IS PRIVACY SACRED?

Secretary Stimson disbanded the “Black Chamber” which
was founded in 1919 following World War I. The mission of this Chamber
was to break into the communication of other nations, with the
overarching objective of breaking into diplomatic communication.

Circa
2013. Edward Snowden, a US citizen, who worked as a National Security
Agency (NSA) contractor through Booz Allen Hamilton, leaked the details
of top-secret U.S. and British government mass surveillance programmes,
including the interception of US and European telephone metadata and the
PRISM and Tempora Internet surveillance programmes. With his US
passport being revoked, he travelled from Hong Kong to Russia, where he
was given asylum.

It’s been a year since his exile in Moscow and
he continues to be an enigma for many people across the world. In fact,
the celebrated Hollywood director, Oliver Stone, is working on a film
about Snowden.

There are many others who believe in individual privacy.

•
Aaron Swartz was a computer programmer, writer, political organiser and
Internet activist. In January, 2011, Swartz was arrested by police on
state breaking-andentering charges, after downloading academic journal
articles from JSTOR . Charged with violations of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, Aaron was found dead on 11th January, 2013 in his Brooklyn
apartment, where he had hanged himself. He was quoted as having said,
“there is no justice in following unjust laws.”

• Bradley
Manning, a US Army soldier, was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on
suspicion of having passed classified material to the website,
WikiLeaks, which was the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked
to the public. He has been recently sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Manning has famously said, “I want people to see the truth, because
without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

•
Julian Assange is an Australian editor, activist, publisher and
journalist. He is known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks,
which publishes secret information, news leaks and classified media
from anonymous news sources and whistleblowers. Since November 2010,
subject to a European arrest warrant in response to a Swedish police
request for questioning in relation to a sexual assault investigation.

In
June 2012, following the final dismissal by the Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom, Assange failed to surrender to his bail and sought
refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has since been
granted diplomatic asylum. Assange has made a telling statement. “I give
private information on corporations to you for free and I’m a villain.
Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and
he’s Man of the Year.”

This new breed of “hacktivist” (hackers
who are activists) fundamentally believe that surveillance means tyranny
and they revolt against such tyranny. The rise of these hacktivists
across the world has raised an important question on data privacy —
should governments be allowed to snoop on all private data?

As
recent disclosures by Snowden have revealed, every email and
communication was being monitored and it did not spare even heads of
State.

In fact, the Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff,
launched a blistering attack on the US in a speech at the UN general
assembly on 24th September, 2013.

She protested against the
indiscriminate interception of a private citizen by the US, stating that
it is a breach of international law. In a telling comment, she said:

“A
sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another
sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can
never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of
another country.”

There has been a chorus of protests from the
European heads of State protesting spying on emails and communication.
Finland’s Prime Minister, Jyrki Katainen has said, “According to our
fundamental rights, all the citizens, including politicians, have
similar rights and illegal monitoring of cellphones isn’t acceptable.”

Governments
justify surveillance of data based on their need for intelligence
gathering, data mining and prevention of security threats. Hacktivists
believe that personal privacy is a fundamental right.

Governments
argue that collecting haystacks of data is essential to look for
potential security and other threats to the State. Hacktivists argue
that the records of all intimate moments of individuals are captured by
the Governments from private communication network and sites, without
specific authorisation and need and hence, it is a violation of the
citizen’s rights. Security agencies seize digital material from
citizens, who store it on their computers or send it to their
acquaintances by emails or social networking sites. These agencies could
not have possibly entered their houses and walked off with diaries and
other physical material, without proper authorisation. If such stuff
cannot be captured from the analogue or physical world, how is it right
that it is captured from the digital world? Such broad information
capture and interception of communication is justified on the grounds of
“national security.” But, as revealed by Snowden, it is done routinely
without any suspicion, warrant or probable cause. Hacktivists argue that
this is violation of human rights and such private and intimate
information should not be in the government database.

So, is privacy sacred?
The debate has just begun…