Photos Without Ever Breaching Snapchat’s Servers”
Dailymail UK – “We’re not reading your email or your iMessages’: Apple boss Tim Cook hits out at privacy claims following iCloud hacks”

The links above are just a few examples of headlines denouncing popular consumer Internet services like Google, Facebook, and Snapchat so it’s very likely for people to assume that social media and Internet services don’t have peoples’ privacy in mind. However, because many of these companies’ backbones consist of users’ information, they put in place many privacy measures that users can utilize. Though not saints of any kind, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Snapchat servers themselves rarely get hacked. However, the average consumer does not put privacy as the highest concern, resulting in shared or week passwords for multiple accounts, or the usage of third-party apps resulting in privacy issues unconcerning the companies themselves.

Though Snowden brings up a good point that those concerned with privacy should be more vigilant when approaching social media and internet services, privacy is not always in the hands of the company that holds the information. Though hacks on servers are not unheard of, many times the user themselves are what cause privacy-related problems. And because of that, not all people concerned with privacy should stay away from popular consumer internet services.