The principle of privacy, though foundational in the development of early American political thought, takes an unfortunate backseat today. It’s not so much an issue as it is an afterthought; physical privacy is already protected under the Constitution, and is only suspended under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, though, when physical safety is juxtaposed against a right in the abstract in our highly consequentialist and fearful society, safety almost always wins. I mean, would you rather have some privacy or would you rather live?
There are serious problems with framing the issue this way, though. First, it assumes that, even though subject to suspension when necessary, physical privacy is the only kind of privacy worth protecting. That’s false. There are kinds of privacies that extend beyond our houses and ourselves, and they ought to be encompassed under the unalienable right of privacy. This is the 21st century. We have phones and we have computers. We use them both out of pleasure and, in cases of school and work, out of necessity. Our right to privacy does not suddenly stop when we log online, even though a staggering amount of people think that it does. In fact, Republicans just voted last week to give private internet information away to companies. This matters because you won’t be able to protect yourself online, and will be subject to commodification and reification by the companies who have your information. Even further, though, this opens the door to even greater government surveillance, which tends to be biased and directed at certain groups of people.
Second, it assumes that the only way terror can be controlled and further combatted is through mass surveillance. This promotes an environment of perpetual fear, and, even further, is just untrue. According to The Intercept, the United States’ mass surveillance initiative has “no record to thwarting large terror attacks, regardless of Snowden leaks.” The real effect of mass surveillance is the discriminatory targeting of specific groups of people. Many Muslim-Americans, for example, are unfairly targeted, and some are even so far as banned from flying on airplanes without due process. In addition, activists and community organizers, who are exercising their most fundamental civil right to protest, are also targeted by the government looking to curb their energy and fervor. People are targeted, prosecuted and reprimanded — many without cause, a trial or a chance to defend themselves.
Finally, it presents privacy as a kind of abstract, silly right that does not matter in the practical scheme of things. The most common response I get when I talk about it is, “Well, if I have nothing to hide than why should I care?” To this, I have a poignant response. Take a second to imagine a peephole in your room, and on the other side there is a man watching and taking notes. Thanks to people like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, you are fully aware that he is watching, and so you adjust your behavior accordingly. You avoid changing outright, or talking to friends about private secrets or watching particular TV shows. Twenty-four seven, he is watching. And twenty-four seven, you are adjusting. That is life under surveillance, an unfree life, a life not entirely lived. You might get off lucky — the man behind the peephole won’t ever come inside of your room and take you away. But this is a real reality for some people, most of whom are not criminals or terrorists, but your country’s men and women. That is why privacy matters, even in the abstract. It does, indeed, have real and serious practical consequences.
