Edward Snowden and Data Privacy in the Digital Age
“Privacy is not an option, and it should not be the price we accept just by accessing the Internet.”- Gary Kovacs. We live in the era of interconnection, everything is statement without physical barriers being a limiting. We have evolved to live in a physical-virtual reality and our possibilities have opened like never before: it is possible to communicate with people who are in other continents, and access information on any topic with just a search on the Internet. We want it or not, we are generating and exchanging information all the time. On the one hand, all our activities are constantly monitored to become analytical. Information about the routes, patterns of consumption, health and social interactions of each of us can be obtained. In addition, there is the culture of sharing, through social networks, all experiences. It seems that what is not shared through a photo or a video, never happened. Privacy no longer exists … our most intimate spaces are transgressed, without even realizing.
Edward Snowden managed to pay attention to the subject in 2013. He was responsible for revealing the spying of the US government towards citizens worldwide. Demonstrating that beyond the justified espionage against terrorism, there was a political and industrial espionage. Several nations reacted creating regulations that defended the data protection rights of its citizens, as is the case of the European Union with the GDPR. The main Internet and Telecommunications companies changed their privacy policies and implemented technological barriers such as encryption. But despite the shock that Snowden caused, the mass espionage was continued. In the specific case of Latin America, in 2015, it was discovered that the Italian company Hacking Team carried out state espionage operations in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and Chile. Everything was passed, until the scandal of the manipulation of the elections in the United States by the company Cambridge Analytica;through Facebook. The tactics consisted of launching an application, which sucked the entire user information and its network of contacts, without any consent. Profile information, preferences and opinions was used to create personalized content to relate their personal opinions to the candidate (Donald Trump).
Once again, the issue is the focus of attention and the need to regulate the digital industry much more rigorously. But if the laws are manipulated again and again to satisfy the interests of some, do not they end up being insufficient? I consider that the answer is not based only on the systems, but on those who act within them. Determine whether an action is ethical or not, and glimpse its possible consequences is something that can only be given in humans. Throughout history, hundreds of cases have been seen in which systems seem to work perfectly in theory, but in practice atrocities happen. An example of this is what happened with the 2007 real estate crisis. Where it has been shown that the inconsiderate decisions of those who were in power, led to an economic crisis that dispossess thousands of people from their homes. At the time of the crisis, more importance was given to the recovery of large financial corporations (granting them from US treasure) than to the support of all those people who were in bankruptcy;And everything happened under a legality framework.It is clear that regulations establish behavior guides and mechanisms to avoid power abuse. But in the end, the events are determined by decisions people from their position of power.
In the first instance, it would be thought that a position of power refers only to people who are in leadership. Those who are in the high spheres, where the impact of decisions has an impact on aspects that do not even imagine. It would be essential that people in leadership have a deep awareness about the scope of their actions;and a feeling of responsibility for the community that surrounds them, that prevails over beyond individual interests. But reality is not always like that, so we must demand that the different agents of society in decision -making and not fall into complacency speeches be involved, where the resolution of all problems is promised without participation without participation withoutactive by civil society. "Privacy is not something to hide. Privacy is something to protect. And that’s what you are. That is what you think. That is what you want to become. Privacy is the right to oneself. Privacy is what gives you the ability to share with the world who you are in your own terms ’.-Edward Snowden
In the specific case of data exchange, if society creates them, isn’t she who has power and responsibility for them? And are not the individuals who make it up to the first to be consulted to give their authorization on the use of this information?. Each data transmitted is a piece of information that represents power;And citizens as the generators of that information are those who must be attributed that power. Snowden has a great point, stating that the only way in which data privacy is truly respected;It is that citizens insist on creating their own defense systems against technological espionage. Since only then, a balance of forces will be created that forces governments and industries to respect privacy. Avoid abuse and achieve a transformation, depends on the fact that there is active participation by society. Where awareness of fundamental digital rights is developed: access to information, consent for access to private data and consults how and for individuals’ information will be used. At the same time, each person must be responsible for the information he publishes or sends, and leave what is absolutely private … in private.
In the end, the concept monitoring and analysis of data is not necessarily bad;and can serve to create benefits within communities. Some examples consist of improving mobility;respond faster to emergencies and improve the quality of services supply in a city. It is necessary to create a collective consciousness, to understand the paradox of danger and benefit that the digital era represents. It is our duty as a society, to choose leaders who value the privacy of individuals. And seek the mechanisms of information and citizen participation to direct decisions, public policy and the development of technologies to the creation of shared value. As well as, to establish clear definitions of the boundary between what means safeguarding security and those that are citizen espionage. All this is only possible if citizens participate and cease to be passive agents, in the face of a phenomenon in which we are all inevitably involved.
Leave feedback